Ebba Busch was prepared to agree to government support for offshore wind power in a deal with the Social Democrats. According to critics, this meant opening the door to expensive and uncertain investments - despite recurring questions about profitability, subsidies and local opposition.
In an interview with Göteborgs-Posten says the Minister of Energy and Industry Ebba Busch that she was prepared to accept an agreement with the Social Democrats (S) on nuclear power. The S demanded that the government guarantee support for three new large offshore wind farms.
- That is to say, a form of support that would have made three large offshore wind farms possible. I could have stood for that as Minister for Energy and as a Christian Democrat, says Busch.
The task attracts attention because Busch at the same time profiled himself as a champion of nuclear power, but here opens up for the state to also bear the costs of wind power.
Opened for support to controversial power form
Asked whether this was in practice close to the Social Democrats' line, Busch replies:
- We had a common good solution that would have been good for Sweden. Everyone had to give and take.
This means that Busch and S reportedly agreed on a model where state subsidies could be used to push forward new offshore wind. This has been criticized as wind power has long been questioned for being dependent on subsidies while providing uneven production.
Critics point out that electricity prices can be squeezed when many plants are producing at the same time, which can hit profitability. Entrepreneur and author Arne Weinz has referred to examples where wind power companies have made losses and questioned debt and arrangements where risks can end up with taxpayers.
Conflict in Tidö - and a new question about changing course
Busch has previously said that the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats put a stop to the energy deal. This means that the conflict is now not only about cooperation in Tidö, but also about whether Busch was prepared to promise state support for initiatives that critics describe as costly and ineffective.
At the same time, 93% of onshore wind projects in Sweden were stopped last year, often via municipal decisions. This has been used as a sign that opposition is not just about economics, but also acceptance among people.
Busch's deal with S therefore raises a bigger question: was this an attempt to secure more electricity generation - or a promise that the state will bear even greater risks for wind power?
Yuck.
This is so harmful to the environment that I will write to Ebba and explain the consequences.
It is a resounding NO to new madness of this kind.
Encourages others to do the same.