• @Testnummer37
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      Might be a problem for landlocked countries like Switzerland or so but all swedish reactors are cooled with sea water which is not in short supply any time soon.

        • JasSmith
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Fukushima had structural risks and wasn’t compliant with international standards. Modern reactors don’t carry runaway reaction risks. They just shut down in the event of a power loss. There is zero risk of another Chernobyl with modern reactors.

        • @Testnummer37
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          Easily solved by building them one meter above expected future sea level 😂

          And wind turbines have the problem of needing backup power plants when the wind is not blowing. The whole reason for the energy crisis that europe have right now is because germanys backup plants can’t run as their supplier have their hand full trying to murder their neighbour.

          Wind and solar are great stuff. Puting solar cells on every south facing roff is a no brainer. Hydro- and geothermal powerplants only work where the geography allows it and are in these places also no brainers. But wind is a whole different beast. If you have a good way to save the excess power generated when they are runing then they are super. But right now, outside of repumping back water in to hydro dams, there are no good ways of utilizing it. That leaves at best 50% of a normal country’s power demand to be covered by either fossil fuels or nuclear. Unless you are a climate change denier then that choice is pretty simple. Nuclear is the only viable option if you want to keep the lights on.

    • Aesthesiaphilia
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Sweden?

      Drought?

      Anyway I’m not a civil engineer or geologist or renewable energy engineer or anything, so I won’t pretend to know what the best path is. I’m just hoping they did their studies correctly and are picking the best option.

      But even if they’re not, it’s good they’re moving away from fossil fuels, whichever direction they move in.

      • @schroedingershat
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Well no, that’s the thing. They’ve replaced moving away from fossil fuels now with promising they’re going to in 2045