An editorial in FVN 28.11 refers to a recent report by analysis agency Rystad Energy. The FVN leader wrote, among other things: “Nuclear energy could be a good solution to get enough energy in Norway,” and “Nuclear energy is an energy source that the Norwegian authorities and energy actors should take seriously, whether By investigation or analysis – in the long term. The problem is that if we were to take nuclear energy seriously and study it in the long term, the time when nuclear energy could help solve Norway’s energy, climate and environmental challenges will be postponed.
FVN editor set the hook
The data shows that the FVN editor cut the hook – but fortunately did not swallow the bait whole. The main conclusion of the Rystad report is that nuclear power in Norway carries very high commercial risks, will therefore require state ownership and subsidies, and may not be implemented in Norway until 2050 at the earliest. The Rystad report has been criticized before we And by others, including continued use Overly pessimistic financial assumptions regarding nuclear powerAnd constantly overly optimistic Even completely wrong Numerical basis for offshore wind costs. If updated numbers and the same assumptions are used, Rystad’s own calculations actually show this Floating sea breeze One should be skeptical about – not nuclear power.
Nuclear power may become possible in Norway within 10 to 15 years
FVN notes in its report that they, like Norsk Kjernekraft, expect small modular nuclear power plants (SMR) to be commercially available during the 2030s. But unlike us, they made the hypothesis that we should not do anything for 10 to 15 years, to see which SMR technologies will be the best and cheapest, so that the country will spend another 10 to 15 years creating nuclear power in 2018. Norway.
For small-scale power plants, state ownership is a possibility, but certainly not a prerequisite. Norwegian nuclear power has Solid private investorsIt will build SMR nuclear power plants with private funds, without subsidies. And We are already underway: In November this year, we submitted a notice of proposal for a study program for SMR power plants in the municipalities of Ur and Heim. This is the first step in the process of establishing nuclear power plants in Norway. The move means the nuclear power timeline could be advanced by 10 to 15 years, Rystad’s own reasoning suggests.
Establishing nuclear power in Norway could take 10 to 15 years is also our view at Norwegian Nuclear Energy, in line with IAEA estimates. The Directorate for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (DSA) agrees with the IAEA, stating “about 15 years,” but it can happen faster and slower. Of course, it’s all about will.
Nuclear energy must be taken seriously now
United nations It has shown that nuclear energy is the energy source that has the least negative impact on climate, nature, environment and human health. And European Union Scientific Team It has shown that modern nuclear energy is the safest source of energy, and that waste can be dealt with safely. If we start now, nuclear power could be available in Norway When we need it most. This could therefore become an important part of the solution for Norway’s transition away from fossil energy, while at the same time caring for nature, which we have also committed to.
But it therefore needs to be taken seriously now – not “in the long term” as the National Front leader writes. In the same way that long-term solutions should not get in the way of solving immediate problems, it also cannot be the case that in our eagerness to try to reach short-term 2030 goals, we avoid finding the best solutions needed to reach them. 2050 long-term goals.
Far-sighted mayors
If you realize that nuclear energy is part of the solution for the future, you need to start now, at the same time as the measures for 2030. For example, all the measures proposed in the recent LO and NHO report.”Lifting weights is treacherous» It is carried out in parallel with the necessary arrangements for nuclear power in Norway and Agder.
Nuclear power, like hydropower, requires long-term thinking. Fortunately, there are far-sighted local mayors, politicians and industry players who can have two ideas in their heads at once. They argue that nuclear energy will provide climate-friendly and nature-friendly energy at affordable prices for businesses and citizens in a hundred-year perspective.
So it seems ignorant for FVN and NHO’s Anniken Hawley to refer to nuclear power as an “aberration” that “dramatically slows the green transition” and “destroys the solutions we need by 2030.”
“Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst.”
