3 ms·

Anchored in the previous weapons program. Sold as the energy source of the future. Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. It's like rene

Anchored in the previous weapons program. Sold as the energy source of the future. Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. It's like renewables from 1990-2010, the difference being they entered escape velocity and now stand on their own legs. The ones still investing all have nuclear military ambitions and want to share the costs and industry with the civilian side.

belorn 5y ago
Anchored in what way? The military did many concepts during the 1960s, like training pinniped to attack military subs. They didn't pan out. The plants that were built, especially those during the 1980, had nothing to do with the failed projects for nuclear weapons 2 decades earlier. > Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. Feel free to look up Swedish subsidies in the energy sector. Renewables get much more each year, as does fossil fuel. Nuclear power is currently the energy source in Sweden that get taxed highest per watt produced. Considering that those plants been operating for 40-50 years non-stop delivering consistently energy without releasing greenhouse gases, is taxed more than any other energy source, the claim of "huge subsidies" is plainly false in context of Swedish nuclear plants. No nuclear bombs, less subsidies than any other energy source, no greenhouse gases. The military did not help fund the construction for them, nor are they using any aspect of the operation to research or build weapons. Sweden signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968, 4 years before the first commercial nuclear plant. Sweden has been an active advocate for the Non-Proliferation Treaty for 50 years now. Countries that combine nuclear power and nuclear weapons are those who refuses to sign the treaty, like the US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. Sweden is not on that list.

belorn 5y ago

Anchored in what way? The military did many concepts during the 1960s, like training pinniped to attack military subs. They didn't pan out. The plants that were built, especially those during the 1980, had nothing to do with the failed projects for nuclear weapons 2 decades earlier. > Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. Feel free to look up Swedish subsidies in the energy sector. Renewables get much more each year, as does fossil fuel. Nuclear power is currently the energy source in Sweden that get taxed highest per watt produced. Considering that those plants been operating for 40-50 years non-stop delivering consistently energy without releasing greenhouse gases, is taxed more than any other energy source, the claim of "huge subsidies" is plainly false in context of Swedish nuclear plants. No nuclear bombs, less subsidies than any other energy source, no greenhouse gases. The military did not help fund the construction for them, nor are they using any aspect of the operation to research or build weapons. Sweden signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968, 4 years before the first commercial nuclear plant. Sweden has been an active advocate for the Non-Proliferation Treaty for 50 years now. Countries that combine nuclear power and nuclear weapons are those who refuses to sign the treaty, like the US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. Sweden is not on that list.