In the call for Research Funds for Environmentally Friendly Energy (FME) last winter, a wording was included that “it will not be possible to apply for FME within nuclear power”. But who is behind the formulation? In an open letter in Universitetsavisa, 16 researchers write that it is “probably” energy minister Terje Aasland (Ap) who is responsible for the delimitation. The researchers say to news that they base their suspicions on the fact that, in dialogue with the Research Council, they experienced that the council “relinquished responsibility” for the nuclear power formulation, and further that it was “informally implied” that it was politically motivated. Jan Emblemsvåg, one of the researchers who signed the letter, believes that the delimitation is not in line with the national strategy for the development of new energy technology. – It is perfectly fine if the minister is not happy with nuclear power. The only thing we require is that the state is agnostic about the possibility, and does not close it. The Research Council tells news that they have not received “explicit instructions” from the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, but that the formulation follows from the Portfolio Plan for Energy, Transport and Low Emissions. When asked if he had a hand in the “nuclear power clause”, Minister Terje Aasland (Ap) replies that nuclear power is currently not relevant in the Norwegian energy mix, “and therefore not something that should be prioritized within the Norwegian investment in energy research” . – It is important that we use the resources in the areas that have the greatest potential for Norway, and where Norway can play an important role here and now, he says further (read the full answer below). The energy minister answers this – Although nuclear power in the future is briefly mentioned in Energi21 as one of several areas of technology and knowledge that should be further developed, it is not a priority investment area in the strategy. The Research Council’s Portfolio Plan for energy and low emissions does not include research into nuclear power. The EU’s taxonomy regulations allow for investments in nuclear power to be considered sustainable, provided that a number of conditions related to waste management, among other things, are met. My assessment is that nuclear power is not currently relevant for the Norwegian power supply and therefore not something that should be prioritized within the Norwegian investment in energy research. It is important for the government that we use the resources in the areas that have the greatest potential for Norway and where Norway can play an important role here and now. This is, for example, the background for the government’s major offshore wind investment, which can both provide a lot of new renewable power production and where the Norwegian professional community can at the same time contribute to making floating offshore wind commercially profitable in the long term. Although Norway does not have expertise in the operation of nuclear power as part of the power supply, there are nevertheless other areas within nuclear research where Norway already has a professional environment, such as the handling of radioactive substances and radiopharmacy. The government has recently announced that NOK 200 million will be allocated to such a national center for nuclear research to support these environments. We also keep a close eye on international developments in nuclear power. If the development within small modular reactors should mean that these can become part of the future Norwegian power system, it may become relevant in the future to build up expertise in this area as well. In the call for research funds for environmentally friendly energy, a wording was included last winter that “it will not be possible to apply for FME within nuclear power”. Photo: Gorm Kallestad / NTB Ola Borten Moe: − We must gain more knowledge about nuclear power The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy is among the “main sponsors” of the Research Council, and it is the privilege of the minister to lay down guidelines for how the funds are managed. The question is therefore not whether the minister has exceeded his powers, but whether the nuclear power formulation is in harmony with the national strategy for new energy technology. In the latest revised edition, “nuclear power in the future” (page 117) is identified as a focus area to “further develop Europe’s best energy system”. Furthermore, several people wonder whether the delimitation rhymes with Aasland’s own statement about “nuclear power may become relevant in Norway’s future”. The statement came during a session where, according to NTB, he was “grilled” by Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. – This joins the series of examples where the government is not in agreement with itself in energy policy, says energy policy spokesperson in Høgre, Bård Ludvig Thorheim. In a representative proposal to the Storting, he asks the government to ensure that Norway “takes an active role in the international research and development of new nuclear power technology”. Others in the Storting make a point of the fact that both Hadia Tajik (Ap) and government colleague Ola Borten Moe (Sp) have stated during the winter that “we must gain more knowledge about nuclear power”. Tajik’s statement came in news Debatten in January. – It may seem that the government is not in agreement with itself Kjell Ingolf Ropstad (KrF) says “it may seem that the government is not in agreement with itself” and that “the debate for nuclear power is in a completely different place now than just a short time ago ». – Then it is both unnatural and unfortunate to delineate towards a form of energy which accounts for 30 per cent of Sweden’s energy production, he says. See more political reactions to the boundary below. – The government is not in agreement with itself in energy policy Marius Arion Nilsen, Frp – This paints a picture of a minister and government that is actively working towards increasing the knowledge base around modern nuclear power in Norway. In contrast to the Labor Party, the Frp wants an aggressive energy policy that explores our possibilities broadly. Then we are forced to get more research and knowledge around, for example, nuclear power. Unfortunately, the government seems more preoccupied with closing the door to new technology, and blindly investing heavily with people’s tax money on subsidized and uncertain individual industries. Bård L. Thorheim, Høgre – This joins the series of examples where this government is not in agreement with itself in energy policy. This has unfortunate consequences and a lack of foresight for research and development within energy in both the short and long term. Høgre believes that we need more renewable energy in the short term, and Norwegian participation in research into nuclear power in the long term. The government must manage the task of sorting out how this is to be done in practice. Kjell Ingolf Ropstad, KrF – It may seem that the government is not in agreement with itself, and there are clearly different signals. The government has also announced an allocation of NOK 200 million through the Research Council for a new center for nuclear research, and in addition a strengthening of educational capacity in the nuclear area. I feel that the debate and the status of nuclear power is in a completely different place now than it was just a short time ago. After all, this is long-term research for environmentally friendly energy and then it is unnatural to limit it to an energy production that accounts for 30% of Sweden’s energy production. Although this has not been relevant in Norway until now, it is unfortunate to set the boundary towards a form of energy that both the IEA and the UN climate panel point to. In any case, more knowledge does not hurt. The head of Norsk Kjernekraft AS, Jonny Hesthammer, says it is “thought-provoking and worrying” that nuclear power has been left out of the call for environmentally friendly energy. – When Sweden and other countries invest heavily in nuclear power because they have realized that they cannot achieve the zero emissions goal without it, it seems strange, he says. At the national meeting of the Center Party in March, it was decided to invest systematically in further research and competence building within nuclear power. Photo: Bjarte Johannesen / news – It is incredibly disappointing At the Department of Physics and Technology at the Norwegian Arctic University in Tromsø, Professor Odd Erik Garcia has built up a research environment within fusion energy (with u), which has gained attention far beyond Norway’s borders. Before Christmas, UiT received observer status (not full membership) in the European cooperation organization EUROfusion. This summer, for the first time, fusion power was included in the strategy document for Energi21. With that as a starting point, Odd Erik Garcia set about applying for research funding. It was before he discovered that the “nuclear power clause” in the tender also included research on fusion. The Research Council answers Rune Volla, department director for Energy and energy transition in the Research Council – The thematic framework for FME follows up the Research Council’s portfolio plan for Energy, transport and low emissions. In the portfolio plan, it is explicitly stated that the portfolio does not include research into nuclear power. This delimitation has not come as a result of the recent discussion around nuclear power in Norway, but as a continuation of a long practice where the targeted energy research investments have not included nuclear power. The Ministry of Oil and Energy, which finances FME, has no explicit instructions to the Research Council when it comes to research into nuclear power. The Energi21 strategy mentions “nuclear power in the future” among other technologies that “other areas of technology and knowledge Energi21 believes should be further developed” and with the following rationale: “Some of the other areas of technology and knowledge are immature and/or not strongly present in the national our energy mix. It is nevertheless valuable to follow developments within these areas and to be positive about research and innovation efforts if it turns out that technological and market developments imply significance for our purely technical energy system and for national value creation (industrialisation and business development). Independently of FME, the government, through the Research Council, has recently allocated 200 million to a Center for nuclear research with a focus on fundamental research within nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry. This center is relevant for radiation protection and radiation safety, nuclear safety and nuclear preparedness, production of radionuclides and decommissioning of nuclear facilities After closer dialogue with the Research Council, Garcia was told: There was no point in submitting an application. – It is incredibly disappointing. And frustrating, he says to news. He points out that Equinor has stepped up its investments in fusion energy, and that the “fear of touching” this form of energy “doesn’t make sense”. – A strategic research program for fusion power will create more predictability and a long-term perspective. Instead, we will be pushed out into the cold.
ttn-69
The state says no to research into nuclear power – news Vestland
