Well, okay, maybe I’m reading it with a bit more context in mind. But it is not abandoning renewable energy altogether, it is only abandoning the specific goal of 100% renewable energy by 2040 in favor of 100% fossil-free.
Sweden is getting 70% of its power from renewables, they’re not going to abandon all that. They have just changed the specific goal in order to justify adding nuclear power to the mix, because it has been deemed necessary to cover energy demands.
What I meant is, that the headline makes it sound as if they are scrapping renewable energy, while the article reveals they’re just scrapping the 100% renewable energy goal.
The best time to ignore the nuke shills and build wind and solar was the 1940s when both wind and solar thermal were proven economically and fission hadn’t happened yet.
I disagree… the biggest “issue” I have with “renewables” is the storage problem… That 20 years gives you time to figure out something while reducing the carbon output
…no it won’t because the new nuclear will generate nothing for 20 years. Whereas the renewables will reduce some carbon, even if we pretend that storage is both unsolvable (as opposed to already cheaper than nuclear) and necessary in a grid that’s already 40% hydro.
deleted by creator
Which is exactly what they’re doing if you read the article.
deleted by creator
Well, okay, maybe I’m reading it with a bit more context in mind. But it is not abandoning renewable energy altogether, it is only abandoning the specific goal of 100% renewable energy by 2040 in favor of 100% fossil-free.
Sweden is getting 70% of its power from renewables, they’re not going to abandon all that. They have just changed the specific goal in order to justify adding nuclear power to the mix, because it has been deemed necessary to cover energy demands.
What I meant is, that the headline makes it sound as if they are scrapping renewable energy, while the article reveals they’re just scrapping the 100% renewable energy goal.
deleted by creator
Building a stop-gap that will be ready 20 years after you get to the main destination for 10x the price isn’t a bright move.
This would be a stronger argument, if it wasn’t 20 years old already.
The best time to ignore the nuke shills and build wind and solar was the 1940s when both wind and solar thermal were proven economically and fission hadn’t happened yet.
The second best time is now.
The best time to ignore the nuclear scare mongers us whenever they open their ignorant mouths.
You’re confusing tired contempt with fear.
No, you definitely have an irrational fear of nuclear power.
Removed by mod
I disagree… the biggest “issue” I have with “renewables” is the storage problem… That 20 years gives you time to figure out something while reducing the carbon output
Battery storage is already cheaper than nuclear.
…no it won’t because the new nuclear will generate nothing for 20 years. Whereas the renewables will reduce some carbon, even if we pretend that storage is both unsolvable (as opposed to already cheaper than nuclear) and necessary in a grid that’s already 40% hydro.