3 ms·
Cheers, TIL. Source? What about the repercussions of closing them down prematurely? We're burning oil 24/7 at peak plants that are normally sleepibg most of th
by fredrikholm 4y ago
Cheers, TIL. Source?
What about the repercussions of closing them down prematurely? We're burning oil 24/7 at peak plants that are normally sleepibg most of the year. The amount of cheap coal power that we've imported to compensate for the closing of Barsebäck (more than a decade now) is terrible.
Given the (political) unfeasability of building wind turbines near people, is it worth closing down functional plants to burn fossil fuels in their place?
Genuinely curious; I'm not comfortable with either solution, but burning coal/oil seems like the worse option.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago"The thing I'm actively stopping right now by concern trolling is being stopped for some reason" Must be because the even less popular option of a nuclear refurb is the only option. There couldn't possibly be a much better option https://swedishwindenergy.com/external-news/plans-for-50-gw-offshore-wind-power-in-sweden https://swedishwindenergy.com/external-news/plans-for-50-gw-...
- fredrikholm 4y agoForgive me, I'm having some troubles understanding the target of your first two sentences. Are you insinuating that I'm somehow opposed to wind power, or actively pretending that it isn't a viable alternative? I've paid as high as 700 öre ($0.7 USD) per kw/h, which is insane compared to the historical 15 öre. If building offshore wind parks in southern Sweden solves that problem, then I'm all for it. AFAIK, we haven't been doing that, and every suggestion that we do is faced with political backlash, NIMBY etc. Instead, the emphasis seems to be new nuclear, which makes no sense, as an alternative to the old "Sverige har för mycket el", which isn't something you hear any more.