No matter how you look at it, Norway’s future electricity needs will grow. At the same time, the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate. One important way to help halt this trend is electrification, powered by renewable energy.
The energy transition must happen, but where and how we build matters for nature, for biodiversity.
But renewable energy isn’t without its costs. Hydropower plants, wind farms, solar installations and even transmission lines all share one common need: land.
“A central dilemma is that Norway and many countries need more renewable electricity to decarbonize,” said Jan Borgelt, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU’s) Industrial Ecology Programme.
“But building that infrastructure also affects biodiversity and natural habitats. The energy transition must happen, but where and how we build matters for nature, for biodiversity,” he said.
A new study with Borgelt as the first author has now coupled Norway’s projected energy demands up to 2050 with different renewable energy options and the potential impacts on Norway’s natural environments.
The bad news? Expanding Norway's renewable energy could increase the overall impact on habitat loss by as much as 28% by 2050, depending on how aggressively Norway expands its renewable capacity.
However, there are important ways to curb those losses, Borgelt said.
Avoiding construction in species-rich habitats and using previously developed land where possible can help. But the most effective way to substantially reduce biodiversity impacts is to lower electricity demand through energy efficiency measures, he said.
Today, 88 per cent of Norway’s electricity comes from 1821 hydropower plants and 1100 reservoirs, according to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate .
Many of these hydropower plants and dams were built in the early 20 th century, followed by a second wave of construction in the 1960s and 1970s.
Much of the remaining potential for large-scale hydropower development is in protected areas. That means it’s most likely that additional hydropower would come from upgrading and expanding existing facilities.
While hydropower, particularly reservoirs, accounts for the largest land footprint and has the highest impact on biodiversity, much of that damage has already been done. Hydropower production also affects aquatic ecosystems, like streams, rivers, and lakes. In this case, however, the researchers chose to focus on land-based effects of renewable energy.
That meant when Borgelt and his colleagues looked at the future for renewable energy in Norway, onshore wind had the largest potential to cause habitat loss.
Wind power is Norway’s second most widely used renewable technology after hydropower, with 64 onshore wind farms that currently produce about 15.9 TWh per year .
The impact from turbines and related infrastructure itself may not be that large, and could be as little as 1.6 km 2 per TWh (a Terawatt-hour, abbreviated as TWh, is a unit of energy representing one trillion watt hours), according to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.
The researchers estimated that a future wind farm would have an average direct footprint of roughly 0.5 km 2 with an annual production of about 0.6 TWh. That doesn’t include the indirect effects, such as bird deaths from turbine blade collisions, or disturbance due to noise, for example.
A recent Norwegian study reported that many Norwegians fear that wind power could result in potential negative effects on biodiversity, recreation, noise, and land use changes.
All told, the future for wind power develop in Norway remains uncertain, according to market analyses by the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate and Statnett, the system operator for the Norwegian power system.
Solar energy had the least impacts – but when the researchers compared habitat loss impacts to the amount of electricity produced, ground-mounted solar plants had the largest impact per unit of electricity generated.
“Ground-mounted solar plants use relatively large land areas compared to the amount of electricity they can produce. So in that sense, it's relatively inefficient,” Borgelt said.
Here’s where location and design can make a difference.
“This can become a problem when large solar farms are placed in forests or other natural habitats,” Borgelt said. “But rooftop solar changes that picture dramatically because it does not require additional habitat conversion. That can greatly reduce conflicts between energy production and biodiversity protection, because it uses already developed areas.”
When the researchers looked at the habitat loss caused by the Norwegian electricity system, the transmission grid had the second highest effect after hydropower. This is because many power line corridors cross forests, where trees must be removed to build and protect the infrastructure.
“We often forget the transmission grid when we talk about the energy transition and renewables,” co-author Dafna Gilad, a researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) said. “While it is very essential infrastructure, it also has impacts because it’s so extensive, with many kilometres of overhead power lines.”
However, when the researchers did their analysis, they found that the open landscapes associated with power lines were actually beneficial for plants, amphibians and reptiles. However, that was not true for birds and mammal species.
In the end, the researchers found, the most important big-picture factor in determining how much damage would result from renewable energy expansion was overall demand, not a specific technology.
“Even if you produce most of the additional electricity from onshore wind, hydropower, or solar power, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is how much electricity we will produce overall,” Gilad said.
“It’s easy to focus mainly on cost or on where infrastructure is easiest to build,” she said. “But biodiversity also has to be part of the decision-making process. We need more renewable energy, but we also need to minimize impacts on natural areas.”
Borgelt said the study is a reminder that not all renewable energy projects have the same ecological footprint.
“Once we zoom in, location matters,” he said. “Some projects can produce large amounts of electricity with relatively low biodiversity impacts, while others create much larger conflicts with nature. That means planners can identify lower-conflict projects and make better siting decisions.”
Reference:
Jan Borgelt, Dafna Gilad, Roel May, Francesca Verones, Renewable energy growth amplifies land pressure on Norwegian biodiversity, Cleaner Energy Systems, Vol. 13, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cles.2026.100238
Cleaner Energy Systems
Computational simulation/modeling
Not applicable
Renewable energy growth amplifies land pressure on Norwegian biodiversity
17-Feb-2026