Sweden to build 2,000 new wind turbines, be 50% renewable by 2020.

[bananas]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5izOr_YA6UztTOhpzjdREG7jKYuKg

Sweden to build 2,000 new wind turbines: minister
(AFP) – 2 days ago

STOCKHOLM — Sweden will build 2,000 new wind turbines over the next decade as part of a bid to dramatically increase its production of renewable energy, Enterprise and Energy Minister Maud Olofsson said Tuesday.

<snip>

Within the same timeframe, Sweden would also expand its use of other forms of renewable energy like biofuel and solar power to increase its total output from such sources by 25 TWh, she said.

Around 20 percent of Sweden's current energy production comes from renewable sources, and the country aims to increase the balance to 50 percent by 2020.

[progressoid]

1. SOSHALISTS!

[Tesha]

2. It can't be done!

Why just the other day here on DU, the pronukers
were explaining to me how this was impossible!
And how renewables couldn't possibly supply a large
fraction of our power needs!

Well, maybe it's only impossible for 'Murkans. ;)

Tesha

[Statistical]

3. 44% of their power comes from hydro.

That can't be done here.

The 10TWh of future wind power would only be <10% of total electrical production (139TWh). US already has a more ambitious goal of 20% wind by 2030.

Of course if we are going to use Sweden as a model maybe we should also generate 47% of our power by nuclear like Sweden does?

Still Sweden goal of ending fossil fuel usage is very cool. They have a study now looking at feasibility of banning new gasoline vehicles by 2025 and banning all commuter gasoline powered vehicles by 2035.

[kristopher]

7. Another false argument. Hydro is not the only way.

And no, we don't need nuclear either.

[Statistical]

8. Then Sweden isn't the model to look at.

Hydro + Nuclear = 93% of Sweden's power generation.

Are you paying attention?

[kristopher]

9. Depends on what you mean by model

Sweden is yet one more example that high penetration of non-hydro renewables is a practical goal.

[Statistical]

10. Sweden has less wind power than the US (

The addition of 2000 MW would be less than 8% of their powergrid.

Sweden also produces almost half their power by nuclear then imports another 6% from Finland (generated by nuclear energy).

I really wouldn't consider that a shining example of how to do "wind & PV" right.

US current wind goal of 20% by 2030 is more ambitious than Sweden.

[joshcryer]

12. More dishonest spin from the usual suspects.

Please try to ignore it, they don't represent E&E.

[madokie]

14. And you do

:rofl: I mean knee slapping and rolling in the floor funny, you are.

[Nihil]

13. Oops ...

... that's so damned inconvenient of you, bringing rationality into the argument!

:hide:

[bananas]

11. self-delete

[AlecBGreen]

4. good to see them choosing 'cleaner' energy sources

Using wind I understand, but solar? In Sweden? They get about 2.0 kWh of TOTAL INSOLATION per square meter per day. TOTAL. How much energy can that produce with a 20% efficient panel?

[Statistical]

5. Yeah it would seem to make more sense to double down on wind instead.

Or go with the cheaper and more efficient solar hot water heating.

Then again this is a country that generates 44% of its power by hydro, another 47% by nuclear and 9% by biomass and 1% by wind so I am not going to second guess them.

Their electrical grid is already virtually emission free. A negligible amount of natural gas generation but that is mainly for load balancing and regulation.

When they are talking about 50% renewable that isn't just electricity (they are already 100% emission free power). They are talking about all forms of energy including transportation and heating.

Basically they are playing the game at a whole different level.

[tinrobot]

6. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?