Response to interpellation 2025/26:448 on disinformation about wind power
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that the government's course change towards a robust and fossil-free energy system is firm 1. KD wants to provide good conditions for all fossil-free types of energy, where wind power needs to contribute to a secure electricity system to an increased extent 1. KD emphasizes that wind power is weather-dependent and that Sweden needs more baseload power, such as nuclear power and hydropower, to avoid price increases and uncertainty 2. KD rejects that they will change course 1 2. KD argues that the government should refrain from making sweeping accusations against journalists and media 3. KD argues that Sweden's major problem is the lack of baseload power 4. KD wants to protect hydropower and create conditions for power increases of nuclear power 4. KD believes that one should continue to pave the way for smart solutions to extract as much electricity as possible from upcoming wind power while working towards a reconstruction of nuclear power 4. 5 SD argues that wind power's weather dependence provides an unreliable energy supply and that the expansion entails additional costs for Svenska kraftnät 5 6. SD claims that wind power has become dominant for Swedish exports 6. 6 SD believes that there is an almost linear correlation between wind power and net export based on statistics from 2013 to 2024 6. SD argues that it is a shortcoming that all types of power are needed and that the need for wind power is very small 6.
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! Josef Fransson – good morning!
Josef Fransson has asked me if I have been impressed by Sveriges Radio's very extensive reporting on the trade organization Wind Europe's report on Russian disinformation regarding wind power, and if the government and I, in that case, intend to reconsider some energy policy decisions.
The government's course change and long-term direction of the energy policy are set. Step by step, the government is building a robust, cost-effective, and fossil-free energy system that enables the climate transition, strengthens competitiveness, and meets the needs of the future – both in everyday life, in crisis, and ultimately even in war. The government wants to provide good conditions for all fossil-free types of energy and welcomes all new electricity production that strengthens the electricity system with the right characteristics and in the right location.
In the question regarding wind power, Josef Fransson can read in the government's energy policy direction bill (prop. 2023/24:105) that wind power needs to contribute to the capabilities of a secure electricity supply to an increased extent. A continued expansion of wind power is at the same time important in order not to lose momentum in the electrification in the short term. Consequently, it is essential with an increased local acceptance and that future wind power expansion to an ever greater extent strengthens local communities and contributes to local benefit.
The purpose of the government's realignment of energy policy is to secure a secure supply of fossil-free energy at competitive prices. The government is working on a broad front to achieve a robust, secure electricity system that delivers electricity at competitive prices every day of the year, regardless of weather and wind, where it is needed, when it is needed.
This is nothing that I, in my capacity as Minister for Energy, have any intention of changing.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer to the interpellation, the Minister for Energy and Blikstorpsättlingen Ebba Busch!
On April 21, the industry organization Wind Europe released the report Wind Energy Dis- and Misinformation Undermining Europe’s Security and Competitiveness, which had a significant impact, not least in Sweden. In the report, it is claimed that the spread of false messages about wind power is greatest in Sweden among the European countries and that pro-Russian groups, fossil fuel companies, politicians, and alternative media stand behind this disinformation. Furthermore, it is written that the disinformation delays the expansion of renewable energy in Europe.
The report has also been picked up by the wind power industry organization in Sweden, Green Power Sweden, which naturally agrees with the report's conclusions. Likewise, the report has been highlighted by Sveriges Radio, which first reported in Ekot, then in a follow-up report in Vetenskapsradion, and then with a 45-minute program on the climate podcast Klotet. More or less straight through, they have reinforced the report's message without any critical perspective, which makes it interesting to discuss the report further.
Mr. Speaker! In 2011, I wrote my first parliamentary motion which problematized wind power. Since then, I have repeatedly and from various perspectives problematized this type of energy, but I did not know that for over 15 years I have been involved in disinformation, apparently also Russian disinformation.
In my motion from 2011, I raised falling property values as a problem. This has, among other things, been supported by the association Villaägarna recently. They point to studies showing that property prices fall by 10–25 percent near wind power installations. The wind power industry organization Wind Europe, however, lets us know that ”wind farms have no or a limited impact on housing prices”.
Where does Energy Minister Ebba Busch land on this? Am I, as well as Villaägarna, part of a Russian disinformation campaign when we present falling house prices due to wind power? Is the very bill that is being prepared, where wind power companies will be forced to buy out dissatisfied property owners at the market price that prevailed before the wind farm came into question, a result of Russian disinformation?
Mr. Speaker! I have in countless contexts problematized that the weather-dependency of wind power provides unreliable energy supply and leads to Swedish industry being held back from investing and expanding. I have even gone so far as to assert that the supplied wind power electricity basically cannot be used in Sweden and almost exclusively goes to export. The wind power industry organization, however, lets us know that this is false and misleading and that it, on the contrary, together with new technology, increases reliability.
Where does the Minister for Energy land on this issue? Is it disinformation to claim that these problems exist? Is one then following the fossil fuel companies' agendas?
Now I see that my time is running out, so I must try to conclude. This is an interesting discussion to have given how much impact the report has had in Sweden, where I and many others have been accused in Sveriges Radio and other contexts of spreading disinformation and, moreover, pro-Russian disinformation.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! There are actually no question marks regarding the political line between Member of Parliament Josef Fransson and myself in this discussion. But it is noted that it was quite messy to take part in this report. I have myself given a longer comment, including on the social media platform X, which among other things addressed the fact that the energy debate has long been quite polarized. We in Sweden have tried to bridge this by saying that we are for all types of power that are fossil-free.
One needs to see that wind power works in one way, district heating and combined heat and power in another way, and hydropower in yet another way. They contribute different things to the system. Above all, they can provide us with different amounts of guaranteed electricity, i.e., electricity that one can always have a share of, i.e., around the clock, every day of the year. It is very simple. It is simple physics; it is not politics. Wind power is weather-dependent, while, for example, nuclear power and hydropower are classified as base load and provide more of the guaranteed electricity. Gas also does this, but we want to move away from the fossil.
It is quite remarkable that we are a country that tries to bridge the polarization between different types of power and says that all are welcome, but that they fulfill different functions. That is why Sweden is one of the countries in the world that, together with Denmark – especially in Europe – has by far the most wind power. But we do not need more of a yo-yo in how much electricity is produced on different days and that electricity prices therefore now go up and down because we have a lot of wind power. We need more baseload power.
I have commented on the situation for Germany in various international contexts. I said that Germany, like Sweden, has a very weather-dependent electricity system, but that they, compared to Sweden, now continue at a high pace into this dead end. One needs base load. You cannot just have weather-dependent power production and leave the bill to all other neighboring countries.
I was referring to the fact that Germany has decommissioned a huge amount of base load in the form of nuclear power and that it affects at least southern Sweden and means that prices have been driven up for our electricity areas 3 and 4. This is referred to in Wind Europe's report as: ”Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Bush has described the reliance on weather-dependent energy as a ’dead end’.”
It is stated, therefore, that I should have described the dependence on weather-dependent energy as a dead end. Yes, if a country unilaterally commits to this – but the quote was taken out of context. Furthermore, it is written ”aligning herself rhetorically with far-right scepticism of the transition despite Sweden’s decades-long success in integrating wind power” and I am then accused of aligning myself with the far-right's scepticism despite the fact that we have been very successful previously. I mean that this has contributed to increased polarization and is, moreover, a distortion of the quote.
I return to Josef Fransson's question about whether this means we will be changing course. The answer is no. We are proud of the course that we are currently taking for Sweden together.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Energy, for the answer!
As a small reaction to Ebba Busch saying in this context that all types of energy are welcome, I am not entirely sure that I share that view, from my own perspective. We shall return to that in the next debate.
Mr. Speaker! I believe that the report from the wind power industry organization Wind Europe shows a staggering arrogance, where it is claimed that virtually all criticism of wind power is disinformation. Without any real evidence, it is claimed that a disinformation campaign orchestrated from the Kremlin is underway. The report that is supposed to warn against disinformation is, if anything, precisely disinformation.
What is even more astonishing, I think at least, is that tax-funded public service through Sveriges Radio picks up this report and highlights it as if it were a danger to our country. In no fewer than three programs, one joins in this disinformation campaign, and almost entirely uncritically, first in Ekot and then in Vetenskapsnyheterna, and finally there came 45 minutes of praise in the program Klotet.
For me, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Sveriges Radio has entered an election campaign where they are clearly trying to set the agenda, not least in issues concerning climate, environment, and energy. As is known – for most here at least – the climate issue loses positions year after year among the voters' most important issues. It might not be strange given all the times one has cried wolf over the last two decades. But at Sveriges Radio, they seem to see it as their task to keep the issue alive by pumping out their alarmist narrative.
The famous Kent Asp survey from 2011 regarding journalists' preferences showed that the small, peculiar Miljöpartiet actually had over 50 percent support among journalists at public service. How it looks today is naturally difficult to say, but they have in any case stopped attempts at new, follow-up surveys.
Even though one might imagine that journalists are professional enough that they do not let personal preferences influence angles and selection, the reporting on climate, environment, and energy issues almost always coincides with the stance of the left in general and Miljöpartiet in particular. It appears to be something other than just coincidence. If one wants to find initiated criticism of wind power, one must turn to Ring P1, where the callers tell what they think.
I naturally have full understanding if Minister for Energy Ebba Busch wants to express herself with some restraint regarding Sveriges Radio's reporting on climate and energy. But I actually see it as an enormous problem that the Swedish people are being spoon-fed by a state radio that is so clearly driven by the left's narrative. One can undermine their reporting simply by sticking to figures and truth. Perhaps it is enough for Minister for Energy Ebba Busch to tell a little about what actually holds true, in contrast to what is stated in the report that Sveriges Radio elevates to some kind of standard work?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I perceive that Josef Fransson and I are fundamentally in agreement anyway. Our parties and the other two that cooperate regarding energy policy are, in any case, in agreement. I am less satisfied with being used in some kind of general discussion regarding public service or the casting of doubt on the media ahead of the election. That is not why I am here. I am here on behalf of the government to answer the questions posed in the interpellation. I have done that. I have also supplemented with what I consider to be additional relevant information so that listeners both here and remotely should understand the debate.
It is a challenge to achieve nuanced media reporting regarding complex areas such as climate and energy. I will not comment on the specific reporting regarding this, as I have not followed it in sufficient detail to be able to make that type of comment. I also mean that the power – Sweden's Riksdag and government, which I represent in this case – should refrain from sweeping accusations against journalists and the media in general.
I have been party leader for eleven years. On a few occasions, I have strongly signaled against certain questions. There are also occasional instances where I have gone as far as to make a evaluative comment regarding the battery of questions as a whole being politically colored. We should be careful with this. If one wants to talk about impartiality regarding public service or the media in general, I mean that this is the wrong forum.
With that, I return to the energy area. We shall maintain the course we have set, that is to say, ensure that Sweden's energy system becomes less susceptible to, among other things, Russia's actions. Whether it is something that can increase resilience in the minds of the Swedish people – resilience against disinformation – but also in the physical world, such as energy systems, economy, and such cohesion, it is that we complement all the weather-dependent power production with more baseload power. It is precisely this that we are now implementing.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! There is much to talk about regarding the establishment of wind power in Sweden – the establishment of wind power together with the decommissioning of nuclear power that has occurred bit by bit.
One thing that rarely comes up in the discussion is that the large expansion of wind power alongside the premature shutdown has meant that Svenska kraftnät has had to ramp up its compensations to pay power producers not to produce and industry to pause its operations. This has gone from less than 1 billion annually to nowadays 6 billion annually. Aggregated, the increase has entailed an additional cost for Svenska kraftnät of approximately 26 billion since 2020. That is a lot.
Another part that I think we should talk more about is that wind power has become governing for Swedish exports. The day it blows, we export. The day it does not blow, we export significantly less. The truth is, I contend, that if we install an additional 5 terawatt-hours of annual wind power production in Sweden, it will mean 5 terawatt-hours more in exports. That is how the statistics look year after year.
I have analyzed the statistics starting from 2013 onwards. In 2013, there were 10 terawatt-hours in from wind power and 10 terawatt-hours net export. In 2020, there were 28 terawatt-hours in and 25 terawatt-hours net export. In 2024, there were 40 terawatt-hours in and 39 terawatt-hours net export.
So that is what the statistics look like. There is almost a linear correlation between wind power and net exports. This is something I think we need to talk more about. It is such a significant shortcoming that I do not agree that all types of power are needed. We need wind power about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Certainly, Sweden's major problem is the lack of base load. That is why we have placed such a great focus on power and district heating, on safeguarding our hydropower, and on creating good conditions for power increases of, for example, nuclear power.
Since then, we have examples of companies that almost create their own closed systems. One makes an investment in wind turbines that converts into hydrogen, which can then be used for, for example, their chemical industry, which we can see on the west coast. It is an excellent example of how one adds more power production but also ensures that it is converted into a form that makes that power available when you need it. It is in that direction that we need to continue moving.
We know that it goes quite quickly to make decisions to shut down nuclear power, but that it takes a long time to turn the ship around. The cooperation that we have right now and which serves Sweden well aims to reach the point where we can achieve a reconstruction of nuclear power. But we also note that while waiting for the nuclear power plants to be ready and can be connected to the grid, it would be good if we can continue to pave the way for smart solutions that ensure we get as much electricity as possible from the wind power that can be added in the meantime.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.