4 ms·

Are the economics of nuclear power somehow more favorable in Sweden? That seems to be the major issue elsewhere from what I understand.

tpmx 4y ago
No, not really. It makes a lot of sense in all stable countries.
- markvdb 4y ago
  There 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.
  - _Microft 4y ago
    Enerhodar is the town in which the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is located (only because the name of the town might not be as well known as the name of the power station). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Maybe the problem is requiring insanely high levels of safety from the nuclear industry, way higher than realistic in the current world that can and does kill people in myriad non-nuclear ways. For example, I am willing to bet that nuclear-related deaths in the Ukrainian war will be a minuscule percentage of the total loss of life caused by said war.
TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
They aren't better in Sweden. The right's support for it is not really related to the costs. I'm personally curious how it's going to pan out considering the right-wing parties claimed they'd be against state subsidies.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The single most reliable feature of all right-wing parties is that they are against state subsidies unless the subsidies are directed into their own pockets. They are singularly skilled at directing subsidies reliably into their own pockets. Nukes and military procurement have worked well for that in past decades.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    "unless the subsidies are directed into their own pockets" This is ridiculously biased and not a constructive way to deal with political disagreements. All political factions engage in rampant cronyism. To think it's confined to one faction is unbelievably naive. Where do you think left wing parties receive the bulk of their campaign contributions from? It's members of public sector unions, who receive trillions of dollars in tax dollars every year in Europe.
- otikik 4y ago
  Look at it this way: The army is publicly supported. Do you think they are against the army? Problem is not public support, it's public support of the things they don't like.
aPoCoMiLogin 4y ago
the mayor issue is the coal/gas lobby, just look how europe was lobbed to the point that natural gas is somewhat "green", but nuclear is bad to the point some countries don't even have one nuclear power plant.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    This is such BS.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You assert that renewables projects do not start producing power before completion? I can cite hundreds that have done. I have never heard of a single nuke plant that produced before it was completed.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        I was referring to the absurd claim that the oil and coal industry is pro-nuclear. If it wasn't for anti-science "environmentalists" we could have replaced ever single coal and gas power plant with nuclear by now.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    This is total BS. The fossil fuel industry has been sabotaging nuclear power for 60 years because, untill recently, it was the only threat to their profits. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossil-fuel-fight-against-nuclear-0205171.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossi...
weberer 4y ago
Well solar is pretty much useless at these high latitudes. I believe the sun doesn't rise above 7 degrees in the winter in Stockholm. Though Sweden is blessed with mountains, so they can get significant energy from hydro. Here in Finland, Nuclear is the only real answer going forward.

tpmx 4y ago

No, not really. It makes a lot of sense in all stable countries.

markvdb 4y ago
There 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.
- _Microft 4y ago
  Enerhodar is the town in which the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is located (only because the name of the town might not be as well known as the name of the power station). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Maybe the problem is requiring insanely high levels of safety from the nuclear industry, way higher than realistic in the current world that can and does kill people in myriad non-nuclear ways. For example, I am willing to bet that nuclear-related deaths in the Ukrainian war will be a minuscule percentage of the total loss of life caused by said war.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

They aren't better in Sweden. The right's support for it is not really related to the costs. I'm personally curious how it's going to pan out considering the right-wing parties claimed they'd be against state subsidies.

ncmncm 4y ago
The single most reliable feature of all right-wing parties is that they are against state subsidies unless the subsidies are directed into their own pockets. They are singularly skilled at directing subsidies reliably into their own pockets. Nukes and military procurement have worked well for that in past decades.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  "unless the subsidies are directed into their own pockets" This is ridiculously biased and not a constructive way to deal with political disagreements. All political factions engage in rampant cronyism. To think it's confined to one faction is unbelievably naive. Where do you think left wing parties receive the bulk of their campaign contributions from? It's members of public sector unions, who receive trillions of dollars in tax dollars every year in Europe.
otikik 4y ago
Look at it this way: The army is publicly supported. Do you think they are against the army? Problem is not public support, it's public support of the things they don't like.

aPoCoMiLogin 4y ago

the mayor issue is the coal/gas lobby, just look how europe was lobbed to the point that natural gas is somewhat "green", but nuclear is bad to the point some countries don't even have one nuclear power plant.

ncmncm 4y ago
- HyperSane 4y ago
  This is such BS.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You assert that renewables projects do not start producing power before completion? I can cite hundreds that have done. I have never heard of a single nuke plant that produced before it was completed.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      I was referring to the absurd claim that the oil and coal industry is pro-nuclear. If it wasn't for anti-science "environmentalists" we could have replaced ever single coal and gas power plant with nuclear by now.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  This is total BS. The fossil fuel industry has been sabotaging nuclear power for 60 years because, untill recently, it was the only threat to their profits. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossil-fuel-fight-against-nuclear-0205171.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossi...

weberer 4y ago

Well solar is pretty much useless at these high latitudes. I believe the sun doesn't rise above 7 degrees in the winter in Stockholm. Though Sweden is blessed with mountains, so they can get significant energy from hydro. Here in Finland, Nuclear is the only real answer going forward.