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

Post by phire » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 2:19 AM UTC

traceelement wrote: post #33

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…

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…

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 2:21 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #227

ncmncm wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

So just to make sure I'm understanding you: you insist that storage is a solved problem. It's solution is so obvious that anyone who doesn't agree it's an easy problem is trolling. But on the other hand, you are unwilling to mention how grid scale energy storage in a majority renewable grid will work.

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 2:24 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #293

elihu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 2:24 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #310

Manuel_D wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pumped storage is geographically limited: as more convenient sites are developed, viable locations become more and more remote. Hydroelectric storage is great, but not the pumped kind. The energy storage supplies by the Hoover dam, the Coolie dam, dwarf pumped hydro. It's great for countries that have it, but you're not going to be storing much hydroelectricity outside of mountainous regions.

Quoted post unavailable.

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Oct 15, 2022, 2:28 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #206

elihu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Expensive but technically feasible, plus making Europe at the mercy of unstable regimes across the Mediterranean. That worked just fine with natural gas imports from Russia right?