This is not an academic math exercise. This is the reality.
This is the topic of discussion. Opinions expressed in the text are at the author’s expense.
NTNU colleagues Jonas Kristiansen Nøland and Jan Emblemsvåg in Aftenposten on June 6 attempted to discredit the robust research findings presented by Rolf Golombek and others. At the Frisch Center in Aftenposten on May 17.
We first want to confirm that Golombek’s findings are fully in line with ours private search And the International Studies in power systems. Research shows that wind and solar energy are cost-effective energy sources and necessary climate measures.
Nøland and Emblemsvåg make a number of false claims in their posts, which we find ourselves compelled to comment and refute. They finished their post with: “It’s hard to defend the wind no matter the angle.” It leaves little room for professional development or dialogue. It’s very good Documented Both wind and solar energy have characteristics in terms of cost And the Availability Which makes it completely central to the power supply now and in the future. This directly contradicts Nøland and Emblemsvåg’s claims.
In short, all the analyzes show how we can get there Climate goals Wind and solar energy are crucial.
We built a little bit of solar and wind energy
The authors of the publication also claim that: “The prerequisite for solar and wind energy is that they constitute a small percentage of the total energy mix.”
Those of us who have been researching energy systems for many years have seen time and time again how the limits of what was once thought possible are constantly being shifted by making wind and solar technology cheaper and better. System operators and market participants are increasing their understanding of how to operate the power system while increasing the share of solar and wind energy.
System operators work continuously to operate, build and plan the power grid with the goal of solar and wind energy takes over More and more energy production. These are not academic arithmetic exercises, these are facts.
It is not the disparity in solar and wind that will mean higher energy costs in 2022. The main reasons are the rising prices of raw materials for gas and coal. The demand for power rebounded after the pandemic. We’ve built very little solar and wind power in relation to the need to phase out fossil fuels.
Turn the case upside down
The post’s authors suggest putting some kind of “system cost” on solar and wind power. He turned the problem and reality upside down. They’re a little late, too.
We already have a power and reserve balancing market where those who provide the power and reserve balancing get paid for it. Those who contribute to the imbalances must pay for it in the equilibrium of the power market. However, these markets are not static advanced In line with the development of the power system otherwise to find good system solutions and reduce The need to balance the force.
We can assure readers that professional communities continue to work with them opportunity space Which lies in the interaction between the sun, wind, consumption and other sources. This is required to create a sustainable energy system.
“Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst.”