Sweden's parliament on Tuesday (20 June) adopted a new energy target, giving the right-wing government the green light to push forward with plans to build new nuclear plants in a country that voted 40 years ago to phase out atomic power.
Nuclear is the cleanest energy available on the planet. The fuel lasts for decades and is 90% recyclable. Heat up water, make steam, spin turbines. That’s it. Then you recycle the rods and do it again. Only 10% of the energy can’t be used after decades of producing power.
Here’s a little science lesson for you, the longer something is radioactive, the less dangerous it is. Danger is expressed as dose over time. If that time is hundreds of thousands, or millions of years, the dose per second will be miniscule.
Also, if all the nuclear waste ever produced was gathered into one location, it would all fit on a standard football pitch. That’s how efficient this stuff is.
And then you ask what do we do with this waste? Well, 90% of it can go right back into a reactor, a lot of the remaining 10% can be used in various industries, including medicine.
The rest? Just bury it and forget about it, by the time any theoretical future civilization digs it up, it will have decayed into a stable form.
The final little note, most of the anti-nuclear talking points were invented by the fossil fuel industry. Some of the talking points go back to the 1950s
So instead of (rightly) not believing the fossil fuel industry you link to a website created by a guy working on nuclear reactors? This is exactly the same: big companies want everyone to build centralized big plants instead of local productionthat actually helps home owners and the regular people.
Nuclear waste is a huge problem as many countries simply don’t find a place to burry the stuff. You don’t need a lot of nuclear material to cause consequences that will last for centuries.
Nuclear Power Plants also might be safe under normal circumstances but they are not safe in case of human stupidity, wars and earthquakes/tsunamis.
Compared to something like solar or wind nuclear is just stupid. It is unsafe, only big corporations profit of it, has huge risks, is centralized and therefore a risk factor, way to expensive and simply a bad idea. It also takes decades to build Nuclear Powerplants.
So if you have some, let them keep running if you must but don’t build new ones, invest into safe sources of energy instead.
While it’s more than 5 years old, and energy storage has gotten better, the fact still remains that solar and wind need some sort of backup power source, and the only thing that can currently respond fast enough, with enough capacity, is natural gas.
The really fucked up part of all of this is, fossil fuel backed groups, including some environmental groups, are pushing to take nuclear offline in favor of solar and wind (but really natural gas peaker plants that can charge exorbitant rates)
And that Article was written by Michael Shellenberger, a person who previously lobbied for the usage of Shale gas and is considered to be a Nuclear Energy lobbyist.
The main energy source in Sweden is Hydroelectric power which is quite good at storing energy at least if you use Pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Additionally the price for batteries goes down each year. The cost for 1KWh of a Salt Water Battery in Switzerland for example is about 800 CHF or 815 € (https://www.energieheld.ch/solaranlagen/stromspeicher/salzspeicher). I chose that specific battery type because it is environmentally friendly and recycleable. If we would start to equip buildings with such batteries, we could store more and more energy decentralized which would make the energy grid way more stable in the long run.
Meanwhile last December many Nuclear power plants in France shut down, resulting in massive price hikes for electricity. That’s the reason my electricity bill doubled out of nothing. So no, Nuclear Power Plants are not making our electricity prices more stable.
Additionally Europe is quite huge. Sure, there are times where there is now wind or sun in Sweden but then you have Portugal which is connected to the same grid. If done right using renewables is going to create a more stable electricity grid and actually help regular people to afford electricity by generating it themselves.
I notice that you keep attacking the sources because they’re in favor of nuclear energy.
Which is kind of stupid considering that I’m giving you articles that are written in favor of nuclear energy. It shows that you are acting in bad faith here.
As to hydroelectric… There are issues. There’s a pretty massive environmental impact of putting a new lake in the middle of an active river system, and then there’s the methane.
There’s a reason why the Sierra Club used to have a slogan that read “Atoms, not Dams”. Well, they had that slogan until the fossil fuel industry started outright paying to sabotage nuclear energy.
Build nuclear reactors and people complain about waste. Build solar panels and people complain about the destruction of local habitats. Build wind turbines and people complain about the view. Build hydroelectric dams and people complain about the river ecosystem.
Instead they opt for nuclear, with the foreign mining resource dependency, foreign enrichment facilities dependency, highest electricity price and unresolved waste problem.
We do need all kinds of energy in sweden right now. River powerplants are pretty much maximized (at least in the north). Wind is beeing built all over, but often rejected by local municipalities (don’t ask me why).
We have a serious issue with transporting energy from the north to the south, the cables are simply underdimensioned and that had pushed the prices up in the south. A looming industrial boom in the north will as of now actually lead to power shortage if that bottle neck can not be solved.
And here nuclear comes in. It’s really sad and quite dumb that several nuclear plants been shut down before their time. And it was not just an economical solution but an environmental one, the left will however not take responsibility for that decision.
Que the rights calls for new nuclear plants - which most likely will be way to expensive and won’t solve shortages in time.
EU joint energy market also drives prices in sweden well beyond reason.
In short - political decisions and indecision by several governments, have lead sweden onto a path to new nuclear instead of using existing plants as long as possible while building wind/solar in time where it’s really needed.
(I’m personally not against modern nuclear tech, although I truly hope we get fusion working at least during my lifetime)
Grid-scale energy storage is not yet practical. When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, do you want to burn gas or nuclear. Those are the choices.
Though, I suppose you could also go the German route, close your nuclear plants and then be forced to reopen coal plants due to power shortages.
deleted by creator
Nuclear is the cleanest energy available on the planet. The fuel lasts for decades and is 90% recyclable. Heat up water, make steam, spin turbines. That’s it. Then you recycle the rods and do it again. Only 10% of the energy can’t be used after decades of producing power.
Ah, I see, you want the nuclear wastes in your appartment/house because it is so clean. We finally found a place for it.
Nuclear is nowhere near clean. And its waste stays radioactive for milennias. Renewable energy sources are way cleaner.
Here’s a little science lesson for you, the longer something is radioactive, the less dangerous it is. Danger is expressed as dose over time. If that time is hundreds of thousands, or millions of years, the dose per second will be miniscule.
Also, if all the nuclear waste ever produced was gathered into one location, it would all fit on a standard football pitch. That’s how efficient this stuff is.
And then you ask what do we do with this waste? Well, 90% of it can go right back into a reactor, a lot of the remaining 10% can be used in various industries, including medicine.
The rest? Just bury it and forget about it, by the time any theoretical future civilization digs it up, it will have decayed into a stable form.
The final little note, most of the anti-nuclear talking points were invented by the fossil fuel industry. Some of the talking points go back to the 1950s
So instead of (rightly) not believing the fossil fuel industry you link to a website created by a guy working on nuclear reactors? This is exactly the same: big companies want everyone to build centralized big plants instead of local productionthat actually helps home owners and the regular people.
Nuclear waste is a huge problem as many countries simply don’t find a place to burry the stuff. You don’t need a lot of nuclear material to cause consequences that will last for centuries.
Nuclear Power Plants also might be safe under normal circumstances but they are not safe in case of human stupidity, wars and earthquakes/tsunamis.
Compared to something like solar or wind nuclear is just stupid. It is unsafe, only big corporations profit of it, has huge risks, is centralized and therefore a risk factor, way to expensive and simply a bad idea. It also takes decades to build Nuclear Powerplants.
So if you have some, let them keep running if you must but don’t build new ones, invest into safe sources of energy instead.
Here’s a fun little article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/
While it’s more than 5 years old, and energy storage has gotten better, the fact still remains that solar and wind need some sort of backup power source, and the only thing that can currently respond fast enough, with enough capacity, is natural gas.
The really fucked up part of all of this is, fossil fuel backed groups, including some environmental groups, are pushing to take nuclear offline in favor of solar and wind (but really natural gas peaker plants that can charge exorbitant rates)
And that Article was written by Michael Shellenberger, a person who previously lobbied for the usage of Shale gas and is considered to be a Nuclear Energy lobbyist.
The main energy source in Sweden is Hydroelectric power which is quite good at storing energy at least if you use Pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Additionally the price for batteries goes down each year. The cost for 1KWh of a Salt Water Battery in Switzerland for example is about 800 CHF or 815 € (https://www.energieheld.ch/solaranlagen/stromspeicher/salzspeicher). I chose that specific battery type because it is environmentally friendly and recycleable. If we would start to equip buildings with such batteries, we could store more and more energy decentralized which would make the energy grid way more stable in the long run.
Meanwhile last December many Nuclear power plants in France shut down, resulting in massive price hikes for electricity. That’s the reason my electricity bill doubled out of nothing. So no, Nuclear Power Plants are not making our electricity prices more stable.
Additionally Europe is quite huge. Sure, there are times where there is now wind or sun in Sweden but then you have Portugal which is connected to the same grid. If done right using renewables is going to create a more stable electricity grid and actually help regular people to afford electricity by generating it themselves.
I notice that you keep attacking the sources because they’re in favor of nuclear energy.
Which is kind of stupid considering that I’m giving you articles that are written in favor of nuclear energy. It shows that you are acting in bad faith here.
As to your claims that nuclear power isn’t stable because France had its reactors down for scheduled maintenance and a war broke out that impacted their backup power supply…
It’s a good thing that France doesn’t listen to you about energy policy.
As to hydroelectric… There are issues. There’s a pretty massive environmental impact of putting a new lake in the middle of an active river system, and then there’s the methane.
There’s a reason why the Sierra Club used to have a slogan that read “Atoms, not Dams”. Well, they had that slogan until the fossil fuel industry started outright paying to sabotage nuclear energy.
Build nuclear reactors and people complain about waste. Build solar panels and people complain about the destruction of local habitats. Build wind turbines and people complain about the view. Build hydroelectric dams and people complain about the river ecosystem.
Serious question, what options do they have? I don’t know enough about Sweden to comment.
Sweden is the 3rd largest country in the EU with only about 10.5 million people living there: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/key-facts-and-figures/life-eu_en
They are already using hydro and wind for electricity generation (2022 ~64%, but already in 2015 ~59%: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=SE&download-format=image%2Fpng&interval=year&year=2022) and could just increase those or add any other renewable with all the land and sea area they have to reach 100% independence and renewable.
Instead they opt for nuclear, with the foreign mining resource dependency, foreign enrichment facilities dependency, highest electricity price and unresolved waste problem.
We do need all kinds of energy in sweden right now. River powerplants are pretty much maximized (at least in the north). Wind is beeing built all over, but often rejected by local municipalities (don’t ask me why). We have a serious issue with transporting energy from the north to the south, the cables are simply underdimensioned and that had pushed the prices up in the south. A looming industrial boom in the north will as of now actually lead to power shortage if that bottle neck can not be solved. And here nuclear comes in. It’s really sad and quite dumb that several nuclear plants been shut down before their time. And it was not just an economical solution but an environmental one, the left will however not take responsibility for that decision. Que the rights calls for new nuclear plants - which most likely will be way to expensive and won’t solve shortages in time. EU joint energy market also drives prices in sweden well beyond reason. In short - political decisions and indecision by several governments, have lead sweden onto a path to new nuclear instead of using existing plants as long as possible while building wind/solar in time where it’s really needed. (I’m personally not against modern nuclear tech, although I truly hope we get fusion working at least during my lifetime)
Grid-scale energy storage is not yet practical. When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, do you want to burn gas or nuclear. Those are the choices.
Though, I suppose you could also go the German route, close your nuclear plants and then be forced to reopen coal plants due to power shortages.