Unstable wind power or stable nuclear power? It is urgent to choose.

The government must ensure that Norway engages in what could be a new industrial venture.

debate
This is the topic of discussion. Opinions expressed in the text are at the author’s expense.

Recently Launched Norsk Energy Energy and Climate Report. Climate and Environment Minister Espin Barth Eide (Labour) was present. The report was prepared by DNV. It simply states that Norway is far from achieving its climate goals.

When even one of the richest countries in the world struggles to become carbon neutral, it’s not because we don’t want to, but because it is Incredibly difficult. We simply have to produce more electricity, and this is urgent.

Supply Security Challenge

We are ready to become a net importer of electricity for many years, which will lead to higher electricity prices. According to the report, up to 90 percent of the increased electricity demand of 100 TWh will come from wind energy, roughly evenly distributed between ground wind, fixed base and floating offshore wind.

It will be difficult.

Wind power provides unstable electricity, which poses a challenge to security of supply. Difficult consuming area Therefore, terrestrial wind farms are often located in untouched nature. Offshore winds face bottom-up and float associated challenges profitability.

This is not to say that Norway should not invest in wind energy, but we must accept that there are many factors that make both the investments and the chance of reaching the zero emissions target uncertain.

It was ESPN Barth Eddy day challenge Whether nuclear power can help solve the energy gap. The minister replied that “no one should ever say”.

We felt the heart take a small leap.

For us nuclear enthusiasts, this is a long step forward compared to Erna Solberg (H) previously statment Nuclear power would be a ‘bankruptcy for Norway’s energy state’.

Norwegian Petroleum Adventure

However, Eddy said nuclear power should be reserved for those who are already good at it, such as Finland and France. The Minister does not think that those who do not know much about it should start now.

Just a few meters away from Eddie, one of the greatest buzzards in Norwegian industry sat and listened, Arf Johnson (87) himself. The man who was to lead Statoil’s Eddie party in building what would have been a Norwegian oil venture 50 years ago.

Does Eddie think that Arf Johnson and the then Labor government believed that “we should never say never, but perhaps oil and gas resources should be developed in countries that already have the expertise and know-how”?

There is no significant negative effect

Nuclear power is expensive, Eddy said, and we should take care of waste for thousands of years. The European Union Science Committee (JRC), on the instructions of the European Commission, has recently prepared a file comprehensive report To carefully consider these aspects. The report’s conclusion is very clear: nuclear power has no greater negative impact on health and the environment than some renewable energy sources.

Modern nuclear power plants are much safer than wind and solar power. If in the distant future radioactive waste leaks from an underground storage facility, the doses of radiation will be harmless. Nuclear power is also competitive in terms of price. a point.

It’s hard for us to understand that Eddy and other politicians are downright negative about nuclear power, and who own it in general The slightest obvious negative effect on climate, health, economy, nature and the environment.

The government and politicians should instead ensure that Norway participates in what could be a new industrial adventure.