The Swedish Government has ditched its targets for “100% renewable energy” supply amid a shift back to nuclear power in the latest blow for the unreliable and inefficient technology.
Announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, the Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said: “This creates the conditions for nuclear power. We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.”
Environmental campaign group Net Zero Watch has welcomed the move, saying the Swedish decision is “an important step in the right direction, implicitly acknowledging the low quality of unstable wind and solar, and is part of a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries and in Germany”.
Sweden remains committed to “100% fossil-free” energy provision, but the change means it now sees nuclear power as critical to achieving it.
Sweden can “afford to reject fossil fuels, relying on nuclear and hydro and biomass”, Net Zero Watch suggests. But the U.K. should go further, since in “substantial industrialised economies… only a gas to nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialised and competitive”.
Others have suggested that burning vast amounts of biomass i.e., wood is not really more ecologically friendly and lower-emission than burning the much more energy-dense fuels of gas and coal. Further objections to biomass and other fossil fuel alternatives include that lowering carbon dioxide emissions is not really a worthwhile goal for an individual country or globally as the potential harms of the gas are uncertain and exaggerated and the benefits overlooked.
Dr. John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s Energy Director, said that “living close to Russia focuses the mind”, and the Swedish people wish to “ground their economy in an energy source, nuclear, that is physically sound and secure, unlike renewables which are neither”.
“For the time being the U.K. Government continues to live in a fantasy of its own making, but we are coming to the end of the green dream,” he added.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
1-Each MW of Bird Chopper capacity needs 220 Tonnes of coal.
2-Each chopper needs 335 tonnes of steel + 2 tonnes of rare earth minerals and tonnes of copper, nickel etc. most of this imported using hydrocarbon fuel.
3-Each chopper blade weights 10.000 kgs and contains aluminum, plastics and other material made from h-c processes.
4-The choppers murder 500 birds on average each yr per turbine.
5-The choppers need 700 gallons of oil to run, replaced every 6 months.
6-The entire structure needs replacing every 15 years.
The cost per MW is vastly higher than h-c energy, and output is vastly less efficient.
Missing the Net zero in all of this and the eco-love.
The only bit you missed off is that each bird chopper, at the end of its “useful” life, will not be recycled. It will simply drop to the Ocean bed and poison the environment as it slowly decays.
And yet another example of the cure being worse than the disease. What a total and utter joke!
”Air pollution has INCREASED in Glasgow‘s Low Emissions Zone since the rules were enforced by the council at the start of June. According to site data from the city centre, four key indicators of pollution have actually gone up so far this month compared with May.
In one instance, the levels actually now exceed legal limits. The Air Quality in Scotland website records nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels of 43.0 in June, compared with 37.1 in May, with the legal limit being 40.”
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/air-pollution-increases-glasgow-low-30264072
Wonder what Greta thinks of her home country’s decision… /sarc.
I expect she’ll thcream and thcream and thcream.
The UK government will keep up the Net Zero nonsense of course, because the endgame is the complete and utter destruction of our economy, just as the same plan is being played out in Germany.
If its not stopped.. prepare for total collapse and millions of deaths.. That’s the plan Stan, and don’t let anybody tell you any different..
Impossible to disagree Will. I keep wondering when the attacks on our farmers will commence, particularly given the latest report from Mogs.
It already is here in Scotland now the SNP gardening division have power. https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/royal-highland-show-farmers-call-for-scottish-government-to-control-hardening-green-agenda-4193778
But this is just exchanging one tyrannical form of government & big business intervention (forcing everyone to sourcing all of their energy from 100% renewables) for another (massive government spending, financed by debt and ultimately taxes, on very expensive nuclear power stations) with the added bonus of keeping the nuclear fear narrative of the last century alive. Take the big energy lobby, whether masquerading as environmental concern or cost-efficiency, out of politics and give people and businesses the freedom to produce and consume energy in the way they see fit, there’s already ample legislation to deal with the environmental impact.
Too much common-sense in your post Dom, I’m afraid you’ll have to get with the schedule. As I posted earlier, the plan is to destroy the UK economy, and Net Zero is just one tool in their box. Facts and freedom don’t get a look in I’m afraid..
Seconded
All part of the plan to impose a tyrannical state. Can’t have too many of those pesky useless eaters resisting or opting out of their plans now….
Fair enough but what is your solution? I note you do not even hint at a solution. There is a stark choice to be made in the very near future and it is, essentially, nuclear or the lights go off. Going back to oil and gas has been removed from the table and it is unrealistic to think even people power can push Governments back.
But Nuclear does what it says on the tin. ———–It provides energy 24 hours a day 365 days a year. We need energy, and the best way to produce that is with coal gas and NUCLEAR. ———–There is no “Freedom to produce energy as we see fit”. Energy has been politicised for many years now. We used to have a Department of Energy. But since the Climate Change Act in 2008 we now have a Department of Energy and Climate. With decisions made on energy policy based on fanciful and speculative claims about future climate based on the output from climate models full of assumptions. It is a very long time since we chose to have the most efficient and cheapest means of producing energy, which is what you are calling for. Energy policy is now hijacked by ideology and the politics of Sustainable Development.
At least at the current stage of technological understanding and resource discovery fossil fuels represent the only genuine miracle / permanent / universal solution to humanity’s energy – and by extension all material – requirements.
Everything else (apart from very small scale and local solutions eg hydro in extremely remote locations) is ideologically and politically shoe-horned in.
Massively expensive and impractical (eg can’t ramp up and down) atomic electrical generation only exists to lend a pseudo-humanitarian and positive PR cover to nuclear – ie humanicidal – weaponry (plus an element of ‘Net Zero’ illusory bonus points).
‘Alternative’ / direct from nature power generation technologies (eg windmills) were cast aside centuries ago as hopelessly inefficient and it is only under the auspices of the malign and misanthropic Green ideology / AGW agenda that they could possibly have regained any credibility, never mind actual implementation by way of wind farms etc.
Nuclear can play a part in supplying reliable electricity when needed. Current nuclear power stations are designed to run at constant output 24/7 so can supply baseload power, the same is probably true of SMRs. The additional electricity needed to meet changes in demand either seasonal or day/night needs to come from other sources otherwise very expensive to build, but relatively cheap to run, nuclear plants will be sat idle for long periods of time, obviously this doesn’t make economic sense. Sweden might have enough hydro capacity to meet peaks in demand with nuclear as baseload. France is able to have a lot more nuclear than is needed for baseload as they have massive amounts of connection to neighbouring countries and can export excess power. The UK doesn’t have these advantages so the economically sensible amount of nuclear in our generating mix is limited and the only economically sensible way of meeting peak demand is with gas (from fracking) fired stations that can be ramped up and down quickly.
Correct. France gets about 70% of its electricity from Nuclear. But getting rid of gas is totally absurd, but then so is an energy policy based on junk science about climate that exists for political purposes only.
It seems that Sweden would be the country to emigrate to for reasonably sensible policies which won’t destroy their economy….. if it wasn’t for the massive cultural/social problems they’ve imported from the 3rd world that is only going to get worse, that is.
I have a friend who lived & worked in Sweden – careful what you wish for – he moved back here before his children could be completely indoctrinated into the global cult. The Swedes trust their government…. Far more than the Brits. After the last few years of UK folk complying their way out of tyranny (never works) imagine how much worse it could be with a greater level of trust & compliance….
There is no country which is not fully signed up to the tyrannical WHO & UN Agenda 21 to escape to.
The only option we have is to stand up & resist. Or our children & grandchildren will never know anything other than a fascist tyranny.
Oh that the Vikings would invade Britain again and knock some sense into our stupid political class. Right on the Scamdemic and right on energy.
Once again Sweden takes the most sensible course of action!