4 ms·

The previous anti-nuclear social-democratic government together with the demonstrably insane "green" party installed a board in the state owned power company Va

by 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.
        tored 4y ago
  - ncmncm 4y ago
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.

by tpmx 4y ago

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.
      - tored 4y ago
- ncmncm 4y ago

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.