26 ms·
Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built
- tpmx 4y agohttps://archive.ph/AWEHq https://archive.ph/AWEHq
- AustinDev 4y agoGood for them. I wish the rest of Europe would embrace this strategy.
- fspacek 4y ago
- badwolf 4y agoOutstanding! More, more, more!
- lnsru 4y agoMeanwhile in Germany: https://switzerlandtimes.ch/world/german-greens-remain-firm-on-the-nuclear-issue/ https://switzerlandtimes.ch/world/german-greens-remain-firm-... Welcome to The new dark ages in Germany. Leading politicians even do not have any higher education: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricarda_Lang https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricarda_Lang It’s scary how these people decide about topics they have no idea about.
- noja 4y agoYou're likely in the giant country that is the USA, with large swathes of lightly populated land. Germany isn't that.
- froh 4y agoDr Angela Merkel holds a PhD in quantum physics. she stands by her cabinets decision to leave nuclear energy in densely populated Germany, as per a recent interview. renewables will provide for 80% of Germanies energy needs by 2030, and close enough to 100% in 2050.
- capitainenemo 4y agoThe last I read into Germany's plan to be "100%" renewable, it was using other countries in Europe to provide the base load using their hydro and nuclear. Which is great so long as they have excess to provide Germany I suppose. There does not seem to be nearly enough construction of pumped storage or battery to cover the unevenness of German wind power. In fact, their prices have gone negative repeatedly in the past, which is not in fact a good thing. (OMG help, we'll pay anyone to take this power before the grid blows up!)
- ncmncm 4y agoIt would be stupid to spend on storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. In the meantime they spend, sensibly, on renewable generating capacity. By the time there is enough, storage will be massively cheaper. In the meantime, charging storage from gas or coal and then drawing it down is the same as burning gas or coal for immediate use, just with losses.
- capitainenemo 4y agoThe storage should be built in conjunction with the renewable generation to avoid those excess grid damaging events which is just wasteful. Similar issue to US where constructing generation is being subsidised but not constructing storage along with it.
- ncmncm 4y agoThere are no "grid damaging events".
- capitainenemo 4y agoCorrect, because they price it negatively to avoid that happening. It's still indicative of a problem.
- elihu 4y ago
- anigbrowl 4y agoWithout endorsing her political positions, it's false to assert that Lang does 'not have any higher education'; your own link states 'After graduating from the Hölderlin-Gymnasium Nürtingen in 2012, Lang began studying law, first at the Heidelberg University and later at the Humboldt University of Berlin, eventually dropping out in 2019 without graduating.' Relying on hyperbole like this undermines your own argument.
- Isolus 4y agoGermany is a densely populated country. We already don't know where to put the nuclear waste. No one wants it on his or her doorstep. The cost of storage alone is a nightmare. The nuclear exit was supported by the population and not decided against them by politicians. And to your criticism: A lot of politicians in germany are lawyers. Are they allowed do decide for the country? Do they have an idea about nuclear topics?
- anonporridge 4y ago> We already don't know where to put the nuclear waste. No one wants it on his or her doorstep. How about with their very friendly neighbors across the Baltic Sea who are about to finish a facility for exactly this purpose? https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-store-nuclear-waste-can-it-survive-100000-years https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-s... Even ignoring this, pearl clutching about the nuclear waste storage problem without directly contrasting it with the CO2 waste problem is highly problematic. Nuclear waste is a contained, tractable problem even if challenging. We barely even know where to begin with tackling the problem of removing gigatons of CO2 from the high atmosphere.
- o_1 4y agoare you saying because you can't fix one problem you shouldn't approach another? What does removal of atmospheric C02 have to do with storing nuclear waste. I think Germany has even bigger problems with there natural gas policy. Extracting C02 shouldn't be your main concern versus much dangerously low in home temperatures in winter.
- timmg 4y agoHow do ya’ll manage to live next door to France? They seem to have it figured out.
- switch007 4y agoDidn’t they have to shut down a load of nuclear this summer because they couldn’t cool it sufficiently? Can’t see that getting any better climate wise
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
- nicbou 4y agoRemember which website you are on, and it's community standards.
- dang 4y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive and flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32902774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32902774 (Sept 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30016351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30016351 (Jan 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29833297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29833297 (Jan 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29213045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29213045 (Nov 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354803 (March 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19086334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19086334 (Feb 2019)
- tpmx 4y agoThe new coalition government has pledged $40B (approximately the market cap of Twitter, heh) in loan guarantees for nuclear power construction. They have also pledged to create legal guarantees that future politicians will not be able to shut down functioning nuclear power reactors without suitable monetary compensation to the owners/operators of these reactors. In addition to this, they are commissioning an urgent study on how to rebuild Ringhals 1 and 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringhals_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringhals_Nuclear_Power_Plant, about 1 GW each), two nuclear reactors that were prematurely decommissioned by the previous social-democratic government and shut down about 20 months ago. Personally I'm really happy; I think massive expansion of nuclear power is the only realistic way to fix climate change. The first reactors built will be modern but traditionally large. From then on: There has been a lot of interest in small modular reactors (SMR) from the political party that is driving all of this, and they actually got the nationally owned energy company Vattenfall to begin building prototypes at Ringhals a few months ago. In summary: Lots of champagne bottles popping tonight in Sweden in the homes of clean nuclear power proponents. We have been waiting for this for a very long time. Cheers!
- _Microft 4y agoAre the economics of nuclear power somehow more favorable in Sweden? That seems to be the major issue elsewhere from what I understand.
- tpmx 4y agoNo, not really. It makes a lot of sense in all stable countries.
- markvdb 4y agoThere is no such thing as a stable country on the time scale required for nuclear energy safety. That requires decades. Humanity cannot provide that. Enerhodar is not the only example. World war two ended roughly 77 year ago. The US civil war was less than 160 years ago.
- sergiotapia 4y agoHow do I vote for similar politicians in the USA? We need nuclear, and we need it yesterday.
- anigbrowl 4y agoLook at the most recently constructed nuclear plants in the USA, figure out who allowed that to happen, and and conspicuously give them public credit for their decisions.
- Tagbert 4y agoI think the point is that it has been decades since a new nuclear facility was built in the US so there really isn’t any around to promote.
- anigbrowl 4y agoWe just finished building one and are loading fuel into it as I write these words. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813
- boc 4y agoFrom today's front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 > Georgia Power announced tonight that fuel load into the Vogtle Unit 3 reactor core has begun at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga. The fuel load process marks a historic and pivotal milestone toward startup and commercial operation of the first new nuclear units to be built in the U.S. in more than three decades.
- ncmncm 4y agoLook at the recent fiascos where $15B has already been spent and they say giving them another $10B will surely provide you with a 2GW plant, if you just wait enough years more. Or might not. "Public credit" for these massive corruption festivals does not lead to good results.
- mkl95 4y agoSweden is a small player in the EU but hopefully this will drive more countries away from Germany's dystopian madness
- lampshades 4y agoWhat is Germanys dystopian madness?
- mkl95 4y agoRelying on coal on for 30%+ of their electricity
- cjblomqvist 4y agoAccording to Wikipedia (quoting a source from jan 2021) 24% of energy production comes from coal.
- mkl95 4y agoAccording to the German Federal Statistical Office (report released a few weeks ago) it was 31.4% on the first half of the year up from 17.2% on the same period a year earlier. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/_node.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...
- ncmncm 4y agoIt is dishonest to conflate emergency war measures as policy.
- est31 4y agoYeah the plan was to buy methane gas from Russia instead. Still a non renewable source, but the gas would have caused less CO2 emissions and less pollution (gas causes less CO2 per kilowatt hour). Of course, the war and the bombings of NordStream have put an end to that.
- ncmncm 4y agoReactors will not be forced to shut down, in the future. Instead, they will be shut down as unable to produce power at a competitive price. Those that continue operating will depend even more on taxpayer subsidies than they do now. The money that will be spent on these new reactors would buy a hell of a lot more wind power than these nukes could produce. But money for renewables would not go into the pockets of right-wing blueblood Swedes, which seems to be what matters to the incoming government. When the nukes are mothballed early, every kWh they ever produced will, instantly, have actually cost much more than had been reckoned, as the fixed costs are amortized over fewer total.
- nathanaldensr 4y agoPure FUD. The wind doesn't blow all the time and battery technology at scale isn't there.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoYes, why not both?
- ncmncm 4y agoMoney is fungible. Each dollar spent on nuke generating capacity is that dollar not spent on several times as much renewable generating capacity.
- belorn 4y agoA bit of context, the south area which this reactor is suggested to be built in has occasionally a 1000% electricity higher price from the northern regions. A big reason for this is that prices in the south is highly connected to markets that the south region is connected to, and those region are heavily importers of electricity creating a higher demand than there is available of cheap energy. For example, in order to address this there is a oil power plant operating basically 24/7 and does so very profitably even with high oil prices.
- Gwypaas 4y agoNew export cables will be ready the day these would come online, if the ever come online. Decoupling the SE4 and SE3 regions from the European energy market will never be a sustainable solution due to the possible arbitrage.
- cjblomqvist 4y agoFrom what I understand it's also (mainly?) because the southern areas pricing is very connected to Danish and German markets.
- alkonaut 4y agoMaybe someone should sabotage some energy infrastructure on the Baltic seabed to ensure better prices in Sweden…
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway473825 4y agoSweden isn't exporting electricity for free. The money is there - it just needs to be redistributed from companies to the people.
- worldsayshi 4y agoOr the very least, be used to build new energy infrastructure and generation.
- endisneigh 4y agothis is great, but couldn't a future cabinet undo this? best to save the applause for when it's built and operational
- NKosmatos 4y agoThe only green solution to our current energy problem is more nuclear power plants. We have to stop relying on coal, wood, oil, gas and the rest of the “dirty” materials.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- f_allwein 4y agoExcept nuclear is expensive and takes decades to build, runs on non renewable materials (a good percentage of which come from Russia), leaves waste that is deadly for 100.000s of years, and promising new technologies will need decades to reach maturity. Now why is it so great compared to, say, solar or geothermal?
- Slava_Propanei 4y ago
- f_allwein 4y agoOh wait! And will stop working if your rivers should run dry, as happened in France this summer. Oh and! May not be so easy to build, supposing not everyone loves the technology as much as you do. Google Wackersdorf. Edit: of course, you assume you’d be able to run your power plants safely throughout their life span, even if cough a natural disaster were to occur nearby.
- varajelle 4y agoIt was not because the river were dry, but because the river where too warm. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-redu... > France’s nuclear safety authority (ASN) set temperature and river flow limits beyond which power stations must reduce their production, to ensure the water used to cool the plants will not harm wildlife when it is released back into the rivers. It's just an conservative artificial limit set to ensure that Nuclear is indeed the most ecological source of power since it even has higher standard than anything else. In case the power is really needed, this limit could be lifted. Oh, this is exactly what happened https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-asn-nuclear-regulator-adapts-hot-water-discharge-rules-light-heatwave-2022-08-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-asn-nuclear-reg...
- alkonaut 4y agoNow find out how to not just do it but do it quickly. The last time (two additional reactors in an existing plant) was built in 24 months and on budget.
- yrgulation 4y agoElectricity should cost peanuts and that should the goal of every sane government.
- tuukkah 4y agoElectricity prices should include all the negative externalities such as pollution, carbon dioxide, destruction of habitats, geopolitical dependence on Russia etc.
- pixelfarmer 4y agoElectricity, like an increasing bunch of other things, is part of the infrastructure. The amount and different levels of infrastructure pretty much define "civilization", do away with infrastructure and your civilization is done for. Which also means that the way a civilization treats its infrastructure tells you a lot about this civilization. If you look at Europe, they messed things up big time. Firstly, running infrastructure like a company will never work, by design. So this whole privatization is a big sham to begin with. It is made worse by the fact that there cannot be a market as such, so they defined rules to create a market. Humans being exactly that are too stupid to include the human factor into rules, so this whole "market" is completely and utterly broken, and pretty much a money transfer machinery (like so many others) from the bottom to the top. Which means in the end, while I can understand your idea/approach, but it will not solve the problem with energy cost.
- tuukkah 4y agoBut I think it will, and we see this already happening. Currently, the electricity price is so high that it makes economic sense to build wind and solar that are better for the environment. I'm not saying it should be an unregulated free market - we've seen those don't work (exactly because of the externalities). But this does not mean there cannot be regulated markets and partial markets. The grid is infrastructure that shouldn't be run as a company, but production and storage capacity can be bought from markets as long as the grid rules factor in the externalities.
- locallost 4y ago
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIf you believe that, you're probably in a cult. The most extreme climate models don't predict anything you could reasonably characterize as "won't be a planet left."
- naillo 4y agoNot to start this whole flamewar but I was totally in the other camp (not yours) and then covid hit and now my trust in consensus science is super worn out and have basically started to believe it might be fine.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoThe "consensus science" doesn't say anything about the "end of the world" or societal collapse in 20 years.
- ncmncm 4y agoSocial science is far from exact enough to predict either eventuality with any confidence. If waves of tens or hundreds of millions of refugees leaving places they cannot live in any longer begin sweeping across borders, how long will it be before fascist governments, already threatening, and already winning in Turkey, Poland, Russia, Belarus, the Philippines, Brazil, Hungary, Italy, and India take over generally and initiate wars, as they do? Such wars might not go thermonuclear, but they would certainly disrupt fragile global trade networks.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoPeople have had terrible governments before, for most of human history in fact. I do expect global social conditions to deteriorate as climate change strains countries, but that's a far cry from the end of the planet. As for global thermonuclear war, we could wargame likely scenarios and potential outcomes endlessly until the day it might actually happen. But anybody who tells you with certainty that one will happen in the next 20 years so there's no sense planning for the future (e.g. no sense building a power plant that will be used 20 years from now) is trying to indoctrinate you into a doomsday cult.
- Gwypaas 4y agoTypical right-wing reactionary environmental policy. When you do not have any climate-related politics to bring to the table, all you do is shout "nuclear" at the top of your lungs and tote it as the solution to everything climate. > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. > However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. > With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
- kramerger 4y agoNote that according to the press conference they want to start investigating the possibility of it. The previous government had basically said the same thing. Neither will actually built anything in the near future.
- LightG 4y agoOne question for nuclear advocates, as I know it's full on-trend at the moment: What's to stop adversaries holding countries to ransom using their nucealer facilities? Just like Russia is playing "games" around the Ukranian nuclear plant? What's to stop that being used as the new threat? We won't turn your gas off, we'll threaten your nuclear plants? Genuine question.
- orthecreedence 4y ago> What's to stop adversaries holding countries to ransom using their nucealer facilities? Nothing, unless you yourself have leverage. Every resource or dependency is a potential weakness. The idea is to be able to say "ok, if you bomb our fission plant, we'll shut off your fresh water supply." It's all a huge game of chess.
- LightG 4y agoBut doesn't chess rely on two half-decent actors sitting down across a table from each other? Clearly some actors are willing to throw the board across the room In which case, why are 'we' considering creating that weakness? I understand there is a strong wave behind nuclear right now, but it does feel like we're just creating the instruments of another, different, mess.
- orthecreedence 4y ago> But doesn't chess rely on two half-decent actors sitting down across a table from each other? No? People play "chess" all the time without sitting down at a board. You're twisting the metaphor. > Clearly some actors are willing to throw the board across the room And like I said, there would be consequences for that. > In which case, why are 'we' considering creating that weakness? Having a large body of fresh water is a weakness. Maybe we should send it all away to another country...? > I understand there is a strong wave behind nuclear right now, but it does feel like we're just creating the instruments of another, different, mess. The mess has already been created. It's called an enormous population of 8 billion people. How do you produce all the things they need without destroying the planet? There are more existential issues at hand than "well, nuclear is a perfect energy source, but people who don't like us might hurt our energy production so we should just do ..." Do what instead? Any power source can be attacked. I don't even get your position here. The only way to mitigate attack is complete distribution. Solar is great for that, but unfortunately unbelievably underpowered to drive the entire productive system. If you want a happy medium, then smaller, modular nuclear reactors would be the way to go.
- AtNightWeCode 4y agoThe funny thing about a country like Sweden is that their energy problem is 100% based on energy exports to the EU market. Sweden produces way more electricity than it needs at any given time. During one of the latest “crises” a single company exported energy worth several hundreds of millions Euros to other countries.
- tored 4y agoSweden is net exporter of electricity over a whole year, but some days, depending on the weather, Sweden is a net importer in some regions.
- kalleboo 4y agoSweden also has an imbalance problem due to a lack of transmission capability. After shutting down nuclear plants in the south that kept the grid balanced, there are now times where the transmission from the north (where the hydro power is) to the south is at capacity. So the country as a whole has generation, but can't get it to where it needs to be.
- AtNightWeCode 4y agoYes, there are problems with the infrastructure. Some predict the same thing that happens in the south of Sweden will start to happen in the capital region. For those interested. An overview of the energy in Sweden. https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/Home.mvc?ResourceId=208766 https://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/Home.mvc?ResourceId=20876...
- kieranmaine 4y agoIn order to inform the conversations in these comments here are some predictions on Nuclear vs Renewable usage in the UK grid from the National Grid's (UK energy grid transmission network owner + operator) Future Energy Scenarios report - https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263951/download https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263951/download Short Version is here - https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263861/download https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/263861/download
- boomchinolo78 4y agoSomebody call the WEF and the UN, they're gonna have a heart attack
- imgabe 4y agoNow that a Nordic country is doing it, maybe liberals in the US will think it’s a good idea.
- yxhuvud 4y agoHuh? Finland has been building nuclear for a long time now
- ETH_start 4y agoAdding a massive amount of CO2-emission-free base load power seems like a good thing, though I can't speak to the economics of this plan.
- rongopo 4y agoIs the shadow of Fridays for future influencing this decision? IMHO perhaps yes to some extent.
- kzrdude 4y agoTo some extent this is the centre-right populist issue of the hour
- cycomanic 4y agoThe main effect of this is electricity prices going up. It's completely ideological, Vattenfall the company running nuclear power plants wanted to shut down the reactors because they were not economically viable. The irony is that Sweden is ideally suited for going 100% renewable. The North has lots of hydro (which is essentially storage) and the south has lots of windy coastline. But if you go around Sweden the number of wind turbines is tiny. In the Gothenburg area I'm aware of maybe 10 (only one is really close). Sweden (unlike Denmark or Germany) never really invested in renewables. If they would have invested in wind like those countries (and let the north south connections go to rot) they would be fully renewable already. I suspect the 40B would also pay for enough wind to achieve that goal.
- tmikaeld 4y agoNuclear was shut down due to tax raises and switching out the ceo to a wind-friendly person. Bulding more wind when it is not blowing in the winter does not help. Should we freeze at -10C for days until there is wind again?
- cycomanic 4y agoWhat's that myth that the wind stops blowing in winter. Seriously do you believe what you write or just make up things on the spot. Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 60% that's the same as nuclear (yes nuclear can't run 24/7 either) .
- tmikaeld 4y agoYou're right that offshore Wind has a higher wind capacity, but the socialists wanted to build 4000 new on-land wind farms across the country. Also, the IEA even show in their report that Wind is the most resource-consuming power source of all alternatives available, because the blades cannot be recycled and have short life-span + the foundations require enormous amount of steel and miles of copper, plus power stations to function. While nuclear is among the least requiring, because facilities can be refurbished for new nuclear effectively. What we need is a mix, but thinking that Wind can solely solve things are a bad idea, especially considering the very limited amount of minerals required and what is available.
- amai 4y agoWill they also build a new nuclear waste repository then or are they just going to dump the radioactive waste into the Baltic Sea? Besides: Are they going to buy Uranium from Russia as the US are doing for their reactors?
- rlv-dan 4y agoHello Miljöpartiet. Still full of bullsh*t and FUD I see.
- amai 4y agoThank you for this answer full of facts.
- lawn 4y ago> Besides: Are they going to buy Uranium from Russia as the US are doing for their reactors? Sweden has been anti-nuclear for several decades, and one of the laws that has been passed is to forbid Uranium extraction, even though Sweden has quite a bit in its soil. So if this development is any sign, maybe they'll do away with that silly law as well and make it so Sweden doesn't have to buy it from someone else? Also, Russia isn't the largest exporter of Uranium.
- amai 4y agoRussia isn’t the largest exporter, but „Russia is a significant supplier of both uranium and uranium enrichment services. According to the latest available data, the European Union purchased about 20 percent of its natural uranium and 26 percent of its enrichment services from Russia in 2020. The United States imported about 14 percent of its uranium and 28 percent of all enrichment services from Russia in 2021.“ https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-nuclear-power-industry-grap...
- Gud 4y agoHere is the full agreement from the new coalition in power. Below "3. Reformer som ska genomföras i projektet". I am very happy with these reforms, it looks like exactly what is needed. https://kristdemokraterna.se/download/18.715f6f45183890627fcf689/1665737287060/Tid%C3%B6avtalet%20-%20%C3%96verenskommelse%20f%C3%B6r%20Sverige.pdf https://kristdemokraterna.se/download/18.715f6f45183890627fc...
- edpichler 4y agoFor those afraid of nuclear energy, I recommend to look for 'thorium nuclear energy' (and other modern technologies) in the youtube/internet.