• lettruthout@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        All correct. The profit being earned is by the companies building the reactors - not tax/rate payers.

    • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      The only way to generate short-term profits from nuclear power is to take over a running reactor. But building these things takes a close-to-prohibitive amount of money in all Western countries. There must be motivations other than cost effectiveness.

      • Ooops@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The motivation is getting money from lobbyists.

        And those don’t even need to be pro-nuclear lobbyists… fossil fuel ones will do to as every single “sure, we totally will build nuclear power and it will magically solve all our problems (even i fthe capacity is meaningless to actually solve anything)”-story helps to delay reneweable power.

        • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Weird how fossil fuel companies also managed to instrumentalize solar PV too. Iirc, both Shell and BP created solar departments which they then allowed to generate a low single-digit percentage of revenue. Thus, a) generating positive media coverage and b) not endangering their fossil core business.

          • Melchior@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Not at all. Renewables used to be so expensive, that they were basically not an option. That is no longer the case.

            Today nuclear is great as a new power plant takes a decade in planning, approving and building before it produces any power. So a decade more fossil fuels.

      • lettruthout@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Agreed that other motivations exist, but the companies building the reactors are the ones making the profit - not tax/rate payers

  • lnxtx (xe/xem/xyr)@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    From the article:

    The type of reactor is still being decided upon, but Kristersson’s government aims to hit the goal of two new large-scale reactors by 2035.

    No SMRs yet?

      • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “SMR” just means “small” and implies nothing about the technology used. But the quote specifically mentioned a “large-scale” reactor.

        That said, if Sweden were willing to buy molten salt tech from China, it might happen sooner.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      So given the construction times in Europe they already started ~8 years ago?