Sweden is going all in on nuclear power.The nation, led by centre-right coalition government and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is scrapping a renewable target of 100% and is instead going to build 10 new nuclear reactors. The government is passing legislation that currently limits the number of nuc
  • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

    Bullshit. Renewables are cheap as chips.

    Think of a traditional power plant. There are 4 main cost catagories: Construction, Maintenance, Fuel, Demolition.

    • In a traditional plant, over the life of the plant Fuel will by far be the biggest cost.

    • For renewables, Construction, Maintenance and Demolition cost more (issues such as remote locations, weather, smaller generators means more generators which increases the mean time to failure) however they have ZERO fuel cost.

    Renewable generation is profitable as fuck, moreso than nuclear. Your average wind farm pays itself off in less than 5 years.

    This is a right wing government backing the interests of fossil fuels, by implementing policy that delays any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use.

    • nicman24@kbin.social
      0·
      1 year ago

      have you ever been in Sweden? it is a a rocky mountainous and mostly dark region. they only renewables that they can easily manage is geothermal and iirc they do not have the correct crust for it

    • Murvel@lemm.eeEnglish
      01·
      1 year ago

      This is a right wing government backing the interests of fossil fuels, by implementing policy that delays any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use.

      Simply incorrect and ignorant and I could leave it at that.

      But I won’t so here:

      1. Nuclear is carbon neutral

      2. The majority of Swedens energy production is still renewable and will continue to grow

      3. Nuclear is absolutely necessary for load balance

      4. Current nuclear plants are nearing their end of life and needs to be replaced

      • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago
        1. I’m not critising nuclear for not being green.
        2. Renewables should grow (they’re profitable), but there should be further incentivised growth to help reduce reliance on fossile fuels more quickly.
        3. Yes, nuclear is brilliant for voltage and frequency stability. Large turbines have momentum in their spinning mass, when loads are switched on and off they keep spinning the same speed. However there are other options, eg rotating stabilisers, often used on very large ships but land installations are now being made also. These can be built without the nuclear red tape.
        4. Replacing existing nuclear plants is always a decent thing to do. You skip over many of the hurdles by building on the same site under the same nuclear permits. However taking money away from renewables to pay for this is questionable at best.

        I think Sweden does have some geographical complications, along with a lackluster transmission network. These are much harder to get private investment for. However if there was a decent transmission network then there would be more utility of renewable generation in the north as well as the capability for import of energy from neighbouring countries or even export when Sweden has an excess.

        Putting my balls on the table, I reckon if Sweden put all the money they’ve got in nuclear into transmission first and then renewables, I reckon they could switch off more fossil fuels more quickly.

        • Murvel@lemm.eeEnglish
          01·
          1 year ago

          The points I listed are the strongest arguments to expand nuclear power which both the left and right of Riksdagen generally agrees on.

          So how this is a right wing conspiracy to further the fossil energy industry as you point out is still to me a mystery, that’s all you need to explain.