The big problem with energiöverenskommelsen was that the subsidies to renewable sources of energy was expanded in a situation where they were already competitive. There is no problem solved by further subsidies to nuclear power, which is what Kristersson and Busch Thor suggests. The big problem with the energy market is not the lack of contribution, but of a functioning market. M and KD would be in completely the wrong direction.
It is regrettable that M and KD now want to tear up rather than to nurture the existing agreements. Their proposal is permeated also by the navel-gazing. What we would need to discuss now, a week before the elections to the european Parliament, is how we can get a european energiöverenskommelse on the spot.
Subsidies of nuclear power is no magic solution. Security of energy supply here in Sweden requires that we lift our gaze and to collaborate more.
In my the Sweco report, ”climate-neutral competitiveness”, whose conclusions Kristersson and Busch Thor refers to, we show that the power consumption may need to increase by as much as 30 percent in the next 25 years if the industry and the transport sector to live up to its goals of reducing emissions. A similar situation exists in the rest of Europe, where 73 percent of the energy still comes from fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.
instead of focusing on extensive state support and to tear up the national energiöverenskommelsen we need to get in place a european energiöverenskommelse that tears down trade barriers, allowing for closer energy cooperation and create conditions for a transition to an energy and fossil-free energy supply.
Without a single market for electricity will the solar panels on the Swedish ceiling, rather replace the northern hydro power than Polish coal.
are currently operated 59 EU-funded projects based in us in the fossil infrastructure, and fossil energy dependence. At the same time, the opportunities for cross-border electricity transmission between EU countries are limited. In many parts of the EU are subsidised in the day also fossil fuels. For example, allowed countries to compensate industries that, because of their emissions, have large expenditures for emission allowances. It is unacceptable. We need an international agreement that prevents the subsidies of fossil fuels.
Without a single market for electricity will the solar panels on the Swedish ceiling, rather replace the northern hydro power than Polish coal. A common european electricity market could, however, enable a transition to more renewable energy, increase security of supply and reward the fossil-fuel-free energy sources over the German coal and Russian gas.
the security of energy supply here in Sweden requires that we lift our gaze and to collaborate more. A european energiöverenskommelse that create long-term rules in the energy market in Europe should be an obvious way forward. The last thing we need is to, as Kristersson and Busch Thor suggests, is to tear up what we have already achieved at home and to introduce further subsidies.