The morning of April 1, all our approximately 5,000 wind turbines in Sweden produced approximately 5% of maximum capacity (i.e. 5% of the electricity that could be produced if it blew throughout Sweden) and only less than 3% of all electricity that was produced in Sweden at this time, see the figure below.
Nuclear power produced 100% of maximum capacity and 34% of all of Sweden’s electricity needs and hydropower accounted for the rest of the electricity supply. It is interesting to note that we also imported “dirty” electricity produced from coal power plants, corresponding to a nuclear power plant, both from Denmark and Poland, while we exported our clean electricity to the continent corresponding to 1.5 nuclear power plants.
Because the amount of electricity in southern Sweden was less than the maximum capacity of the transmission lines to the continent Swedish electricty produces could sell their electricity to the continent for a very high price. The continent’s high electricity price is due to that Germany in particular produces too little electricity from wind and solar to meet its electricity needs and must therefore compensate with electricity from the combustion of expensive coal and, above all, extremely expensive natural gas. These high electricity prices in Germany are then “exported” to other countries, including Sweden.
The plans in Sweden are not to expand nuclear power but instead to rely on expanding wind power. To eliminate electricity imports of “dirty” electricity and high electricity prices from the continent, the order of 15,000 additional wind turbines in Southern Sweden (ie 3 times as many as we already have throughout Sweden) is required for a cost of about 600 billion, which corresponds to the cost of 12 state-of-the-art nuclear power plants !!! In addition, there are several occasions during the year when the wind is calm throughout the country and the wind power does not produce any electricity at all. Offshore wind power produces slightly more electricity than on land, but even here there are several occasions when it is neither windy on land nor at sea. In addition, it should be borne in mind that offshore wind power costs 3-4 times more than onshore wind power and in both cases, wind power is much more expensive than nuclear power, because wind power must also include the enormous costs of expanding electricity networks and the very expensive cost of replacement electricity from nurning fossile fuel when there is no wind.
There are also other very serious shortcomings with electricity production from wind (and solar), namely that wind / solar produced electricity (in relation to electricity from nuclear power and hydropower in Sweden) increases the instability of our electricity networks with increased risk of total network collapse which means that no one in Sweden receives electricity for several days or longer. In addition, wind power produces very little electricity when it is very cold in Sweden (high pressure) as it blows very little. Investment in wind power, instead of nuclear power, will thus also increase the risk of acute power shortages, which will lead to rotary disconnection (shedding) of electricity subscribers for a number of hours. In Texas, there was an acute shortage of electricity during Feb. last year, which resulted in rotating disconnection of electricity subscribers for 2 hours, resulting in 30+ people froze to death.
During the latter part of the 1960s, Swedish industry and politicians developed a well-thought-out plan for how electricity should be produced and where in the country. This led Sweden to expanding nuclear power during the 1970s and 1980s. The inexpensive and reliable electricity production from nuclear together with hydropower, enabled Sweden to develop our world-class electricity-intensive industry that contributed largely to our prosperity.
It is sad to see how Swedish politicians and even senior executives in the industry continue with the insane and insightless energy policy. It can only end in disaster.