• lettruthout
    link
    English
    42 months ago

    Yay, short term power and profits!!! Who cares about future generations?

    • Display name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 months ago

      On the contrary it will be very expensive for the tax payers and only pay off if the energy price is above some certain price, which it probably wont since renewable energy has given Sweden negative energy prices recently, and most certainly will continue to do. And if that’s the case, the state has to pay the reactor owner the difference instead.

      • lettruthout
        link
        English
        22 months ago

        All correct. The profit being earned is by the companies building the reactors - not tax/rate payers.

    • federal reverseM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      The only way to generate short-term profits from nuclear power is to take over a running reactor. But building these things takes a close-to-prohibitive amount of money in all Western countries. There must be motivations other than cost effectiveness.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 months ago

        The motivation is getting money from lobbyists.

        And those don’t even need to be pro-nuclear lobbyists… fossil fuel ones will do to as every single “sure, we totally will build nuclear power and it will magically solve all our problems (even i fthe capacity is meaningless to actually solve anything)”-story helps to delay reneweable power.

        • federal reverseM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Weird how fossil fuel companies also managed to instrumentalize solar PV too. Iirc, both Shell and BP created solar departments which they then allowed to generate a low single-digit percentage of revenue. Thus, a) generating positive media coverage and b) not endangering their fossil core business.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 month ago

            Not at all. Renewables used to be so expensive, that they were basically not an option. That is no longer the case.

            Today nuclear is great as a new power plant takes a decade in planning, approving and building before it produces any power. So a decade more fossil fuels.

      • lettruthout
        link
        English
        22 months ago

        Agreed that other motivations exist, but the companies building the reactors are the ones making the profit - not tax/rate payers

  • Display name
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32 months ago

    What to remember from this promise is that a construction of a new nuclear plant will begin… in some form.

    That is, not necessarily a physical nuclear plant, it can just as well be only a permit to make one. It’s a nice way to say ‘Hey we began the process of a new reactor!’ without having to go back on his words if there won’t be an actual construction start before the election.

  • lnxtx
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 months ago

    From the article:

    The type of reactor is still being decided upon, but Kristersson’s government aims to hit the goal of two new large-scale reactors by 2035.

    No SMRs yet?

    • Nightwatch Admin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      If you mean molten salt / thorium reactor: forget it, not gonna happen in a loong time.

      • federal reverseM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        “SMR” just means “small” and implies nothing about the technology used. But the quote specifically mentioned a “large-scale” reactor.

        That said, if Sweden were willing to buy molten salt tech from China, it might happen sooner.