Norwegian hydro-electric site
Norway wants to limit the use of its own plentiful fossil fuels, so the Scotland link is a dead duck. One in the eye for ‘net zero’ obsessives.
– – –
Norway’s government on Thursday rejected plans for an undersea electricity cable with Scotland amid a debate on the Scandinavian country’s energy independence and whether it should be exporting electricity, says The Local (Norway).
The Norwegian oil and energy ministry said it was saying ‘no’ to the NorthConnect project because the country needed to meet its own energy needs at competitive rates.
“It is important for the government to ensure that we have a power system that can at all times fulfill the basic needs of power supply,” Oil and Energy Minister Terje Aasland said in a statement.
“We need this hydro power and do not want to open it up for more exports,” he said.
Project details
The project had been proposed by three Norwegian municipal groups– Lyse, Agder Energi and Hafslund – and Swedish state-owned electricity group Vattenfall.
With a capacity of 1,400 MW, NorthConnect would have enabled the two countries to exchange renewable energies – wind power from Scotland, hydro power from Norway – via a 665-kilometre (413-mile) cable under the North Sea.
Rich in fossil and renewable energies, the Scandinavian country already has power links to several other countries – Britain, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden – with a total capacity of around 9,000 MW.
Norway is not a member of the European Union but is integrated into the European market, including that for electricity, as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA).
Soaring electricity prices in Norway, largely sparked by skyrocketing prices on the continent, have however revived criticism about the cables, which have contributed to the price hikes.
“We need to use Norwegian energy to build Norwegian industry and contribute to competitive prices in Norway,” Norway’s minister for higher education, Ola Borten Moe, said in the same statement.
“After the last two cables abroad (Germany and Britain), experience has shown that we should not pave the way for more exports,” he added.
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
OOr Gridwatch shoing wind does 21% TWENTY ONE PERCENT folks! aye, that is ONLY under SEVEN GIGAWATTS … great eh? and Norway says ‘needed to meet its own energy needs at competitive rates.’ More than can be said for the UK in general with our own Oil n Gas. Selling on the WOrld Market … ie world market prices so that at home your folk are starved of cheap fuel. World Prices, eh? what’s the world price for our Labour? not applicable? food? NA, Courier charges ( freight charges) NA, and as for the Remoaners, European prices for various similar and other items, NA.
Well, at least the fish can sleep tonight with out THEIR Sea Bed being disturbed. Less Copper , Aluminium & Steel + other stuff in producing and laying those proposed cables. Win win for some. win for common sense?
WHo wrote this report ? ‘ wind power from Scotland, hydro power from Norway, ..Rich in fossil and renewable energies, the Scandinavian country already has power links to several other countries – Britain, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden … ‘ seems Scotland is different from Britain then, etc and finally ‘ Soaring electricity prices in Norway …’ and THEY think that WE want to be buying that sort of Electricity ? Figures, Data and nonsense = aka Politics. Total sum of ? Stinks. Maybe as of tonight, Scotland will see the light. we have few direct regular connections to Norway. Local Co. works way up there – but flies via Aberdeen to Schipol to …. and all in the name of the environment, eh?
The Norwegian coalition government would propably collapse if this project were to be approved, or the parties would be wiped out in the 2025 election.
Both the people and what little remains of industry cannot tolerate the current confiscatory electricity rates. Also, it is argued, there won’t be any electricity surplus to export, since it will be needed for multiple battery factories, hydrogen projects and other sustainable nonsense planned in order to get to the unattainable net zero target.
saighdear:
AFIK Norway has no pumped storage so more electricity from wind means they have to shut down their cheap hydro. It would save some water but no other advantage to them, unless the import price was extremely low. That means wind farms selling at a loss (unless they get more subsidies).
Yes Graeme, Oh it’s getting quite dusty in amongst the grey matter – (dust from fiction) but as a ‘they’ of the land, we had Fisons Regular 53, ICI Nitram, SAI N’os 1,2,3 & 4 if I remember + Boron, Man wasn’t the world simple, BUT then came Norsk Hydro ( not to be confused with the NOSMMB, NOSCA and of course the ubuiquitos NOSHEB & NOSWA) Now NOSHEB did not make “Nitrogen” fertilisers – ‘see! -it started back then – Nitrogen, not Nitrates) ‘ but NORSK didbut I cannot now remember whether it was cheaper than ICI’s Nitram at the time. However, story IS: Norway had spo much Water power to make cheap Fertilisers and Steel ..
Huh, and for the record, having recently researchged something which isnow lost in the grey dust, https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Norsk+Hydro&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 told me plenty: but I see now headings for paywalled Info that “Dec 15, 2022Norsk Hydro is launching “thousands of initiatives” to cut costs at the Norwegian aluminium producer as European heavy industry fights to stay competitive amid surging power prices”
@jarlgeir says / TELLS what I didn’t find out from folks I know working at Orkanger – Oil + Electric cars – a great mix until you here more.
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
a number of countries tried to hide their carbon use by shutting down their own generators and buying electricity from elsewhere, supposedly green energy. A total scam of course. All for a mythical boogeyman called ‘catastrophic global warming’.
I live in Minnesota. I’m not sure I’m going to be able to tell the difference between minus 20 and minus 18.