{"id":3036,"date":"2021-12-23T11:29:02","date_gmt":"2021-12-23T10:29:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nmf.no\/?p=3036"},"modified":"2025-01-27T11:44:26","modified_gmt":"2025-01-27T10:44:26","slug":"sandoy-vindkraft","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmf.no\/en\/sandoy-vindkraft\/","title":{"rendered":"Sand\u00f8y Wind Farm: Closure or New License?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>

Sand\u00f8y Wind Farm: Closure or New License?<\/h2><\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
Published 23.12.2021<\/h6>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

When the concession period for wind farms approaches its end, the question arises as to what should happen to old facilities. Sand\u00f8y Wind Farm, located on Har\u00f8ya on the M\u00f8re Coast, is such an example. With its concession period ending in 2024, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) is now considering granting a new 25-year license for the facility. Is this a necessity for future energy, or a violation of the principles of sustainability and responsible management?<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\"\"\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/figure>
<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Sand\u00f8y Wind Farm, located on Har\u00f8ya in M\u00f8re og Romsdal, has been in operation since the concession was granted in 1999. We are now approaching the end of this original concession period, which expires on April 1, 2024. In connection with this, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) is considering an application for a 25-year extension \u2013 while also proposing to replace the current turbines with larger models.<\/p>\n

What should the people of Harams\u00f8ya now think if the granted concessions do not have a definitive expiration date? Should we allow wind power facilities that have had their time to continue into the foreseeable future, or is it time to close them down and restore the nature that has been affected? What about all the other controversial projects that have now been pushed through? Fosen, which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court but which the government allows to continue indefinitely? \u00d8yfjellet, Kj\u00f8lberget on Finnskogen? Okla on Stadlandet? Fr\u00f8ya? S\u00f8rmarkfjellet? Tysv\u00e6r? Buheii? Lillesand? Is it any wonder that tensions are rising around the country?<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\"\"\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/figure>
<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

When the concession for a wind farm nears its end, we should ask ourselves if it is right to grant renewed permission without a thorough review. In the case of Sand\u00f8y Wind Farm, this is not just a matter of energy production, but also of how we manage our nature. If the original concession period expires, should the facility not be closed down and the nature restored? Instead, we see that the concession period is being considered for renewal, despite the fact that 25 years have passed.<\/p>\n

Hvis vi godkjenner at konsesjonene for vindkraftverk fornyes med utvidelser og nye turbiner, uten at de opprinnelige forpliktelsene blir vurdert p\u00e5 nytt, risikerer vi at de samme utfordringene som ble skapt under de f\u00f8rste tillatelsene, forverres.<\/p>\n

Sand\u00f8y is not alone. Several other wind power projects have already been controversial and have caused significant conflict. The Fosen project, which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, is still allowed to continue. Other projects, such as \u00d8yfjellet, Kj\u00f8lberget on Finnskogen, and Fr\u00f8ya, have also been disputed. The conflicts are not just about energy production but also about how these projects impact local communities and nature.<\/p>\n

Much of the opposition to wind power projects has come because the concessions are often renewed without public hearings or proper review of the changes in the projects. This has increased mistrust among affected local communities and environmental organizations, who feel decisions are being made behind closed doors.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\"\"\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/figure>
<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

n its response to the public consultation, NMF has clearly stated that they believe the application for a new concession for Sand\u00f8y Wind Farm should be rejected. The association believes the facility should be shut down at the end of the current concession period, and that the nature, particularly the peat bog, should be restored. This serves as an important reminder that environmental considerations must come first when we assess the long-term consequences of such projects.<\/p>\n

NMF also points out examples of how the management of wind power projects in Norway has been characterized by a lack of transparency. One example is Sm\u00f8la, where over 100 sea eagles and several endangered bird species have been killed as a result of the wind farms. Here, the concession was extended without a public hearing, which led to complaints from environmental organizations being dismissed because the deadline had passed.<\/p>\n

The question we must ask ourselves in relation to Sand\u00f8y Wind Farm is what is truly best for both energy and nature. Wind power is important to meet future energy needs, but it is essential that we simultaneously take care of nature. Norway has vast areas of untouched nature, and it is our duty to protect these areas while developing sustainable energy.<\/p>\n

To ensure that we make the right choices, we should consider the long-term environmental impacts before granting renewed concessions. It is important to find solutions that provide energy for the future while preserving biodiversity and natural resources.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t