• Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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

        • Murvel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          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.

      • Willer@discuss.tchncs.de
        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
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      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.

    • nicman24@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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

        • nicman24@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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