Response to interpellation 2022/23:344 on increased proportion of wind power in the electricity mix
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that a robust electricity supply requires a mix of all fossil-free power sources, where wind power has the potential to contribute to electrification 1. KD emphasizes, however, that wind power is weather-dependent and requires predictable electricity production to stabilize the system 1 2. KD wants to prioritize permit processes over long-term mapping to quickly strengthen the electricity system. KD warns that wind power alone creates imbalance and problems for the environment and people. S welcomes the government's direction and argues that offshore wind power is important for creating a more robust power grid, especially in southern Sweden. S questions, however, why the budget for SGU's mapping of seabed areas has been changed 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The interpellor is not present in the chamber when I am now about to deliver the response to the interpellation. It is the first time I have witnessed this. I do not know how it works and if it will become some kind of walkover situation in this match. I am therefore not debating directly with the interpellor, but I still, as is customary, present my response before the Speaker.
Jessica Stegrud has asked me how the government and I intend to ensure that the electricity system can handle more wind power.
A robust electricity supply is crucial for a green transition that benefits both the climate and the business sector. Energy policy needs to be developed and adjusted to be able to meet an electricity consumption of at least 300 terawatt-hours by 2045 while we build a power system with high security of supply.
The Government is working to improve the conditions for new planned electricity production and has, among other things, proposed amendments to the Environmental Code to remove the limitation on the number of nuclear reactors as well as to allow new reactors at more locations than the current three. The Government, however, welcomes all new power production that strengthens the electricity system and can quickly contribute to its expansion. Wind power has the potential to assist with the increased electricity production needed to enable electrification. On the other hand, an increased share of wind power can pose challenges for the secure operation of the electricity system.
It is difficult to state an exact figure for how much wind power a system "can handle." But what I can state is that in order to be able to utilize the intermittent production that wind power provides, it is required, among other things, that there is dispatchable electricity production that stabilizes and can be regulated according to how electricity consumption varies during all days of the year. The system's ability to handle intermittent power production also depends on the extent of demand flexibility that exists and how large the import and export possibilities are.
But to manage to simultaneously introduce more wind power and connect new industries for the green transition, new fossil-free dispatchable electricity production is needed. In order to be able to include a larger share of intermittent electricity production, wind power - in the same way as other types of power - needs clear and long-term rules of the game to continue to develop in a way that benefits the entire system.
As part of this plan, the government intends to present an energy policy direction proposal during the autumn, where the electricity system will be in focus. If there is anyone who feels that we have not spoken enough about electricity, one will have a lot of space this autumn.
The Government also decided on 15 December 2022 on a very important assignment to Svenska kraftnät and the Swedish Energy Agency to strengthen the security of supply in the energy sector in both the short and long term. Among other things, the assignment includes that Svenska kraftnät, SVK as it is sometimes abbreviated, shall map out how electricity production from different types of power contributes and interacts to create a secure electricity supply.
The state-owned enterprise Svenska kraftnät shall also submit proposals on how support service markets, including protection and reconstruction services, can be designed to provide incentives for potential support service providers to contribute to a robust and efficient electricity supply. The sub-assignment shall be reported by December 29, 2023, at the latest.
With that said, I want to conclude by saying that I have been clear, and I will continue to be clear. The green transition and Sweden's continued electrification cannot be borne solely or even primarily by supplying the electricity system with wind power and other intermittent power sources, that is to say, weather-dependent power sources. That line stands firm. It has not changed by us moving from opposition to a government position.
We will create the conditions for a good energy mix of all fossil-free types of power and make changes to the regulatory framework to promote a robust electricity system and less vulnerability for the Swedish people.
The Speaker noted that the interpellor was not present in the chamber.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Enterprise!
I think that Jessica Stegrud might be delayed and will make it here if I request the floor. This question deserves a bit more debate. I welcome Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch's historic turnaround regarding wind power.
I also welcome the answer that the Minister for Enterprise gave to Marielle Lahti regarding the importance of wind power. I would like to go as far as to say that the wind power that can be built at sea within electricity area 3 and 4 is also an investment in northern Sweden that is incredibly important.
There I want to give the Minister for Enterprise the right. What we have had for a long time in Sweden is a significant underproduction of electricity within electricity area 3 and 4. A powerful expansion, particularly of the offshore wind power within these areas, would also result in a more robust power grid.
It is on the condition that we manage to expand the power grids. The Minister for Enterprise also knows that. The Minister for Enterprise is also fully aware of the complexity that exists and which sometimes results in long environmental assessments.
It also has to do with the fact that some municipal council members, especially Moderater and Sverigedemokrater in Skåne, are saying no. They are saying no to wind power and no to power transmission, which becomes incredibly counterproductive.
If we now need a more robust electricity system, then some also need to say yes. Therefore, I welcome that the government has now said yes. It is incredibly important for the view of Sweden as an industrial country that Sweden can manage to ramp up energy production in southern Sweden. There will probably be no battery factory in Mariestad or Gothenburg if one does not see that energy production will be expanded.
We will, of course, continue to follow this issue from the Social Democrats. I had looked forward to the debate between Jessica Stegrud and Ebba Busch. I see that there is a slight friction within the government base on this issue. But perhaps it will emerge in a later debate.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I, too, had been looking forward to that debate, especially to show how everything is connected.
Those who wonder, sometimes see the newspaper headlines and ask the question "Aren't the Sweden Democrats on board with wind power?" can google up a PDF of the Tidö Agreement. Then you can look up page 15. It states very clearly there that wind power is an important part of the Swedish energy system.
It is four coalition parties, a majority in the chamber of the Riksdag, that are in agreement. In addition, we are in agreement with all four opposition parties on that question.
What has, on the other hand, been talked about all too little in politics, and where there has been too much politics in the energy policy, too little physics and too little understanding of energy issues and how an energy system works, is what different characteristics the power types bring.
I completely agree with Isak From that we have had a major problem. Swedish energy policy has had an over-reliance on the ability and possibility to move electricity produced in northern Sweden to meet the needs of southern Sweden.
We can discuss and debate indefinitely who is responsible for the decommissioning of Ringhals 1 and 2. But the fact is that opportunities have been given in this chamber to discuss that question and to politically attempt to stop that decommissioning on several occasions.
There have been four coalition parties that have tried to prevent it and four that have not. Now we stand here and lack 3,000 megawatts of dispatchable electricity production in southern Sweden. Now we are going to try to manage it.
Isak From and I are in complete agreement. The government and the Social Democrats have good opportunities to continue to pave the way for a bit of common sense and balance in the energy discussion and ensure that we release the power production that is possible to pave the way for in southern Sweden.
It will reduce the need to transfer from northern Sweden. There, one sees a re-industrialization and an opportunity for a green strong transition boom. It is important to be able to keep the fossil-free power production up there.
We are four coalition parties who agree that all four branches of the armed forces are needed. What I perceive Jessica Stegrud, with her interpellation, is meritably seeking, despite the fact that she is not here in the chamber today, is to say that we cannot have 100 percent wind power. Our systems cannot handle that.
Just as Isak From is seeking, we also must expand the power grid. Weather-dependent power flows come and go. Sometimes there is a huge amount of power production. Then the cables must be able to manage transporting that electricity, to put it loosely.
When it comes to nuclear power, we know exactly how much it delivers, every day, at what time, at any moment and throughout the year. It is the same thing with hydropower.
On top of that comes wind power, which comes and goes. Solar power comes and goes. That means we have an even greater need to expand our power grid. That is where we are not today, and one must be aware of the balance. If one wants more weather-dependent power sources, one needs even more cables. Therefore, we need to have a sensible mix.
Mr. Speaker! I am glad that we have managed to take the debate now, for all good forces are needed.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! Jessica Stegrud has not had time to get here to the chamber, so we shall continue. Perhaps more will come in a forthcoming debate.
If I had submitted an interpellation, I would have written that I now welcome the government's new direction. But I would also have questioned why the funding that has gone to SGU has been shifted. SGU also had the mandate to map the seabed to investigate where we can build more offshore wind power safely and sustainably.
It is clear that even the offshore wind power must be built in the right places and under the right conditions. In the future, from our point of view, we need to build on both the east and west coasts. No one has been able to prove that there are places where it doesn't blow at all in Sweden's elongated land. I, who was on the west coast for a number of years during my upbringing, can say with fairly good accuracy that the days when it doesn't blow out on the islands on the west coast can be counted on one hand. But it naturally also blows on the east coast.
That is why the continued work ahead is incredibly important. Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch can, in her concluding remarks, answer how the whole thing is envisioned when it comes to SGU. Will they continue the work further ahead? Has it been pushed back a little? Or what is the reason that the budget assumptions for SGU were changed?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Let me focus on what is the actual question: When it comes to this type of mapping of seabeds, we are really talking further ahead in time. It is only then that it could have an effect.
The government has chosen to prioritize the permit processes that could make a difference here and now. We have simply chosen to allocate the investigation resources to that, because there is an urgency. If Sweden is not to be left behind on the platform while other countries transition, because we simply do not have a sufficiently robust energy system, we must pave the way for all good forces.
I want to emphasize with determination that we are holding the course. We have never been against wind power, but we cannot just have wind power. That leads to these steel forests that I have spoken about. We also cannot have as much offshore wind power as we want; the energy system cannot handle it. That creates an imbalance, and then we get problems. It also becomes a problem for the people who live nearby, for nature, and for the surrounding environment.
We must have balance, and I perceive that energy policy in Sweden is heading towards balance. I perceive that six of the eight parties in this chamber are now very clearly saying that all types of power are needed, and then we can continue to debate how we create the best incentives for this. I look forward to returning to this.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.