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

251–260 of 583 posts

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

#251

Post by nikcub »

tpmx wrote: post #140
otikik wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations, I hope you guys are able to build them quickly. > I think massive expansion of nuclear power is the only realistic way to fix climate change. While I agree on the overall direction of this sentiment I think nuclear cannot be "the" only way but "one amongst many" ways.

While wind and solar will help, nuclear is really the dominant part of the solution, because of it's ability to work independent of local weather.

> because of it's ability to work independent of local weather.

Just this summer the French had to shut down half of their nuclear reactors because of the heat

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-redu...

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

#252

Post by tremon »

ncmncm wrote: post #173
Gwypaas wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is by far the most expensive method. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Always was. The most reliable product of the nuke industry has always been dishonesty. "Too cheap to meter..." No nuke has ever been operated anywhere in the world without massive subsidy.

Can you name one type of electricity generation that operates without government subsidies?

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

#253

Post by thatfrenchguy »

ncmncm wrote: post #43
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…

No civil nuke plant has ever been operated, anywhere in the world, without massive government subsidies, or by coercing ratepayers to pay well above market rates. Looks like the Swedish public will be on the hook for subsidies for decades more while the rest of Europe (France and Romania perhaps excepted) coasts on renewables at ever plunging prices.

Renewables (except hydro) have not driven a grid anywhere in the world, because storage is expensive both in $€ terms and in CO2/kWh terms. Maybe you’ll see the California grid running in 20 years all on renewables + storage at a crazy high cost per kWh and a stupid CO2/kWh compared to nuclear, and that’s just because it’s sunny 300 days a year here!

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

#254

Post by lostlogin »

guywhocodes wrote: post #248
cjblomqvist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you explain how it was made unprofitable or point me at something?

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

#255

Post by fritztastic »

f_allwein wrote: post #72
NKosmatos wrote: post #55

The only green solution to our current energy problem is more nuclear power plants. We have to stop relying on coal, wood, oil, gas and the rest of the “dirty” materials.

Except nuclear is expensive and takes decades to build, runs on non renewable materials (a good percentage of which come from Russia), leaves waste that is deadly for 100.000s of years, and promising new technologies will need decades to reach maturity. Now why is it so great compared to, say, solar or geothermal?

I don't have a suitable answer to your question but I wanted to mention that I also wonder how come there isn't more discussion about implementing/improving tidal or wave power. There are numerous innovations that might be possible in the horizon, including possibly using fusion, but other alternate approaches such as decentralization and energy storage are also interesting yet seldom discussed.

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

#256

Post by thehappypm »

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.

Maybe, but more power generation is a better investment. $1 spent on nuclear generates $10 in energy. $1 spent on transmission lines is just $1 gone.

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

#257

Post by geysersam »

tpmx wrote: post #247
geysersam wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Ridiculous. Of course they do.

> Shuts down nuclear power.

You don't know what you are talking about. It was decided decades ago in a referendum that Sweden should move away from nuclear power. A majority of the parties in the parliament has supported this for decades.

Despite that. The government hasn't actively closed down nuclear power. Shut downs have been decided based on the economics of running the plants.

And don't start about the "effektskatten" (a tax on nuclear energy in Sweden), it's older than the green party.

You want nuclear power. They support renewables. That's why you call them insane.

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

#258

Post by thehappypm »

fritztastic wrote: post #255
f_allwein wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except nuclear is expensive and takes decades to build, runs on non renewable materials (a good percentage of which come from Russia), leaves waste that is deadly for 100.000s of years, and promising new technologies will need decades to reach maturity. Now why is it so great compared to, say, solar or geothermal?

I don't have a suitable answer to your question but I wanted to mention that I also wonder how come there isn't more discussion about implementing/improving tidal or wave power. There are numerous innovations that might be possible in the horizon, including possibly using fusion, but other alternate approaches such as decentralization and energy storage are also interesting yet seldom discussed.

Tidal power has not been demonstrated to produce much output, and anything that relies on salt water is expensive to maintain.

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

#259

Post by Ferrotin »

f_allwein wrote: post #72
NKosmatos wrote: post #55

The only green solution to our current energy problem is more nuclear power plants. We have to stop relying on coal, wood, oil, gas and the rest of the “dirty” materials.

Except nuclear is expensive and takes decades to build, runs on non renewable materials (a good percentage of which come from Russia), leaves waste that is deadly for 100.000s of years, and promising new technologies will need decades to reach maturity. Now why is it so great compared to, say, solar or geothermal?

It will power increasing levels of energy consumption necessary for desalinization without any practical limit.

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

#260

Post by o_1 »

anonporridge wrote: post #242
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. 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 probl…

are you saying because you can't fix one problem you shouldn't approach another? What does removal of atmospheric C02 have to do with storing nuclear waste. I think Germany has even bigger problems with there natural gas policy. Extracting C02 shouldn't be your main concern versus much dangerously low in home temperatures in winter.
Post reply on HN