Sweden just shocked the world by putting the brakes on their renewable energy goals. They officially switched their clean power target from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil free” in order to reach the country’s ambitious clean energy objectives by 2040. Abandoning the 100% renewable goal is a bold move coming from a nation often touted as a “green leader.”
Sweden is going nuclear.
A neighboring war between Russia and Ukraine could force anyone to reconsider their energy strategies. And the realization that renewables don’t cut it. The Russia-Ukraine conflict put serious strain on many European countries’ oil supply, and Sweden certainly wasn’t spared. This past winter Swedes were asked to turn down their thermostats, take shorter showers, unplug appliances, and refrain from using certain electricity-intensive items during peak hours. Renewables were leaving them cold and in the dark.
A 2021 study reveals that “most reliable renewable electricity systems….satisfy countries’ electricity demand in 72-91% of hours, even in systems which meet >90% of demand, hundreds of hours of unmet demand may occur annually.”
Renewables are simply coming up short.
That is not a very comforting thought for a country that can reach below zero temperatures and doesn’t see the sun for up to 20 hours of the day.
Not surprisingly, Swedish support for nuclear has jumped 12% just in the last year, reaching its highest level at 56%. The country already has plans to expand its nuclear reactors from six to eight.
Swedish Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson simply stated in Parliament, “We need a stable energy system.”
Nuclear is the most reliable energy source available, beating out fossil fuels and significantly crushing renewables, such as wind and solar. Its performance and efficiency are unmatched. Based on capacity factors, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid.
And it’s clean. Very clean. With zero emissions, nuclear can help governments and regions reach their clean energy goals much quicker. All the while providing electricity around the clock. No interruptions.
Reducing carbon emissions is noble, but not at the expense of a stable energy grid.
If the U.S. wants more clean energy, it should re-evaluate its own priorities. Obviously, preference has been given to wind and solar, and several states have already paid the price. Vicious winter storms and sweltering summer heat waves have strained the grid beyond capacity, causing shortages and blackouts for millions of households. All due to a stubborn commitment to renewables that continually prove unreliable.
Nuclear power currently provides 20% of all electricity in the U.S. and accounts for more than half the nation’s carbon-free energy. With the exception of one, all nuclear plants were commissioned and built before 1990. Despite a halt in new construction, demands on nuclear have only grown, and will continue to grow as the demand on electricity increases each year.
In the past few decades, 24 nuclear power reactors have been planned and proposed; 17 of them have been suspended or cancelled. Construction for one plant in South Carolina was well under way until the plug was pulled.
Several plants are set to retire in the coming years, potentially leaving some regions without reliable energy. California would be wise to renew its one and only remaining nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, and keep it operating past its slated 2025 closure. The Golden State continues to struggle with grid reliability and sustainable clean energy sources.
Wind and solar are nowhere near enough.
The intermittence of wind and solar puts too much at risk for power failures, endangering lives and livelihoods. America’s ambitious renewable agenda should be paused in exchange for a recommitment to nuclear. This means shifting priorities and funding toward the maintenance of current nuclear reactors, construction of new plants, and the research and development of innovative technology to further the industry. Being the world leader in nuclear energy production ought to be reflected in our investment of it.
In “substantial industrialized economies,” Svantesson warned, “only a nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialized and competitive.”
Hopefully our elected officials are paying attention. We should be seeking out energy sources that meet our energy needs and don’t shortchange us, rather than impressing the World Economic Forum or United Nations.
Kristen Walker is a policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization – Source: Realclearenergy.org
The post The U.S. Must Take Note: Sweden Backpedals on Renewable Energy appeared first on Energy News Beat.