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

441–450 of 583 posts

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

#441

Post by knorker »

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…

Whereas for coal and other fossil burnings we do know where to store it: in our (now less) breathable air.

More people die every year from radiation from coal, excluding accidents, than have died from nuclear (including accidents) since the beginning of time.

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

#442

Post by Gwypaas »

brabel wrote: post #434
cycomanic wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily the rhetoric of nuclear proponents is always exclusively aimed against renewables not fossil fuels. They know if not for ideological/political reasons/influence no nuclear plants will be build because it is just too expensive. If I can build double (now, the difference is rapidly increasing) the capacity using wind or solar why should I build nuclear? People who propose to do otherwise are the ones who are in…

When you think a large group proposing something is collectively insane, it usually means you simply don't understand their argument. Surely, you know that wind power has had a lot of trouble expanding in Sweden due to huge opposition from every community against building wind turbines on their land. Everyone likes the idea of wind power until they try to build a huge turbine on their backyard. Sun power, in Sweden,…

Sweden has about the best options possible for a renewable powered grid. 40-50% of the electricity comes from hydro currently, simply transition that to be less baseload and more dispatchable, and Sweden now has days of storage.

Couple that with off-shore wind in one of the windiest places on earth[1] together with solar during the summer wind lulls and you have all you need.

This is why storage is not being built in Sweden, energy is simply too abundant and cheap.

[1]: https://globalwindatlas.info/en

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

#444

Post by froh »

golem14 wrote: post #351
froh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunkelflaute is 0.5% - 1.5% of the year and most of the events last shorter than 24h https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute in my book 98.5% easily fits the bill of "close to 100%" so the answer is exactly what we do today: have a reserve capacity. part of that may even be traditional peaker power plants that remain turned off most of the year just like today. I'd be curious about climate data on the distributi…

I believe the difference is that during a Dunkelflaute, peaker plants might have to generate a large amount of or the majority of electricity, whereas today, peaker plants are build to only generate relatively small amount of power at the margin. So, we'd have to build a large number of peaker plants, which are really expensive in that they have to amortize their costs over a small amount of uptime.

short term weather forecasts are amazingly accurate. this allows us to deliberately "extend" the "range" of buffer storage. and even today in some situations some energy intense heavy industries have to pause production for a few hours if there is a lack of energy supply.

It's a political problem, not a technical one, and we do not, absolutely not have to build up new parallel peaker capacity. we can simply keep select plants alive.

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

#445

Post by tmikaeld »

cycomanic wrote: post #426
tmikaeld wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear was shut down due to tax raises and switching out the ceo to a wind-friendly person. Bulding more wind when it is not blowing in the winter does not help. Should we freeze at -10C for days until there is wind again?

What's that myth that the wind stops blowing in winter. Seriously do you believe what you write or just make up things on the spot. Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 60% that's the same as nuclear (yes nuclear can't run 24/7 either) .

You're right that offshore Wind has a higher wind capacity, but the socialists wanted to build 4000 new on-land wind farms across the country. Also, the IEA even show in their report that Wind is the most resource-consuming power source of all alternatives available, because the blades cannot be recycled and have short life-span + the foundations require enormous amount of steel and miles of copper, plus power stations to function. While nuclear is among the least requiring, because facilities can be refurbished for new nuclear effectively.

What we need is a mix, but thinking that Wind can solely solve things are a bad idea, especially considering the very limited amount of minerals required and what is available.

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

#446

Post by themitigating »

synecdoche wrote: post #401
themitigating wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this take into account recycling? Regardless of if recycling is occurring now.

If there’s not enough minerals to cover all needs, let alone for EVs and power storage only, how is recycling going to help, even if 100% efficient?

The total amount of cars needed each year is a combination of people getting one for the first time and others who are replacing one. That car that is replaced, assuming it's not being resold, is material that could reenter the system.

Also moving pulling back this debate to more general topics:

1.We don't need to replace all cars, many older gas powered cars will still be on the road for a long time which buys time for points 2-4

2. There are other types of batteries, like NiMH, which don't contain lithium. Although these aren't as efficient many hybrids use them, I think the new Mavrick hybrid does (or some truck hybrid)

3. There could be new battery technology that will be invented

4.New technology has helped Tesla make more energy dense batteries and have them last longer

A 2016 model s with the 70kwh battery pack has a 200 miles of range

A 2022 Model s performance with a 98kwh battery pack has a range of 326 miles (this is a touch comparison because the new performance has much more power)

sources: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15104936/tesla-model-... https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla...

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

#447

Post by hnlmorg »

cinntaile wrote: post #420
belorn wrote: post #25

A bit of context, the south area which this reactor is suggested to be built in has occasionally a 1000% electricity higher price from the northern regions. A big reason for this is that prices in the south is highly connected to markets that the south region is connected to, and those region are heavily importers of electricity creating a higher demand than there is available of cheap energy. For example, in order t…

> For example, in order to address this there is a oil power plant operating basically 24/7 and does so very profitably even with high oil prices. This is not why the oil plant exists, it is an emergency plant. If it is running 24/7 then it does so because the oil plant is profitable. Not out of necessity.

> If it is running 24/7 then it does so because the oil plant is profitable. Not out of necessity.

This feels like your splitting hairs because the root cause is ultimately the same: if it wasn’t necessary then it wouldn’t be profitable.

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

#448

Post by rlv-dan »

amai wrote: post #443

Will they also build a new nuclear waste repository then or are they just going to dump the radioactive waste into the Baltic Sea? Besides: Are they going to buy Uranium from Russia as the US are doing for their reactors?

Hello Miljöpartiet. Still full of bullsh*t and FUD I see.

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

#449

Post by doikor »

cycomanic wrote: post #423
Roark66 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realise we are talking about Sweden here, not a subsaharan country by any stretch. In general in Europe (especially in Northern Europe) all solar and wind capacity has to backed up by at least the same amount of quickly available online dependable capacity. In practice this means natural gas and diesel plants that are off, or coal/nuclear that is being diverted elsewhere when the sun shines/wind blows. The EU gri…

> You realise we are talking about Sweden here, not a subsaharan country by any stretch. In general in Europe (especially in Northern Europe) all solar and wind capacity has to backed up by at least the same amount of quickly available online dependable capacity. Are you doing any research before you write stuff like this?! It is trivial to show that this statement is false (let's not even get int the at least). Just…

This is because Germany does a lot of direct gas/oil heating. If you scroll further down on your own source you will see that gas consumption is actually bigger than renewables.

Northern Europe for the most part switched over to district and electric heating (direct or air/ground pumps) a long time ago.

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

#450

Post by doikor »

ncmncm wrote: post #108
nathanaldensr wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The sun does, in fact, shine far, far more than enough.

Not in northern Europe. For example at the southern most point of Finland there is 3 months in the year when solar produces less than 1% of its name plate capacity. It does get slightly better in the southern part of Sweden but still not that great.

Around Mediterranean is where solar starts to get really good though the Africa side of it is even better.

Post reply on HN