This is a piece a just finnished, intended to use at my companys internal debate forum, thought you might like it:

Norway has one of the world's cleanest and most stable energy sources—hydropower. In the northern part of the country, there is a massive electricity surplus, with prices that sometimes approach zero. Meanwhile, in southern Norway, where the population and industry are concentrated, electricity prices are among the highest in Europe. This paradox should make any rational policymaker stop and think.

Instead of finding a solution to this strange problem, the Norwegian government has started discussing a ban on Bitcoin mining—an industry that could have helped balance this inequality, generated new revenue, and even contributed to a better distribution of electricity across the country.

Map showing typical electricity costs on spot market. Transfer cost and taxes on top of this. Export cables allow high prices from continental Europe to spread to southern Sweden and Norway:

Norway’s northern regions produce more electricity than they can consume. Due to limited transmission capacity to southern Norway and restricted export opportunities, this leads to extremely low electricity prices in the north. In some periods, prices are so low that electricity is literally wasted, and water is spilled past hydropower turbines without being used.

This creates an inefficient market where energy is either consumed in suboptimal ways. There is for example no reason to invest in extra insolation, high efficient windows etc. At the same time, households and businesses in southern Norway face high electricity bills due to power shortages and strong ties to European market prices. Please note that Norway has traditionally used electricity for heating due to very low prices. Adopting to higher prices is expensive, for example investing in alternative heating solutions like heatpumps.

Bitcoin mining is an energy-intensive activity, but it is also highly flexible. Unlike traditional industries, mining operations can quickly scale up or down depending on electricity prices and availability. By placing Bitcoin mining facilities in northern Norway, the country could:

Stabilize electricity prices – By creating a new, profitable demand in the north, the price gap between regions would shrink, and price fluctuations would become less extreme. Generate revenue – Mining operations could be taxed or contribute through fees that could be used to expand the transmission network to the south. Finance energy investments – The revenue from mining could be used to build new production capacity in southern Norway or even temporarily subsidize electricity prices in the south, creating a more uniform electricity price across the country. Instead, a Ban Is Being Proposed Despite these potential benefits, the Norwegian government is now heading in a completely different direction—banning or heavily restricting Bitcoin mining. The arguments focus primarily on energy consumption and climate impact, but the irony is obvious: Norway already has a massive surplus of renewable energy in the north. If it is not used for mining, what should it be used for?

A ban on mining would not significantly reduce Norway’s electricity consumption, but it would definitely eliminate potential revenues that could have been used to modernize the energy system.

At a time when the world is searching for ways to balance energy systems, create economic growth, and reduce fossil fuel emissions, Norway has a unique opportunity. The country has an abundance of clean, renewable energy, but instead of using it wisely and profitably, the government seems ready to throw it away.

Bitcoin mining in northern Norway could have been a market-driven solution to the country's electricity price crisis. Instead, it looks like political will is moving in the opposite direction. The Norwegian government’s stance reflects a lack of understanding of both market mechanisms and the technical potential of the mining industry.

If this continues, we may look back a few years from now and realize that Norway had the chance to take advantage of its clean, surplus energy—but chose instead to let it go to waste.