Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 583 posts

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#241

Post by enra »

quelsolaar wrote: post #76
traceelement wrote: post #33

Earlier 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…

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.

During winter, when electricity needs are high, northern Europe maybe gets total of 0-6 hours of sunlight, and most of is not the optimal angle or intensity. It's also often overcast, so solar barely generates power.

On the worst winter days, when its -5F, and the energy needs are the highest, there is also no wind.

The Baltic Sea also freezes and there is barely any tidal movement.

There isn't really a renewable that works for Northern European energy needs during winter. Hydro is the exception but it's geo based you can't build unlimited hydroplants and also during winter the water levels are not the highest.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#242

Post by anonporridge »

Isolus wrote: post #99
lnsru wrote: post #6

Meanwhile in Germany: https://switzerlandtimes.ch/world/german-greens-remain-firm-... Welcome to The new dark ages in Germany. Leading politicians even do not have any higher education: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricarda_Lang It’s scary how these people decide about topics they have no idea about.

Germany is a densely populated country. We already don't know where to put the nuclear waste. No one wants it on his or her doorstep. The cost of storage alone is a nightmare. The nuclear exit was supported by the population and not decided against them by politicians. And to your criticism: A lot of politicians in germany are lawyers. Are they allowed do decide for the country? Do they have an idea about nuclear top…

> We already don't know where to put the nuclear waste. No one wants it on his or her doorstep.

How about with their very friendly neighbors across the Baltic Sea who are about to finish a facility for exactly this purpose? https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-s...

Even ignoring this, pearl clutching about the nuclear waste storage problem without directly contrasting it with the CO2 waste problem is highly problematic. Nuclear waste is a contained, tractable problem even if challenging. We barely even know where to begin with tackling the problem of removing gigatons of CO2 from the high atmosphere.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#243

Post by anonporridge »

Isolus wrote: post #80
tpmx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a small part of their sins. The big part is relying on gas for heating. When speaking with germans I've found that they think of gas as "clean" which sounds insane to me. Yeah, maybe locally, compared to coal, but it's their largest co2 emission source nevertheless.

I don't know anyone in germany who thinks gas is "clean". New buildings are built with heat pumps. They are considered clean if used with renewable energy. But it's difficult to use them in old buildings and gas is said to be to most cleanest heating technology based on fossil fuels.

Heat pumps are amazing and a big step forward, but Germany's electricity is energized by natural gas peaker plants when there is not enough wind or solar generation operating.

Even if every German building was using heat pumps, they would still be burning TONS of natural gas to keep the electricity flowing consistently, because they have no long term energy storage solution to pair with renewables, especially through the long, dark winters when the sun rarely shines.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#244

Post by kube-system »

ncmncm wrote: post #75
the-smug-one wrote: post #66

Earlier 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.

That depends on which renewable you're talking about.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#245

Post by sunmag »

ncmncm wrote: post #207
anonym29 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enjoy paying for storage. At least in the US, even if we get storage down from $438/kWh (Jan 2022 grid-scale storage costs) to $200/kWh, consumer electricity prices are expected to rise somewhere between 1400% and 2200% per kWh, and total cost estimates to switch the entire US's power generation + distribution to pure renewables + storage, while maintaining current production and availability levels, are over $430tn,…

Storage cost is falling even faster than solar PV or wind ever did.

.. Last I read even the automotive industry had trouble sourcing batteries. Would be interesting to know how many minutes(seconds?) of electricity we could store in all batteries produces last year should we go all in. This at least battery storage seems naive at such scale.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#246

Post by T-A »

ncmncm wrote: post #199
klabb3 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy use in Sweden peaks in the winter, and especially a few extremely cold days. The sun literally doesn't rise in the northern parts, and the coldest days have almost no wind (and frankly it's not very strong overall either). This and last year, Swedes are stocking up on firewood, and it's not for cosplaying reason. Several knowledgeable people predict rolling blackouts this winter. I would love renewables as muc…

The "northern parts" of Sweden are, by report, already massively oversupplied with hydro power. Starting nukes with the hope of power in ten or fifteen years will not help keep anybody warm in the meantime. Transmission lines ought to be quite a lot quicker to complete.

Fun fact: plans were announced a few days ago to build out transmission lines from the north to central Sweden. Cost is projected to be 14 billion SEK, time to completion (in 2036) 14 years:

https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/svenska-kraftnat-miljardinves...

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#247

Post by tpmx »

geysersam wrote: post #239
tpmx wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sadly am.

Can you explain why?

So this party gets about 4-5% of the votes. It's a tiny little thing, but they have had an almost catastrophic level of influence on Swedish policy because of even more stupid reasons.

Anyway, what you asked for; here are the high level notes of the insanity. There are lots of insane but largely inconsequential things that I won't focus on.

Key policy writers clearly don't understand the difference between energy and power.

Because of that: Shuts down functioning nuclear power plants "in the name of the environment".

Attempts to replace plannable nuclear power with wind power. ("It produces the same number of GWh annually.")

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#248

Post by guywhocodes »

cjblomqvist wrote: post #19
tpmx wrote: post #7

The new coalition government has pledged $40B (approximately the market cap of Twitter, heh) in loan guarantees for nuclear power construction. They have also pledged to create legal guarantees that future politicians will not be able to shut down functioning nuclear power reactors without suitable monetary compensation to the owners/operators of these reactors. In addition to this, they are commissioning an urgent s…

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.

It's not complex really. It was made unprofitable with every tool available with this as the goal. There have been much public celebration from the green party, they are proud of the outcome.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#249

Post by coryrc »

ncmncm wrote: post #124
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another factor affecting the price is that, while there's a lot of hydropower generated in northern Sweden, there's not enough capacity for transferring energy to the south where most consumption is. The investors building industry in the north that can use cheap renewable energy don't seem to mind though. :)

That is, surely, fixable by constructing transmission lines massively cheaper than nukes.

Which would result in prices going up in the North. Ready to see why people would work against it.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#250

Post by tpmx »

Isolus wrote: post #80
tpmx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a small part of their sins. The big part is relying on gas for heating. When speaking with germans I've found that they think of gas as "clean" which sounds insane to me. Yeah, maybe locally, compared to coal, but it's their largest co2 emission source nevertheless.

I don't know anyone in germany who thinks gas is "clean". New buildings are built with heat pumps. They are considered clean if used with renewable energy. But it's difficult to use them in old buildings and gas is said to be to most cleanest heating technology based on fossil fuels.

Germany literally got the European Commission to label gas burning as "green energy" (!).

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/ger...

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-a...

(Does that count as gaslighting? Sorry.)

Post reply on HN