[en] Towards the end of the 1960s it appeared that nuclear power would be the natural successor to hydroelectric power, as the latter became less attractive for further exploitation, reinforced by environmentalist opposition to several proposed hydroelectric schemes. Conventional thermal power was also considered, but one proposed stand-by plant was rejected in 1971 largely because of environmental considerations. Preliminary planning and PR information on nuclear power in the early 1970s aroused considerable opposition and a governmental commission was appointed in 1975-6 to evaluate the question of reactor safety and transport and disposal of radioactive waste, to report in 1978. It is therefore not possible to count on nuclear power as a supplement until the end of the 1980s at the earliest. Gas-fired thermal power is environmentally attractive, but at present no gas fields have been found which make this economic. Oil-fired power is quite feasible, but no political decision has yet been taken. Coal fuel, based on the Spitzbergen mines has recently become more interesting, and small power plants for the extreme north of Norway are under consideration. Finally it is pointed out that nuclear power is safer than generally assumed while fluidised bed combustion of coal in a combined steam-gas turbine plant will lead to very high thermal efficiencies. (JIW)