this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
277 points (94.8% liked)

World News

39000 readers
3146 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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?

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 1 points 1 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.