4 ms·
< for political reasons well, and for technical ones. Since this a tech-heavy board, I expect it to be common knowledge here that you can't operate a grid on w
by bigger_inside 3y ago
< for political reasons
well, and for technical ones. Since this a tech-heavy board, I expect it to be common knowledge here that you can't operate a grid on wind and solar alone, as you can't control the weather-based output (which, in the case of solar, also has a tendency to maximize when it's -not- most needed). A grid needs a controllable baseline source to have any stability. That can be gas or any other fired plant, it could sometimes be hydro, but it can also be nuclear.
Burning things up is a climate nightmare (though still where about 90% of world power comes from), and also very much more expensive in Europe now than it used to be.
Hydro can't be built just anywhere you like, and if the river is also a waterway, also can't be controlled based on energy need (as it is controlled based on traffic demands).
So until we get a fusion plant, nuclear is just a predictable decision tree outcome.
- nyargh 3y agoSweden has long since maxed out on its hydro capacity and hydro is at times the largest portion of domestic energy production. Generation capacity to match domestic base load is not a problem in Sweden. As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, Sweden is consistently (except literally a few days a year) a net energy exporter, in a national sense they don't really need more production. The issue is regional production, which fell off a cliff due to russian gas supplies to Germany being shut off and them deciding to continue with planned decommissioning of domestic nuclear generation during that period.