• @schroedingershat
    link
    English
    731 year ago

    This isn’t an “all of the above approach” though, it’s a “cancel the short term plans and pretend we’re going to do something later” approach.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27
      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
        link
        English
        91 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 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?

          • @schroedingershat
            link
            English
            61 year ago

            Still requires expanding uranium production somewhere, and likely also buying from Russia.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              10
              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
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              Sweden has uranium reserves and produced it’s own uranium in the 60-s. Though I think laws currently prevent mining.

              • @schroedingershat
                link
                English
                3
                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
                  link
                  English
                  -11 year ago

                  Anti nuclear sentiment is pro-fossil fuel. You’re inventing problems and prolonging dependance on oil.

                  • @schroedingershat
                    link
                    English
                    11 year ago

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

      • @Rakonat
        link
        English
        61 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
          link
          fedilink
          31 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
            link
            English
            11 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.

    • Pelicanen
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      Two things that are relevant is that Sweden is very, very dark during the winter which reduces the profitability of solar and also that it’s extremely difficult to get approval for wind turbines right now.

      Municipalities have the power to veto building projects and almost all of them choose to block wind power installations. Wind turbines generate sound, both audible and infrasound (which can disturb sleep), and are sometimes considered a bit of an eyesore which can both reduce the value of properties near them and make people less inclined to move to that region which reduces tax income for the municipality. This could be offset by taxation of the wind power, but currently all taxable income from wind turbines go to the state instead of any of the local governments.

      There was recently an inquiry into how to make municipalities more likely to approve wind power construction and the restriction that the government gave them was that they were not allowed to suggest tax revenue being diverted to the local government. Which was the only suggestion that they said would be effective.

      So… yeah.