As reported by Bloomberg Opinion columnist Javier Blas in “Why Norway’s Political Crisis Is a European Energy Problem” (Feb. 3, 2025)
After decades of quietly footing the bill for Europe’s grand energy experiments, it appears Norway has finally decided to walk off the stage — or at the very least, slam the door shut on a few cross-border power cables on the way out.
The political crisis rocking Oslo isn’t just about domestic squabbles or ideological posturing. It’s about energy — more specifically, the growing realization that Norway, with its hydro-rich grid, has become the unwilling battery pack for Germany’s failed energy transition. Or as the Germans call it, Energiewende.
And like all grand social experiments conducted with other people’s money, the Norwegians are understandably losing patience.
The Dunkelflaute Domino Effect
Blas doesn’t mince words. To understand what’s happening in Norway, one must grasp two German words: Energiewende and Dunkelflaute.
- Energiewende: Germany’s vaunted energy transition, which enthusiastically shuttered nuclear plants and lavished subsidies on intermittent wind and solar.
- Dunkelflaute: A literal “dark lull” — those long winter stretches when it’s not only cold and cloudy but also eerily still. No wind. No sun. No power.
With baseload capacity gutted and dispatchable plants (i.e., fossil fuels) scorned, Germany has become a dangerously energy-dependent neighbor. When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, Berlin plugs into the north — namely Norway — and expects the lights to stay on.
And for years, they have. At Norway’s expense.
Higher Prices, Diminishing Patience
Cross-border power interconnectors, often lauded as marvels of modern engineering (and conveniently costing over $1 billion each), were supposed to create a seamless European grid. In theory, they would equalize prices and share resources.
In practice, they’ve exported Germany’s energy failures across the continent.
According to Blas, “average wholesale power prices in 2023-2024 were more than 50% higher in southern Norway than in the 2010-2020 period” — a direct result of increasing electricity exports to prop up struggling grids abroad.
The Norwegians are being told this is “efficient.” In reality, they’re subsidizing bad policy — specifically, Berlin’s decision to nuke its own nuclear fleet and double down on weather-dependent infrastructure.
A Government Falls, and a Message Is Sent
When the euro-skeptic Center Party pulled its support for new EU energy rules (the so-called fourth clean-energy package), it did more than provoke a minor government shakeup. It sent the clearest message yet that Norway isn’t going to be Europe’s backup generator anymore.
Now, the Labour Party is left to govern alone — the first minority government in 25 years. Come the next election on September 8, this issue is likely to loom large.
This isn’t just a Norwegian tantrum. It follows similar tensions elsewhere:
- Sweden recently rejected a German request for another interconnector.
- Norway previously turned down a British proposal for a cable to Scotland.
- France, Austria, and even Greece are starting to grumble about similar dynamics.
The illusion of a unified, efficient, pan-European energy market is cracking. And it’s not hard to see why.
Cross-Border Hypocrisy and the Green Mirage
The deeper irony here is that the very countries relying on Norway to bail them out are the ones most ardently pursuing aggressive “green” targets. These ambitions rest on the laughable assumption that renewables, backed by sporadic imports and dreams of storage unicorns, can replace baseload power.
Germany, the ringmaster of this energy circus, shut down nuclear plants prematurely, only to find itself stuck with coal… again. Blas writes, “Berlin needs to ensure it has enough domestic capacity to keep the lights on… that means keeping its coal-fired plants open far longer than it currently plans.”
This is the real scandal: the so-called climate leaders are failing by their own standards, and dragging others down with them.
The Economics of “Efficiency” — For Whom?
Blas makes a crucial distinction between economic efficiency and political accountability:
“Efficiency has a different meaning in economics than in politics. In the former, it means ‘lower average prices for everyone’; in the latter, it means ‘lower prices only for my own voters.'”
Translation: German voters enjoy cheaper power because Norwegian voters pay more. And now the latter are asking, “Why exactly are we doing this?”
The idea that Norway should continue subsidizing someone else’s ideology — especially one that rejects the energy technologies that made Norway rich and resilient — is a non-starter.
The Warning Shot Heard Across Europe
The potential scrapping of two half-century-old cables to Denmark is no mere infrastructure quibble. It’s a warning. When even the Nordic bloc, historically cooperative and consensus-driven, starts pulling back from EU energy integration, it’s clear the entire house of cards is wobbling.
The lesson? If a policy needs someone else to suffer economically in order to succeed, it’s not a good policy.
No More Mr. Nice Norseman
Norway’s quiet rebellion isn’t just about politics or local pricing. It’s a systemic indictment of the renewable-first, common-grid fantasy driving Europe’s energy agenda. A nation that exports more electricity than it consumes shouldn’t have its citizens paying some of the continent’s highest prices. And it certainly shouldn’t be forced to comply with policy packages it had no real role in shaping.
Blas is right to call Norway’s revolt a “wake-up call.” Whether Europe hits snooze or finally faces the consequences of its magical thinking will shape the continent’s energy landscape for decades to come.
One thing is clear: Norway is not going to be Europe’s doormat anymore.
Source: Javier Blas, Why Norway’s Political Crisis Is a European Energy Problem, Bloomberg Opinion, February 3, 2025. Archived link
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Will Germany invade Norway if Norway crashes the German grid by shutting down the interconnectors? Asking for a friend.
Haha with what army? A really good one, I’m still laughing. Keep that idea in mind for april 1st 2026
Germany has recently voted to increase spending on defence and security.
Defence != Attack…
Soldiers can do either, as can most weapons systems.
Hehe spend as much as you want on a rainbow weaving all inklusive boysclub, you won’t get very far…except against unarmed civilians. My instinct tells me that all spending is more focused on beating down forseeable uprisings. The police’s forces are limited exceeding a number of “critical” citizens, just look at the USA…Germany for now has no national guard yet.
That will produce a lot of electricity
The public reason is Russia.
Spending money that Germany doesn’t have, on industries they no longer have, for goods their military aged youth can’t and won’t use, from countries that no longer pretend that they like Germany. This will go well.
Germany did invade Norway to control its western coast for 5 years.
There were no transmission lines between Germany and Norway.
When Germany over-produces, because of too much wind and sun, then it releases its excess on nearby grids at near-zero wholesale prices, including on Norway, which merely sends less water through its hydro turbines
When Germany under-produces, because of too little wind and sun, then it sucks its shortage from nearby grids at high wholesale prices, including from Norway, which merely sends more water through its hydro turbines.
All that works, until Norway finds it does not have enough water.
Revolution
Government falls
New government makes declarations
Remember, I wrote about this about 20 years ago, during my days as an energy systems analyst. Some people listened, but were afraid to agree to the obvious
UK, GERMANY AND NORWAY
Norway gets 90% from hydro reservoir plants and 10% from west coast windmills.
Because of long distances, there is little connection between the north and south grid.
Any draw by the UK during W/S underproduction affects the south grid.
.
The grid is pumped by generators to a voltage with 50-cycle electromagnetic waves which travel at near the speed of light. Electrons do not travel. They just vibrate at 50 Hz
.
Any UK underproduction, resulting in voltage drops, is immediately sensed about 800 miles away, and compensated for, by automatically opening the water valves to hydro turbines in Norway.
.
A few years ago, during a W/S lull, Norway oversupplied Germany and the UK, which resulted in much higher wholesale prices in the south grid, too low water levels in reservoirs, rationing, aka blackouts/brownouts, and lots of Norwegians with mandated EVs and mandated heat pumps being very angry.
.
This time the W/S lull happened again, and, just like that, the ruling-party government fell. A new ruling-party Labor government was installed (Stoltenberg, formerly of NATO, became finance minister), which may, or may not, remedy the situation.
Never-the-less INSTANT DEMOCRACY.
We should have it in the US, instead of endless lying, obfuscation, grandstanding, obstruction, etc., for up to 4 years, or, God forbid, 8 years
.
Norway should have tariffs
Low tariff, on top of low wholesale price, on in-coming electricity
Very high tariff, on top of high wholesale price, on out-going electricity.
.
NOTE: I lived in Norway for 3 years.
My brother-in-law, worked at Norsk Hydro, as a managing director.
NH provides almost all hydro power in Norway.
We talk shop. He thinks the nutcases in Oslo should be exiled to Nova Zembla.
The electrons in the DC interconnectors travel.
Electrons in a copper wire travel at about 1 millimetre per second.
Proof?
No!
Look it up
In it’s current state German Army would already have trouble to leave it’s barracks on working vehicles, let alone crossing the sea to Norway.
They wouldn’t have to cross the sea, there is a bridge already between Denmark and Sweden.
Finding sufficient servicable vehicles might be a problem, though, as you say, Gerald.
Best get busy and recharge all those military EVs.
Oh. Wait…..
They are pre-positioning in Lithuania so they do not have to travel at all, because they would be destroyed while still in their barracks.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/powder-keg-europe-first-foreign-deployment-since-ww2/
Doubtful but Norway is in serious danger of getting more tied into EU thinking. It needs to keep its distance and remember just how bad the EU is.
Germany, the UK, France, etc., are in Chaotic De-growth Mode
Their Euro elites are forcing populations to put up with, and pay for, tens of millions of unvetted walks-ins, who make minimal contributions, cause maximal pain, crime and chaos, all while sucking from the government tit.
Spending more on defense and Net-Zero green stuff, will be accelerating de-growth
.
The woke elites in Europe and the US are pre-maturely closing, already-paid-for, in-good-working-order nuclear plants.
The woke elites have banned 1) oil and gas fracking projects, 2) gas/oil pipelines, 3) gas/oil storage systems near power plants, and 4) new energy exploration projects, as part of “leaving it in the ground”
.
The US should not bail out Europe by exporting its coal, oil and LNG, but use them to make more US products and services for domestic use and exports. That way the US would reduce imports and increase exports, which would rapidly decrease our decades of impoverishing trade deficits, and would employ tens of millions of additional US workers, which would strengthen families and communities.
.
The very important results of DOGE are not reported by the leftist, USAID-subsidized, Corporate Media, but the criticisms of DOGE are reported 24/7/365.
And so, the people in New England, the US and Europe are permanently kept in the dark, already for at least 5 decades, or more.
The Social-Media, by gaining eyeballs, is quickly ending the Corporate-Media monopoly, which is losing eyeballs.
Oh, I think we can be generous and export that which do not need and cannot use.
Be nice to help out once in a while but only after we help ourselves.
Charity, after all, begins at home.
Euro elites would reciprocate by importing more goods and services into the US, by using our LNG to produce them.
Would that be “nice” and “charitable”?
Of course not.
It would turn their screw into the US even deeper!!
Well, it’s an opinion column, and very opinionated. But not big on fact. The government hasn’t fallen. There is an election due in September. Then maybe it would be reasonable to say Norway has made a decision. But for now not.
This is all just trade. Norway has a valuable resource, hydro, which it voluntarily sells when the price suits it. This has been going on for decades. It also has oil and gas, which it sells when the price suits it. That doesn’t make it a doormat. It makes it very rich.
The point being that Germany needs to reconfigure its energy policies. As the wealthiest of European countries shouldn’t they be net exporters?
I’m sure per capita Norway is wealthier. But the point is that that isn’t a Norway problem. They can sell to Germany and make money. That probably suits Germany too. Trade and markets.
Norway doesn’t want to sell anymore, they think it is making energy too expensive in Norway. Germany will be cut off from Norway.
Now what?
No such decision has been made.
Norway can handle that problem. It’s a reservation problem. They can sell at whatever price they like locally, especially as it’s all publically owned.
Nick if it worked like that they can also sell when they choose 🙂
You idiots in the Eastern States of Australia ran into that problem there are generators who decided to only sell when the supply prices spiked and you had to make rules to stop the behaviour 🙂
Hey if it worked the way Nick thinks it does and I was Norway I would withhold supply until the sale price spikes right up there and then sell for maximum profit per KWh. I am sure Germany would love that … ROFL
“you had to make rules to stop the behaviour”
Ignorance again. The behaviour was that they were gaming a system whereby they could get themselves ordered to generate, and then get generous compensation for being ordered.
That was game 1 then they moved to game 2 .. you are the one showing ignorance
If we are going to talk of ignorance have you actually researched and confirmed a generator produces heat with your background of published papers on thermodynamics 🙂
Germany is the 800-lb gorilla in the EU
Now what?
The value of electricity is trivial next to what it enables to be built.
By letting the distortion of a restrained supply in Germany to be pushed over the border is daft.
Keep electricity prices at the world price 12cents/Kwh and attract industry from the fruit cake countries where electricity is 40 cents/Kwh.
“But the point is that that isn’t a Norway problem”
Except at the moment it is Norway’s problem.
The best way of avoiding that problem is to disconnect supply to Germany.
Then Germany’s erratic and unreliable supply problem, remains Germany’s problem.
Monaco is the wealthiest, followed by Liechtestein. However wealth is not the issue. Stupidity and selfharm are.
These people are not stupid
They are just irrational/deranged/brainwashed, and, sorry to say, often in charge.
When price suits ? The way the electricity generation rigged market works is the highest bidder means all other generation in that time slot gets the same price. What other commodity works like that
Just trade ? Electricity isn’t just trade it’s a special category because of it’s unique requirements that supply and demand must exactly matched all the time
So? Norway doesn’t have to bid. But that scheme is to their advantage, since they have small marginal cost, but get the price determined by gas producers.
Prices are not determined by gas producers, but by what users will pay to keep supplied.
No. If they are selling into the German market, say, then each time slot has a fixed price (since you can’t distinguish electrons). That price is fixed as the highest of the set of bids that are needed to meet demand. That bid is very likely to be from a gas producer. Norway gets the extra profit between what it would have been prepared to bid and that price.
Again then they should just wait for the price to get really high before they sell there electrons … the water just sits there and no pressure to use it.
I suspect the agreements are a little more complicated than your layman idea because you could price gouge the crap out of that if it worked that way.
Norway doesn’t have to bid ? I said the highest price applies to other generators too no matter if their bids were lower.
The political party wants to cut the interconnected with Germany but probably not Sweden or Denmark. EU trade rules which still apply to non EU member Norway may prevent cutting out German only
‘The way the electricity generation rigged market works is the highest bidder means all other generation in that time slot gets the same price.’
Just to be clear, the ‘bids’ are the prices that suppliers are willing to receive to produce a specific amount of energy during a specific time slot. The clearing price, which all of the accepted bidders receive, is the lowest price for which aggregate supply meets the load for that time slot.
Highest because they must recieved the same price. It’s very complicated as many contracts are made outside the open bidding process. The bid prices feed back into contract prices over time
Oh Nickypickyboy…nobody pays voluntarily more for his own electricity just because others need it due to self inflicted constant production shortages.
The european electric grid was interconnected and harmonized mainly for backup purposes in case of an technical emergency in a powerplant and NOT to enable some dreamers to live out there deluded eco fantasies.
Yes, local overproduction used to be exported/traded without any financial backlash to local consumers, those were the good old days. Norvegians and swedish consumers see no point in paying more for their own power because external demand “invades” their market causing an artificial shortage and thus rising prices.
Put a rainbow farting unicorn a
on a treadmill in your backyard to power an electric generator and convince your neighbours to do the same. Thus you all can generate your own power and provide you kumbayah stile backup and solidarity.
In case any of you needs power please refrain from asking me to run an extension cord from any of my 24/7/365 conventionally powered outlets to your’s.
“ causing an artificial shortage and thus rising prices.”
Norway can choose how much to export, and they can determine local pricing.
Well, you need to tell this to the Norwegian government apparatchiks – Because when asked about the unreasonably expensive electricity, they routinely blame ACER and EU. “Nothing WE can do”.
The simple fact of the matter is that the prices are killing small businesses, and leaving a lot of Norwegians on a fixed income in the cold and dark. And it gets REALLY cold in Norway. And REALLY dark. EVERY year.
The government already limits household price to a very reasonable 7 US cents/KWh (user pay 10% of any excess). There is no reason why that could not be extended to small businesses, or even businesses in general. If they are selling at high prices, they can afford it.
Maybe nit picking, but €0,081/$0,089 per kWh (you forgot vat), and +10% of excess
There is no reason to not extend to businesses – nor is there any plan to do so by the sitting government. This is killing what is left of industry in Norway.
What is the benefit of having the government coffers full of gold when the population is freezing in the dark and the jobs are disappearing?
On the bright side – People er finally waking up to the realities of the green madness. 15-20 years ago, I was considered a loon for warning them about how this would play out. Now I am happy to report that most people are calling it the greatest scam in history – OUT LOUD.
I forgot – (…)to a very reasonable(…) – The price on electricity has risen more than 600% for my beloved mother in law in the last 5 years or so. In 2020 she paid about 0,012 USD per kWh. Very reasonable?
Yeah, price controls. That’s the ticket.
That would be cool except the government doesn’t own all the hydro they own roughly 35%. Municipalities and companies own the rest.
“Norway can choose how much to export”
And they look like choosing to export NONE.
And no, when they are forced to supply to Germany they cannot choose how much to export, or the price.
Your ignorance of how electricity markets work, is shining through again.
Yeah that is more like what I suspected they would have obligation to supply or else you could price gouge the hell out of your energy to sell.
Germany’s self-flagellation over so-called green energy makes it an easy target for Norway and any other country for as long as it suits the other country.
You obviously don’t know Norway or the Norwegians otherwise you wouldn’t have written such illogical and ill-informed twaddle.
The list of things nick doesn’t know, yet feels confident making absolute statements about, is remarkably long.
Well, AndersV below, who is Norwegian, has said much the same. Oddly, he gets upvoted, I get downvoted.
Does he really though?
He nit picks about the government re-shuffling going on, and something about how much or how little power is being drained to Germany and the UK.
It does not address the fact that the average citizen is paying more to keep warm in winter, and definitively not the fact that no companies get “strømstøtte”/subsidies. Norwegian industry is being screwed by Germany AND the Norwegian government.
The government did fall, nick. The coalition was broken; labour had to form a new minority government without their previous partners. There is no way to claim this change of government as anything other than the previous falling and a new forming. It’s literally how Norway’s system works.
Mr Støre was Prime Minister, and is still Prime Minister. There was no vote of no confidence. The King did not intervene.
None of which is necessary for a government to collapse and reform. The king only plays a role if the pm tenders his resignation. A coalition partner unilaterally removing itself from that coalition causes the collapse of the existing government – the cabinet and advisory positions appointed by the prime minister – and the formation of a new one. The government fell. The fact that the labour party managed to arrange itself into a minority government without the pm resigning is an interesting fact, but it doesn’t change the reality that it is a new government.
A new ruling coalition
Nick,
factor that their electrcity cost to the Norwegians is higher than it should be due to these policies of backing up unsuitable sources of generation in other countries, namely renewables.
I doubt the average Norwegian feels ‘very rich’.
Ah, but the problem is “Norway” is not a single entity. The electricity traders bid in and make the money by selling to Germany. The Norse public sees the “benefit” as an increase in their power bills.
The hydro is owned by the Norse public. They make the money. As customers, their costs are limited to less than 10 US cents/KWh.
My brother-in-law in Norway said the government fell, the rightists are out, and Labor is back in with a new cabinet.
Stoltenberg, formerly of NATO, became finance minister in the new government
It is important to have facts
“Fell” in context of governments has a spectrum of meanings.
I agree with your brother-in-law.
All it takes is losing a vote of “no confidence” in parliament to oust the ruling party.
An opposition party must form a new government
Almost all the bureaucrats stay in place.
There’s only one key fact that matters, this is a live political issue in Norway, and the voters aren’t happy about it.
Smart politicians pay attention to that.
You used “smart” and “politician” in the same sentence. Very daring. Very risky.
/humor
Nick, whoever gets the profits from the sale of electricity in Norway may be doing well, but the citizens in the southern part of Norway may not be seeing any benefit, but they definitely are paying higher rates. I would be very surprised if this isn’t causing political tension.
On further consideration and as much as I hate to admit this, I must concede that Nick may possibly have a point.
Assumptions in this post:
The Norwegian Government has not imposed wage and/or price controls.Energy production in Norway is not government owned.
Supply and demand.
Free market economics.
A supplier can charge what the market will bear.
If domestic prices are lower that export prices, the company, to maximize profits will supply the export. The domestics prices will rise due to a reduced domestic supply until the prices match the export price. The export price may also fall due to an increase in supply.
Part of this is transportation/infrastructure recurring costs, efficiencies, and a plethora of other factors (labor costs, etc.) – production costs that are included in the sales price.
However, we do not know if this is a free market.
We do not know what import regulations, export regulations, or taxes & tariffs have been imposed by either government. Any of those will shift away from a true supply and demand pricing basis to regulated trade.
Any pragmatic government will work to ensure its people do not make unneeded sacrifices. It appears Norway is shifting back to that position.
Norse Hydro is a quasi-government-owned company that produces almost all electricity in Norway
It would be nice to see the entire electric distribution system collapse, otherwise I don’t see an end to this forced ecomadness.
It’s a little bit like school and the homework due. There’s always the lazy one counting on the diligent’s “solidarity” to let him copy it before class thus living of his effort. So is electric energy generation…
Do your own homework as you did decades ago eurotards.
Germany is also connected to the Polish coal powered grid , the French nuclear as well as the Norwegian hydro system.
Yes, but they’ve still got a solar panel and a windmill to see them through the still, dark nights
France is facing increased own electric demand, Poland’s power comes from coal (so no CO2 savings achievable) and tge connection to the swiss and austrian grid doesn’t provide enough to cover demand.
Norway used to have abundant and cheap electricity during the winter time and still sufficient water stored in their dams to cover the dry summer months.
Well that infrastructure is all designed to meet own demand with some extra to cover a short term emergency need in a neighbouring grid.
No logic except screwing people by draining resources in advance just to ration and scramble for overpriced substitutes later.
The only reason to increase the long distance powergrid’s capacity is to enable constantly high prices for the consumer.
Poland put in blocking, one-way transformers, so German electricity cannot enter and screw up the Polish grid.
Doesn’t add up. An AC grid connecter power flows aren’t controllable like you say
Has tobe a DC link to be controllable
Also you are mistaken to think energy travels along as electrons moving like cars down a highway
Look it up under phase-changing.
Canada also has them to “protect itself” from the evil US
The UK for a significant number of days this year has been importing more through interconnectors than generating by renewables. In our case mainly from France. At the same time turning off gas generation. My conspiracy theory is that it is show a low carbon footprint to keep Miliband happy.
Miliband won’t be happy until we’re all destitute and genuflecting across the altar of the Windmill God.
Ben,
working on the basis that renwables or interconnectors do not provide inertia, Reactive poer etc which gas, nuclear, hydro and Biomass can. The grid requires a certain amount of these technical attributes of grid to remain stable.
What is more in my mind iis that gas is being run at low levels or even no power input at all (spinning reserve) which is not good for the gas generator owners. Just how much spinning reserve we are running I have no idea but it would suit the narrative of ‘gas is supplying less’ but with spinning reserve capacity being much higher than before, and in a way, invisible CO2 emissions as it is not counted by looking at power output? This must put up the price of gas to the grid also.
The German term “Energiewende” is much more telling, than the English translation “energie transition”, since “Wende” means a 180° turn. Germany really made this 180° degree turn from reliable, modest priced electric energy generation and a net exporter, to an unreliable electric energy producer with skyrocketing prices. Being dependend on wind and solar is a 180° turn back into the dark ages before fossile fuel exploration and invention of reliable electric energy generation.
And that “Wende” was an overly emotional juvenile reaction from Merkel to the accident at Fukushima. How bad was Fukushima? Here’s what an expert had to say:
“I received more radiation on my transcontinental flights from Tokyo to Washington than I did at the reactor site,” said John Boice, a professor at Vanderbilt University and the incoming president of the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements.
( https://science.time.com/2012/03/02/nuked-how-bad-was-fukushima/ )
Again. press and pressure groups ravaged the truth and the rest is gruesome history.
They should have better named it “Energieumkehr” 😉…ein deutlich treffenderer Begriff
“Wahnsienwende”is much better in hindsight
Wahnsinn-wende is the correct word.
Taking a turn towards lalaland.
There is a solution. Norway could raise prices so high that subsidies to reduce prices for Norwegians could be paid out of what German consumers pay for Norwegian electricity.
Then everyone is happy, right?
Did you ever see subsidies work?
This sounds more like a tariff….
Already done. The price is near capped when the spot price exceeds 73 øre (about 7 US cents) per kWh. Above that, the household pays 10% of the excess.
Household pays is not saving the people money.
Flawed logic.
It’s Eric’s solution. But of course it saves them money. If you are paying less than 10 US cents/KWh, that is good. And the government, whih mostly owns the hydro, is not losing money, because hydro has very small marginal cost. But it is making big money on exports. Private owners would maximise that export money. The government owner can choose not to.
Above that, the household pays 10% of the excess.
Does not sound like saving people money.
Of course it does. If the wholesale price/KWh rises 10 cents, households pay just 1 cent. It keeps what they pay in the range 8-10 cents.
Kinda burocratic…better sever the grid connection…faster, easier and directly telling everyone: Øpp your’s 😉
What if instead they generated their own power for domestic consumption as cheaply as possible, exported anything else they can produce at whatever sky-high prices they want to charge, and thereby avoided any subsidies whatsoever? Then everyone wins. Except foreigners (e.g. Germans) who find themselves suddenly in need of vast quantities of expensive imported power, and then may be incentivized to do something about that…
That is what happens, although export prices are constrained by market (but still high).
Low tariff in and very high tariff out would be much better.for Norway
Always interesting to read something from someone who knows little about the subject.Especially when the author seems to think he knows a lot.
No, the government has not fallen. One of the parties have opted out of office, and on more reasons than just the interconnectors. For many years, Norway has been governed by a coalition of parties. Sometimes focus is on the right, somteimes on the left and sometimes center. In practice, coalition governments make policy together with the main opposition parties as much, or more, than with their governing partners. It is a complex world.
Norway has operated interconnectors with Denmark for many years, as has Sweden. Without these interconnectors Denmark woul be unable to have as much windpower as they do. The interconnections have been favourable for both, with low cost surplus wind energy coming to Norway and, in Danish terms, low cost hydropower coming back.
The idea of Norway as a “battery” for Germany has been a green fantasy for quite some time, but is not rooted in reality. The UK consumes something like 265 TWh of electrical energy per year, Germany is up to 500 TWh/year. The Norwegian annual surplus is around 15 TWh. If all went to the UK it makes up 5%, if all went to Germany it makes up 3%.
As said, Denmark is also interconnected and it has an annual production of 33 TWh. Here, we can talk about a Norwegian “battery”. And as said before, Norway has been interconnected with Denmark for a very long time – to the benefit of both countries.
The interconnectors with Germans and Brits are there to account for selling “green” electrical energy to German and UK consumers. Norwegian energy producers are making tons of money from this, as they sell “green” certificates for the idea of “green” electricity to Germans and Brits, while selling the actual products to Norwegians as the hydropower it has always been.
Since the electrical energy market works in very different ways than other markets, the Norwegian government has introduced subsidies to domestic consumers to avoid most of the pain of importing sky high European prices. Even so, the total income for the State and the producers is way up.
Germans are not paying lower electricity bills, because in the electricity market it is the marginal power that sets the market price. With Norway supplying less than 1% of Germanys electrical energy, we don’t affect that price.
Thanks Anders. As I read this, I focus here:
“Since the electrical energy market works in very different ways than other markets, the Norwegian government has introduced subsidies to domestic consumers to avoid most of the pain of importing sky high European prices.”
This is the root of the problem… they should probably stop “importing sky high European prices”. Who thought that would be a good idea? And why are they still doing it?
Mr. V: Always good to hear from someone who is there. You and other commenters say that Norway had these connectors for many years with other nations, mutually beneficial etc, and Norway producers get rich like all Norwegians (h/t Mr. Stokes). Further, the gov’t has not collapsed, only one member of a coalition has left. Is the gov’t collapsing, or is that too strong?
What you don’t explain is, why is that group willing to begin a process that could lead to collapse over an issue that benefits them? If you and Mr. Stokes are right, there is no explanation for Norwegian pollies to take this step. Maybe you’re too close, you seem to miss the dog not barking.
” dog not barking ”
Found in the Sherlock Holmes’ story “Silver Blaze.”
The reality of it is way more complex than one party opting out on a single issue. They did not, they opted out on a range of issues. The party opting out is a political centre party, focusing on supporting farmers rights. Prior to the opt-out both government parties were in free fall on the polls, the Labour party has never been as low as they were a few months ago. Voters fled from the governing parties over to the right.
After the opt-out, Labour had to form a minority government. As a result, they soared back to lead on polls – voters turned away from the right and went to the left. A good argument for why democracy invites idiot rule, as you are about to learn if you haven’t figured it out already..
I digress though. The reasons for increasing the number of interconnectors are multiple, some transparent and some hidden. The transparent ones relate mostly to the fact that our politicians and bureaucrats let the free market on electricity roam too far from home and fell way short on building capacity. That, coupled with law that states we are obliged to provide electrical energy to anyone (domestic) who needs it and political wishes for “electrify everything” means we stand to fall very short of production capacity in a very short time.
Norway has a special energy system where 50% of our total energy use is electric. For us it is imperative to have surplus electrical energy, and since we used to have around 30 TWh more capacity than we used, it made sense to help our neighbours in Denmark as they built windpower. The Danish electrical system is based on thermal plants, they are not suited to pair with unreliable wind. Thus the connection with our hydropower was a good one, with benefits for both.
Then our surplus fell to around 5-20 TWh, depending on if it was a wet or dry year. The idea was to increase connections to Europe, via Germany. I think there was a hope that Germany would divide into energy regions, to ensure we got a favourable connection such as with Denmark. In populist politics the greens tried to sell the idea of Norway as a battery for Germany, but were basically shot out of the water based on facts. I guess our education system still works, people may be fooled but not that easily.
Germany, struggling with their Energiewende, had no incentives to increase complexity by having many energy regions, and we ended up importing the cost of German marginal power. The situation did not improve with connections to the UK.
Add to that the total lack of incentive for Norwegian producers to cut back and restrain prices. Most hydropower production is publicliy owned in Norway, and high prices mean higher tax income. In a socialist democracy this is argued as good, since it takes money from consumers, turn it into tax income for a municipality (and the state) which then emerges as benefits for everyone. What is not to like?
Norway has energy regions, mostly due to lack of physical transfer capacity. Thus the brunt of the impact is borne by those physically close to the interconnectors. When the prices became intolerable, the Norwegian government decided to put a maximum price on electricity for domestic consumers.
So, yeah, a complex issue. And the government did not fall, it merely changed.
The rightist ruling party coalition lost its majority in parliament, due to a party leaving the coalition
The leftist Labor party formed a new coalition in parliament
There was a switch of power in Parliament
Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen.
No popular vote was involved
Anders,
The rightist ruling coalition lost a “non-confidence” vote, which means it is out of power.
The Labor party formed a new coalition with a new cabinet and a new prime minister.
Stoltenberg, formerly of NATO, became finance minister in that new cabinet.
The President, a figure head, remained the same.
The same should happen to Starmer in the UK, who is a total idiot, surrounded with even greater idiots.
“lost a “non-confidence” vote”
When?
“and a new prime minister”
Jonas Gahr Støre has been PM continuously since the election in 2021.
And right too. Germany urgently needs more and more nuclear power
Germany recently blew up their most advanced coal fired powerplant and the two cooling towers of the nuclear plant in Gundremmimgen are scheduled for demolition.
So..yes they need energy and they’re looking for someone to provide it to them hahagaga. End this stupid emission certificate trade scam first and then get going back to build coal and nuclear powerplants on your own soil.
Yes, Sweden supply alot of electricity to Germany too. The politicians in Sweden are way slower that their colleagues in Norway, so it will take awhile before they realize anything. They are also buzy with pleasing the Wallenbergs …
Russia was supplying excellent cheap energy to Europe until some neocons decided that a proxywar in Ukraine would finally win the cold war.
How’s that working out?
Electricitywise ask the three agressive baltic dwarf states…and I think Finland as well, in case of natural gas ask “D germans” 😉
The competition of shooting oneself in the foot is still ongoing.
That foot must be looking like Swiss cheese
You have a very slanted view of history.
There is a class of isolationist who actually believe that if they are aggressive enough in ignoring the rest of the world, no problems will ever bother them.
Apparently you have missed history all together. Don’t feel sad, I’m here to help.
“US Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on 9 February 1990 was only part of a cascade of similar assurances.”
Source: https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2018/how-gorbachev-was-misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion
Read, learn, think, adjust.
Hint: the Ruskies are not the baddies in this one.
They started the shooting, their soldiers rape and murder civilians, they bomb indiscriminately and abuse/torture prisoners of war. All pretty well documented. I think I’d have to say the Rooskies are the baddies in this one.
You have a very slanted view of history.
Your research is terribly limited, too.
Sparta, you like history? Here’s a very brief synopsis of what I have on my hard drive about the “special military operation”.. If there’s anything you disagree with let me know. It’s a condensed version of a dialogue with Copilot AI, so keep in mind you most likely be disagreeing with Copilot, not me.
Details from Copilot/Bing/Microsoft
1654: The Treaty of Pereyaslav is signed, making Ukraine a vassal state of Russia.
1686: The Treaty of Perpetual Peace between Russia and Poland reaffirms Russia’s control over parts of Ukraine.
1783: Catherine the Great annexes the Crimean Khanate, expanding Russian territory.
1917: The Russian Revolution leads to the collapse of the Russian Empire, creating opportunities for Ukrainian independence.
1918: Ukraine declared independence from Russia but it never happened. Despite the ‘collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 Ukraine did not achieve independence.
1921: most of Ukraine was absorbed into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union in 1922.
1954: Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR). The transfer was officially authorized by the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet on February 19, 1954 2
Reply to Copilot: You’ve coaxed the answer in questionable language. Review the literature, it wasn’t a “transfer” it was partial control.
Regarding the transfer of Crimea in 1954, it was indeed a transfer of administrative control from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR). While it was presented as a symbolic gesture to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav, it did not change the overall sovereignty of the Soviet Union over Crimea.
Reply to Copilot: Big difference between “administrative control” and as an analogy, the difference between a ‘lease” and a “warranty deed”.
Reply to Copilot: In my opinion this 1954 “administrative transfer” action (misconstrued as a transfer) is a direct root cause of the current 2014-2025 Russian/Ukraine conflict
1990: See addendum to this report titled, “Recap of specific to NATO events from 1990 to 2000 regarding recent Russia/Ukraine conflict”.
1991: The Soviet Union officially dissolved on December 26, 1991 2. This marked the end of the Cold War and led to the emergence of 15 independent countries, including Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states.
2013: President Viktor Yanukovych decided not to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which eventually led to Yanukovych’s ousting in February 2014
2014: Russian troops, began seizing key locations in Crimea, including airports and government buildings 1. On March 18, 2014, Russia officially annexed Crimea
2014: The Donbas region includes the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in eastern Ukraine. The conflict in this region began in April 2014, when pro-Russian separatists seized government buildings and declared the Donetsk and Luhansk republics as independent states. The Ukrainian military launched an operation against them, leading to a prolonged conflict 2.
2022: The situation escalated further when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, citing the need to protect ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine.
2025: Russia currently controls a land corridor that connects its southwestern regions to Crimea. This corridor runs through the southern parts of Ukraine, including the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. The corridor is strategically important for Russia as it provides a direct land route to Crimea, which has been under Russian control since 2014.
This summary agrees with my own summary and adds some details. Thank you.
You did not mention the US Deep State has been planning the weakening and break- up of Russia since 1945.
The UK has been planing the same since the early 1800s
My wife is Ukrainian.
I know the history all the way back to Kievian Rus.
Ukraine used Western weapons to carry out more than 30 attacks on energy infrastructure in Russia and Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine.
“The attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure are targeted and are purely provocative and demonstrative,” she told reporters.
.
Russia has said it reserves the right to withdraw from the energy ceasefire, if Ukraine continues to violate it.
2025: Russia currently controls a land corridor that connects its southwestern regions to Crimea. This corridor runs through the southern parts of Ukraine, including the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. The corridor is strategically important for Russia as it provides a direct land route to Crimea, which has been under:
.
Russian control since 1783 to 1954,
Russia/Ukraine joint control 1954 to 1992,
Ukraine control from 1992 to 2014, and
Russian control from 2014 to present.
.
Central and East Ukraine have been part of the Czarist Russian Empire, USSR and Russia for over 300 years, from 1654 to 1992.
.
At least 8 provinces, and Crimea have large majorities of ethnic Russians.
4 of these provinces voted by over 90% to REJOIN Russia in 2022
Crimea voted by over 96% to REJOIN Russia in 2014.
.
Euro elites do not like it, but fact are facts.
Vilifying and obfuscation, evil-this-and-that, etc., abounds
.
The US Deep State, joined at the hip with the UK, have long sought to weaken Russia, break it up in pieces, make the Russian state disappear, and TAKE OVER ALL THESE RESOURCES.
.
That is the reason Russia was never allowed to join NATO.
Clinton was OK with it, but the Deep State, etc., was not.
huls, agree. Putin’s claim for Russia’s historical rights to a land corridor to his naval base on Crimea isn’t without merit:
1654: The Treaty of Pereyaslav established a protectorate relationship between the Cossack Hetmanate (central and eastern Ukraine) and the Tsardom of Moscow. The borders were not clearly defined, but the Cossack Hetmanate was under Russian influence.
.
1783: Catherine the Great annexes the Crimean Khanate, expanding Russian territory..
Russia had controlled access to Crimea from 1783 until 1992 when the USSR collapsed. They regained control in 2024 and are not going to surrender it, that’s not on the table.
Your Baker/Gorbachev conversation is spot on. Likewise, In a June 2017 interview, Vladimir Putin mentioned that he had discussed the possibility of Russia joining NATO with then-President Bill Clinton during one of their meetings. Putin recalled that Clinton had no objection to the idea, but the entire U.S. delegation got very nervous. Characterizing the Russia/Ukraine border dispute as a U.S proxy war with Russia has merit.
The Donbas region includes the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in eastern Ukraine. The Donbas/Kiev military conflict in this region began in April 2014,(not February 2022) when pro-Russian separatists seized government buildings and declared the Donetsk and Luhansk republics as independent states. The Ukrainian military launched an operation against them, leading to a prolonged conflict
Thanks, huls, I spent about 40 hours researching the history of the East Ukraine/West Russia border area going back to the 1600’s. A strong argument can be made for Russia re-establishing a land corridor to their naval port on Crimea that they had control of for the last 300 + years except from 1992 to 2024, when they regained it and will not give it back, no matter what (not on the table). .Likewise, characterizing the conflict as a U.S funded proxy war is “not without merit”.
WUWT doesn’t like long postings so I’ll be very brief. Your Baker/Gorbachev mention is spot on.Also, In a June 2017 interview, Vladimir Putin mentioned that he had discussed the possibility of Russia joining NATO with then-President Bill Clinton during one of their meetings. Putin recalled that Clinton had no objection to the idea, but the entire U.S. delegation got very nervous.
The Donbas region includes the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in eastern Ukraine. The Donbas/Kiev military conflict in this region began in April 2014,(not February 2022) when pro-Russian separatists seized government buildings and declared the Donetsk and Luhansk republics as independent states. The Ukrainian military launched an operation against them, leading to a prolonged conflict (I thought I lost this posting when I hit a wrong key, but here it is back. There may be a very similar duplication also posted. Sorry about that.
Mr. Sandberg: Thank you for this info, long comments are not everybody’s cup of tea, but they are appreciated. Here in US, we see a steady flow of “pro Ukraine” info, our press has bought the “Russia is the problem, must be taken down” globalist stuff, we have to look for any contrary opinions. I have also seen our dems flip on this issue (they hate Russia now and try to smear Trump based on the premise that Russia is evil, but Hillary famously reset the relationship. She liked Russia before she hated Russia).
That being said, we have seen that Putin can’t be trusted. In the final analysis, Ukraine is a nation when Russia is weak, but can’t hold land when Russia strengthens. US can’t change that. The West is trying to diminish a Russia it made strong (buying oil and gas) because we don’t like how Putin spent the money we paid.
This is a very simplistic and uninformed view. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and Russia is aggressively trying to take control of it. Russia has no legitimate claim to Ukranian territory.
Russia is led by a dictator leading a corrupt regime. Make no mistakes about it. The dictator is a very well educated man, and your POTUS is wrapped around his finger without realising it. Don’t be surprised when the snake bites.
Europe has long sought to remove the military threat between NATO and the old Soviet bloc, in order for trade to grow and peace to reign in this large area of the world. Unfortunately, the oligarks of Russia do not want such a situation as it threatens their benefits from corruption.
Make no mistake. Russia is the aggressor. They are the problem.
Correct.
Now you reveal your brainwashed mind, which has absorbed the government-controlled, leftist Aftenposten nonsense. I used to live in Norway
Germany had designs on Norway some decades ago and the US and Russia were allies to defeat the Nazis.
Now Europe’s elites are OK with
arming/training/financing Kiev’s corrupt clique of Nazis who are running a proxy war for the US to weaken and break- up Russia, starting about early 2014
So far, the out of control Ukraine Armed Forces has violated the cease fire on energy systems 6 times.
They pay no attention to what Zelenskyy signed
Also: why does the Pentagon run 46 biolabs in Ukraine?
What’s that all about? Working on a new “pandemic” there boys?
This is more shady than a dark shadow at night.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220611204110/https://www.anti-spiegel.ru/2022/pentagon-raeumt-finanzierung-von-46-biolaboren-in-der-ukraine-ein/
Ukraine used Western weapons to carry out more than 30 attacks on energy infrastructure in Russia and Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine.
“The attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure are targeted and are purely provocative and demonstrative,” she told reporters.
.
Russia has said it reserves the right to withdraw from the energy ceasefire, if Ukraine continues to violate it.
Serbia is a sovereign nation that included Kosovo for over 1000 years
Then Kosovo’s parliament, infested with Muslims from Albania, declared Kosovo’s independence.
No popular vote by Muslims until much later.
Native Serbs fled the area
.
The EU has recognized Kosovo as a new nation
The EU is pressuring Serbia to agree to that.
.
.Donask and Luhansk declared themselves independent nations
They held elections which showed 90+% in favor
The EU, etc., has not recognized Donask and Luhansk as new nations
.
What is good for the goose is not good for the gander?
Double standard?
Wrong on all counts. Switch off CNN as that seems to be your sole source of information…well propaganda actually.
Ukraine used Western weapons to carry out more than 30 attacks on energy infrastructure in Russia and Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine.
“The attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure are targeted and are purely provocative and demonstrative,” she told reporters.
.
Russia has said it reserves the right to withdraw from the energy ceasefire, if Ukraine continues to violate it.
I guess you would then be amenable to the idea that Putin could have Alaska back, on the basis that you ripped him off back in 1867?
And that Ukraine, indeed Russia as a whole, should fall to Sweden on account of them holding the entire region under their rule for about 300 years?
Brilliant logic you are displaying. Got it from Pravda?
.His sources appear to rus news, Putin’s book, all the pro-Russian versions of history.
By the way, Ukraine in Russian means “border territory” and similar. Ukraine in Ukrainian means “country” or “state” or derived as motherland.
Strawman. Please try again, this time with feeling.
How dare those evil neocons object to Russia invading its neighbors.
Ukraine is not a neighbour. The very word means “borderlands”. Never in history has it been a country of itself. At this moment Poland is claiming part of it “back”. So is Moldova, but basically Romania.
A drunk Chrustev gifted Crimea to a non-existing Ukraine… that shows you how absurd these claims and talks are.
Please go read up on the insanely complicated history of Europe, of which Russia is a big part, and then come back to me with a solid argument on…. whatever.
Wrong on too many points to list.
I bet you cannot list even two. You have no argument.
I truly hope that you can learn something when people who do have arguments are willing to share them.
Ukraine gained its most recent independence in 1991.
Then there is the Budapest agreement and the Minsk agreement, both of which recognized Ukraine as independent and sovereign.
The independence of 1918 did not work. Ukraine was added to the Soviet Union as a Republic, legally on equal standings with the other USSR republics.
Slava Ukraini!
ебать Україну
They appear to have misspelled EnergieWunde.
Haha that’s a good one 😁, and they still believe in their “EnergieWunder”
History is a mirror you look into it…saying people never learn
Energie schmerze?
Wahnsinn wende?
Self-interest for reliable electric grid meets self-interest of “green” money and destruction of Western economies.
“If a policy needs someone else to suffer economically in order to succeed, it’s not a good policy.”
Does this not also apply to Net Zero and Green Energy and Climate Alarmism?
I’ve never understood the rationale behind closing the nuclear plants. Not sure what the “benefit” was supposed to be.
They never have to worry about a tsunami flooding the property.
It is such a good feeling. 🤠
What Blas missed is that it is the UK that actually has the biggest dependence on Norway. It’s not just the 1.4GW NSL.
Norway->Denmark 1.6GW->UK1.4GW Viking Link
Norway->Netherlands 0.7GW->UK 1GW BritNed
Norway->Germany1.4GW->UK 1.4GW NeuConnect from 2028
Kathryn Porter, here in the UK, had a similar article on her blog 21st Feb 2025 “Norway turning away from electricity interconnection” following the collapse of the governing coalition in Norway over energy cooperation with Europe.
She notes that the Norwegian hydro system is not a pumped system. This means when the water runs out it is not available to domestic customers. Only 1.4 GW of the 33GW system has any pumps.
https://watt-logic.com/2025/02/21/norway-turning-away-from-electricity-interconnection/
So following the banners of Chicken Little didn’t work out for Germany?
Bout time FFS
Only governments, national and international could screw things up this bad. It is disgusting.
Norway once ruled most of Europe. As the only energy-abled and financially stable power outside Switzerland, Norway may soon own Europe once again. Most of the alternative masters are much worse.
What?
The Norsemen were in and out raiders in various rivers in Europe, until they settled in Scotland, Ireland, northern UK, the Isle of Man, Iceland, Greenland.
Remember, Europe was largely empty land in those days.
Cnut, King of England, Denmark, and Norway, collected tribute from Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Germany, was allied with the Poles, and had claims on some of Sweden. This was referred to as the North Sea Empire. Didn’t last very long.
As Margarite Thatcher famously stated, “Eventually liberals run out of other people’s money”.
Democrats spent like drunken sailors, and Yellen at the US Treasury was cutting the checks, and the federal reserve declared it had money from thin air to buy the US Treasury bonds.
It is called quantitative easing, QE
Norwegians contributing to the pressure on electricity supplies with their excessive EV subsidies.