• jonne
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    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
      11
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            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.

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

                  Cancelling low carbon energy and making vague promises of spending 10x as much is definitely not a pro fossil fuel move /s

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

                    A low carbon energy source is useless if it cannot cover peak loads, which are now being covered by fossil fuels. Years of greenie obstructionism now means that the nuclear plants that would have been built are now missing, and the solutions offered by the anti-nuclear lobby seems to be “let them have energy poverty, brownouts and outright blackouts are not our problem”. This will happen once coal and oil plants shut down, renewables alone cannot cover the demands, especially at peak load.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
        3
        ·
        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.