I don’t have a source for any of this, this is more of a rant about what I’ve seen over an extended time in my home country. I hope it’s a helpful base to dig further from nonetheless, I’ve tried to focus on verifiable matters rather than basing this too much on just my annoyance with the situation, but it’ll definitely shine through.
Politics. The sitting government sees nuclear power and electric airplanes as the solution to all environmental problems.
Because of a referendum in 1980, Sweden stopped investing in nuclear power and the now ageing reactors are going offline. In Sweden’s historical power mix, it’s pretty much a direct split between hydro and nuclear, with hydro having to go offline during critical ice forming periods.
We’re looking at a future where more and more electricity is needed, in particular as the crucial steel production is electrified. The left with the green party in particular has long been opponents of nuclear power, so the conservatives and liberals based their environmental policy on its brilliance and historical value to the country.
The opposition to wind power in Sweden is surprisingly strong for a scarcely populated country with a long coastline and lots of elevation. A lot of that seem to do with the politically important rural population’s resistance to hosting noisy and view-intruding wind powerplants. On the other side of that, when looking at the sea, similar arguments are being used, but also defense-politics. The perhaps most obvious wind park area unfortunately lies in between Sweden and Russia.
Solar is seeing quite some deployment, in particular during the summer it can be quite effective, Sweden has more sun hours over the full year than some of our southern neighbors. The winter argument is used against overreliance on it, but it’s still seen as a good thing to install solar on the top of buildings and in other otherwise unused areas.
I’m a bit tired of this all, because it seems like the energy production discussion has devolved into a two-sided debate where the only thing that matters is whether you’re on team redgreen or blue. Whether or not nuclear power is a good idea or not barely matter.
Politics. The sitting government sees nuclear power and electric airplanes as the solution to all environmental problems.
Because of a referendum in 1980, Sweden stopped investing in nuclear power and the now ageing reactors are going offline. In Sweden’s historical power mix, it’s pretty much a direct split between hydro and nuclear, with hydro having to go offline during critical ice forming periods.
We’re looking at a future where more and more electricity is needed, in particular as the crucial steel production is electrified. The left with the green party in particular has long been opponents of nuclear power, so the conservatives and liberals based their environmental policy on its brilliance and historical value to the country.
The opposition to wind power in Sweden is surprisingly strong for a scarcely populated country with a long coastline and lots of elevation. A lot of that seem to do with the politically important rural population’s resistance to hosting noisy and view-intruding wind powerplants. On the other side of that, when looking at the sea, similar arguments are being used, but also defense-politics. The perhaps most obvious wind park area unfortunately lies in between Sweden and Russia.
Solar is seeing quite some deployment, in particular during the summer it can be quite effective, Sweden has more sun hours over the full year than some of our southern neighbors. The winter argument is used against overreliance on it, but it’s still seen as a good thing to install solar on the top of buildings and in other otherwise unused areas.
I’m a bit tired of this all, because it seems like the energy production discussion has devolved into a two-sided debate where the only thing that matters is whether you’re on team redgreen or blue. Whether or not nuclear power is a good idea or not barely matter.