– Nature needs wind energy and wind turbines

It is good that we have learned from our mistakes, because now we have to build wind energy again.

debate

This is a discussion post. The entry was written by an external contributor, and quality assured by BT's discussion department. Opinions and analyzes are the author's own.

he was there Time We can hardly get enough of the windmills. In 2014, the government was so disappointed that Statkraft was reluctant to invest in wind energy in Füssen, that some thought the board He had to go. Many people wonder why all the windmills were built in Sweden and not here. In 2018 it seemed like more Six out of ten Norwegians thought onshore wind power was a good idea.

Then the mood turned, or the wind if you will. There are many good reasons for this, and some bad. Among the good reasons were long waiting periods and little or no gains for municipalities that gave up land. Also, wind energy was not very profitable (it is now), and Norwegian investors preferred oil and real estate.

And so it was Long-term savers in foreign pension funds who have become owners of Norwegian wind energy. When the windmills finally appeared, the rotating blades and natural intrusions were much larger than expected, and the municipal councils that had long since approved the plans were replaced.

Many were rightly disappointed and upset. Resistance increased and provided fertile ground for misinformation. The critical documentary was, among other things, a collaboration with Motfind Completely refuted, without having any particular effect. And by the way, did you know that cats kill? More birds What do windmills do?

Good or bad For reasons, no politician will stand in the storm. In 2019 came the most misunderstood knowledge base in history. The NVE was then introduced at the government's request “National Wind Energy Framework”.

It pointed to areas that could be relevant for wind energy, demarcating large parts of Norway as completely unsuitable, for reasons such as natural values ​​and reindeer herding interests. But that's not how it was read. More like: huh? Should we litter the country with windmills now? We weren't supposed to do that.

Passionate politicians? Search away. The government put the report it requested in a drawer, and suspended all new concessions in the field of wind energy.

Did we learn anything? Who is this? definitely. Municipalities that provide land for renewable energy should earn more from it. We must take better care of nature, and we must prioritize more strictly what will be built.

That's good, because now we have to go back. At the climate summit in December, world leaders agreed on this Triple renewable energy production by 2030. In Norway it is Half of the energy we use is fossil fuel. This means that if we want to reduce emissions, and thus preserve nature, we need more renewable energy.

We can get a good share by providing more electricity, recovering heat from industry, building solar cells on several roofs, and upgrading existing hydropower plants. In the long term, offshore wind and perhaps nuclear power will also contribute a lot.

But if we want to halve emissions before 2030 and stop dangerous climate change, this is not enough at all. In Norway, onshore wind turbines are the fastest and most profitable source of clean energy. We need more of them.

How will we manage it?

Firstly We must have much better tools to value nature, protect particularly valuable natural areas, prioritize what we should use nature for, and restore damaged nature. It's easy to get the impression that the debate about windmills is about the stock market, the cathedral, money or nature. But it is not.

The surest way to destroy nature is not to stop climate change. Therefore, projects that contribute to climate solutions should be prioritized over projects that do not. Wind turbines on highways.

secondly Do we have to ensure the most rational use of the power we have? They are right, those who advocate energy efficiency before energy development. Whoever wants to convince others that there is a need for both, must contribute to making more efforts to save and store electricity, and recover heat.

Network allocation must prioritize co-located industrial companies – so they can use heat and power more efficiently. Authorities should require internet companies to use the data they have to help their customers manage and save smarter.

Third We need brave politicians. A new and better tax on onshore wind ground rent was introduced just before Christmas. It is neutral and gives municipalities a larger share of tax revenues. Now local politicians and regional energy companies must work to find areas and projects, not least support from residents.

Research by Cicero shows that support for wind energy is increasing, perhaps in conjunction with the climate crisis and rising electricity prices. in By 2023, 42% were positive, while 32% said no to wind energy. But anyone who raises their hand for wind power will face a problem, and will need support from their party organizations. From me and from you.

Of course, it would be nice if everything continued as it was before. But she can't. That's because everything has already changed because of the worsening climate crisis, and because it could still get much worse. If we want to save the climate and nature, we need wind turbines on land. Hopefully we'll be smarter and braver than the last time we tried.