9 ms·

The previous government didn't stop the shutdown planned 40+ years ago (due to a national referendum), in part because the owners (Vattenfall) said it's not eco

The previous government didn't stop the shutdown planned 40+ years ago (due to a national referendum), in part because the owners (Vattenfall) said it's not economically feasible to run them anymore without subsidies. It's complex.

tpmx 4y ago
The previous anti-nuclear social-democratic government together with the demonstrably insane "green" party installed a board in the state owned power company Vattenfall that after a while managed to sort of claim that it wasn't economically feasible to run the nuclear plants, with the new heavy taxes the social democrats had put in place on nuclear power production. Yay? Anyway, all of that insanity is thankfully history now.
- cjblomqvist 4y ago
  No need for personal attacks. I'm not a sore loser. I think it's a waste that we've not maintained the reactors well enough to still have them able to run at a profit. And generally that we've (the government, both sides) haven't done anything about it in the last 10-20 years when they had a chance to invest in alternatives (whether building new nuclear or other types of energy sources). If it's just a matter of taxes then I'm sure it would be easy for the new government to remove them and start back up the old reactors - but obviously that's not the plan. Most likely it's all quite complex and lots of factors leading to this outcome.
- pokepim 4y ago
- geysersam 4y ago
  Demonstrably insane? Please be serious. Edit: the Swedish green party has promoted renewable power and less dependency on Russian fossile fuels for decades. Not sure why gp calls them insane. Possibly because they consider the Swedish commitments to the Paris agreement important.
  - tpmx 4y ago
    I sadly am.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      Can you explain why?
      - tpmx 4y ago
        So this party gets about 4-5% of the votes. It's a tiny little thing, but they have had an almost catastrophic level of influence on Swedish policy because of even more stupid reasons. Anyway, what you asked for; here are the high level notes of the insanity. There are lots of insane but largely inconsequential things that I won't focus on. Key policy writers clearly don't understand the difference between energy and power. Because of that: Shuts down functioning nuclear power plants "in the name of the environment". Attempts to replace plannable nuclear power with wind power. ("It produces the same number of GWh annually.")
        geysersam 4y ago
        > Key policy writers clearly don't understand the difference between energy and power. Ridiculous. Of course they do. > Shuts down nuclear power. You don't know what you are talking about. It was decided decades ago in a referendum that Sweden should move away from nuclear power. A majority of the parties in the parliament has supported this for decades. Despite that. The government hasn't actively closed down nuclear power. Shut downs have been decided based on the economics of running the plants. And don't start about the "effektskatten" (a tax on nuclear energy in Sweden), it's older than the green party. You want nuclear power. They support renewables. That's why you call them insane.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        >>You want nuclear power. They support renewables. That's why you call them insane. Nuclear and renewables are not mutually exclusive. The Swedish green party rejects nuclear. The parent commenter hasn't expressed a rejection of renewables. Anyway, one can perceive a rejection of a particular energy source as "insane", especially if they are a green party who claim the rise in CO2 levels is the world's most pressing crisis.
- dang 4y ago
  Would you please keep flamewar rhetoric off HN? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. We've had to ask you this repeatedly. That's not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - DynamicStatic 4y ago
    I agree with you however the guy he replied to us speaking half truths and most likely knows it.
    - dang 4y ago
      You really can't make an assessment like "speaking half truths and most likely knows it" about someone's intent from their internet comments. The vast majority of commenters are just posting their opinions straightforwardly. They may be wrong, or half wrong, but that's not the same thing as deliberately being misleading.
queuep 4y ago
For anyone interested in this national referendum, it’s peak bull crap. No option available to continue with nuclear power https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kärnkraftsfrågan_i_Sverige https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kärnkraftsfrågan_i_Sverige
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  You have to bear in mind that the public was hugely against it. No political party dared to push for it, although negotiations were held. > The Moderates, the People's Party and the Social Democrats held separate negotiations to formulate a joint yes option with the implication that the reactors would be allowed to be used during their technical lifespan, which was estimated at 25 years. These negotiations finally broke down mainly because the Moderates could not accept the additional proposals: that the state or the municipalities would own the nuclear power plants and that so-called surplus profits from private production of hydropower would be withdrawn through taxation. Translated from: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomr%C3%B6stningen_om_k%C3%A4rnkraften_i_Sverige_1980#Beslut_om_folkomr%C3%B6stning https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomr%C3%B6stningen_om_k%C3%...
  - themitigating 4y ago
    So the referendum didn't have an option because of opinion polls?
belorn 4y ago
To be fair to both sides, the electricity prices at the time when the decision was made was very different from today. We had prices in the south of sweden 2020 that was as low as around €0.02 per kw/h, compared to over €0.3 in 2022, and in 2020 the price trend was looking to be going downwards. If prices had continue to go down and let say had landed at €0.01 per kw/h this year than we would not be discussing nuclear power as much. It will be a gamble to say what prices will be in 1, 5, 10 and 20 years into the future, and any gamble involve a cost in one way or an other. The previous government made one bet, this government is doing an other.
- DisjointedHunt 4y ago
  It’s probably fair to say that energy demand over the next ten years will increase significantly. The anecdotes of the end of Moores law that signifies the end of electronic efficiency through miniaturization alone and the increasing adoption of energy hungry devices for personal compute or lifestyle will certainly have a multiplicative effect over time as these trends make their way through society. In such a scenario, it’s hard to imagine prices being the same if demand increases by even a single digit multiple of the present.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Energy demand will not increase in the next decade. It will, instead, fall, as it has in recent years. Electricity demand will increase as that takes over for other energy uses that will be collapsing.
    - dekken_ 4y ago
      You appear to be contradicting yourself, but I imagine you don't think you are, so you might want to elaborate.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        He is not contradicting himself. You have to remember the awful efficiency of thermal engines. Primary energy demand will decrease because you do not lose 70% of the energy by simply cooling it like in steam turbine used by nuclear power plants or car engines. On the other hand, electricity usage will increase because you have now replaced your 30-40% efficient engines with 90+% efficient engines, but from a different source. That barely have any losses from the primary energy input.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Energy security has a price.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  It's interesting Europe is willing to spend billions of tax dollars on human rights like food, housing, medical care, and all sorts of social programs. But not electricity. Any power plant not profitable will be shut down. No level of public investment will be tolerated.
- DisjointedHunt 4y ago
  Exactly. When the downsides look like $200 billion in emergency spending[1] , you start to wonder if there are any adults in the room anymore [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/margrethe-vestager-eu-germany-energy-subsidy-race/ https://www.politico.eu/article/margrethe-vestager-eu-german...
guywhocodes 4y ago
It's not complex really. It was made unprofitable with every tool available with this as the goal. There have been much public celebration from the green party, they are proud of the outcome.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Can you explain how it was made unprofitable or point me at something?
  - yxhuvud 4y ago
    So for example, laws around nuclear has changed so that the owners are now liable for any damages in case of a major accident.
    - dieortin 4y ago
      Well that does make a sense, I don’t see the problem
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        So make the owners of renewables liable too? From what I know ONLY nuclear has that stipulation.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Are they not? Coal has certainly been exempt in most places.
        cycomanic 4y ago
        A solar plant is certainly liable if accidents happen on its grounds. They don't need insurance against a major disaster like a meltdown because it can't happen. Nuclear is NOT liable for a major nuclear disaster. No insurance would cover it. So I don't know where you got your knowledge from but it is not based on fact. Edit: OK I should have been clearer. They are liable like everyone else. They have (unlike solar installations I suspect) strict liability which means the damaged person does not have to prove fault. However, the amount of liability is limited (in time and amount) and the state takes over. This is what I was referring to with they don't have liability (admittedly incorrect the way I wrote it). Source:https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-damage.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
Gud 4y ago
This doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening. 1) the national referendum was held in 1980, not exactly a recent decision. Most people who voted in that referendum are probably dead. 2) The referendum consisted of four different choices, basically all voting options were a No to nuclear, the only difference between them is how slowly the existing plants should be decommissioned(slowest option won). 3) The majority owners of Vattenfall are the Swedish state and their leadership will say and do what the politicians tell them to say. I’ll bet you a beer that within 6 months they’ll be extremely pro nuclear, just how their new masters want them to be.
- Gud 4y ago
  3a) Looks like I was right, but it happened in less than a week not months. The CEO of Vattenfall wants to extend the lifetime for the operational Forsmark and Ringhals nuclear reactors up to a total lifetime of 80 years(!). Personally I would prefer new reactors instead of keeping these relics alive, but Sweden has a limitation of maximum 10 reactors, complicating the construction of new reactors. https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/vattenfall-vill-forlanga-reaktorernas-livstid https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/vattenfall-vill-forlanga-re...
sampo 4y ago
> (due to a national referendum) That was an interesting referendum. There were 3 options to vote for: 1. Nuclear power would be phased out 2. Nuclear power would be phased out, with added support for low income groups 3. Nuclear power would be phased out in 10 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Swedish_nuclear_power_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Swedish_nuclear_power_ref...
kevinak 4y ago
Yeah… it tends to get uneconomical if you slap a huge special tax on it. A nuclear specific “effektskatt” was added in 2015, this is the real reason that they prematurely shut down the reactors (which would have been running until the mid 2020s).

tpmx 4y ago

The previous anti-nuclear social-democratic government together with the demonstrably insane "green" party installed a board in the state owned power company Vattenfall that after a while managed to sort of claim that it wasn't economically feasible to run the nuclear plants, with the new heavy taxes the social democrats had put in place on nuclear power production. Yay? Anyway, all of that insanity is thankfully history now.

cjblomqvist 4y ago
No need for personal attacks. I'm not a sore loser. I think it's a waste that we've not maintained the reactors well enough to still have them able to run at a profit. And generally that we've (the government, both sides) haven't done anything about it in the last 10-20 years when they had a chance to invest in alternatives (whether building new nuclear or other types of energy sources). If it's just a matter of taxes then I'm sure it would be easy for the new government to remove them and start back up the old reactors - but obviously that's not the plan. Most likely it's all quite complex and lots of factors leading to this outcome.
pokepim 4y ago
geysersam 4y ago
Demonstrably insane? Please be serious. Edit: the Swedish green party has promoted renewable power and less dependency on Russian fossile fuels for decades. Not sure why gp calls them insane. Possibly because they consider the Swedish commitments to the Paris agreement important.
- tpmx 4y ago
  I sadly am.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    Can you explain why?
    - tpmx 4y ago
      So this party gets about 4-5% of the votes. It's a tiny little thing, but they have had an almost catastrophic level of influence on Swedish policy because of even more stupid reasons. Anyway, what you asked for; here are the high level notes of the insanity. There are lots of insane but largely inconsequential things that I won't focus on. Key policy writers clearly don't understand the difference between energy and power. Because of that: Shuts down functioning nuclear power plants "in the name of the environment". Attempts to replace plannable nuclear power with wind power. ("It produces the same number of GWh annually.")
      - geysersam 4y ago
        > Key policy writers clearly don't understand the difference between energy and power. Ridiculous. Of course they do. > Shuts down nuclear power. You don't know what you are talking about. It was decided decades ago in a referendum that Sweden should move away from nuclear power. A majority of the parties in the parliament has supported this for decades. Despite that. The government hasn't actively closed down nuclear power. Shut downs have been decided based on the economics of running the plants. And don't start about the "effektskatten" (a tax on nuclear energy in Sweden), it's older than the green party. You want nuclear power. They support renewables. That's why you call them insane.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        >>You want nuclear power. They support renewables. That's why you call them insane. Nuclear and renewables are not mutually exclusive. The Swedish green party rejects nuclear. The parent commenter hasn't expressed a rejection of renewables. Anyway, one can perceive a rejection of a particular energy source as "insane", especially if they are a green party who claim the rise in CO2 levels is the world's most pressing crisis.
dang 4y ago
Would you please keep flamewar rhetoric off HN? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. We've had to ask you this repeatedly. That's not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DynamicStatic 4y ago
  I agree with you however the guy he replied to us speaking half truths and most likely knows it.
  - dang 4y ago
    You really can't make an assessment like "speaking half truths and most likely knows it" about someone's intent from their internet comments. The vast majority of commenters are just posting their opinions straightforwardly. They may be wrong, or half wrong, but that's not the same thing as deliberately being misleading.

queuep 4y ago

For anyone interested in this national referendum, it’s peak bull crap. No option available to continue with nuclear power https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kärnkraftsfrågan_i_Sverige https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kärnkraftsfrågan_i_Sverige

Gwypaas 4y ago
You have to bear in mind that the public was hugely against it. No political party dared to push for it, although negotiations were held. > The Moderates, the People's Party and the Social Democrats held separate negotiations to formulate a joint yes option with the implication that the reactors would be allowed to be used during their technical lifespan, which was estimated at 25 years. These negotiations finally broke down mainly because the Moderates could not accept the additional proposals: that the state or the municipalities would own the nuclear power plants and that so-called surplus profits from private production of hydropower would be withdrawn through taxation. Translated from: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomr%C3%B6stningen_om_k%C3%A4rnkraften_i_Sverige_1980#Beslut_om_folkomr%C3%B6stning https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomr%C3%B6stningen_om_k%C3%...
- themitigating 4y ago
  So the referendum didn't have an option because of opinion polls?

belorn 4y ago

To be fair to both sides, the electricity prices at the time when the decision was made was very different from today. We had prices in the south of sweden 2020 that was as low as around €0.02 per kw/h, compared to over €0.3 in 2022, and in 2020 the price trend was looking to be going downwards. If prices had continue to go down and let say had landed at €0.01 per kw/h this year than we would not be discussing nuclear power as much. It will be a gamble to say what prices will be in 1, 5, 10 and 20 years into the future, and any gamble involve a cost in one way or an other. The previous government made one bet, this government is doing an other.

DisjointedHunt 4y ago
It’s probably fair to say that energy demand over the next ten years will increase significantly. The anecdotes of the end of Moores law that signifies the end of electronic efficiency through miniaturization alone and the increasing adoption of energy hungry devices for personal compute or lifestyle will certainly have a multiplicative effect over time as these trends make their way through society. In such a scenario, it’s hard to imagine prices being the same if demand increases by even a single digit multiple of the present.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Energy demand will not increase in the next decade. It will, instead, fall, as it has in recent years. Electricity demand will increase as that takes over for other energy uses that will be collapsing.
  - dekken_ 4y ago
    You appear to be contradicting yourself, but I imagine you don't think you are, so you might want to elaborate.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      He is not contradicting himself. You have to remember the awful efficiency of thermal engines. Primary energy demand will decrease because you do not lose 70% of the energy by simply cooling it like in steam turbine used by nuclear power plants or car engines. On the other hand, electricity usage will increase because you have now replaced your 30-40% efficient engines with 90+% efficient engines, but from a different source. That barely have any losses from the primary energy input.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Energy security has a price.

dahfizz 4y ago
It's interesting Europe is willing to spend billions of tax dollars on human rights like food, housing, medical care, and all sorts of social programs. But not electricity. Any power plant not profitable will be shut down. No level of public investment will be tolerated.
DisjointedHunt 4y ago
Exactly. When the downsides look like $200 billion in emergency spending[1] , you start to wonder if there are any adults in the room anymore [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/margrethe-vestager-eu-germany-energy-subsidy-race/ https://www.politico.eu/article/margrethe-vestager-eu-german...

guywhocodes 4y ago

It's not complex really. It was made unprofitable with every tool available with this as the goal. There have been much public celebration from the green party, they are proud of the outcome.

lostlogin 4y ago
Can you explain how it was made unprofitable or point me at something?
- yxhuvud 4y ago
  So for example, laws around nuclear has changed so that the owners are now liable for any damages in case of a major accident.
  - dieortin 4y ago
    Well that does make a sense, I don’t see the problem
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      So make the owners of renewables liable too? From what I know ONLY nuclear has that stipulation.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        Are they not? Coal has certainly been exempt in most places.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        A solar plant is certainly liable if accidents happen on its grounds. They don't need insurance against a major disaster like a meltdown because it can't happen. Nuclear is NOT liable for a major nuclear disaster. No insurance would cover it. So I don't know where you got your knowledge from but it is not based on fact. Edit: OK I should have been clearer. They are liable like everyone else. They have (unlike solar installations I suspect) strict liability which means the damaged person does not have to prove fault. However, the amount of liability is limited (in time and amount) and the state takes over. This is what I was referring to with they don't have liability (admittedly incorrect the way I wrote it). Source:https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-damage.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...

Gud 4y ago

This doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening. 1) the national referendum was held in 1980, not exactly a recent decision. Most people who voted in that referendum are probably dead. 2) The referendum consisted of four different choices, basically all voting options were a No to nuclear, the only difference between them is how slowly the existing plants should be decommissioned(slowest option won). 3) The majority owners of Vattenfall are the Swedish state and their leadership will say and do what the politicians tell them to say. I’ll bet you a beer that within 6 months they’ll be extremely pro nuclear, just how their new masters want them to be.

Gud 4y ago
3a) Looks like I was right, but it happened in less than a week not months. The CEO of Vattenfall wants to extend the lifetime for the operational Forsmark and Ringhals nuclear reactors up to a total lifetime of 80 years(!). Personally I would prefer new reactors instead of keeping these relics alive, but Sweden has a limitation of maximum 10 reactors, complicating the construction of new reactors. https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/vattenfall-vill-forlanga-reaktorernas-livstid https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/vattenfall-vill-forlanga-re...

sampo 4y ago

> (due to a national referendum) That was an interesting referendum. There were 3 options to vote for: 1. Nuclear power would be phased out 2. Nuclear power would be phased out, with added support for low income groups 3. Nuclear power would be phased out in 10 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Swedish_nuclear_power_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Swedish_nuclear_power_ref...

kevinak 4y ago

Yeah… it tends to get uneconomical if you slap a huge special tax on it. A nuclear specific “effektskatt” was added in 2015, this is the real reason that they prematurely shut down the reactors (which would have been running until the mid 2020s).