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

291–300 of 583 posts

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

#291

Post by ClumsyPilot »

elihu wrote: post #201
Manuel_D wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transmitting energy over long distances is way more difficult than you make it out to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o

It'd be expensive, but it's technically feasible. I'd also expect there's economies of scale involved; building a cable with twice the capacity doesn't cost twice as much; you might even just use the same cable and run it at a higher voltage.

> It'd be expensive, but it's technically feasible.

So is nuclear fusion. You have provided no evidence or even argument that it is practical.

Proposing that you can compensate day night cycle with transmission is surely a joke, no infrastructure of such scale has ever been built.

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

#292

Post by int_19h »

froh wrote: post #8
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.

Dr Angela Merkel holds a PhD in quantum physics. she stands by her cabinets decision to leave nuclear energy in densely populated Germany, as per a recent interview. renewables will provide for 80% of Germanies energy needs by 2030, and close enough to 100% in 2050.

Is that the same interview in which she also stood by their decision to rely so heavily on Russian gas, even though the writing has been clearly on the wall since at least 2014?

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

#293

Post by int_19h »

elihu wrote: post #87
oifjsidjf wrote: post #41

Earlier 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…

Which country situated in Sahara would you consider to be stable enough politically, and unlikely to enter in geopolitical alliances that are adversarial to Europe, to place your primary energy infrastructure in?

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

#296

Post by int_19h »

anigbrowl wrote: post #60
ncmncm wrote: post #56

Earlier 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.

It's a good argument against corrupt politicians, not a good argument against nuclear energy.

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

#297

Post by tored »

themitigating wrote: post #213
zkomp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will not happen. ”green” energy is not green- it consume massive amount of resources, it is expensive, short lived, destabilize the grid. I’m super happy my country is finally waking up from the horrible green hypnosis.

It doesn't matter if it consumes resources what matters is that it's less than what it replaces a.k.a. better for the environment. I see this manipulative arguement used all the time with lithium mining.

How are going to mine resources that doesn’t exist? There is not enough of the metals needed to go full renewable.

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

#298

Post by ncmncm »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #228
ncmncm wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidies for renewables are very reliably seen to drive prices down faster than would have happened without, producing always a very large net gain. Nukes have been heavily subsidized forever, but prices have only ever risen.

Maybe you mean not up as fast , otherwise where is this fantidy land where consumers prices have gone down ?

No post body was provided.

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

#299

Post by brutusborn »

rags2riches wrote: post #185
ncmncm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Transmission capacity from the northern hydro to the southern nuclear regions has decreased due to the closing of reactors in the south. Power transmission is more complex than just building a fatter pipe to pour more water through. Having stable power in the south is a prerequisite to transfer hydro power from the north.

I don't understand, surely the southern grid is stabilized by interconnections to europe? I thought closing reactors would be independent of transmission. What am I missing?

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

#300

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

Most of the time people who wrote this argument have no concept what nuclear waste actually looks like.

Have you actually seen what nuclear waste looks like?

It is a solid substance, it doesnt go anywhere. Waste is compact, It fits in a small warehouse. Its in a radiation proof container and doesnt kill anyone who isn't trying to eat it. Of you leave and come back in 100 years thos nuclear waste will be exactly where you left it.

Instead of generating this nuclear waste that we can store, transport, or handle in any way we please.

We have replaced nuclear capacity with coal and gas.

Generating billions of tons of CO2. That cannot be stored. There is more CO2 produced ina year that we could fit in every gas canister himanity has ever produced. Also a gas canister doesnt stay sealed for very long by itself. Every attempt at economic carbon capture has not produced very much so far.

> A lot of politicians in germany are lawyers

Same here, and I think thats precisely the problem - there are few scientists and technical proffeshions in government. Like a huge chunk of human society is not present in decision making.

Post reply on HN