On Tuesday 14 November, Jan Henrik Jensen had a reader post saying that offshore wind is not profitable with reference to waterways and energy director Ketil Lund. By virtue of his position, Lund should be someone worth listening to. I completely understand Jensen’s concerns and share them with him.
Offshore wind is not profitable
Havind is part of the “green transition”, a topic I have previously covered in the newspaper in the hope of gaining political awareness about what is happening in the field of investment in renewable energy sources. I think a lot needs to be improved in order for us to succeed in the green initiative. Having this discussion in a very local newspaper like Lindesnes avis might not make sense if the goal is to achieve something at a national level, but on the other hand, we are close to our local politicians like Mayor Andersen and Deputy Mayor Tronstad Sagebakken who are of great importance. connections and sometimes their foothold within Løvebakken itself and in the government district. Then we’ll see what they want and maybe they can do it.
I would like to draw attention to the political and technological processes that govern the green transition and why they can lead us in the wrong direction. We are several retired engineers with a lifetime of work experience from the Norwegian and international oil and gas industry who together talk and worry about how to manage the search for renewable energy. For example, I’ll start by going back to what happened with our investment in tidal power from 2000 to 2010, a tragic story in the recent past that is at risk of repeating itself with offshore wind, which we clearly don’t want. .
20 years ago, the tide was predicted to become an eternal, renewable source of energy, and hundreds of millions of energy were burned at test facilities at Kvalsundet near Hammerfest and Gemswestraumen in Lofoten as well as much more, all relying on large and small propellers that could rotate in the tide. And carrots. Currents to operate generators. The propeller concept used was fundamentally flawed and the whole thing fell apart when the Morild 2 facility collapsed in 2010. In retrospect, Enova admits that there was nothing wrong with tidal energy, but the construction was inadequate. The plant in Kvalsundet was sold cheaply to Scotland, where it still produces electricity, but at a price disproportionate to the Norwegian energy market.
Perhaps Lund’s concern about offshore wind, which Jensen points out, is about the same thing: an unwavering commitment to solutions that may not be technically or economically sustainable. Certainly, “streaming” tidal facilities had their justifications in a country like Norway and it was a disaster for the green transition that the idea of harnessing the energy of tidal currents was abandoned at the moment of the collapse of Morild 2 due to incorrect design.
In light of these experiences, where hundreds of millions have been spent on incorrect construction, my fellow retired professionals and I argue that the processes that lead to certain offshore wind solutions can have some clear weaknesses. We see that energy reports to Parliament and politically controlled institutions such as Innovation Norway, Enova and the like are at the mercy of a small number of building suppliers in universities and in the energy industry with their own agendas that are not necessarily in sync with the real goal of supplying the world with more renewable energy. The operation of private institutes, laboratories and companies does not always correspond to the path towards the general goal. There is also a lot of prestige in sticking to what has already been said and no one in this round dance likes critical questions. This was not the case in the history of tidal power. Moreover, everyone knows each other in this round dance. More questions can be asked about this process before it goes too far and costs society too much to change.
The way this is managed today, alternative ideas about renewable energy have no chance. What does the path to selected offshore wind solutions look like? Maybe our mayor and his deputy can make sure the necessary critical questions are asked.
“Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst.”