Because Sweden's clean energy capacity is fixed. Which means a "clean" Watt spent on inference is taking away a "clean" Watt that would have been spent on heating or steel. Which means Sweden needs to buy energy or energy intensive goods on the global market, which raises prices, which means Texas is being paid.

▲

p1necone 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "Sweden's clean energy capacity is fixed"

This is a weird assumption to make. Why would you assume they wouldn't just build out more capacity as demand increases?

They certainly aren't buying electricity from Texas, this feels like a tortured argument you're just making to retroactively support whatever opinions you have on the pros or cons of clean energy.

▲

tormeh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's only so much hydro power to build out, and nuclear takes forever. Solar only works in summer that far north, and without insane batteries wind power just becomes greenwashed natgas.

	▲	ZeroGravitas 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In a country with 40% hydro you can balance less flexible nuclear and wind easily.

▲

reedf1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> this feels like a tortured argument you're just making to retroactively support whatever opinions you have on the pros or cons of clean energy.

My opinion that reality should take precedent over feel good lies?

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Because Sweden's clean energy capacity is fixed

By what?

You're treating electricity as a globally-tradable good. It's not.

▲

p_l 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Perhaps they are mistaking Sweden with Norway (whose nearly 100% hydropower system is constrained)

	▲	leonidasrup 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Most of electricity in Sweden is produced by: 1. Hydropower 40% 2. Nuclear 27% 3. Wind 22% https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/sweden#what-source...

▲

reedf1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is.