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

351–360 of 583 posts

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

#351

Post by golem14 »

froh wrote: post #114
oifjsidjf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly will you be 100% renewable during a cloudy and windless period with solar and wind?

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.

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

#352

Post by themitigating »

thrown_22 wrote: post #262
themitigating wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair electricity prices vary throughout time. Basing a long term decision on a short term price is foolish. Worse case scenario is the government has to subsidize the power station, best case is it helps prevent serious economic issues by providing power.

It's foolish to wear a seat belt based on short term speed fluctuations.

I can't tell what's happening. You made a sarcastic remark replying to me but it's agreeing with my point

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

#353

Post by themitigating »

tored wrote: post #346
ncmncm wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. There is no shortage of any of the materials needed to go fully renewable.

It’s Time to Wake Up - The Currently Known Global Mineral Reserves Will Not Be Sufficient to Supply Enough Metals to Manufacture the Planned Non-fossil Fuel Industrial Systems https://www.gtk.fi/en/research/time-to-wake-up/ "No matter what minerals will be needed, we will need large quantities of them as the renewable power sources like wind and solar, require extensive mineral resources to manufacture the infrastruc…

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

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

#354

Post by ncmncm »

anonporridge wrote: post #243
Isolus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone in germany who thinks gas is "clean". New buildings are built with heat pumps. They are considered clean if used with renewable energy. But it's difficult to use them in old buildings and gas is said to be to most cleanest heating technology based on fossil fuels.

Heat pumps are amazing and a big step forward, but Germany's electricity is energized by natural gas peaker plants when there is not enough wind or solar generation operating. Even if every German building was using heat pumps, they would still be burning TONS of natural gas to keep the electricity flowing consistently, because they have no long term energy storage solution to pair with renewables, especially through…

You imagine there is no plan because you do not know about the plans.

It would be stupid to build storage there is not renewable generating capacity to charge. When there is such capacity, they will then build out storage. In the meantime the correct place to spend is on generation. Which, in fact, is what they are doing.

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

#355

Post by ncmncm »

int_19h wrote: post #296
anigbrowl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then your argument is with the GP about whether we need nuclear power plants.

It's a good argument against corrupt politicians, not a good argument against nuclear energy.

The argument against nukes is that they are super-expensive compared to modern alternatives. The politicians who make nukes even more expensive are smart enough to get rich doing it.

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

#356

Post by kalleboo »

geysersam wrote: post #257
tpmx wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nuclea…

> It was decided decades ago in a referendum that Sweden should move away from nuclear power

A 1980 referendum where the three options were

1. Decommission the nuclear power, as soon as it is socio-economically feasible.

2. Decommission the nuclear power, as soon as it is socio-economically feasible. Work on reducing electricity use (by e.g. stopping new homes from being built with electric heating), invest in renewable power, and nationalize power generation to be able to control its future.

3. Decommission the nuclear power within 10 years.

So, it's no wonder that "Decommission the nuclear power" won that referendum. Anyone who brings up this referendum as a reason to decommission nuclear power 40 years later is being disingenuous.

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

#357

Post by Akronymus »

dieortin wrote: post #303
yxhuvud wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So for example, laws around nuclear has changed so that the owners are now liable for any damages in case of a major accident.

Well that does make a sense, I don’t see the problem

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

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

#358

Post by Kailhus »

kieranmaine wrote: post #176

In order to inform the conversations in these comments here are some predictions on Nuclear vs Renewable usage in the UK grid from the National Grid's (UK energy grid transmission network owner + operator) Future Energy Scenarios report - https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263951/download Short Version is here - https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263861/download

Can we have a tl:dr?

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

#359

Post by thrown_22 »

themitigating wrote: post #352
thrown_22 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's foolish to wear a seat belt based on short term speed fluctuations.

I can't tell what's happening. You made a sarcastic remark replying to me but it's agreeing with my point

So you think you wear a seatbelt to protect yourself from smooth driving?
Post reply on HN