Equinor’s decision to scrap the prestigious Trollvind project is being interpreted as serious setbacks in two important areas. Firstly, it shows that the offshore wind adventure is far from as adventurous as our leading politicians have portrayed it as. Secondly, as another sign that it is very unlikely that Norway will be able to achieve its own climate targets by 2030. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with either offshore wind or climate targets. But the politicians obviously have a serious problem with adapting the policy to their own hairy ambitions. In climate policy, it seems like a point to make the rhetoric inversely proportional to the realism. A bucket of ice water in the years Both climate targets, the green shift and renewable energy are complex, expensive and demanding in every way. Nevertheless, the politicians almost empty their words of content when they talk about it. Havvind has seemed impossible to pronounce without adding “adventure”. Politicians get teary-eyed reading their own government memos. The latest word of honor is “the pyramids of our time”. Perhaps it is not so surprising that an impression has been created that offshore wind is a simple solution to everything from the climate crisis, high electricity prices, power shortages and to what we will live on after oil. That is why it also came as a bucket of ice water when the state-owned money machine Equinor put the Trollvind project on hold. The floating offshore wind project was supposed to both provide power to two oil platforms and to power-hungry Bergen residents. A child’s egg of a project, one thought. But they could not “throw away good money” on projects that do not meet basic requirements for profitability. For the company, it is important that the projects are also financially sustainable in the long term. Now it seems that criticism of offshore wind is blowing up from all sides. Offshore wind appeared as a lifeline from above when it turned out that being “Europe’s green battery” with the help of wind turbines was not as fun as it was thought to be. There was no shortage of celebratory speeches about land-based wind power either, but the words of praise fell silent when the windmills were built. Out of sight, but not out of mind Then it appeared to be a very good idea to move the windmills out to sea, where they wouldn’t bother anyone. But it turns out that there is no shortage of reefs in that sea either. The fact that it is far out to sea makes it both expensive and demanding. The technology is immature, and more and more people refer to offshore wind as a drain on subsidies and a drain on losses. Offshore wind can cost you and me “several tens of billions” Even though the politicians claim we have “the world’s best wind”, Norway does not necessarily have the best conditions for offshore wind. Experts are also uncertain about the long-term profitability. The problem with offshore wind is that both the price to the customers and thus also the profitability will depend on how much it blows. And when it blows on our windmills, it probably blows on the neighbour’s too. Poor times and a weak krone do not only affect ordinary people. Green investments have also become significantly more expensive. Scapegoat and stumbling block Furthermore, the Norwegian power grid is not sized to receive all the power. It is an extra bill that Norwegian electricity customers have to pick up. To further complicate things, the government has decided that offshore wind will not be built with cables to foreign countries. The foreign cables quickly became the scapegoat when electricity prices were at their highest. The disadvantage is that the calculator flashes even redder without it. We currently know relatively little about the consequences of sea wind for fish, birds and other interests. Nevertheless, many experts believe that a large-scale development of offshore wind is among the most realistic for developing enough power. But it’s hardly an adventure. Soria Moria climate goals The parallel to Norwegian politicians and the climate goals is obvious. Because here it is easy to identify with the man in Jacob Sande’s famous poem who, after a damp evening, will “start a new and better life”. When the climate targets stand there and shine like a Soria Moria castle in the distance, it is easy to both agree and believe, and highly motivated. But the closer they get to today, there are far more “I think” that appear. Because it is not so easy when you discover that climate measures actually have a price, which is about more than using the government’s money. Last year, the OECD warned that Norway was very far from reaching its climate targets. In 2020, the politicians had increased their ambitions from a 40 to 50 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. But the result turned out to be closer to 20 per cent, according to the OECD. The government’s own calculations were for a 25 per cent reduction. When the map does not match the terrain How did the politicians respond to this? The natural thing would perhaps be to adapt the terrain to the map (introduce drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more quickly) or, if necessary, to adapt the map to the terrain (turn down the ambitions to a more realistic level). But no. The answer was to further strengthen the Norwegian climate targets. They simply raised the climate target from 50 to 55 per cent by 2030. It sends a strong signal, said Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre (Ap). Now both experts, activists and politicians say that it is unlikely that Norway will meet the climate targets. And there is also not much to suggest that there are any simple solutions to grasp. A prerequisite for even having a chance of reaching the climate goals has been electrification of the continental shelf. But the broad consensus that it was a good move is eroding. Want in bags and sacks New, green industry will require a lot of power. And the high electricity prices have reinforced and made visible that there is a battle for power. In Finnmark, for example, there is great concern about power shortages if Melkøya is electrified. The governing parties have decided that this should not happen at the expense of the industry, which seems easier said than done. Nor does the transport sector have many simple solutions to offer. A new report shows that very powerful measures are needed to achieve the goals. In addition to “a very ambitious technological development” and better public transport, it must become far more expensive to fly and drive a car. Something that is in no way social or leveling. Climate action on the menu Making fuel, parking, tolls and plane tickets more expensive is therefore not at the top of the politicians’ menu. However, meat does. According to the government’s own climate cure, there is a big climate benefit to be gained from Norwegians eating less red meat and more plant-based food and fish. But according to the government’s own agriculture minister Sandra Borch (Sp), it is not a proper dinner without meat (or fish) on the table. The closest she gets to vegetarian food is pancakes with bacon, she says. Not in an unguarded moment, but as a planned trick to Dagbladet during the Center Party’s national meeting. Then one can slowly wonder why Norwegians top the list when it comes to climate skepticism. It can hardly be because our politicians are not at the top of the world when it comes to slogans and ambitions. Perhaps both offshore wind and the climate debate could benefit from a more down-to-earth and realistic tone. Because when something is too good to be true in fairy tales, it is usually a castle in the air.
ttn-69
A short way from adventure to castle in the air – Ytring
