Last year's winter, cumulative wind+solar CF in the whole EU dropped significantly for 2-3 days several times. It's hard to find data for Sweden, but say for DK on 5-7 november offshore generated at about 4-8% (1-2GWh vs 2.7GW installed). In Germany it was similar with 6% for offshore those days
And that's based on a day GWh average. The actual production in that day in some timeframes could have been even lower. On first febr offshore CF in Germany was about 3.6%. in 19Feb- 2.2%. these are daily averages so min production could have been worse (I don't have per hour data sadly)
So again, wind is nice and should be expanded where it makes sense, esp to avoid some drought problems like Norway has faced. But you still need more firm power. If you don't start planning for nuclear now, gas will be planned later because it's too late to plan for nuclear
The problem with variability does however remain with nuclear if you look at lower probability events. We have that situation right now due to issues with reactors.
That's true. So you deploy different tech to alleviate this problem. The situation also looks very different in the magnitude - it's extremely rare to get all nuclear fleet down to 5-10% production at the same time. Especially when you have more units (hence smaller reactors do have a benefit here)
True, such a low level is unlikely however you do se a large effect whenever a reactor goes offline, and the effect usually last for longer. From a system perspective it is also important to remember that it isn’t only Swedish hydroelectric that is part of the system, but also Norwegian.
I’m not against nuclear. But if we want to add more power then wind is the option in the short term. And right now the hope that small reactors will be built is sort of preventing expansion right now.
Right now both should be expanded. It's not either. Again, if you don't plan firm power ahead you'll end up building gas because it's faster and too late. Even Norway understands this, hence they want nuclear too
This is availability of power source per load bin for Sweden in 2022. Wind contribution decreased at higher loads, but so did nuclear's. Hydro and import filled the gap. "firm power" is not how I would describe nuclear in Europe over the last decade, neither new or old.
Batteries (electrochemical and thermal, like in Västerås) are a much quicker way to provide resilience and robustness to the power system. And it doesnt commit the taxpayer to an arm and a leg over generations.