• Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly I don’t care if it’s solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, or nuclear, as long as it displaces fossil fuels. And it’s feasible on a very near time scale.

    If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

    We need an “all of the above” approach. This fight between nuclear and renewables is just stirred up by fossil fuel interests. Either is good. Both is good.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This isn’t an “all of the above approach” though, it’s a “cancel the short term plans and pretend we’re going to do something later” approach.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, if you decide to ramp up nuclear now, you’re only going to see the results in 10 years. Nothing is stopping you from continuing to add wind, solar and stuff like home/grid batteries in the meantime. Pretty sure Sweden has plenty of hydro storage options as well, which can be easily used to regulate the fluctuations wind and solar give you.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mines take a lot longer than 10 years, as do power-plants (the whole thing starting at permit submission and ending at last reactor coming online). 2045 is optimistic.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, 10 years was a best case scenario, where you basically already have the plans drawn up and are ready to build. Not sure what your point about mines is, I’m assuming they’d be importing uranium?

              • jonne@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yeah, the Russia issue is kind of hilarious. You’re trying to reduce fossil fuel use so you’re not dependent on Russia for energy, so instead you’re going to use nuclear, which uses fuel rods almost exclusively refined by Russia.

                Not sure if new mining would be needed, but I guess that depends on what happens in Niger.

              • visnae@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sweden has uranium reserves and produced it’s own uranium in the 60-s. Though I think laws currently prevent mining.

                • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m sure they’ll take just as much care for indigenous reindeer herders when choosing where to poison thousands of km^2 of land as they did when using them for hostage shield politics to sabotage the wind rollout.

                  Or is an entire country supposed to run indefinitely on the single year worth of reserves already known?

                  • Rooty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Anti nuclear sentiment is pro-fossil fuel. You’re inventing problems and prolonging dependance on oil.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why are people in this thread acting like the intent here is to cut renewables? The target was deemed unrealisitic to hit andr raised concerns about reliability.

          They are simply removing potential future renewables that have not been paid for or even ordered yet from the agenda and replacing the planned supply with nuclear, which is carbon neutral and requires less workers maintaining larger fields of solar and wind, two types of power that are not reliable during a Scandinavian blizzard… Something Sweden has to consider among many other things

          • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can’t find any indication that they’re changing their target…it’s just going from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil-fuel free”.

            • Rakonat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sounds like a win-win to me, Outdated Nuclear fission reactors are among the safest and cleanest forms of energy to ever exist, to say nothing of modern designs and theoretical ones that at the bare minimum could fill in the gap until Fusion becomes economically viable or manage some kind of orbital/space based solar collection grid.

      • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Two things that are relevant is that Sweden is very, very dark during the winter which reduces the profitability of solar and also that it’s extremely difficult to get approval for wind turbines right now.

        Municipalities have the power to veto building projects and almost all of them choose to block wind power installations. Wind turbines generate sound, both audible and infrasound (which can disturb sleep), and are sometimes considered a bit of an eyesore which can both reduce the value of properties near them and make people less inclined to move to that region which reduces tax income for the municipality. This could be offset by taxation of the wind power, but currently all taxable income from wind turbines go to the state instead of any of the local governments.

        There was recently an inquiry into how to make municipalities more likely to approve wind power construction and the restriction that the government gave them was that they were not allowed to suggest tax revenue being diverted to the local government. Which was the only suggestion that they said would be effective.

        So… yeah.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

      Bullshit. Renewables are cheap as chips.

      Think of a traditional power plant. There are 4 main cost catagories: Construction, Maintenance, Fuel, Demolition.

      • In a traditional plant, over the life of the plant Fuel will by far be the biggest cost.

      • For renewables, Construction, Maintenance and Demolition cost more (issues such as remote locations, weather, smaller generators means more generators which increases the mean time to failure) however they have ZERO fuel cost.

      Renewable generation is profitable as fuck, moreso than nuclear. Your average wind farm pays itself off in less than 5 years.

      This is a right wing government backing the interests of fossil fuels, by implementing policy that delays any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use.

      • Iceblade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sweden already has a significant surplus of electricity production, to the degree that we are one of the largest exporters in the EU and have had several bouts of negative spot prices this past summer.

        However, we also have an effect deficit for the colder part of the year. Two-thirds of simulations by SVK (our national power distributor) find that the peak-load hour during the winter 26/27 will have a deficit equivalent to three gen-II nuclear reactors running at 100% (10’000MW), and 10 continuous hours of blackouts due to power shortage. This is during the coldest part of the year when solar is ineffective, and additionally is often combined with high-pressure fronts, which means low wind speeds.

        In Sweden upwards of 75% of homes get their heating from electricity, and potentially a full day without power in temperatures of beyond -30°C would literally mean people freezing to death.

        Our power bill for December was 800€, and we both have geothermal heating and reduced our indoor temperature significantly, averaging 14-18°C indoors for the month. This was more than January, February and March combined. Meanwhile, the bills for all summer months put together (May, June, July and I expect also August) cost less than the bill for April (100€).

        The most viable short-term solution they’re looking at is (unfortunately) reopening old oil plants from the 60s & 70s however, this might not be possible either, due to newer EU legislations. Bringing them into compliance in time could cost 100’s of millions of SEK, which ironically is more than the “prohibitively expensive repairs” that the previous gov:t cited when they shut down 4 nuclear reactors 2015-2020.

        Link to article for the doubtful - It’s in Swedish, so you’ll have to use a translator.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Assuming you’re telling the truth that there’s a massive shortfall in December already (a provable lie ) then you are suggesting the solution for an urgent shortfall of around a TWh per year is to build 10GW of nuclear plants which will be ready in 2045 for €300 billion and run them at an operating loss for 10-11 months per year.

          This in order to provide low grade heat which could be stored in a district heating system for a few dollars per kWh for a total cost of about 3% of your suggestion or even in batteries for about 20% of the cost (which would also run at a profit the rest of the year and make the hydro go further).

          Nuke shills say some colossally stupid things, but this really takes the cake.

          • Iceblade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Since you couldn’t be arsed to check for yourself before throwing out baseless accusations, here’s a translation of a relevant part from the linked article. I doubt you’ll read it, but it’ll be here for anyone else that stumbles across this thread.

            The past winter was at times dramatic, for example when several nuclear power reactors were shut down for repairs. But thanks to the fact that mainly households had previously reduced consumption clearly in step with the rampant electricity prices, Sweden managed to maintain the power balance even in the worst hour, the so-called peak load hour.

            “But if we had maintained the consumption, we would have had to cut down.”, says Lowina Lundström, Division Manager Systems at Svenska kraftnät.

            The electricity had not been enough

            At that time, the import would not have been enough to cover the electricity demand during the peak load hour on December 16, 2022, between 09:00 and 10:00. The import was then at a maximum of 3,290 MW, approximately equivalent to three nuclear power reactors, which was the highest level to date.

            (Svenska Kraftnät a.k.a Swedish Power Grids is our national power distribution agency)

            Btw, your source is 4 years out of date, and accounts for neither daily nor hourly power balance.

            Here’s an up to date source on monthly power balance.

            Here’s a report on peak loads in various northern european countries.

            Here is an actual relevant source on the topic (again, in Swedish).

            The above figure is taken from this report by SVK.

            • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So the problem was nuclear being unreliable, and you can’t comprehend the idea of picking the worst recent year before dropping demand due to covid (or clicking on the year dropdown or hitting the hourly output).

              • Iceblade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The capacity factor for nuclear power in Sweden (including losses from curtailment) was 83% of installed capacity during 2022, which exceeds the global average for that year (80%), by comparison wind had a capacity factor of 26% for the year. Hence, the issue is not reliability, but rather a lack of capacity. 1700MW (20%) of nuclear has been decommissioned since 2018 (which is why those stats are entirely irrelevant to the current situation). Hence that a the unexpected outage of a single reactor (1160 MW or 17% of total capacity) could have such a large impact.

                Even with that outage, nuclear power remained the energy source with the greatest capacity % during the 22/23 winter (80%), despite being lower during peak demand. “Kärnkraft” is nuclear power.

                So, in summary, you are either clueless regarding our situation in Sweden (I sincerely hope that is the case) or actively spreading misinformation (which would be the more unfortunate option).

                • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Another bullshit attempt at paltering. Capacity factor isn’t reliability. Failing unpredictably when needed and when asserting that it will work then is unreliability. Your own assertion is that the need was for a handful of hours when the nukes failed.

                  • Iceblade@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Your own assertion is that the need was for a handful of hours when the nukes failed.

                    Don’t put words in my mouth, that is quite rude.

                    Capacity factor isn’t reliability.

                    It is a useful comparison figure to examine reliability. Your inability to comprehend the connection clearly highlights your incompetence on the subject.

                    Please, either spend some time educating yourself, or refrain from commenting further on the topic of nuclear power. Your lack of knowledge is causing you to (possibly inadvertently) contribute to the spread of disinformation.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For renewables, Construction, Maintenance and Demolition cost more

        This is less true as time goes on. CCGT and coal has substantial overlap with all-in cost of firmed PV and onshore wind just in terms of capex and FOM. Nuclear O&M overlaps with all-in cost of wind or PV (although not the latter in sweden).

        SMRs (most of the proposals to reduce cost) are also substantially less efficient than full sized reactors and the high grade Uranium or Uranium in countries you can pollute without consequence is mostly tapped out so prices are increasing (currently about $3/MWh for full scale or $6/MWh for an inefficient small reactor). By the time an SMR finally comes online, just the raw uranium will cost as much as renewables, let alone the rest of VOM (which is still a minority of O&M which is far, far less than Capex).

        Anyone suggesting new nuclear should be regarded as either someone lying to maintain a nuclear weapons program, a scammer, or a russian agent trying to sell dependence on rosatom.

        The first is potentially defensible, but they could also not lie instead.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is a right wing government backing the interests of fossil fuels, by implementing policy that delays any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use.

        Simply incorrect and ignorant and I could leave it at that.

        But I won’t so here:

        1. Nuclear is carbon neutral

        2. The majority of Swedens energy production is still renewable and will continue to grow

        3. Nuclear is absolutely necessary for load balance

        4. Current nuclear plants are nearing their end of life and needs to be replaced

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. I’m not critising nuclear for not being green.
          2. Renewables should grow (they’re profitable), but there should be further incentivised growth to help reduce reliance on fossile fuels more quickly.
          3. Yes, nuclear is brilliant for voltage and frequency stability. Large turbines have momentum in their spinning mass, when loads are switched on and off they keep spinning the same speed. However there are other options, eg rotating stabilisers, often used on very large ships but land installations are now being made also. These can be built without the nuclear red tape.
          4. Replacing existing nuclear plants is always a decent thing to do. You skip over many of the hurdles by building on the same site under the same nuclear permits. However taking money away from renewables to pay for this is questionable at best.

          I think Sweden does have some geographical complications, along with a lackluster transmission network. These are much harder to get private investment for. However if there was a decent transmission network then there would be more utility of renewable generation in the north as well as the capability for import of energy from neighbouring countries or even export when Sweden has an excess.

          Putting my balls on the table, I reckon if Sweden put all the money they’ve got in nuclear into transmission first and then renewables, I reckon they could switch off more fossil fuels more quickly.

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The points I listed are the strongest arguments to expand nuclear power which both the left and right of Riksdagen generally agrees on.

            So how this is a right wing conspiracy to further the fossil energy industry as you point out is still to me a mystery, that’s all you need to explain.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The fact that left and right wing parties both currently (in the middle of soaring energy prices and a cost of livings crisis) agree with measures that support fossil fuel interests does not change the fact that the Swedish government (which is currently right wing) is implementing policies that benefit the fossil fuel industry.

              Also, I question the nuance in that - I’m sure many in the left that support nuclear investment, but are less happy about renewable targets being scrapped.

              However I apologise if I came on a bit too hard with it being a left vs right wing issue. It’s wealth vs society.

        • Willer
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          i heard that nuclear still kind of heats up the earth since its not outputting what has been put in by the sun before. Supposedly thats a problem since space is a good insulator.

          • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a negligible amount of heat. Something like 0.000001% of the greenhouse effect from fossil fuels. Almost unmeasurable.

      • nicman24@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        have you ever been in Sweden? it is a a rocky mountainous and mostly dark region. they only renewables that they can easily manage is geothermal and iirc they do not have the correct crust for it

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          According to another comment they have plenty of renewables up in the north but only use about 30% of that capacity. So it seems the main issue is with the transmission network for the country, its ability to get power from one place to another.

          Instead of investing in 20 year nuclear power plant plans, they should be looking at accessing and expanding the available renewable generation in the short term.

          • nicman24@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            the wind mills would be in inaccessible areas so you are better to just go with nuclear and invest in transmission from settlement to settlement instead to the turbines

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah 100% agree with you. I’m surprised that this is the case given the 2045 time scale but we’ll have to wait a couple of decades and see how it pans out I guess.