The TV program is completely misleading – VLT

Last Sunday’s agenda discussion About Sweden’s electricity system was just a disappointment so I stopped listening after half the time.

Basically, they focused on energy and talked about future energy consumption of 340 TWh. However, this applies only to the electrification of current sectors, but also to additional battery industries, digitization, hydrogen production for carbon dioxide-free steel, cement production, etc. Total terawatt hours including hydropower. Add up all the electricity consumers and it becomes the most probable figure.

Hydropower is responsible for 65 terawatt hours, while the remaining 435 terawatt hours must be taken care of by, for example, nuclear, onshore or offshore wind.

– Each full-scale nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1,000 MW produces 7.5 TWh or a total of 58 plants.

To deal with this

– Land-based wind power requires 91,000 2 MW plants. But the life span is 20 years and up to 15 years, at least three times to be rebuilt. The annual demand for new construction would be 4,500 jobs per year based on energy and 11,000 jobs per year to cope with the effect.

Svenska Kraftnät sites In its long operating experience, the effect is 6 percent in summer and 11 percent in winter in several annual reports.

What is the cost of each wind turbine relative to nuclear power?

Two Oskarshamn 3 or O3s output 22 terawatt-hours and construction cost 55 billion today. 3,500 wind turbines with an installed capacity of 7,000 MW produced 17 terawatt hours. Based on this, each wind turbine costs a maximum of 8 million, but according to Swedish Wind Energy’s website the actual cost is 15 million per MW or 30 million in total for a 2 MW plant.

91 of these are required to feed one extraction fan in a copper mine. Each wind turbine outputs 120 kW and the fan requires 10 – 11 MW. The fan should run throughout the year.

– Offshore wind is even worse, with a life expectancy of only twelve years. Experience in the UK only creates higher hourly costs.

Perhaps the choice of technology should be taken away from politicians, and above all the statements of actors should not be influenced by politicians.

Agenda talk about energy is not essential, but the fundamental problem lies in having sufficient effect in each case. Wind power is of poor quality there.

One is that we need to have the development of the electricity system driven by politicians, but the responsibility of politicians must also be reintroduced. We have derived results from a much larger proportion of weather-based power generation and have developed a robust, sustainable power system. Investing in massive expansion of weather-dependent power under these circumstances is highly ill-advised.

Offshore wind, whose revenues do not even cover operating costs after 10 to 15 years, is going nowhere with short-term offshore wind profitability, which has a lifespan of just twelve years.

Modern wind turbines are no more motivated today than they were yesterday.

Michael Shellenberger California USA, a former longtime environmentalist, has become an advocate of nuclear power through in-depth studies on the subject. As the prices of gas, coal and petroleum have gone up and the US, Japan, Great Britain, France, Finland etc. are not supplying renewables, more and more countries are turning to nuclear power. Maybe it’s time to privatize Vattenfall, so we can avoid more mistakes in the future.

The choice of technology should not lie with politicians in the future. The electricity system for the whole of Europe must be saved and above all guided by reality and not an unrealistic daydream.

Carl-Eck Utterstrom