5 ms·
Typical 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 t
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Typical 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.
- Cloudef 4y agoNordics have been prolonged nuclear and wasted tax payers money by lobbying to unsustainable RE companies for way too long now, in addition EU sabotaging our own energy production (peat banned, trees are gonna be banned, and UNIPER). Corruption all the way.
- hackerlight 4y agoI guess you were downvoted for the first paragraph but the core claim you've made later on is factually accurate. Getting 80 percent of the grid onto RE, with no storage required to do that, is far cheaper and far quicker than nuclear. The variability is a non-issue. The idea that variability is a problem is propaganda by the fossil fuel lobby. They know that nuclear is too slow to build and too expensive so they create this false narrative to slow the real solution. Then people lap up the false narrative without actually checking whether it's true because it's plausible-sounding and it aligns with their partisan tribe.
- ncmncm 4y agoRight: the fossil fuel lobby has discovered that nuke-mongering is in their interest. The nukes don't need to ever be completed, but as long as they haven't been, their market is secure. They know the writing is on the wall, but profits can be good right up to the end.
- pelorat 4y agoSolar isn't economically feasible in Sweden. Too far north, too much snow, and during winter it's dark for months. Might work better in the far south, but not good enough.
- Gwypaas 4y agoThat's why Sweden's solution must be centered around off-shore wind and dispatchable hydro together with solar in the summer. Sweden is after all located in one of the windiest places on earth. https://globalwindatlas.info/en https://globalwindatlas.info/en
- fulafel 4y agoSolar is used in Sweden, and more being built (see eg https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/swedens-largest-solar-energy-deal-signed/ https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/swedens-largest-s...) It's true that in the winter it's a bit crap but in the summer the long days of the north are a boon. It doesn't need to be great in all times of the year to be "feasible" though since it's just one part of the production palette.