this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
42 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59673 readers
4253 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The big problem with nuclear power (other than the disposal of nuclear waste) is the time and money it takes to build the damn reactors. Even if they decided to build one right now it would still be decade or more before they were producing power (taking into account the planing and approval process). In that time you could have constructed several alternative energy farms, battery storage and distribution infrastructure. In addition, several generations of solar, wind and storage technology will have occurred potentially making nuclear power even more unattractive.
Sweden has several power plants that are not running because the previous government tried 100% renewable energy and failed and ended up having to buy electricity from Eastern Europe to supply the country’s needs several years in a row. The electricity purchased was from coal, far worse for the environment than nuclear.
You can’t turn off reactors in a country before your production of renewable energy is sufficient for the country’s needs, but this is what has happened in Sweden looking back four years or so, and with every reactor shutdown more electricity from abroad has been required.
The current government is not talking about building new reactors, they are planning on opening up the reactors that the previous one closed down to make way for what they (previous government) failed to provide its citizens. Closing down before building is NOT the way to go.
I don’t think any of these statements are true, in particular the “failure” and import needs you mention. Sweden has been a net exporter for most of the past years and 2022 they exported most energy of everyone in the EU: Sweden remains Europe’s largest net power exporter.
And the current Swedish government are absolutely talking about new reactors:
Source: Ministrar: Påbörjar ny kärnkraft före 2026.
They also seem to be abandoning their previously communicated plans of opening old ones:
Source: Tidö-partier i strid om Ringhals – Ebba Busch vägrar återstart (KD and Busch hold the Minister of Energy, Business, and Industry position)
I admit I may be wrong regarding the plans of opening new reactors, but saying that Sweden is sufficient with its own energy production throughout the whole year and to not call the move to close down the reactors we had running a failure is just sticking ones head in the sand.
Sweden does indeed produce and export a lot of electricity, that is not a lie, but when the cold harsh winters roll around and our own usage skyrockets we don’t produce enough to even fulfill our own needs. Knocked out over a full year we produce more than we import, 25TWh net according to Vattenfall.
BUT:
Rekordstor import och sparande räddade svenskarna från elkris