• TWeaK
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    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.

    • Iceblade
      link
      English
      11 year 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.