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.”

  • iii
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    this is probably the ONLY legitimate reason I think I’ve ever seen for halting an offshore wind farm.

    Surely you’re joking?

      • iii
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If the windfarm is in a place that experiences very little wind

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I’m pretty sure they are only talking about windfarms that would otherwise actually be built

          • iii
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            I work in the field. You’d be surprised how many people go “there’s room here, build a wind generator”.

            Windmill = good, for many people. People that don’t have a further understanding of the world.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          …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.

          • iii
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            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.

          • iii
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Offshore onshore doesn’t matter for wind. Offshore is often easier to get building permits