The panel discussion has concluded.

Ingeborg: You can't have wind mills where the wind doesn't blow, but there are different technologies which are applicable in different parts of the world.

Together we (with the technologies) can make this world a better place!

Everything is connected

But the answer is no. We need a brotherhood of technologies for the society to prevail

Simen asks whether or not it is possible to have ONE technology to rule them all?

Fride highlights that the market will be forced to change if the public opinion changes. As well as pointing out that many small things results in something big.

Ingeborg Kaus suggest, humorously, sending letters to politicians. But emphasizes the need to influence the opinions of other people.

Amund at table 7 asks if individuals can do anything themselves, without reliance on politicians.

Ingeborg Kaus suggests more complex legislation; to point out that complicated rule sets puts people off and that it may inherently fail.

Fride answers that there are many electric vehicles that are cheaper than the tesla. There are therefore opportunities for the poor as well, but she also sees the problem

Frida at table 19 has a questions. She mentions that one of the criticisms in giving incentives to buying electric cars (i.e. a Tesla) is that it mainly benefits the wealthy. Giving the lower toll and other economic benefits.

Jianying emphasizes the need for better technology to reduce the price for new infrastructure.

She says that we lack a master plan for where we are going with the energy transition

Kaus: When we're investing in fuel stations, maybe they should be hydrogen stations, and not fossil fuels.

Ingeborg Kaus didn't really get the question, butt will comment anyway. She comments that we need to invest to progress toward a more sustainable future. And probably a lot.

for energy purposes*

Will the future contain fossil fuels?

Ingeborg at table 2 asks about the costs/gains of changing the infrastructure, compared to continued research

The panel agrees there are still some problems to tackle.

Ian at table 10 comments about CCS, and the possibility of using the carbon for other purposes. He also makes a comment about the low energy density in hydrogen.

Questions from the audience

In order to complete the transition, we would also need to change the mindset of the people

Fride talks about incentives to the public in solar panels and electric cars. Which she considered highly important to change peoples behavior.

Are windmills ugly?

Fun fact: Fride is actually a very good runner, and has actually run 10km in only 35.11 min(!) beat that!

Ingrid points out that the project made good progress but failed to produce any public-catching headlines. Which inevitable made the project seem like a failure.

Research is expensive...

The norwegian "moon landing" was a huge CCS project funded by previous governments which really never took off.

Erna did, at least, talk very nicely about nanotechnology yesterday

Who will the politicians listen to?

But with the oil fund, actually representing 1% of all funds in the world, Norway has a great possibility to do spendings

Ingeborg talks of little understanding of what research means by the politicians

It should be mentioned that Norway is an extremely small country! (only around 5 million people live here)

Simen asks if money shifting is all that is necessary to solve the current energy crisis

Norway is, however, not using much money on research, compared to bigger countries/universities. i. e. One american university (don't remember which) has a larger budget than the whole of norway

Fride explains why the sale of electric vehicles have boomed in Norway, mostly due to lower taxes compared to fossil fuel cars

Jianying is giving an example on how to combine different energy sources. She points to Norway's oil production which uses solar panels and wind turbines for local energy production.

We're resuming

We'll continue after the fire break :)

Ingrid talks about liquification of hydrogen; which is mainly used for transport. She mentions Japan as an example, where they want to shift their focus from a nuclear based grid, but want to use Norwegian hydrogen because they have no sources for it.


Electric ferries will be applied in the norwegian transport grid, but one significant problem is the charging of the ferries, seeing that it needs to be charged really (really) quickly. The electric grid does not allow for this to happen

Both Ingeborg and Fride believes that hydrogen will play an important role for larger transports, be it ships, busses etc. and possibly not that important for personal cars

The hydrogen infrastructure is not as developed as the infrastructure for fossil fuels as of today

The energy density (Energy per volume/weight) is mentioned by most of the participants

Ingeborg Kaus is the expert on Hydrogen, and tells us that the future will need both hydrogen and batteries, in a post-fuel scenarios

Fride explains why the batteries will be unable to drive airplanes in the near future: Lithium-ion batteries are both to heavy, and have a risk of exploding, making it unsuitable for airplanes

Ingrid Snustad shifts the focus to CCS which is both and expensive and necessary technology if we want a continued reliance on fossile fuels.

To date, the Norwegian economy is highly dependent on the use of fossil fuels

Nanoparticles may be used to improve the interface between the oil, water and rock in the conventional oil recovery

Jianying He comments that battery use in airplanes is difficult, and says that a reliance on fossile fuels in that sector is still fundamental

She tells that the main focus is not on portable electronics, but rather the bigger batteries used for electric vehicles and energy storage etc.

Fride answers

Our host complains about bad battery endurance and asks how technology can help.

The panel consist of Fride Vullum-Bruer, JJianying He, Ingrid Snustad and Ingeborg Kaus

Our host Simen Ringdahl introduces the panel.