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

381–390 of 583 posts

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

#381

Post by adrianN »

tored wrote: post #302
quelsolaar wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said we need to put the solar cells in Sweden? We could put them anywhere. Sweden is already producing enough low cost energy to meet its needs, only prices are high because we are exporting it to other countries willing to pay. If Sweden wants to invest in power for export, we could make that investment anywhere.

In the direction the world is going, the breakdown of globalization, every country will be required to be self sufficient.

Lucky for Sweden then that they already are?

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

#382

Post by dang »

aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #307
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.

Quoted post unavailable.

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive and flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32902774 (Sept 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30016351 (Jan 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29833297 (Jan 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29213045 (Nov 2021)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354803 (March 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19086334 (Feb 2019)

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

#383

Post by hackerlight »

abigail95 wrote: post #348
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?

how did people build nuclear reactors in the 50s then? Calder Hall was run for 50 years, well past its 20 year expected lifespan. they shut it down because they thought coal, oil and gas would be cheap forever. the gen2 reactors were even better and more efficient. gen2 reactors like the rbmk are still running today and producing economical and safe power. why would nuclear power today be more expensive, take longer…

They were cheaper than solar and wind in the 1950s. Now solar and wind is cheaper. It's not that nuclear doesn't work. It's that it's a worse solution.

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

#384

Post by zhte415 »

themitigating wrote: post #197
belorn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to both sides, the electricity prices at the time when the decision was made was very different from today. We had prices in the south of sweden 2020 that was as low as around €0.02 per kw/h, compared to over €0.3 in 2022, and in 2020 the price trend was looking to be going downwards. If prices had continue to go down and let say had landed at €0.01 per kw/h this year than we would not be discussing nuclea…

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.

All prices are short term in the short term.

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

#385

Post by andbberger »

Melatonic wrote: post #179
Retric wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear has always had massive scaling issues because leaving base load power generation means ever lower capacity factors. Running a nuclear power plant with a 40% capacity factor more than doubles the cost per kWh. You can look at Frances ~70% average Capacity factor in 2 ways either it’s a ~30% cost premium over most of the rest of the world on every power plant. Or more realistically ~40% of generation was at the…

Honestly what we really need is something that we can pump that power into (not a battery - something productive I mean) so we can keep those reactors at higher efficiency levels. I do not know what that is but surely vast amounts of extra power could be used for something useful no? Research? Cleaning the air? Hot tubs for Walruses?

fuel synthesis

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

#386

Post by locallost »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #111
locallost wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in the cult of "living in the present, where one part of the world has experienced one of the severest droughts in the history of mankind, and the other the worst floods". Recently I joined a second cult called "it's only going to get worse". So what the heck, we've got money and time for expensive solutions that take forever to finish.

> where one part of the world has experienced one of the severest droughts in the history of mankind, and the other the worst floods". Nothing happening today, extrapolated out to 20 years with the most severe climate models, will be severe enough to cause the "end of the world". Anybody who's telling you we'll have total societal collapse by 2042 is out of touch with reality. The only way for things to go that badly…

In case you haven't noticed, the planet stopped existing for thousand something Pakistanis that died in the floods, with two million homeless. The economic damage is estimated to be 40 billion.

It will get worse. Billions of people will be directly affected.

Soon, they will try to make their way to countries that are still kind of functioning (because they are rich), where people that are most responsible for climate change will label them "economic migrants", and say they don't have a right to come.

So yes, there will probably be a planet, just not one that will be very pleasant for living. I don't think we have time for solutions that have failed to deliver for decades, need subsidies to be built, maintained and even shutdown, and take forever to get completed.

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

#387

Post by anonym29 »

ncmncm wrote: post #207
anonym29 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enjoy paying for storage. At least in the US, even if we get storage down from $438/kWh (Jan 2022 grid-scale storage costs) to $200/kWh, consumer electricity prices are expected to rise somewhere between 1400% and 2200% per kWh, and total cost estimates to switch the entire US's power generation + distribution to pure renewables + storage, while maintaining current production and availability levels, are over $430tn,…

Storage cost is falling even faster than solar PV or wind ever did.

The article I linked acknowledges this, and talks about it. Remember that like with Moore's law, there will eventually be hard, physics-based walls past which we will not progress without entirely new technology paradigms, which aren't guaranteed to be discovered in any finite amount of time.

I'm glad it's getting cheaper, and I'm all for supplementing baseline load with solar, wind, and hydro, but I'm less confident with strategies that ultimately boil down to placing trust in improvements that we may or may not reach.

That's not an assertion that reaching, say, $10/kWh for storage won't be possible, but I think it would be wise to have a plan B in case we're unable to get it lower than, say, $100/kWh.

Not having a Plan B and placing almost all of our eggs in one basket (fossil fuels) is how we got to this point in the first.

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

#388

Post by acchow »

im3w1l wrote: post #301
coryrc wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would result in prices going up in the North. Ready to see why people would work against it.

Could theoretically send wind power north when available, and send hydro south when it's not. Glad we are doing nukes though.

As more nuclear power plants are built, we will be building up expertise to make them safer. This AP1000 design already is much more inherently safe than Gen 1 or 2 reactors

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

#389

Post by anonym29 »

ncmncm wrote: post #274
sunmag wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. Last I read even the automotive industry had trouble sourcing batteries. Would be interesting to know how many minutes(seconds?) of electricity we could store in all batteries produces last year should we go all in. This at least battery storage seems naive at such scale.

Quoted post unavailable.

I've heard of gravity batteries, but they are not a proven technology for utility-scale storage (yet). Can you please elaborate on what utility-scale storage will take the place of our current system whereby production generally scales up and down with demand, which will be more difficult with energy sources that can only produce intermittently like solar and wind? Hydro and wave energy generators look promising for baseline load, but those won't alleviate the need for utility-scale storage altogether, right?

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

#390

Post by kube-system »

ncmncm wrote: post #344
kube-system wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on which renewable you're talking about.

Wind and solar both. Which of those is cheaper varies with circumstance.

Yes, wind and PV solar... but there are many other types of renewables. The rest are still more expensive than natural gas currently.
Post reply on HN