We have had a pro-wind anti-nuclear government (in Sweden) since 1994. And still we only have 1 TWh per year of wind power (out of a 140 TWh consumption).
Maybe the technology wasn't yet there to build wind mills big enough to make power cheaply enough, especially as long as gas was cheap (and I'd like to add that as long as gas was cheap there was no interest in nuclear either). Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
As I indicated in my top-level comment, a 2001 study by Britain's own government agency arrived at the conclusion that replacement of both nuclear and much of coal/gas is not only possible but the most economical, but the study was kept under the wraps (until someone leaked it to New Scientist).
We have had a pro-wind anti-nuclear government (in Sweden) since 1994.
Well, the numbers you quote and the numbers I saw elsewhere make that only a lacklustre pro-wind government, to say the least. Snail-pace installations brought the total to only 0.5 GW by the end of 2005. Meanwhile, small Denmark (until the current anti-wind PM choked development with rule changes) installed 3.1 GW, last year generating 6.6 TWh. Countries with feed-in laws like Germany or Spain achieved more, under not the most ideal wind conditions. (If we are here, the German feed-in law helped photovoltaics to rise to 1 TWh generated last year, which could nearly double this year.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Nuclear uprates (for all the utilities) will probably be around 10-12 TWh. This means the Swedish nuclear power plants will generate more power than they have ever done before, despite the premature losing of the two 600 MWe Barsebäck reactors. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Could you link an English-language press release on the previous? I'm curious about the details. (Especially whether the wind power part will be all the utility's investment and will be owned by it, or is at least some co-ownership - say with farmers - foreseen.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
There is one strange thing in this press release.
Att riksdagen beslutar om stödsystemet är en viktig förutsättning för att projekten skall kunna genomföras eftersom endast vissa vattenkraftprojekt bedöms kunna genomföras affärsmässigt utan elcertifikat.
or, in English:
An important precondition for the implementation of the projects is that parliament approves the support system, as it is estimated that it will only be possible to realise some of the hydro power projects on a commercial basis without electricity certificates.
This can mean either:
1) Without the subsidies only some hydroelectric projects are viable. That is, the wind is not viable without support.
or
2) Without the subsidies only some of the hydroelectric projects are viable (while other hydroelectric projects are not), while wind is viable without subsidies.
I am afraid alternative 2 is the correct one.
Maybe I should mail or call Vattenfall? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And I meant "premature closing" not "premature losing" in the above comment. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
