OECD: Nuclear and onshore wind are the cheapest ways to meet Sweden's energy needs
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency stated on Wednesday that expanding nuclear and onshore winds power was the cheapest option for 'Sweden' to meet its surging electricity demands, with no?place left for offshore wind.
Sweden aims to achieve a 'net zero emission level by 2045. Electricity demand will double as industries like steel and transport switch to cleaner energy.
The NEA stated in its report that "it is undisputed that nuclear energy will continue to play a major role in future capacity mixes, both in terms of long-term operation and new construction, as well as onshore wind."
According to the NEA base case, Sweden will have 13 GW of nuclear power installed and 30 GW of onshore wind by 2050.
The same system cost could be achieved by using 8 GW?to 19?GW of nuclear power, and 10 GW?to 55?GW?of onshore winds.
Sweden has a total installed capacity of 7 GW nuclear power and 17 GW onshore wind. Offshore wind is only 200 megawatts.
The report stated that if nuclear construction becomes more expensive, or electricity imports become cheaper, "there could be an opportunity for offshore wind to join Sweden's optimal mix of capacity", it said. "For the moment, this is not the situation."
The report stated that offshore wind was the most expensive to build, at $3,000 per kilowatt. Nuclear power, at $7,000, came in third.
The NEA stated that nuclear reactors could produce electricity around the clock, regardless of the weather, reducing the overall costs for the system.
The right-of centre government of Sweden wants to add 10 full-size nuclear reactors by 2045, in addition to the six currently operating.
The government has offered developers 2,500 MW worth of new capacity at a low interest rate and with price guarantees. It has cut subsidies for offshore wind, and rejected applications to build sites near the Baltic coast.
Sweden's electricity generation is now essentially fossil free, with about 40% of it coming from hydroelectric power, 29% nuclear power, 21% wind power, 8% thermal power, and 2% solar power. Reporting by Simon Johnson. Mark Potter (Editing by Simon Johnson)
(source: Reuters)
