« What happened on the Iberian Peninsula can also happen here »

When large parts of the Iberian Peninsula recently extinguished after a dramatic power outage, the consequences immediately became visible. Subway stopped, communication was knocked out and reserve power had to be put in to keep hospitals in operation. The exact causes have not yet been investigated, but the situation exposes a fact: modern electrical systems with a high proportion of weather -dependent electricity generation are sensitive to disruptions about system functions, balance and redundancy are not secured.

Sweden is on its way in a similar direction. The proportion of electricity from weather -dependent power, especially wind, has increased sharply in just a few years, while planning power has been taken out of operation. In fact, what on the surface looks like a cost -effective solution to the climate issue can create an electrical system with increased instability, poorer supply security, rising hidden costs and impaired sustainability.

We have in a study, As is published on Tuesday by the Scandinavian Policy Institute examined how Swedish energy policy has developed in recent years. Our analysis shows that large and decisive parts of the actual function of the electrical system are not taken into account in the decision -making documents, neither in investigations from state authorities nor in prestigious research reports such as SNS Business Council’s latest publication.

A robust electrical system requires four things: sufficient amount of energy, sufficient instantaneous effect, high electricity quality and stable delivery

It is not just about the amount of electricity generation, but about the entire system’s ability to function in real time, every second, every day. A robust electrical system requires four things: sufficient amount of energy, sufficient instantaneous effect, high electricity quality and stable delivery. All of these dimensions must work together. Without planning power as a water and nuclear power, the system risks losing its built-in inertia and adjustment. It is precisely this type of system characteristics that many models overlook.

It is also A big difference in what an individual power plant costs to build and operate and what it costs to integrate the power plant into a functioning system. Just looking at the « cost per kilowatt hour » for wind power, without weighing balance costs, transmission costs, storage needs and consequences for other production, gives a false picture of profitability.

This is especially true when most of the wind power produces electricity far from consumer centers and often at times when demand is low. The result is an increased need for network expansion, exports and reserves, and thus increased costs for households and companies.

Social costs for balance power have already increased rapidly in line with wind power expansion. Svenska Kraftnät estimates according to its balance report in 2023 that Sweden may lack planned effect already in the winter of 2025/2026. This is not an academic assumption, but a calculation from the system responsible authority. At the same time, the system cost of overproduction is a growing problem, which further impairs the already poor economy for wind power.

In Germany, Denmark and Finland – all of which have a high proportion of weather -dependent power – electricity prices have become more volatile, balance costs have skyrocketed and the market logic has been put out of play.

In addition, there are systems risks that arise when actors receive compensation for continuing to produce despite negative electricity price, or when electricity is produced in a way that makes it inaccessible to Swedish consumers. System efficiency is eroded. In Germany, Denmark and Finland – all of which have a high proportion of weather -dependent power – electricity prices have become more volatile, balance costs have skyrocketed and the market logic has been put out of play.

This is not An argument against renewable energy. But it is an argument that we have to put every type of power into its actual context. Counting right is also a climate measure. We therefore propose four principles for more reality -based decision -making.

1. System function first. An electrical system does not work if it consists only of cheap production. It must also be robust, flexible and be able to handle variation in demand and access. A type of power that does not contribute to the strength of the system risks undermining it. Therefore, in each energy decision, we must consider how the technology affects the balance, the inertia, the network load and the security of delivery.

2. Social economic analysis for real. It is not enough to count the cost per kilowatt hour produced. Calculations must include the full cost of keeping the system underway: transmission costs, balance costs, need for extra reserves and other external effects – social, environmental and economic. It is only when these dimensions are added that we can talk about profitability in meaningful sense.

3. Planning with a holistic view. Today’s politics is too often characterized by technology -driven investments without connection to the needs of the whole. Instead, we need planning that is based on the function of the electrical system and the actual demand of society. It requires that you look beyond a single type of power, an election year or a subsidy program.

4. Sustainability issues must be handled seriously. The concept of sustainability needs to be defined and the consequences of different system options must be analyzed based on actual results regarding resource use, emissions, impact on the habitat for humans and animals, waste management and more. All types of power should be required plans for handling and securing financial resources for the liquidation of end -of -life facilities. The OAG has already criticized the absence of plans for the large amounts of environmentally hazardous waste from solar and wind power.

The energy system is the bloodstream of society. It deserves to be treated with respect, long -term and precision. In order to avoid future crises, we must speak clear language about its actual function and its real costs. It is time to once again put the social economy and the system stability at the center of Swedish energy policy.

Read more articles from DN Debate.