3 ms·
I did not mention nuclear safety anywhere, why do you bring this up? If you insist on discussing it I can bring up that US nuclear power ends up all the way at
by Ourgon 5y ago
I did not mention nuclear safety anywhere, why do you bring this up? If you insist on discussing it I can bring up that US nuclear power ends up all the way at the bottom of the list over the mortality rate (direct deaths and epidemiological estimates) with 0.1 lives lost per trillion kWh. Global nuclear, that is including Chernobyl, Fukushima and all other known accidents in the last 40 years ends up higher at 90 deaths/trillion kWh. The list, in order from low to high mortality goes like this:
Mortality rate in deaths per trillion kWh
0.1 - US nuclear
5 - US hydro
90 - nuclear
150 - wind
440 - solar
1400 - hydro
4000 - natural gas
10000 - US coal
24000 - biofuel and biomass
36000 - oil
100000 - coal
170000 - China coal
source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/#7f6457085e19 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-g...
Another thing, I related to the shutdown of Swedish nuclear power, not German nuclear power so why did you bring up those numbers on Germany? It is very clear that the closure of those Swedish nuclear power plants - which could have run until 2036 without problems, by which time replacements would have been in place - has made the electricity supply in Sweden less reliable and the price swings more frequent and intense. The oil-fired peak power plant in Karlshamn would normally only be fired up in the cold of winter but last year it was used in the middle of summer to avoid a brown-out in Stockholm.
- cycomanic 5y agoI brought Germany up, because the whole topic here was on Germany and you make the exact same argument for Sweden as was made for Germany. Regarding the plant shutdown, you nicely ignored the fact that contrary to your assertion it was just down for economic reasons. Sure Vattenfall could have kept it running and made losses and now that demand increased they would have stopped prices going up (likely not because the big winners of the price hikes are the nuclear power plant operators). They could have also build windfarms for that money that likely would have taken prices down.
- Ourgon 5y agoNo, this is an oft repeated statement which is simply not true. Had "Miljöpartiet" not pushed for the closure of those reactors they would still be running. If you'd rather take this from the horse's mouth here's Lorenz Tovatt, energy policy spokesman for that party [1]: Haha det är så kul med kärnkraftshögermän som låtsas att vi i MP motarbetat kärnkraft ”i smyg” för att sen skylla på marknaden. Löjligt. Jag tar hemskt gärna cred för nedlagd kärnkraft. Utan MP hade nog flera av de nedslängda reaktorerna rullat vidare. ...which translates to: Haha it's so much fun with nuclear right-wingers who pretend that we in the MP ("Miljöpartiet") opposed nuclear power "secretly" and then blame the market. Ridiculous. I'm terribly happy to take credit for discontinued nuclear power. Without MP, several of the closed ("nedslängda" means "dropped", I guess he meant to write "nedstängda" which means "closed") reactors would probably have rolled on. So, no. Not "the market" but politics pushing that market in a certain direction. [1] https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328 https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328