Summary
Sweden vetoed 13 of 14 planned offshore windfarms in the Baltic Sea, citing defense risks. These projects would hinder Sweden’s defense by disrupting radar, sensor systems, and submarine detection, important for NATO’s newest member given nearby Russian threats.
Only the Poseidon project on Sweden’s west coast was approved, with 81 turbines set to generate 5.5 terawatt hours yearly.
NATO and Swedish leaders prioritized security over expanding renewable energy, highlighting Russian threats to undersea infrastructure: “We know Russia has advanced various forms of hybrid warfare beneath the sea to disrupt the European economy through internet cables, pipelines, and other vital connections. Our entire underwater economic network is at risk.”
Though the carbon implications are unfortunate, this is quite frankly an extremely pragmatic and prudent decision in a geopolitical sense. Hopefully they can consider reviving the project once all the bullshit Russia is doing concludes one way or the other, but for now, this definitely seems like the right call. Seriously , this is probably the ONLY legitimate reason I think I’ve ever seen for halting an offshore wind farm.
Surely you’re joking?
Can you name any others?
If the windfarm is in a place that experiences very little wind
I’m pretty sure they are only talking about windfarms that would otherwise actually be built
deleted by creator
Soooo, not offshore?
deleted by creator
…that’s quite pedantic, tbh. I’d say it’s rather implicit that a wind farm wouldn’t be planned for an area that doesn’t experience strong winds consistently.
I’ve worked in that field. You’d be surprised.
Sweden’s domestic energy mix is already extremely light on fossil: https://www.iea.org/countries/sweden
Most of what they use is still transport/industry related oil and little, if any fossil is used on the power grid. These wind farms would have probably been primarily for export, so the climate “loss” on CO2 isn’t that big of a deal for them compared to these legitimate defense concerns.
For them? No. For the region and the world overall, because carbon doesn’t give a shit about national boundaries: absolutely.
We can’t keep thinking in terms of “how does it affect country X”. This is a global problem, and it must be framed as such.
Yes that is true in an absolute sense, but I am expounding on how Sweden’s government looks at the math: “We are already green, this lets us and our neighbors also become even more green; but in the process it negatively impacts our ability to maintain sovereignty.”
No government will be willing to give up the security of the citizens it is sworn to protect in order to improve the lives of citizens in other countries not under their umbrella. And they should not be expected to.
Maybe if Russia weren’t such a ugly dystopian bear, this wouldn’t be a problem… They are a clear and present danger far above any other, and Sweden is justified in these decisions. Perhaps the farms will be relocated to shoreline less critical for defense.
Well just to be clear: I’m absolutely NOT shitting on them for doing this, particularly in this geopolitical context. That was my original point, as a matter of fact.