358
Sweden All In On Nuclear Energy, Dumps Renewable Target (greeninvesting.co)
submitted 3 years ago* by to c/world@lemmy.world
292 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)

Completely replacing fossil fuels with renewables is possible - and has been achieved - in some regions. Off the top of my head, both Denmark and Scotland have produced an excess of their daily consumption through renewables alone. It isn't hard to imagine that if we built a large enough excess of renewable generation we could account for the times when the wind isn't blowing by importing and exporting between areas where it is.

Nuclear can fill a role in the grid, and is needed long term for a bit of voltage and frequency stability, however a shit ton of renewables can be built and energised quicker than a little bit of nuclear.

If we want to turn off the fossile fuels as quickly and as much as possible, renewables are needed first. Investing in nuclear takes investment away from renewables and delays things. Cancelling renewables in favour of nuclear, like this, with 20 years to build 10 plants, is just ridiculous. How many MW of renewables could they build in 10 years with half that money?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Renewables aren't being cancelled. What is being done is creating a target to construct nuclear power, which inherently means that Sweden is no longer aiming for 100% renewables, but instead a target where 100%=renewables+nuclear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    What's being proposed here is 10 new nuclear plants to help cover 200% of current demand, which is the predicted demand in 20 years' time.

    Currently there are 3 plants in Sweden providing 30% of the country's demand. If we assume the new plants are each as big as the current 3 (chances are they'll be bigger), then you're looking at at least 100% of the country's current demand as nuclear power, or more than 50% of the predicted demand in 20 years.

    With a conservative estimate, if all existing plants close and each new plant is 20% larger, that's around 4 times the country's current nuclear capacity, to be built over 20 years. 60% of the predicted demand in 20 years. That most definitely is putting nuclear before renewables, and will incur significant expense.

    What I'm saying is that more of that money should go towards an excess of renewable capacity now, along with the transmission infrastructure to connect it, which can be built more quickly and cheaper than nuclear such that fossil fuels can be switched off sooner.

    Once fossil fuels are completely replaced, then it will make sense to prioritise nuclear development. Right now, nuclear is a medium-long term solution to a short term problem, where fossil fuels end up being the only option in the meantime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    *10 nuclear reactors, not 10 plants. There are currently 6 reactors in operation in Sweden and another 4 were shut down by the previous government.

    It's essentially a plan to modernize and renew the Swedish nuclear fleet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Scotland could provide enough renewable energy for the whole of the UK. The only reason the PM says they need more fossil fuel is that his family entered into a billion pound contract with BP.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I think Scotland's total MW capacity is more than the UK's demand, however the actual generated amount hasn't been an excess of the country's demand - not like Denmark, which has produced more than 100% of its capacity as renewables while exporting excess to other countries. However, that probably doesn't account for curtailment - the grid operators can tell larger renewable generators to limit or switch off depending on demand.

    When this happens typically the renewable generator still gets paid as if they were generating at capacity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    They produced an excess of energy with renewable. For how long? What energy are they importing when they're not? What fossile energy are they using to provide when they don't? What about countries farther than 100km extremely windy sea?

    Why should nuclear and renewable be opposed btw?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It isn't an opposition, but a matter of priority.

    The goal is to switch off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Nuclear takes a long time, renewables can be done quickly - very quickly.

    If we spend money on nuclear, that's money that could have been spent on renewables, money that could have turned off fossil fuel generation more quickly. Thus it makes more sense -right now- to spend money on renewables. Once we have an excess of renewables and have reached net zero, then nuclear builds should come into play. While the nuclear is being built, rotating stabilisers can be installed to provide voltage & frequency stability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    It's been 20 years that Germany decided to stop nuclear energy. They're burning coal and gas since then, and it got us an energy crisis last year. It's not faster to deploy renewable.

    Mean time to build a nuclear power plant is 7.5 years btw. Not 20. But I'm sure 20 is a lot better for the narrative.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    Switching off nuclear early is a mistake (excluding any technical concerns driving a shutdown). In my opinion, shutdown of a nuclear plant should be staged with completion of a new power plant on the same site. Half the regulatory paperwork is already there if it's already a nuclear site.

    Sweden are targeting 10 plants by 2045, in just over 20 years. Those 10 plants are probably already proposed and partially designed.

    In 7.5 years you could build and energise a shit ton of renewables, and the infrastructure needed to connect it from various remote locations, using less than a quarter of the money they're proposing here.

    From what I can tell the biggest hurdle in Sweden is transmission infrastructure to make use of renewable capacity and potential. For Germany, pulling a guess out of my ass, I'd wager it's more of a "Not In My BackYard" situation that's clogged up development of onshore wind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    You're deliberately trying to conflate the time from before-site-selection to a finished plant with the time for finishing a particular reactor after ground breaking. An analogy would be claiming the average time for a solar plant is three minutes because screwing one panel on takes that long.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Or maybe there are actual studies considering all nuclear power plants built so a mean actually means something. But anti-nuclear people never were about actual facts I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago*

    Which are just as legit as all the studies that show how great oil, coal and gas are, and are peddled by the same peoe using the same methods.

    Show me your study showing that the average time for a gen III or later plant is finished in 7.5 years from the time where sites are being assessed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What fossil fuel will they import in the next 10-20 years that it will take to make the nuclear plants?

    Nuclear and renewables shouldn’t be opposed. Ideally we would have both. The problem is we needed to stop burning fossil fuels a long time ago so we don’t have another 10-20 years to keep burning fossil fuels while we wait for nuclear plants to be made.

    The fossil fuel industry knows that if we take the nuclear ONLY route that we will continue to burn their fuels for decades longer. So they lobby to support that option, hoping that a lot or some of the nuclear plants will never even get finish like we’ve seen happen so many times.

    In addition to that, countries don’t have infinite money to spend on energy. So any amount of the budget spent on nuclear will mean less spent on solar and wind. Solar and wind are the only sources that can be deployed fast enough to allow us to avoid extinction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It doesn't take 20 years to build a nuclear power plant.

    But it's been 20 years Germany decided to get away from nuclear energy, and now they are the proud biggest co2 emmiter in Europe. And now importing fossil fuel from the US to power their energy. How many more years do you think it would take to power Germany with renewables when they were so determined to leave nuclear for the sake of ecology?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •