They write that ”In several parts of the country is plagued Sweden already by power shortages. In practice, cities and energy companies are forced to say ' no ' to new companies that want to establish themselves, for there simply is not enough electricity.”
But this will not be resolved in any way by nuclear energy! Or the mean M and the KD to build nuclear power plants in the middle of cities? Stockholm or Uppsala is, after all, better network capacity in order to have more or less nuclear power generation in the Ringhals nuclear power plant.
They also write that ”Sweden is dependent of a stable and secure supply of electricity. It is the very basis for american industry, economy and welfare.”
The common question ”what do you do if it is cold and it blows very little?” is relevant, but it is hardly nuclear power is the best solution. In order to obtain reasonable economy in the nuclear energy they have to run almost throughout the year at constant power, and here we are talking about temporary needs.
Yes, this is absolutely correct, but for this one must not have nuclear power. Suppose that all the energy from nuclear power will be replaced with new wind power. Currently built more than 4.5 TWh of new wind power per year, which corresponds to half a new nuclear reactor per year. New wind power is now being built without subsidies. The common question ”what do you do if it is cold and it blows very little?” is relevant, but it is hardly nuclear power is the best solution. In order to obtain reasonable economy in the nuclear energy they have to run almost throughout the year at constant power, and here we are talking about temporary needs.
So what is needed really in order to cover the consumption at these situations? Possible suggestions include, if necessary:
• gas Turbines . Power plants with low investment costs that can be fuelled with biofuels.
• Flexible elvärmeanvändning . Already today there are companies that provide this type of services. By the automatic lowering the indoor temperature by a few degrees at the strained situations, the power requirement reduced by a few thousand megawatts.
• Controlling of the charging of electric cars . This is already being done in Oslo, with about 800 Tesla-cars. Electric cars need to be charged when electricity is most expensive
• Batteries . For example, in Finland, Fortum uses a battery to pass a lokalnäts transmission of electricity during storms and other problems, but the capacity is available also at other times.
• chp . Or only more power in cogeneration, the so-called ”kondenssvans”, which means that more electricity can be produced when it is really needed.
• More power in the water power . Through the new parallel turbines in existing hydro power plants increase power, but it does not give more energy.
• Use of the pumped storage plant . In Sweden, there was earlier a in Juktan, so the principle is possible.
• Flexible power consumption in the Hybrit-project . The aim of the project is to use hydrogen produced from electricity in steelmaking. With a sufficiently large vätgaslager you can pull down on the use of electricity at the topplaster and still continue steel production.
• Import . This is probably the cheapest in many cases, and there is great potential. The larger the grid we have in Europe, the larger is the probability that there is power available to import. The challenge with all of the other suggestions above, is that they must have lower cost than the import.
What, or which, of these solutions that will be used will depend on what proves to be the most competitive – and it will almost certainly not be nuclear.