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

491–500 of 583 posts

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

#491

Post by nchi3 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #460
Gravityloss wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they get better price for their electricity, more profit for the plant, more taxes and thus the people benefit. Yes, local electricity bill would go up but if the price is often extremely low, selling some for higher price is a net win. Ie this is why we have trade as concept in the first place.

Ironically, this is why the interconnects to mainland Europe that let (southern) Sweden sell its electricity at high prices when there is demand elsewhere are a good thing for everyone involved. Not a good sign when right-wing governments are complaining about market based price signals and trade.

How is it good for the small local businesses who don't have a choice but shutting down?

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

#492

Post by Isolus »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #300
Isolus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

> Have you actually seen what nuclear waste looks like?

Yes, it has numerous forms. Most high-level radioactive waste is stored in dry cask storage. Until you destroy the cask and the things in it, it's pretty safe. But if you keep too much at one place it becomes a great target for terrorists. If you put them below the surface you must find conditions which doesn't degrade the cask.

Medium and low-level radioactive (dry) waste is often stored in plastic bags in normal steel barrels. When they rust through, you have a big problem. And steel barrels tend to rust faster than radioactive waste decays. Germany put a lot if these barrels into the former mine Asse and had to get it back at really high cost after saline water entered the storage location. After that there was even more waste to store because you need new barrels and have to store parts of salt from the mine as well. So Germany practically had a nuclear waste storage. It didn't work out so well, so people there are skeptical when someone else says it's not a problem.

And then there are radioactive liquids in storage tanks. The only solution I have heard so far is to dilute them so that they can be dumped into the sea. That may work for small quantities of waste, but if it's done globally, we have a problem.

> 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.

I just wanted to say that a formal degree doesn't necessarily qualify you more on the subject and I don't like someone saying "you haven't studied this shut up". I judge people by their arguments, not by their title.

But I think more expertise among politicians can never hurt.

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

#493

Post by kalleboo »

cinntaile wrote: post #480
kalleboo wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since the Swedish power company - Vattenfall, is 100% owned by the Swedish state.

You mean Svenska Kraftnät (SVK) instead of Vattenfall, they're the ones making money from electricity distribution. Vattenfall is an electricity producer, it's not responsible for this kind of distribution across borders. It is responsible for some distribution within Sweden (regionnät), but there it is not the only player. SVK on the other hand is 100% owned by the state.

That sounds strange, when there's a shortage of power, don't the higher electricity prices go mostly to the energy producers, in order to create incentive to increase production and start up more expensive generation forms?

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

#494

Post by Isolus »

timmg wrote: post #265
Isolus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do ya’ll manage to live next door to France? They seem to have it figured out.

As France shut down a lot of their nuclear power plants due to safety reason (a lot of corrosion) people in Germany are really concerned. It is said that due to the price cap on energy from nuclear power plants there was never enough money for enough maintenance.

And France is still building their nuclear waste dump site not that far from the border. Many also have a problem with this.

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

#495

Post by weberer »

_Microft wrote: post #15
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…

Are the economics of nuclear power somehow more favorable in Sweden? That seems to be the major issue elsewhere from what I understand.

Well solar is pretty much useless at these high latitudes. I believe the sun doesn't rise above 7 degrees in the winter in Stockholm. Though Sweden is blessed with mountains, so they can get significant energy from hydro. Here in Finland, Nuclear is the only real answer going forward.

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

#496

Post by the_why_of_y »

cycomanic wrote: post #395
Akronymus wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So make the owners of renewables liable too? From what I know ONLY nuclear has that stipulation.

A solar plant is certainly liable if accidents happen on its grounds. They don't need insurance against a major disaster like a meltdown because it can't happen. Nuclear is NOT liable for a major nuclear disaster. No insurance would cover it. So I don't know where you got your knowledge from but it is not based on fact. Edit: OK I should have been clearer. They are liable like everyone else. They have (unlike solar i…

The problem with nuclear liability is that there are potential accidents that are both extremely rare and extremely expensive. Such accidents have only happened twice. This creates some difficulty for calculating insurance premiums.

The article you linked says that TEPCO paid out USD ~65 billion after Fukushima, but it was insured only for USD ~804 million.

Naturally what happened is that the government didn't want to be without electricity, so to prevent bankruptcy TEPCO was nationalized. This is the typical scenario for nuclear power: profits are privatized while losses are socialized.

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

#497

Post by smarx007 »

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.

Tell that to Germans https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suedlink (started planning in 2011, the construction should have taken place 2016-2022, now they are hoping it will be done by 2028, lots on NIMBY court challenges along the route of the cabling).

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

#498

Post by inglor_cz »

markvdb wrote: post #397
tpmx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. It makes a lot of sense in all stable countries.

There is no such thing as a stable country on the time scale required for nuclear energy safety. That requires decades. Humanity cannot provide that. Enerhodar is not the only example. World war two ended roughly 77 year ago. The US civil war was less than 160 years ago.

Maybe the problem is requiring insanely high levels of safety from the nuclear industry, way higher than realistic in the current world that can and does kill people in myriad non-nuclear ways.

For example, I am willing to bet that nuclear-related deaths in the Ukrainian war will be a minuscule percentage of the total loss of life caused by said war.

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

#499

Post by nickez »

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…

This is only half the story. What is actually happening is that Sweden is importing expensive electricity from the baltics and exporting it to Germany. So even though the electricity is only in "transit" through Sweden, the prices go up in southern Sweden. Obviously everything is working as designed, but it does feel a bit unfair.

To lower the prices in southern Sweden either southern Sweden or northern Germany must increase "plannable" electricity production to avoid expensive imports from the baltics.

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

#500

Post by nickez »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #38
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…

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. :)

Also most of the wind power is in northern Sweden.
Post reply on HN