Just Where Does Sweden Get Off?
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 02. 4.06
In Sweden the trend of the past 20 years has been that renewable energy has increased, while oil use has decreased. So confident is the government of this trend continuing that, as we recently posted, they have plans to go boldy where no US administration has dreamed of: "cold turkey" on oil in twenty years. We thought it would be a good idea to briefly explore the starting point for this vision. Sweden’s energy mix presently consists of over 40 percent oil, nearly as much renewable energy, and 20 percent nuclear power (see below for details). The big difference with the US is coal and natural gas: they use little. That aside: not only do they want to shake off oil, they want to guide others on this path ...for a price. "Sweden can... offer expertise on technology, the environment and financial aspects of all renewable kinds of energy".
However, it does not look as if they are prepared to turn all their rivers into reservoirs to get there.
According to this source, starting in the late 1950s, hydropower became increasingly controversial for environmental and aesthetic reasons. In 1969, the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag) thus decided that the four major rivers in northern Sweden with no hydropower stations - the Torne, Kalix, Vindeln and Pite Rivers - would be left that way. Most other waterways are also protected against expansion of hydropower facilities.
These two tables, taken directly from the government web site, show the energy portfolio.
Table 1. Sweden's renewable energy supply Terrawatt Hours(TWh), 2002/1971
Biofuel, peat, wastes 98.2/40
Hydropower 66.7/52
Wind power 0.6/-
Geothermal About 0.3/ -
Solar energy 0.05/-
Total 166/92
Table 2. Sweden's total energy supply (TWh), 2002
Nuclear power**** 69
Crude oil 199
Renewable energy 166
Other sources 50
****Excluding waste heat from nuclear power plants, which totaled 132 TWh.
Also, according to the government summary, "Sweden's supply of renewable energy has nearly doubled in the past three decades. Despite rapid growth, there is sizeable potential for additional renewable energy use. This applies especially to biofuels and wind power, but solar energy also has future potential in various applications".
Recap of Sweden's starting point: No coal. A decades-long trend of reduced oil consumption. A mixed renewables portfolio; and, a nuclear generation capacity comparable to that of the US.
We wonder if through a two decade-long effort, the US could replace coal energy with conservation ("Nega-Watts") and an expanded nuclear plant fleet?
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 5 Reuses for: Watermelon
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
- Treat Poison Ivy with Vodka!
- Feed 8 Friends for Under $100 with this Green Frugal Feast: Sustainable Fish Fry
- Green Glossary: Ingeo
"Sweden Inc. Energy Consultants"?
There are lots of energy consultants out there, selling their knowledge. Some are more experienced than others, and some may be outright snakeoil salesmen.
If you were a government looking to make a transition with billions of dollars worth of energy ifrastructure, who would you trust more; one guy, or maybe a small organization, or the government of a highly respected nation who's already done it succesfully.
I'd hire the latter.
The main Swedish electricity and heat generating company is named "Vattenfall", which means Waterfall. No coincidence.
"one guy, or maybe a small organization, or the government of a highly respected nation who's already done it succesfully."
How do you think the government will do it? Governments are full of politicians, they probably know less about green power generation than you and I do. What they can do, though, is take the people's money and spend it on energy consultants and contractors. So in the end all the government does is move money around. It's corporations that are creating and implementing the green energy technology.
==== author's response follows ====
Here n the US , yes. That is the case. Halliburton for example. In the Nordic countries, possibly the work process is something else entirely. Socialist social contract could be different. Anyone else have an insight?
I´ve spent five years living in Finland, travelling throughout the Nordic countries. I´ve lived 10 years in the US (Texas, Illinois, Arkansas, etc.); 15 years in Spain and parts of southern Europe; and three in Germany. I´ve got a degree in international politics and a master´s in intl. economics. I feel qualified to say that humans are the same everywhere and there is corruption everywhere. But you simply can not compare the integrity of Nordic governments and institutions with that of just about any other part of the world. I trust the Swedish goverment to do the right thing.
Last week i read that the US has a 200 year coal reserve. Perhaps Sweden just does not have coal? I prefer renewables too, but not using so much available coal seems a bit silly?
Well, r.v.jansen, I am surprised and shocked that there are still so many people around that did not get the message yet: GLOBAL WARMING is real, it is happening at the moment and burning fossil fuel is the main cause. If we keep ignoring this fact, then in 100 years mankind will face biggest threat since the last ice age. Just forget the (percieved) threat by terrorists!
To sum it up, BURNING COAL for another 200 years would be VERY SILLY, indeed.
Sweden does not have its own coal reserve and that was one of the reasons that they started using large scale hydropower in
the beginning of the 1900´s.
The only coal they use in sweden
that i know of is for coke witch
is used in steelproduction
Sorry for the bad english
One little caveat. Sweden seems to classify 'peat' as 'renewable' energy in the same class as biomass such as firewood. Biomass fuel may be considered renewable only if the source is sustainable, such as a managed forest with new growth comparable to the harvest rate. Fuel wood from cleared forests that are not replanted, is not renewable energy.
Peat is biomass accumulated over past centuries and therefore belongs in the same category as coal, though it is not quite as old. It is definitely not renewable fuel.