A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

Eventually, perhaps, but I see fully renewable as just slightly less sci fi than fusion or thorium.

Instead, I'm seeing countries like Germany restart their dirty, old, lignite fueled power plants (due to lack of natural gas, another, slightly cleaner, fossil fuel), because "environmentalist" organizations have been fighting against nuclear for the last 40 years or more.

Germany has TRIED to build up a lot of renewable capacity, but have hardly built up more than the electricity provided by the nuclear they shut down.

What I want is for us to SHUT DOWN all fossil fuel plants ASAP, stop using natural gas for heating and oil based fuels for most transportation.

This should and could have been started 40 years ago, if it were not for the scaremongers.

I welcome all renewable initiatives that are able to prove they can deliver stable power at a competitive price, and wish them the best of luck. I do NOT welcome the Utopia-chasers that promote renewables as part of their virtue signaling, while either being unrealistic or deceitful about motives, costs, challenges around stability, etc (both before and after investments are made).

And this is especially bad when they spread lies about the safety level of nuclear (either direct lies, or more likely when talking about "radiation" as something dangerous regardless of intensity).

I do realize that such behavior exists in all camps, but I find it especially bad when so called "environmentalists" have promoted policies that have had the net effect of NOT being able to reduce emissions nearly as much as we could have, while still causing prices to increase and ALSO maximize our dependence on Putin and various Arab dictatorial kings and princes.

And btw, while you seem to be charitable about nuclear, only arguing from a cost perspective, there are plenty of organizations out there that still place nuclear in the "dirty" camp alongside fossil fuels when arguing about strategies for the future.

So, while I'm certainly supporting most initiatives that aim to improve renewable power production, I think we (and especially Europe) should invest in a relatively large number of new, reasonably priced nuclear plants, for instance based on recent Korean designs.

The transmission capacity is only too small because the nuclear power plants were closed. The Swedish distribution network was designed for hydropower in the north, nuclear power in the south. The hydro plants in the north would feed heavy industry, the nuclear plants in the south would feed the needs of most of the population and industry there with the rest being filled in by the overcapacity from those hydro plants in the north.

Then the nuclear power plants were closed while simultaneously allowing the establishment of several data centres by the likes of Google in the south. Those data centres - which easily saturate the local transmission capacity which has already caused other industry to look elsewhere for expansion due to the lack of electricity - do not pay regular electricity rates, they pay far less than either other industries let alone regular consumers.

Who closed those nuclear power plants? Who called for the establishment of those data centres, knowing what problems this would cause? Who did not upgrade the transmission capacity in the full knowledge of its limits?

So, this is not a natural market, it has been manipulated with disastrous results for the majority of the Swedish population - most of whom live in the regions SE3 and SE4 where electricity prices have risen dramatically in the last years.

As to you defence of the use of those fossil fuel power plants due to the (intentional) failure of the policies of the "green" party I can only shake my head in disbelief. What does it take to get those who claim to support "green" policies to admit they were wrong on the issue of nuclear power? More than the environment and the economy can bear it seems.

Also... drop it with that senseless "right" moniker already. It is a tired old trope and as far from the truth as can be. Looking at Sweden the supposed "right-wing" party Sverigedemokraterna is a centrist party (their program is strongly reminiscent of that of the social democrats in the '60s) and the "right-wing" Moderaterna is in reality centre-right (they, like all other Swedish 'mainstream' parties support the welfare state to a large extent). Sverigedemokraterna actually has an "energy expert" on an electable position for the coming elections - Elsa Widding - who wrote a report [1] on the subject of the Swedish grid, if you read Swedish (or feed it to a translator) it gives some insight in what they have in mind if they were to gain power. Their short-term focus lies on the preservation of existing hydropower (which "the left" wants to wind down to a significant extent, up to 1.5 TWh is to be closed down), an increased focus on achieving 100% fossil-free power (to avoid the situation I described where the oil-fired top load power plant is running in the heart of summer) to be achieved by e.g. restarting some of the nuclear power plants which "the left" closed down, focusing on combined heat-power (which "the left" is in the process of regulating out of existence) and getting rid of those sweetheart deals I mentioned where Google/Facebook/Microsoft (et al) get power nearly for free due to contracts signed by "the left". Their longer-term focus lies on increasing the amount of nuclear power in the mix, focusing on 100% fossil-free instead of 100% "renewable" and re-focusing on "climate" effects of power generation instead of "nuclear-free" power generation.

[edit] I just noticed a new article being published in Dagens Nyheter on the subject of the establishment of new nuclear power plants in Sweden. The conclusion is that this is fully possible but requires the removal of barriers put in place by "the left". The most important changes are the removal of the decision to close all nuclear power plants by 2040, the restriction that nuclear power plants can only be established there where there already is a nuclear power plant and a change which makes it possible to establish small modular reactors [2].

[1] https://via.tt.se/data/attachments/00738/d68a3b7a-ffe4-4cf1-...

[2] https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/karnkraftsbolaget-nya-reaktorer-mo...

I stand by my claim that the 'right-wing' are (for no obvious logical or politically coherent reason) against wind power. It's a weird global phenomenon.

They're also against solar, and efficiency, and EVs and believing in climate change etc. I personally would suggest they're getting paid by fossil fuel interests, not sure if that's generally considered a wacky out there conspiracy theory or not. At the very least they're taking advantage of conspiracy theories created by the fossil fuel lobby to gain votes for their unpopular ideas.

Meanwhile, the strange phenomenon of the 'left-wing' intentionally letting Google set up datacentres in places where they know that it will artificially drive up prices for consumers and selling them power at below market cost. That's not a stereotype I recognise. Sounds a bit right-wing if anything to be honest.

Combined Heat and Power, using carbon emitting fuels? I hope the 'left' is regulating that out of existance in a country with so much green electricity, heat pumps are almost certainly better, cheaper, cleaner.

And this is their energy expert? Their big focus is on 100% fossil-free power, but they also don't like wind power?

Wikipedia suggests that's not their only diametrically opposed policy goals:

> The party argues that other countries should reduce their emissions instead of Sweden which they believe is already doing enough on that front.[169][170] The party advocates keeping nuclear power plants as a prominent energy source in Sweden,[171] believing it to be an efficient way to combat climate change.

So nuclear is good for climate change, but Sweden shouldn't do more for climate change? That makes sense. Maybe the Swedish energy expert who said they were just lying about being pro nuclear is right.

> Nobody is calling them out on this,” he complains of the way the Swedish media has covered the issue. “If they want nuclear, how are they expecting to get it? What type of subsidy will they give? For Hinkley Point in the UK, there’s a 35-year contract where the government promises to pay £93.5 per megawatt hour — so about 1.1 krona per kilowatt hour for 35 years. That’s a heavy subsidy. So if the Moderates or the Liberals really want this, how are they going to set it up? They should explain that.”

> At the Hinkley Point price, Nilsson adds, it might actually be cheaper to generate hydrogen from wind power when power prices are low, store it, and burn it in gas turbines when prices are high, even though more than half of the electricity produced would be lost in the process.

Given what you state here and what is written in that report on the Swedish grid I assume you agree that the "right-wing" Sverigedemokraterna is not a "rigt-wing" party? They want more efficiency, they want 100% fossil-free power generation, they want to focus on "climate" impact of energy generation.

Realise that the only reason I use these senseless "left-wing" and "right-wing" labels is to show just how nonsensical they are. I do not think in these terms, I just responded to your use of the "right-wing" moniker.

By the way, where would you put the CEO of a company like Vestas or General Electric? Are they "right-wing" because they are greedy capitalists or are they "left-wing" because they want to build more wind turbines?

> Wikipedia suggests...

Wikipedia has become weaponised and is even less of a trustworthy source than it was before the weaponisation.

> NB: You're replying to two different people.

I saw that, after writing my piece, though.

I think my main objection with your points is that I see nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels, NOT as an alternative to renewables.

As for each point, I will start with the last: > Cost doesn't look great anymore when you include cleanup.

Actual harm caused by nuclear is miniscule when compared to fossil fuels. Chernobyl caused somewhere between 1000 and 100000 casualties, probably less than air pollution from fossil fuels cause EACH YEAR, only in Europe.

Wind and even hydro also create considerable environmental effects, so the alternative cost should not be seen as zero.

There is no evidence (at least not conclusive evidence) that exposure to radiation doses below 80-100mSv cause any health hazard, and a lot of the "cleanup" and other measures are done to prevent exposure to doses that are often below 10mSv per person, and are probably not needed.

> Corruption potential.

I live in a country with very low levels of classical corruption, luckily. I think corruption affects everything, and should be dealt with as a separate problem.

> Geopolitical. Adoption of nuclear outside of UK/France/USA/China/Russia ..

I suppose India should be added to your list. Anyway, some of the biggest deposits are in countries like Australia. Obviously, I don't want to force anyone to adopt nuclear, but it's a lot easier to find friendly suppliers of nuclear fuel than natural gas.

> Incomplete.

Same thing.

> Consistent overpromising.

40 years ago, reactors were typically built to only last 40 years. (They were also cheaper to build back then). Only newer models are designed for longer lifespans. Anyway, from my perspective, most reactors continue to deliver despite old age, if well maintained, and they don't shut down just because Putin has a temper tantrum.

If you're living in Europe, just imagine what the price of electricity would be if France's electricity depended on natural gas the same way the German does...