Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, hold it until they come to their senses and build out massively more productive renewables.
"What is base load?"
No post body was provided.
Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
101–110 of 583 posts
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#102Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at the recent fiascos where $15B has already been spent and they say giving them another $10B will surely provide you with a 2GW plant, if you just wait enough years more. Or might not. "Public credit" for these massive corruption festivals does not lead to good results.
Then your argument is with the GP about whether we need nuclear power plants.
Exactly. We do not need nukes, and we especially do not need institutionally corrupt nuke projects.
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its all built on very old thinking. Nuclear may have been a good idea in the past, but with the rapid reduction of cost of renewable, especially solar, its no longer worth considering. Building a plant takes a decade, and a decade from now the difference in cost will be even greater. Nuclear will look like huge waste of money then.
Renewables don't give you baseload power. So renewables + nuclear is a good balance.
Renewables + storage will provide massively cheaper baseload power.
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly will you be 100% renewable during a cloudy and windless period with solar and wind?
Pumped hydro storage, batteries, and/or long-distance grid interconnection. It's not often overcast in the Sahara, as far as I know, and solar power imported from far to the east and west can mitigate the day/night cycle problem. It's reasonable to keep ICE power plants around as an emergency backup; if you have to use them for a week in January or when infrastructure breaks for whatever reason it's not the end of th…
You are assuming geopolitical realities that will... never be reality. The entire issue of Germany's dependence on energy from another country makes this obvious.
You also assume that power plants can just be flipped on and off like a light switch. They can't.
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
The previous government didn't stop the shutdown planned 40+ years ago (due to a national referendum), in part because the owners (Vattenfall) said it's not economically feasible to run them anymore without subsidies. It's complex.
To be fair to both sides, the electricity prices at the time when the decision was made was very different from today. We had prices in the south of sweden 2020 that was as low as around €0.02 per kw/h, compared to over €0.3 in 2022, and in 2020 the price trend was looking to be going downwards. If prices had continue to go down and let say had landed at €0.01 per kw/h this year than we would not be discussing nuclea…
It’s probably fair to say that energy demand over the next ten years will increase significantly.
The anecdotes of the end of Moores law that signifies the end of electronic efficiency through miniaturization alone and the increasing adoption of energy hungry devices for personal compute or lifestyle will certainly have a multiplicative effect over time as these trends make their way through society.
In such a scenario, it’s hard to imagine prices being the same if demand increases by even a single digit multiple of the present.
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything's good about renewables is that they can be quite small scaled. I think it's cool that I can be an energy producer just with my roof, plus decentralized generation = better security.
There is plenty more good about renewables. Being the cheapest source of power that has ever existed is good, too.
Speed of deployment + complexity (bugger all) + safety of deployment (passive product v product that can root entire ecosystems) + ongoing maintenance means solar>nuclear any day.
Nuclear is over priced, high risk centralised power. Yuck.
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its all built on very old thinking. Nuclear may have been a good idea in the past, but with the rapid reduction of cost of renewable, especially solar, its no longer worth considering. Building a plant takes a decade, and a decade from now the difference in cost will be even greater. Nuclear will look like huge waste of money then.
The sun doesn't shine, especially at useful angles, enough and battery technology at scale isn't there. We absolutely need nuclear, essentially no matter the cost, assuming populations of certain countries don't want to use coal.
The overwhelming majority of utility scale storage will not be in batteries, so battery technology does not matter.
The sun does, in fact, shine far, far more than enough.
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
so they get compensated if they have to close it even so the government payed them to build it. this sound like a bad deal. Tax payers pay for the whole thing and the owner gets even more money if they have to close it for whatever reason. I don't think coal is the answer but germany didn't do enough for renewables during the last 10 years when we knew we would shut down the nuclear plants. So now evrybody uses bad m…
No civil nuke plant has ever been operated, anywhere in the world, without massive government subsidies, or by coercing ratepayers to pay well above market rates. Looks like the Swedish public will be on the hook for subsidies for decades more while the rest of Europe (France and Romania perhaps excepted) coasts on renewables at ever plunging prices.
Show me one place anywhere in the entire history of grid-scale renewables where the consumer's costs went down.
The cost to the developer of deploying new solar / wind to a grid may become more favourable, but they're selling in to a market that reselles to retail / commercial clients, who will, inevitably, pay more over time.
I think what you're argument should be is that new nuclear would result in end-users paying more than they would for new renewables.
I'm mostly convinced where you, or anyone else, lands on the matter, is heavily biased by preconceptions...
and generally tend to think we have the resources to do a many-pronged approach, and that success is less technology dependant and more dependant on the competence of governments and bureaucracies, and the people who constitute them.
Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
#110Typical right-wing reactionary environmental policy. When you do not have any climate-related politics to bring to the table, all you do is shout "nuclear" at the top of your lungs and tote it as the solution to everything climate. > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible…
Note that according to the press conference they want to start investigating the possibility of it.
The previous government had basically said the same thing. Neither will actually built anything in the near future.