3 ms·

Your comment on hydro isn't relevant since hydro output hasn't actually changed[1], meanwhile wind production has overall replaced nuclear. Total production has

Your comment on hydro isn't relevant since hydro output hasn't actually changed[1], meanwhile wind production has overall replaced nuclear. Total production has increased slightly while total domestic consumption has decreased slightly. So basically it comes down to increased exports and variability of wind. 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Electricity_production_in_Sweden.svg/1280px-Electricity_production_in_Sweden.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/El...

FDSGSG 5y ago
Why is it not relevant if growth of hydropower output has ceased? That seems like a perfectly relevant thing to point out.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Nothing has changed about the actual output of hydro power since the 80s. It wasn't growing to begin with, so it's definitely not a cause of very recent price increases.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Population grew by 25% since 1980 though, so now each person has on average 20% less hydro power if it stayed the same.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      No, that's wrong. If you actually look at the graph and my comment, you'll see that consumption did not in fact increase much at all in that time and slightly decreased recently.
- moogly 5y ago
  Sweden stopped expanding the exploitation of that natural resource in the 1960s. Most of it has been exploited already, but I think there is one additional river that could be utilized, but the plan to do that was shot down in 1970. With today's more rigorous environmental policies, constructing more hydro power seems infeasible due to the adverse effects on wildlife diversity.
fulafel 5y ago
Increased exports will probably continue and accelerate if nothing is stopping new transmission capacity from being built, the hydro is such a good pairing for wind in continental europe.
BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
I never wrote that hydro has decreases, obviously the idea was that renewables would replace nuclear but it has only done so on average, not when needed the most. Renewables including hydro would have succeeded.

FDSGSG 5y ago

Why is it not relevant if growth of hydropower output has ceased? That seems like a perfectly relevant thing to point out.

guerrilla 5y ago
Nothing has changed about the actual output of hydro power since the 80s. It wasn't growing to begin with, so it's definitely not a cause of very recent price increases.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Population grew by 25% since 1980 though, so now each person has on average 20% less hydro power if it stayed the same.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    No, that's wrong. If you actually look at the graph and my comment, you'll see that consumption did not in fact increase much at all in that time and slightly decreased recently.
moogly 5y ago
Sweden stopped expanding the exploitation of that natural resource in the 1960s. Most of it has been exploited already, but I think there is one additional river that could be utilized, but the plan to do that was shot down in 1970. With today's more rigorous environmental policies, constructing more hydro power seems infeasible due to the adverse effects on wildlife diversity.

fulafel 5y ago

Increased exports will probably continue and accelerate if nothing is stopping new transmission capacity from being built, the hydro is such a good pairing for wind in continental europe.

BoardsOfCanada 5y ago

I never wrote that hydro has decreases, obviously the idea was that renewables would replace nuclear but it has only done so on average, not when needed the most. Renewables including hydro would have succeeded.