Hydropower completes greening of Norway

February 20, 2015

The Norwegian energy supply can be sustainable by 2030, according to new research. Politicians simply have to keep their promises.

Professor Kjell Bendiksen of Oslo University's Department of Physics has analysed the development potential of the Norwegian to find out how it could be made more sustainable.

The international discussion is about how we can achieve a binding climate agreement that drastically cuts harmful CO2 emissions. The world needs more energy, and it must be sustainable.

"We're sitting pretty in Norway. Hydropower can give us more than enough renewable energy. In addition, we have renewable resources that we haven't called into play yet. This is a unique situation in an international context," says Professor Kjell Bendiksen of Oslo University's Department of Physics, who also heads the research department at Norway's Institute of Energy Technology

High consumption

"We also have one of the world's highest per capita energy consumptions, however. For example, we use ten times more energy than the average Indian, points out the scientist." The challenge is to bring about a substantial cut in fossil energy consumption.

He has analysed the development potential of the Norwegian energy system to find out how it could be made more sustainable. What resources do we have, and how have the and energy consumption changed?

Bendiksen outlines three scenarios based on different political measures, the market, and technological development. The result is published in Det norske energisystemt mot 2030 [the Norwegian energy system towards 2030], the first in UiO Energy's report series.

Water rather than wind

Professor Bendiksen has a clear message to the politicians: Our energy supply can be virtually sustainable, but effort is needed in a number of areas.

"The analysis is based on the current situation and what we can realistically foresee in the near term. We should focus on areas where we have natural advantages and long experience, in other words on hydropower rather than wind, where we have not had many success stories."

UiO Professor Kjell Bendiksen is also head of research at Norway's Institute for Energy Technology.

More than enough energy

Today more than half of Norway's domestic energy consumption is supplied by renewable hydropower. No other country has as large a proportion of renewable energy. By way of comparison, the average for the EU countries is only 13 per cent, according to the EU. Bendiksen stresses that shipping, aviation and offshore energy production are not covered in the report.

The goal of the authorities is that 67.5 per cent of energy consumption should be supplied by by 2020. Bendiksen feels that this is not very ambitious, since we have already passed the 65 per cent mark.

In the report, he describes five concrete measures to boost the production of renewable energy:

Development of micropower plants. A licence is not required to develop them, and together they could provide us with 7–10 TWh annually.

Necessary upgrading of old hydropower plants. This would result in approximately 4–5 TWh more production.

Surprisingly enough, climate change is on the side of Norwegian hydropower. More precipitation results in more water in the reservoirs and hence greater capacity for the power plants. Other studies show that this will amount to a minimum of 5 TWh annually.

Collaboration with Sweden on green certificates. The scheme, which supports the development of all types of renewable energy, is projected to provide Norway with 13 TWh annually by 2020.

Continued development and investment in bioenergy, heat pumps and solar panels. The authorities aim for 14 TWh from bioenergy production by 2020.

Even using conservative estimates, Professor Bendiksen believes that these combined measures will yield at least 40 TWh more renewable energy, in other words about 30 per cent more than we have today. At that rate, we will be producing more sustainable energy than we use by 2030.

Improved efficiency

Thus we can gain access to not just more, but also cleaner energy. But what about our consumption?

In the context of sustainability, more efficient energy consumption is more important than increasing the production of renewable energy, according to Bendiksen.

"Our consumption could be be reduced by from 10 to 25 per cent by 2030, depending on the means employed and population growth. The potential is greatest for buildings, given the shift towards passive solar building design, heat pumps and integrated solar panels. In due course, the latter two measures may meet a substantial part of our heating needs."

Contingent on action

The use of fossil energy could also be more than halved by 2030, according to Professor Bendiksen. The potential is greatest in the transport sector, with the move towards more energy-efficient cars, as proposed in the Norwegian National Transport Plan. This applies especially to electric cars.

"Interestingly enough, it is technology and infrastructure that are placing constraints on developments in the transport sector, not the supply of renewable energy. In contrast to most other countries, Norway will have more than enough hydropower and bioenergy to phase out fossil fuel on the roads," he maintains.

A sustainable energy system

The result of more investment in renewable energy and increasing the efficiency of our is that as much as 80–90 per cent of our energy mix may be renewable in 2030.

"One prerequisite for this is that the power market functions smoothly, that political energy initiatives are actually realised and that power and quota prices increase," points out Professor Bendiksen.

He believes that political decisions so far have provided a good foundation for sustainable development, but that ambitious measures actually have to be implemented.

"And that remains to be seen. The report shows the possibilities of achieving a more system in terms of both production and consumption."

Power surplus

But why go in for more renewable when we are already doing so well in an international context?

"That's a good question.. All the scenarios show that we will have a growing power surplus in the years ahead. I believe that Norway, with its rich and strong economy has a special responsibility to lead the way in and technology. It's not just about meeting our own needs," says Bendiksen.

He feels very definitely that whatever we can do something about, we should do something about.

"Particularly when it costs us relatively little and will yield such high returns with time."

Explore further: NREL releases the 2013 Renewable Energy Data Book, detailing increases in installed capacity

Related Stories

Cutting fossil subsidies must to advance renewables: agency

September 8, 2014

Renewable energy, essential for meeting global CO2 emission targets, needs a stable regulatory framework, a cut in fossil fuel subsidies and more interconnected power grids to develop, a global energy agency said Sunday.

India shines with renewable energy announcement

December 1, 2014

As world leaders gather in Lima, Peru for the next round of the UN climate negotiations, India announced that it intends to more than double its use of renewable energy as a share of its electricity mix by 2020. The action ...

China wind power capacity jumps to record high

February 13, 2015

China boosted its installed wind energy capacity last year to a record 19.81 million kilowatts as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter tries to switch its power grid to cleaner energy sources.

Recommended for you

New method analyzes corn kernel characteristics

November 17, 2017

An ear of corn averages about 800 kernels. A traditional field method to estimate the number of kernels on the ear is to manually count the number of rows and multiply by the number of kernels in one length of the ear. With ...

Optically tunable microwave antennas for 5G applications

November 16, 2017

Multiband tunable antennas are a critical part of many communication and radar systems. New research by engineers at the University of Bristol has shown significant advances in antennas by using optically induced plasmas ...

7 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2015
Or:

They could start massively subsidizing wind power like Germany and Denmark are doing, which would allow the wind power producers to undercut prices on the grid and effectively halt any other power, including hydropower investments, as unprofitable.

After all, wind power "saves" you money because you pay it in your taxes instead of in your electricity bill.

Except in Germany where you're forced to pay it in your electricity bill regardless.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2015
Fortunately for all of us - the engineers who are actually working on this stuff know more about it than Eikka. Eikka has used examples from the most expensive - older generation power. Prices have dropped dramatically in recent years - and due to the leadership of countries like Germany and Denmark - we now face a situation in which wind and solar are as cheap - and sometimes cheaper that fossils, and the costs keep coming down. There are plenty of reports supporting this assertion - here is just one. http://www.bloomb...nef-says

Stay stuck in yesterday Eikka.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2015
we now face a situation in which wind and solar are as cheap - and sometimes cheaper that fossils,


Yes, because of the market distortion caused by subsidies, and the fact that you're imposing arbitrary taxes and levies on other forms of power.

You can't actually sell wind power on the free market at $84 AUD most of the time because it is intermittent - the quality of the product doesn't meet the price - but because it is already paid for by taxpayers it doesn't matter what price it fetches on the market.

Eikka has used examples from the most expensive - older generation power.


Have I?

But really, the issue isn't that wind power is cheper or more expensive, but that it breaks the grid and we're forced to pay for it. The technical price, no matter how low, doesn't help with the fact that it's still pretty much uncontrollably on/off and forces other power producers to dance around, making otherwise economic power like CHP unfeasible.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2015
The fact of the matter is, most power in the grid is sold 24 hours in advance in the day-ahead market, where wind power cannot enter because it cannot guarantee output. That's why it doesn't matter if wind power is technically $20 cheaper than gas or coal - you still can't turn it on at will, so nobody wants to buy it.

That's why wind power is pushed onto the spot market, where again the point is that any difference between power production and consumption is met with power that can be quickly turned on and off, such as hydropower - so wind power has no market there either.

But, because it is already being paid with subsidies, it can simply drop the price to zero or negative as it often happens, so that it can effectively force its way into the market by destroying the profitability of other forms of power, and if that doesn't work, the govenrment simply makes up a right-of-way law.

The real price of wind power never enters the picture - you just pay whatever the subsidy is.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2015
Eikka -
Yes, because of the market distortion caused by subsidies, and the fact that you're imposing arbitrary taxes and levies on other forms of power.


No - because due to the innovation that has been going on in the field - the price has fallen to the point that wind and solar are as cheap as fossil fuels. That is without talking about the subsidies that the fossil fuel industry has been receiving for all these decades - and continues to receive - and without the conversation about externalities - that you of course are not interested in looking at. Once again this week - another train derailment. Who will pay for the environmental catastrophe caused by an almost monthly occurrence of such events http://explosive-...rn-more/ - often causing the evacuation of whole towns, and massive ecological damage.

Your whole discussion about intermittancy is FUD - wind is as cheap - you just can't stand the fact.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2015
No - because due to the innovation that has been going on in the field - the price has fallen to the point that wind and solar are as cheap as fossil fuels.


Yet you pay for wind power exactly what the government subsidies are, which is significantly higher than the going market rate. The actual technical bulk price of wind power does not enter the equation because it is never exposed to the market, because it cannot operate on the free market on its own merits: it is more expensive than it is worth.

It only exists because of the subsidies per kWh sold, unlike any other form of power.

Your whole discussion about intermittancy is FUD - wind is as cheap - you just can't stand the fact.


It isn't, and utilizing it isn't either. It costs money to deal with the fact that you only get power 1-2 days of the average week.

greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2015
Eikka
It isn't, and utilizing it isn't either. It costs money to deal with the fact that you only get power 1-2 days of the average week.


Total rubbish. The avg. capacity factor for an on shore wind farm is approx 40% http://cleantechn...-normal/

But the capacity factor is a red herring - just FUD - thrown up by people who just seem terrified of progress. The real issues are the cost of the electricity (hint - as cheap as fossil fuels - and falling), and also how much we can integrate onto the grid. Turns out that is something we are working on - making progress on - and finding easier than we even anticipated. http://www.kcet.o...ted.html

How come you want to spread FUD about the future - but won't talk about the subsidies that fossil fuels receive - or the externalities that we all do have to pay for?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.