Sweden, long the darling of the environment cultists, has dumped its policy aim of achieving net-zero by 2045 via 100% renewable energy production. They have now come to realise that the policy was unattainable given the inherent inefficiencies and unpredictabilities of so-called renewables.

A new policy had been proclaimed – 100% fossil-free net-zero by 2045. Basically, rather than get to net-zero via renewables they'll get there via all technologies other than fossil fuels. In the end, and cutting through all the jargon and rhetorical embellishments, the new policy effectively means that Sweden, having determined that they can’t met future electricity needs from wind/solar etc is going…..nuclear.

The aim is to build new nuclear plants and rebuild old abandoned nuclear plants. From the Swedish government….”This creates the conditions for nuclear power. We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.”.

The Swedish decision implicitly acknowledges the low quality of unstable wind and solar. It seems there a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda which we saw most exemplified in the Nordic countries and in Germany.

Meanwhile, in an Australia still comfortably reliant on fossil fuels but increasingly throwing money at the renewable mirage, domestic electricity prices are set to increase by around 20% next month. The promises made pre-election of massive cuts to prices due by 2025 now seem to be hopelessly forlorn. Although I have noticed an uptick by the compliant media in attempts to redefine the promise. I still expect a massive subsidy to the power distributors before the next election to provide a sugar-hit on artificially reduced prices.

It’s been abundantly clear for well over a decade that the only way to have an electricity grid that is both ‘clean’ and reliable requires nuclear. Sweden has now bitten the bullet and its likely Britian won’t be far behind.

Australia on the other hand….

Yes. And the UK has started firing up coal powered stations for their summer air-conditioning: not much wind, and too hot for the solar panels, they say. Nevertheless, nothing will be learned by the Canberra clowns. We have always been in a good position to learn from Europe's mistakes ever since the zero emissions bullsh.t began, but no: Blackout Bowen and the Comrades know best!

Kudos Mhaze and ttbn.

An interesting snippet from Telegraph in London on 13th. June:

"Britain has started burning coal to generate electricity for the first time in a month and a half, after the heatwave made solar panels too hot to work efficiently.

One unit at Uniper’s Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power plant in Nottinghamshire started producing electricity for the first time in weeks on Monday morning, while another coal-powered plant was warmed up in case it was needed by the early afternoon. The National Grid turned to coal to generate electricity as a rush to turn on air conditioning and fans across the country during the heatwave led to a spike in demand.

High temperatures over the weekend also reduced the amount of energy generated from solar panels…. Supply was also lower because of depressed wind speeds, which hit turbine output, and some gas power plants being shut for maintenance."

C'mon - TTBN, CANEM MALUM, & MHAZE...

Thank you, gentleman, for articulating my thoughts precisely. Nonetheless, what do you expect from Socialist Canberra, any capitulation from their ridiculous stance? We have an abundance of coal, and yet some are made to feel so guilty they prefer to shiver rather than buck the party line.

Wrong terminology mhaze. What you should have said is Sweden wakes up.

Yes, Sweden has discovered the concept that the renewable energy lobby pretends not to know: Dispatchable power. The reality is that dispatchable nuclear energy is cheaper than non-dispatchable renewables.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/

"Wrong terminology"

My thinking here is that most western governments are aware that the whole renewable cult cannot do what is claimed for it, but none want to admit that the mantra over the last decade is all smoke and mirrors.

It's a perfect example of the emperor's new clothes syndrome where they don't want to say the obvious lest they be called the dreaded 'denier'. So governments push ahead in unison.

Sweden blinked in regards to being the first to say what is obvious to all.

I don't know how these governments see the end-game. Perhaps they just hope they, personally, will have moved on when the sh!t hits the fan, or perhaps they just hope for some technologic break-through to save the day (eg http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/breakthrough-experiment-beams-solar-power-from-space/ar-AA1cyKri).

Thanks O Sung Wu. Hope you're well mate.

Dear mhaze,

Bloody hell mate you just can’t help yourself can you. I know you have a willing audience here on OLO when you post rubbish like this but you at least have half a brain so when does self-respect come into it?

Sweden doesn’t need to “go nuclear” they already are doing it with a solid amount of their energy mix coming from nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power production pretty much matches their vast hydro reserves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden#/media/File:Electricity_production_in_Sweden.svg

It is a standout country. From a peak of 114 million metric tonnes of CO2 per annum it now only produces 40.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/449823/co2-emissions-sweden/

We should be proud of any attempt to emulate their dramatic success.

SR,

The Swedish government said of the new policy ".”This creates the conditions for nuclear power. We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.”.

But what would they know?

This'll probably go over your head, but the policy change is from 100% renewable energy to 100% fossil-fuel free energy. And the only way to get there is by increasing nuclear power plants.

Dear mhaze,

You already said that.

So why do you imagine it detracts from a single point I made? None of which I hastened to say you have in anyway addressed.

Keep in mind this change came after the hard right party gain the largest number of seats in 2022 and a huge say in the subsequent coalition.

So the change in policy was largely ideological wasn't it and not a statement on the capacity to do it entirely through renewables. The net zero targets remain however. This would not something we would see with a Dutton government.

SR

"You already said that."

Well sometimes (often) I have to repeat stuff for the slow of reading.

"So why do you imagine it detracts from a single point I made? None of which I hastened to say you have in anyway addressed."

I didn't address it because it was just your attempt to alter the point. SOP for SR.
The point being, (repeating it again!!) that they decided they couldn't both get to net-zero and met future needs using renewables but instead had to massively ramp up nuclear to met their future power needs.

"Keep in mind this change came after the hard right party gain the largest number of seats in 2022 and a huge say in the subsequent coalition."

Yep. Very true and very important. Only those not beholden to the renewable fetishists are clear-sighted enough and concerned for the nation's and their people's welfare enough to make the necessary decisions. Agreed that doesn't really describe the current Libs, but as things unravel such a group will inevitably arise.

Dear mhaze,

You really can't help yourself can you. Off gilding the lily with your usual gay abandon.

"but instead had to massively ramp up nuclear to met their future power needs"

They aren't massively ramping up anything but rather adopting a policy of SMRs in place of its aging large nuclear power plants.

This required a change in the policy limiting the number of plants to 10.

"The agreement said necessary regulations should be developed to create the conditions for the construction and operation of small modular reactors (SMRs) in Sweden."

Perhaps just stop over egging things. It makes you look silly and utterly unreliable.

"Changing the target to “100% fossil-free” electricity, from “100% renewable” is key to the government’s plan to meet an expected doubling of electricity demand to around 300 TwH by 2040 and reach net zero emissions by 2045.

“This creates the conditions for nuclear power,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament. “We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.”"

http://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/sweden-adopts-100-fossil-free-energy-target-easing-way-for-nuclear/

"meet[ing] an expected doubling of electricity demand" via nuclear isn't a massive ramping up? Do tell.

It seems you still don't get this. The Swedes recognise that they need more electricity, clean electricity and stable energy production and have determined that renewables aren't going to provide that. So...nuclear.

Meanwhile Australia needs more electricity, clean electricity and stable energy production and our renewables-centric elite are just hoping the wind keeps blowing. See the difference?

You know, I'm starting to wonder, does our SR just quote the lefty hymn book, or is he actually the author of the damn thing? He & it are both nutty enough.

Hassy,

We know how pro nuclear you are, having at one time suggested on this very forum, that we should "nuk Pakistan" and obliterate 200 million innocent men, women and children, remember that cal, how sweet. What was your pretext, yes; "Get them before they get us." Would you like that to be official government policy? Since you are so pro nuclear!

Kudos Mhaze, Hasbeen.

Kudos Kid,

Don't Steele and I get any KUDOS from you, very sad, I think I'm going to cry. Steele are you crying like me without KUDOS from the Kudos Kid, IF NOT, WHY NOT!

BTW, was Hassy's KUDOS for his idea of nuking 200 million innocent Pakistanis because they are Muslims with A-bombs? The Communists have A-bombs as well and they haven't nuked anyone. The Capitalist have A-bombs and they nuked lots of people.

Watching Blackout Bowen in parliament it seems that he really believes
what he says. I do not think it was an act.
Surely there is at least one sane person in cabinet to call out the King is Naked !
Whatever you believe it is now obvious that wind & solar won't do it !
Just the mean time between faults rules out solar and I had not heard
until fairly recently that solar output decreases with temperature.
Surely in Australia that means a much larger number of panels needed.
It has been a couple of months since we heard that 20,000 panels a
day and 90 turbines a month must be installed by 2030 was it ?
Does anyone know if 1,200,000 panels been installed ?
Have 180 tubines been installed since then. Of course no point in just
having them on site, the grid must have been connected to them also.
The STUPID Canberra people have never even installed a power point
so they have no way of knowing what is involved.
I notice that the Government Scientific Officer has changed his mind !

I can only believe that the conspiracy theory emanating from Davos
is real and we are living it !

I have been thinking, yes, I can think, about why more people are
realising that our governments policy will fail.
I think people have been sensing it rather than having a logical
reason for their conclusions.
To install 20,000 solar panels a day by 2030 means that if they fail
on one day that 20,000 has to be added onto the remaining days and
each time that happens more than 20,000 a day has to be installed.
There is a mathematical term for this but it very quickly develops
into a situation where the whole population of Sydney and Melbourne
will be out there installing solar panels to get it done by 2030.
Has anyone here heard that 20,000 panels are being installed every
day 7 days a week ?
If not then the governments program has already failed.
All that before the 100s of km of transmission lines are installed.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

So you feel my challenging the misinformation, the over egging, and the downright misrepresentations by mhaze is somehow preaching from a lefty play book.

Look mate, I get that you have decided to live in this uncritical, anti-science bubble which only allows in things which align with your ideology but some of us do respect the facts.

People can make up their minds whichever way they want but all of us should be doing so on the basis of factual material.

I get why that is problematic for you though.

SR

"So you feel my challenging the misinformation, the over egging, and the downright misrepresentations by mhaze is somehow preaching from a lefty play book."

I don't think 'challenging' is the problem. Doing it so incompetently is the issue.

Dispute the facts all you want. But asserting that you know what the Swedish government's policies mean in utter contradiction to what they themselves said, is .....well bonkers.

Dear mhaze,

You started with Sweden having to "go nuclear" which I directly challenged by showing they already had a substantial nuclear power sector.

Then you tried "had to massively ramp up nuclear" which I showed was bunkum because the policy was directed at SMRs and changes in existing rules to allow them.

Then you claimed they were "meet[ing] an expected doubling of electricity demand" via nuclear. But there was nothing that supported a contention that is was all going to be achieved through nuclear was there.

It seems all that could be taken from the various press releases was the long term policy of stepping away from existing nuclear resources was being adjusted.

This is the very definition of over egging and when I have repeatedly tugged on your reins your have kept at it.

It really is time to let this one go.

What's the source of the article?

We now like government intervention vs. the free market?

Because, if left to the free market, renewables are overtaking fossil fuels on prices and costs, while supporting more efficient economic growth.

Those lefties or liberals at the FT in article (23 Sep '22)

'Data Points: Economics may take us to net zero all on its own. The plummeting cost of low-carbon energy has already allowed many countries to decouple economic growth from emissions'

From the embedded article graphic, which nations have been the most successful in increasing economic growth vs. decline in emissions? Sweden, with Finland, Czechia & then all other nations in graphic similar, just slower.

'The pace of this decoupling has now accelerated as the shift from carbon-intensive manufacturing to services and from dirtier to relatively cleaner fossil fuels has been supercharged by proliferating cheap renewables.'

https://www.ft.com/content/967e1d77-8d3c-4256-9339-6ea7025cd5d3

Just read an article by Ian Plimer where he states that Australia and
almost all countries are at Net Zero already.
Further more he says that the earth as a whole is already net zero.
As a geologist he seems to look at everything much more widely than
others. For instance he talks about how a lot of CO2 gets converted
into shells of various creatures. He made a lot of points like that.
Now I will stand by while everyone shouts out how he is a director of
various mining, oil and gas companies etc etc.
So What ?

Dear Bezza,

So what? you say.

My goodness, why is this so difficult for you? Plimer is utterly compromised and that needs to be called out each and every time.

But putting that aside a good little write up on how Pilmer continually contradicts himself can be found here: http://skepticalscience.com/Plimer-vs-Plimer-one-man-contradiction.html

Now how about you use your brain when you are told by him that the world is at net zero. If instead you accept it how do you explain this:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_record.html