We must cut greenhouse gas emissions. Norway and the European Union aims to be climate neutral by 2050. Therefore, researchers are looking at ways to achieve this. Should we have the most wind power, or solar power? Should the power be stored, or should cables be built? What ensures steady access to energy in the best way? With the help of a mathematical model, the researchers can look at different scenarios to find different solutions.
"Most researchers who look at energy systems use optimization of costs, meaning price," explains researcher Koen van Greevenbroek.
He recently completed his PhD at UiT The Arctic University of Norway.
"But we have looked at the goal for the whole of Europe, while at the same time looking at what works best in different regionsm," he says.
He is not sure that cost should be the choice we govern our energysystems by. Security of energy supply, or land usage, can be as important factors.
"People like cheap electricity, he continues. But it can give us a false method because it will primarily give us one solution. We have tried to create a model that can tailor energy solutions to local conditions, while at the same time limit the sum of emissions in Europe net zero."
"All inclusive" gives us more choice
The researchers say that they have taken the current energy system as their starting point, and continued it to 2050. They have left the model free to choose the power source, including oil and gas.
"The model is limited by the fact that the sum of emissions must be zero for all of Europe. However, this means that we can emit some CO2, where it is necessary, but it must be compensated for by carbon capture and storage," van Greevenbroek explains.
"We are also trying to find the solution that costs the least," adds postdoctoral fellow Aleksander Grochowicz at the Technical University of Denmark.
"At the same time, there are only 25 years left. Therefore, we cannot just look at one thing. The model calculates the sum of local solutions so that there are zero emissions for Europe as a whole."
"Nuclear power is also baked into the model," says van Greevenbroek.
"But the model has developed little of that. It's too expensive."
It is also part of the model that it looks at opportunities for storing power, compared to transporting it. Here, too, the researchers have clear findings:
"Being part of a power grid is a cheaper solution," says Associate Professor Marianne Zeyringer, at the University of Oslo.
"It is more expensive to store the power in the form of batteries or in other ways. Being part of the power grid also provides better security of supply."
The need for power is increasing at the same time as oil, gas and coal are being phased out
At the same time as the current use of energy from oil, coal and gas is to be phased out, the need for power is likely to increase. The researchers explain that it is difficult to estimate how much the need will increase, but that how much we can use anyway is limited by how much energy we can produce.
"If Norway is to phase out the current use of fossil fuels, power production must at least be doubled," van Greevenbroek explains.
Although it is difficult to estimate how much more power we need, they believe that we must nevertheless start with what we know we are going to phase out.
"In addition, renewable power should be developed to sustain and facilitate the industry," Zeyringer adds.
There is a lot to gain from Germany and southern Europe increasing solar power production
One of the main findings of the analysis is that the energy from solar cells must increase. The areas that are best suited for this are southern Europe and, perhaps surprisingly, Germany.
"Germany is an importer of power today. They will also be in the future, even if they increase the production of power from solar energy," explains van Greevenbroek.
But developing solar energy in Germany and southern Europe is one of the things that makes it easiest to reach the zero emission goal.
In addition, the model shows that Northern Europe is in a special position because there is a lot of potential for wind power development.
"The Nordic region is the area with the greatest potential for wind power, but at the same time, little wind power is being developed in Norway," says van Greevenbroek.
Norway does not have to develop renewable energy, but...
"Norway can continue to be a power exporter and make money from it, if politicians build more wind power plants," says van Greevenbroek.
Nevertheless, there is some resistance in the population to wind power. This applies in particular to onshore wind power.
"There are some consequences of developing renewable energy, such as land use or costs for the development," says van Greevenbroek.
"Therefore, it is important for us that the population and politicians have a choice."
At the same time, the model shows that Europe as a whole can achieve the zero-emission target without Norway building wind power.
"If Norway chooses not to develop wind power, we will quickly become a power importer. It can be expensive. At the same time, it is not certain that there will be so much power available if all countries think this way. Norway cannot buy the power from other countries if it does not exist. It is therefore good for our own industry and security of supply that Norway is building wind power after all," says van Greevenbroek.
"Norway is in a unique position – because there are options here," Grochowicz adds. "Most countries do not have this luxury. They will have to develop power. Therefore, it may also be that it is not so popular among other countries if Norway does not contribute."
The reason for this luxury is that there is little coal and gas for power production internally in Norway today, and much cheaper hydropower. In addition, Norway has the opportunity to produce offshore wind power. In other words, Norwegians have one more luxury option: Not to build power plants where we can see them.
Power development is a political choice
The researchers point out that security of supply and the ability to be independent of countries outside Europe may be critical in the future. Therefore, there are many unfortunate consequences of not developing wind power, even though it is an alternative.
"Power development is a political choice. Our job is to show what opportunities are there and what needs to be taken into account," says Grochowicz.
"We cannot impose any decisions."
Politicians should become better at planning power across national borders
"If you were to give one piece of advice to politicians, what would it be?"
"They should become better at coordinating and planning power development across national borders," says van Greevenbroek.
"I would say that they should not get hung up on details, but start developing renewable energy. There are many ways to achieve the goal, as long as we try. In addition, they need to get better at talking about the benefits of developing renewable energy," concludes Grochowicz.
Sources:
Koen van Greevenbroek, Aleksander Grochowicz, Marianne Zeyringer, et al., Trading off regional and overall energy system design flexibility in the net-zero transition. Nature Sustainability, May 2025
This article was translated from Norwegian to English by the author aided by translating services in Word.
