To explain why Sweden wouldn't need fossil fuels if they had more base load, while France has a bit harder time to do the same, is that Sweden has a significant

To explain why Sweden wouldn't need fossil fuels if they had more base load, while France has a bit harder time to do the same, is that Sweden has a significant higher ratio of hydro power. The water reserves can do a pretty good job at stabilizing a power grid. Without a lot of base load you do however need a lot of capacity to cover periods of non-optimal weather conditions, and the combination of increased demand and decommission of nuclear power plants has managed to make demands exceed well past what the Swedish water reserves can produce. As such we now have a focus on fossil fuels to solve an issue we haven't had in the past, with the green party steering. Why do I criticizes Swedens green party for wanting to use fossil energy as a backup? Pretty simple answer to that, and I will use an old green party slogan to do it. Keep it in the ground! We won't reach the climate goals if we burn fossil fuel for power and heat. The green party should have been the last ones arguing that we must burn fossil fuels because the alternative cost too much money. Climate scientists has known for a while that we must keep fossil fuel in the ground, but what hope is there if even the green movement is advocating to digging it up and burning in order to save a buck?