It's not purely electricity-based, your greenwashing statements are based on a false premise/assumption [0][1].

Secondly, Sweden is an exporter of electricity to the EU, the huge undersea transmission cables are for selling electricity to the detriment of ourselves as shown after the Russian war against Ukraine when we had to pay the massively higher spot prices for electricity set by the gas/coal plants in Poland, and Germany. You can check right now that Poland is importing ~2-3% of its electricity from South Sweden (SE-4) [2] using 98% of the available transmission, Poland is always saturating the undersea transmission from Sweden with imports.

[0] https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/

[1] https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/newsroom/2025/a...

[2] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/PL/live/fifteen_min...

> That's why Sweden have undersea power cable with Poland LOL

LOL indeed: that cable carries 20x as much energy from Sweden to Poland than the reverse.

> You need A LOT of electricity to have coal free steel production.

Yes. And?

All that matters here is the cost. Is the cost of the energy (+equipment wear etc.) needed per ton of coal-free steel higher or lower than the cost per ton of whatever the current best coal-based method is?

That's not constant by time or place, so I can easily believe that the Scandinavian Peninsula does this with a bunch of cheap hydro, that Iceland does it with a bunch of cheap geothermal, that Denmark and Germany lose whatever steel industry they might have, that the UK does with cheap wind, that Spain does it with cheap sun, that France does it with state-subsidised "cheap" nuclear.

> Its not green but typical greenwashing - you don't emit CO2, but you import energy made from coal etc.

Or nuclear, or renewables.

Here's Sweden's power mix over the last few decades. Note it's a net exporter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in...