21 ms·

Sweden plans new nuclear reactors by 2035, will share costs

314 points by nixass 3y ago

jmyeet 3y ago
So, to recap: 1. In 2021, sweden produced 165TWh (using 139TWh) of electricity [1]; 2. Sweden plans to build 2 nuclear reactors by 2035 [2] but it's not clear what the output of the new reacctors will be. 1GW seems to be typical [3]. Sweden's current six reactors produce about 50TWh [4] of power so about 8.33TWh each, which about maps to 1GW converted to TWh/year. So even in 20 years nuclear will still not be the majority of power in Sweden based on current production and usage growth; 3. These reactors (as per the Reuters link) will have their costs shared with the state. Not a single nuclear reactor has been built without government subsidies [5]. Why? Because it's still too expensive. 4. Part of the delay (to 2035) seems to be that no final decision has been made on design to use. Proximity to consumers is best for efficiency but faces opposition from people not wanting to live near nuclear power stations. Also, larger reactors, by definition, will have a larger mean transmission distance to customers just because they cover more customers. Proponents of smaller nuclear reactor designs ignore that these are fundamentally less efficient and none are commercially in operation, for a reason; 5. Costs of nuclear powers tend to be lower on initial capital costs but higher on operational costs. Nuclear advocates tend to ignore the latter. If addressed at all, it's argued that economies of scale will lower overall costs despite there being decades of building hundreds of plants and no evidence of that at all; 6. While the cost of climate change is of course high and needs to be addressed, no single fossil fuel plant has a catastrophic failure mode comparable to a single nuclear reactor. Actual disasters (eg Chernobyl, Fukushima) get written off as outliers or due to some other reason but the cleanup for Fukushima is in Japan so Soviet Union factors don't apply (and tsunamis and earthquakes happen so you can't ignore that eiher). The cleanup of Fukushima is going to take decades, has already cost $82 billion and the final cost may exceed $1 trillion [6]. For one reactor incident. 7. Nuclear is also pushed compared to renewables by their ability to produce base load. But do we really need base load? Not really [7]. It's really a function of having a large, interconnected energy grid. Fission power still doesn't make sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden [2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2035-can-take-costs-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuc... [3]: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab... [4]: https://www.uniper.energy/sweden/about-uniper-sweden/nuclear-power-sweden https://www.uniper.energy/sweden/about-uniper-sweden/nuclear... [5]: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-via... [6]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku... [7]: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-power/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-...
difosfor 3y ago
I don't understand how starting to build nuclear reactors at this point in time makes sense when it takes over 10 years for them to become productive and they are now already more expensive energy sources when compared to solar and wind.
- axlee 3y ago
  On which planet is nuclear more expensive than the ones you mentioned?
- jayski 3y ago
  energy storage technology is still lacking. which means we burn coal or gas when the sun isn't shining.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Sweden with Norway should have enough hydro capacity, but it is not where demand is. So building nuclear plants in south where the demand is make lot of sense.
- favorited 3y ago
  The best time to build new nuclear plants was 10 years ago, the 2nd best time is today.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    40 years ago, but yes. If we hadn't stopped building 40 years ago the USA wouldn't be 1/5 nuclear, we'd be 5/5 nuclear.
    - fhub 3y ago
      Three Mile Island nuclear accident -> regulatory changes + drop in public confidence -> funding problems -> project delays and cancellations -> funding problems
qwemaze 3y ago
[flagged]
obblekk 3y ago
Serious question - I read that Sweden has a lot of social issues right now, but then I see this "bipartisan" reform (is this word used in non-US politics?) of an important sector in a reasonable way. What is the Swedish political system doing right?
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  You should try and visit those regions with social issues and compare them with safe us regions, you'll be surprised)))
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  Sweden has proportional representation, so any government action has multiple parties backing it. Largest party in Sweden has only 30% of the seats (and they aren't even in the government).
  - fifilura 3y ago
    I think the multipolarity may be the key. In a bipolar world there must be a rift between the two and in some unlucky circumstances the rift can only grow and never heal.
- techpression 3y ago
  Not much, this took decades to bear into fruition, it was only two years ago or so the biggest party was vehemently saying no to nuclear. Expensive winters and the idea of green steel and the massive and likely unrecoverable expenses it brings requires massive amounts of power that just isn’t possible with any other means. If you want the green steel you need nuclear in Sweden, we just can’t put up tens of thousands of wind power plants to cover for stability and delivery.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Well, I think nuclear is needed, but green steel is uniquely suited for intermittent (read: wind) power.
- 3y ago
jjordan 3y ago
Gen3+ reactors are vastly safer and simpler than those that came before it, yet hardly anyone has started building them (China is the furthest ahead last I checked, building AP1000 reactors). Safe and abundant electricity is possible, but we have to invest in it.
- underseacables 3y ago
  I think, equally as important as investment, is reducing third-party obstructionism. Environmental justice and anti-nuclear activists Continue to thwart these kind of projects with frivolous lawsuits.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I think the 'frivolous' is in the eye of the beholder, if they really were frivolous they'd be tossed out but they're not.
    - beezlewax 3y ago
      That's not how the courts work though is it?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        That's absolutely how they work if you bring a frivolous lawsuit you will end up with more trouble than you bargained for. There may be fines involved, you may have to pay the party that you sued, you may have to pay their costs for representation and so on. A lawsuit that you lose is fine, one that is frivolous really isn't, in those cases even the attorneys may get sanctioned (by the judge, or, less commonly, by the bar to the point where if they keep it up they may end up being disbarred).
        fallingknife 3y ago
        The penalty for frivolous lawsuits is usually to pay the legal expenses of your opponent. This is an effective penalty to deter people trying to make money from filing frivolous lawsuits. It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. It will be years before the lawsuit gets to that point, and if you are willing to trade money for a delay, the prospect of having to pay 2x the money for the same delay is hardly a deterrent.
Raed667 3y ago
I'm still to hear a convincing argument about long-term nuclear waste storage.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  The Ocean
- narrator 3y ago
  "Breeder reactors could, in principle, extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by a factor of 100 compared to widely used once-through light water reactors, which extract less than 1% of the energy in the uranium mined from the earth.[3] The high fuel-efficiency of breeder reactors could greatly reduce concerns about fuel supply, energy used in mining, and storage of radioactive waste. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor China, India and Russia are operating these with Russia having the biggest one that produces 800 MW.
- Maximus9000 3y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answer-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finla...
  - Raed667 3y ago
    Good for Finland, now does that scale to the rest of the world? What if there is a coup? What if there is war? what if we stop maintaining these places because of a government collapse? Would you trust (as a random example) Egypt with the fate of the Mediterranean for all the future ?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... > THE U.S. GENERATES ABOUT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF SPENT FUEL EACH YEAR This number may sound like a lot, but the volume of the spent fuel assemblies is actually quite small considering the amount of energy they produce. > The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. > And, the clean energy generated from this fuel would be enough to power more than 70 million homes—avoiding more than 400 million metrics tons of carbon dioxide emissions. You say that you have yet to hear a convincing argument but have you been listening?
fifilura 3y ago
The current government is pretty weak and one of their promises before the election was to increase nuclear energy. So this is pretty much something they had to announce to keep voters happy. Whether it will happen in practice is another question. I guess at some point someone will have to make a business plan that shows that it is also a good investment.
- UberFly 3y ago
  Is moving away from Russian energy also a factor?
  - fifilura 3y ago
    For Sweden not that much. Sweden was always an energy exporter and not really depending on Russia. Neighbouring countries such as Finland have been more dependant on Russia and the imports from Sweden have increased because of cutting the Russian gas. This has had secondary effects on Sweden by increasing the electricity price.
    - Hamuko 3y ago
      >Neighbouring countries such as Finland have been more dependant on Russia and the imports from Sweden have increased because of cutting the Russian gas. Eh. Natural gas accounted for less than 5% of Finland's total energy consumption before Russia cut off the gas pipelines. And this was before Finland got a new floating LNG terminal (January 2023) and the new 1600 MW reactor came online (April 2023).
      - fifilura 3y ago
        But I guess those 5% made a difference before 2023.
  - Erikun 3y ago
    Not directly, Sweden is a net exporter of electricity.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Geee 3y ago
Someone should build a factory which builds small nuclear plants. These one-off nuclear plants are just a distraction. The ultimate solution is to make floating and 99% automatic nuclear plants. This makes it possible to mass manufacture them in a massive factory with low unit costs, ship them all over the world, and run them scalably with low operating costs. Make millions of them. Include waste-management solution as a service.
- floxy 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power
- jjordan 3y ago
  That's the motivation behind small nuclear reactors (SMRs). Compared to the larger models, these are more "set it and forget it" type of systems, and with it comes the ability to build them much more rapidly than a traditional plant. Check out NuScale Power's VOYGR SMR, as they are pretty far along in the process.
  - Geee 3y ago
    NuScale is cool, but their reactors don't float. Floating is necessary so anyone can just order one and get it shipped, just by pressing a button on their website. And building on land requires all kinds of permissions.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Most of the world is landlocked, besides, you're not going to dock your precious nuclear plant in the middle of a busy harbor one accident, tsunami or other event away from a serious problem. Big reactors have both an efficiency and a security benefit over smaller ones. But they're still not cost effective which is why the biggest question with nuclear plants always is 'how much subsidy can we get'.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
philipkglass 3y ago
This article cuts off before revealing much information to non-subscribers. Here's the corresponding Reuters article, which I could read in its entirety: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2035-can-take-costs-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuc... Key points: - They intend to build the equivalent of two new conventional nuclear reactors by 2035 (presumably meaning something like 2000 megawatts of generating capacity, but it could come from small reactors). - They intend to build the equivalent of 10 new conventional reactors by 2045. The government has not yet announced what sort of funding model will be used to get the new reactors built.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rakkhi 3y ago
  Along with the post yesterday that the US is re-entering the nuclear fuel industry this is great news. We need more: https://open.substack.com/pub/rakkhi/p/nuclear-energy?r=1afqp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://open.substack.com/pub/rakkhi/p/nuclear-energy?r=1afq...
  - collegeburner 3y ago
    it's in rather poor taste to link to your own paywalled article and provide almost nothing in the comment
    - godelski 3y ago
      Extra weird considering 1) the link didn't work for me, 2) parent is a cyber security expert and his cyber security posts look to be mostly open and when not have more details before the paywall. Why is the thing you're not an expert on the thing that's paywalled... Nuclear energy is a pretty sophisticated topic and I'll be honest, as someone with a degree in physics, who has worked on radiation shielding, and worked at DoE labs (in CS, not physics or engineering, but I was talking to those folks quite a lot given my background and worked on analyzing data), I'm not even confident enough to put my face to my statements. I'm not putting my credentials to boast, but to say that this is a threshold for "unqualified." It's just too easy to get something little wrong which makes your whole belief collapse. I can tell you, I even see people on the pro-nuclear side make a lot of blunders that have meaningful changes (I've even seen this in shielding even when I have slides showing Geant4 simulations and the results are expected from the math). Nuclear is a pretty tough topic and requires a lot of nuance. Climate even more so. I know a lot of people have strong opinions on these topics but I hope those opinions also do not come with high confidence. A paywall to me suggests higher confidence. Plus is a weird move to advertise your substack. Advertise your domain expertise! That's your quality content.
lnsru 3y ago
Doing electrician’s certification in Germany right now. And there is elephant in the room - energy demand can’t be met internally anymore. So politicians draw nice plans for smart grids and heat pumps with wall boxes that can be turned off remotely by grid operators. I really don’t know how it ends. Probably burning coal in Poland and begging France to provide enough nuclear energy.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  >Doing electrician’s certification in Germany right now. And there is elephant in the room - energy demand can’t be met internally anymore. I've heard that there has been substantial moving out of energy-intensive industries like aluminum from Germany because of this. >So politicians draw nice plans for smart grids and heat pumps with wall boxes that can be turned off remotely by grid operators. I really don’t know how it ends. Well, last winter wasn't as bad as expected/feared in Germany and elsewhere in Europe in terms of energy shortages. How is this winter looking?
  - martin_a 3y ago
    > How is this winter looking? Gas storage is at 100% right now, so no shortcomings to expect really. [1] Building of renewables has been huge this year with 10.000 MW of new power generation in the first three quarters. Might still get a little bit higher with Q4/23 but as the whole year was expected with 9.000 MW in total those numbers look pretty good, with for example over 700k new solar systems across the country. [2] I was looking into getting a new electricity rate for my parents and have prices have fallen steeply in comparison to last year. Prices per kWh are down from something like 45 cents to 30 cents for fully renewable energy. While that might be still more expensive than elsewhere I think that's a good price. Little bump is that the Constitutional Court just ruled that money from the Covid-19 rescue packages, that was not used, might not be repurposed for fighting climate change. Obviously it's not like that money really _existed_ somewhere at all, but just moving it in the books was ruled not okay. We'll see what that leads too. Companies moving out of Germany because of high energy prices seems like a poor excuse. Power for the industry was/is subsidized like crazy, that has been cut somewhat down so everybody pays a fair share. For our company, that finally got things going. We're looking into modernizing our heating, utilizing heat recovery systems, switching all lights to LEDs (that alone is heavily subsidized, so not that expensive), putting up movement sensors to automatically turn off lights and installing even more solar panels on the roof. Numbers might look a bit worse next year due to those investments but it will help long-term. In society there's just quite a bit of fearmongering going on and people always feel like they personally are fucked especially hard in these times. Like ten times harder than the neighbor whose name they don't even know. Change sometimes hurts. But it's necessary. [1]: (German) https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Gasspeicher-in-Deutschland-So-steht-es-um-die-Fuellstaende,gasspeicher120.html#gasspeicherfuellstand https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Gasspeicher-in-Deutschla... [2]: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/ausbau-erneuerbare-energien-2225808 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/ausbau-erne...
bjourne 3y ago
Here is a better source you can read using Google Translate: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-massiv-utbyggnad-av-ny-karnkraft-till-2045--xnz1ud https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-massiv-utbyggn... The agreement is neither bi-partisan nor contains anything guaranteeing a massive expansion. The article says that if private companies wants to build nuclear reactors they will be able to lend money from the state and also be shielded from (some or all) of the risk. So when the projected cost of the reactors double then triple and the whole project gets delayed a decade or more you can guess who will foot the bill. Sucks to be paying tax. Fortunately, private investors aren't that interested. They don't want to waste one billion of their money even if the taxpayers waste nine billion of theirs.
m101 3y ago
This is a great resource to learn more about the history of nuclear power https://gordianknotbook.com/ https://gordianknotbook.com/
stickfigure 3y ago
Before anyone suggests solar, keep in mind that Sweden is roughly the same latitude as Alaska. For half the year, there's very little sunlight.
leke 3y ago
I guess this means thorium reactors are just a pipe dream.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  They might be 50 years down the pipe… but in another reality we wouldn’t have done basically nothing for the last 50 years.
daniel_iversen 3y ago
I wonder if some country with lots of space (e.g. also Sweden) could build many nuclear reactors through a massive government investment and export it profitably across Europe and beyond?
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Because of the massive investment necessary, you cannot sell the energy profitably. It is just too expensive.
locallost 3y ago
They did not learn from their neighbors experience with Olkiluoto. I don't know how many times people will try to make this energy corpse alive.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JohnCClarke 3y ago
My take is that the Swedes think Trump has a realistic chance in 2024 and that would be the end of NATO. And they don't want to be the next Ukraine. "From 1945 to 1972[1] the government ran a clandestine nuclear weapons program" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jes5199 3y ago
by 2035, the solar+battery revolution will be in full swing. I’d be surprised if these reactors are ever switched on.
TradingPlaces 3y ago
At US scale, that is a $1.7 trillion subsidy (6.7% of 2022 GDP)
Gud 3y ago
Immediately negative comments every time nuclear is brought up on HN. I just want to say two things: Nuclear power has been incredibly advantageous for Sweden. Sweden was an early adopter and it worked out well for us. Average time to build a reactor here is less than a decade. Swedes are great at building large scale energy infrastructure. Wind and solar are not very suitable here. The wind is too intermittent, and we are too far away from the equator for solar.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  Hmm yeah, all correct in and of itself, but perhaps just a little storhetsvansinnig user ID... ;-)
throwaway2037 3y ago
After the mess of Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, I cannot believe that Sweden is proceeding so aggressively with nuclear power. Personally, I am a fan of nuclear power, but I find it hard to believe in 2023 this plan is better than an equivalent spend on wind power (and maybe batteries). Note: I did not mention solar, which will not be very efficient in Sweden.
- sakjur 3y ago
  I don’t have a source for any of this, this is more of a rant about what I’ve seen over an extended time in my home country. I hope it’s a helpful base to dig further from nonetheless, I’ve tried to focus on verifiable matters rather than basing this too much on just my annoyance with the situation, but it’ll definitely shine through. Politics. The sitting government sees nuclear power and electric airplanes as the solution to all environmental problems. Because of a referendum in 1980, Sweden stopped investing in nuclear power and the now ageing reactors are going offline. In Sweden’s historical power mix, it’s pretty much a direct split between hydro and nuclear, with hydro having to go offline during critical ice forming periods. We’re looking at a future where more and more electricity is needed, in particular as the crucial steel production is electrified. The left with the green party in particular has long been opponents of nuclear power, so the conservatives and liberals based their environmental policy on its brilliance and historical value to the country. The opposition to wind power in Sweden is surprisingly strong for a scarcely populated country with a long coastline and lots of elevation. A lot of that seem to do with the politically important rural population’s resistance to hosting noisy and view-intruding wind powerplants. On the other side of that, when looking at the sea, similar arguments are being used, but also defense-politics. The perhaps most obvious wind park area unfortunately lies in between Sweden and Russia. Solar is seeing quite some deployment, in particular during the summer it can be quite effective, Sweden has more sun hours over the full year than some of our southern neighbors. The winter argument is used against overreliance on it, but it’s still seen as a good thing to install solar on the top of buildings and in other otherwise unused areas. I’m a bit tired of this all, because it seems like the energy production discussion has devolved into a two-sided debate where the only thing that matters is whether you’re on team redgreen or blue. Whether or not nuclear power is a good idea or not barely matter.
dsq 3y ago
This will, of course, also maintain a steady supply of fissile material for an independent Scandinavian nuclear weapons program if it is ever (re-)activated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_prog...

314 points by nixass 3y ago

So, to recap: 1. In 2021, sweden produced 165TWh (using 139TWh) of electricity [1]; 2. Sweden plans to build 2 nuclear reactors by 2035 [2] but it's not clear what the output of the new reacctors will be. 1GW seems to be typical [3]. Sweden's current six reactors produce about 50TWh [4] of power so about 8.33TWh each, which about maps to 1GW converted to TWh/year. So even in 20 years nuclear will still not be the majority of power in Sweden based on current production and usage growth; 3. These reactors (as per the Reuters link) will have their costs shared with the state. Not a single nuclear reactor has been built without government subsidies [5]. Why? Because it's still too expensive. 4. Part of the delay (to 2035) seems to be that no final decision has been made on design to use. Proximity to consumers is best for efficiency but faces opposition from people not wanting to live near nuclear power stations. Also, larger reactors, by definition, will have a larger mean transmission distance to customers just because they cover more customers. Proponents of smaller nuclear reactor designs ignore that these are fundamentally less efficient and none are commercially in operation, for a reason; 5. Costs of nuclear powers tend to be lower on initial capital costs but higher on operational costs. Nuclear advocates tend to ignore the latter. If addressed at all, it's argued that economies of scale will lower overall costs despite there being decades of building hundreds of plants and no evidence of that at all; 6. While the cost of climate change is of course high and needs to be addressed, no single fossil fuel plant has a catastrophic failure mode comparable to a single nuclear reactor. Actual disasters (eg Chernobyl, Fukushima) get written off as outliers or due to some other reason but the cleanup for Fukushima is in Japan so Soviet Union factors don't apply (and tsunamis and earthquakes happen so you can't ignore that eiher). The cleanup of Fukushima is going to take decades, has already cost $82 billion and the final cost may exceed $1 trillion [6]. For one reactor incident. 7. Nuclear is also pushed compared to renewables by their ability to produce base load. But do we really need base load? Not really [7]. It's really a function of having a large, interconnected energy grid. Fission power still doesn't make sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden [2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2035-can-take-costs-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuc... [3]: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab... [4]: https://www.uniper.energy/sweden/about-uniper-sweden/nuclear-power-sweden https://www.uniper.energy/sweden/about-uniper-sweden/nuclear... [5]: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-via... [6]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku... [7]: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-power/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-...

difosfor 3y ago

I don't understand how starting to build nuclear reactors at this point in time makes sense when it takes over 10 years for them to become productive and they are now already more expensive energy sources when compared to solar and wind.

axlee 3y ago
On which planet is nuclear more expensive than the ones you mentioned?
jayski 3y ago
energy storage technology is still lacking. which means we burn coal or gas when the sun isn't shining.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Sweden with Norway should have enough hydro capacity, but it is not where demand is. So building nuclear plants in south where the demand is make lot of sense.
favorited 3y ago
The best time to build new nuclear plants was 10 years ago, the 2nd best time is today.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  40 years ago, but yes. If we hadn't stopped building 40 years ago the USA wouldn't be 1/5 nuclear, we'd be 5/5 nuclear.
  - fhub 3y ago
    Three Mile Island nuclear accident -> regulatory changes + drop in public confidence -> funding problems -> project delays and cancellations -> funding problems

qwemaze 3y ago

[flagged]

obblekk 3y ago

Serious question - I read that Sweden has a lot of social issues right now, but then I see this "bipartisan" reform (is this word used in non-US politics?) of an important sector in a reasonable way. What is the Swedish political system doing right?

Moldoteck 3y ago
You should try and visit those regions with social issues and compare them with safe us regions, you'll be surprised)))
MattGaiser 3y ago
Sweden has proportional representation, so any government action has multiple parties backing it. Largest party in Sweden has only 30% of the seats (and they aren't even in the government).
- fifilura 3y ago
  I think the multipolarity may be the key. In a bipolar world there must be a rift between the two and in some unlucky circumstances the rift can only grow and never heal.
techpression 3y ago
Not much, this took decades to bear into fruition, it was only two years ago or so the biggest party was vehemently saying no to nuclear. Expensive winters and the idea of green steel and the massive and likely unrecoverable expenses it brings requires massive amounts of power that just isn’t possible with any other means. If you want the green steel you need nuclear in Sweden, we just can’t put up tens of thousands of wind power plants to cover for stability and delivery.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Well, I think nuclear is needed, but green steel is uniquely suited for intermittent (read: wind) power.
3y ago

jjordan 3y ago

Gen3+ reactors are vastly safer and simpler than those that came before it, yet hardly anyone has started building them (China is the furthest ahead last I checked, building AP1000 reactors). Safe and abundant electricity is possible, but we have to invest in it.

underseacables 3y ago
I think, equally as important as investment, is reducing third-party obstructionism. Environmental justice and anti-nuclear activists Continue to thwart these kind of projects with frivolous lawsuits.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I think the 'frivolous' is in the eye of the beholder, if they really were frivolous they'd be tossed out but they're not.
  - beezlewax 3y ago
    That's not how the courts work though is it?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That's absolutely how they work if you bring a frivolous lawsuit you will end up with more trouble than you bargained for. There may be fines involved, you may have to pay the party that you sued, you may have to pay their costs for representation and so on. A lawsuit that you lose is fine, one that is frivolous really isn't, in those cases even the attorneys may get sanctioned (by the judge, or, less commonly, by the bar to the point where if they keep it up they may end up being disbarred).
      - fallingknife 3y ago
        The penalty for frivolous lawsuits is usually to pay the legal expenses of your opponent. This is an effective penalty to deter people trying to make money from filing frivolous lawsuits. It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. It will be years before the lawsuit gets to that point, and if you are willing to trade money for a delay, the prospect of having to pay 2x the money for the same delay is hardly a deterrent.

Raed667 3y ago

I'm still to hear a convincing argument about long-term nuclear waste storage.

zeroCalories 3y ago
The Ocean
narrator 3y ago
"Breeder reactors could, in principle, extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by a factor of 100 compared to widely used once-through light water reactors, which extract less than 1% of the energy in the uranium mined from the earth.[3] The high fuel-efficiency of breeder reactors could greatly reduce concerns about fuel supply, energy used in mining, and storage of radioactive waste. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor China, India and Russia are operating these with Russia having the biggest one that produces 800 MW.
Maximus9000 3y ago
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answer-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finla...
- Raed667 3y ago
  Good for Finland, now does that scale to the rest of the world? What if there is a coup? What if there is war? what if we stop maintaining these places because of a government collapse? Would you trust (as a random example) Egypt with the fate of the Mediterranean for all the future ?
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... > THE U.S. GENERATES ABOUT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF SPENT FUEL EACH YEAR This number may sound like a lot, but the volume of the spent fuel assemblies is actually quite small considering the amount of energy they produce. > The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. > And, the clean energy generated from this fuel would be enough to power more than 70 million homes—avoiding more than 400 million metrics tons of carbon dioxide emissions. You say that you have yet to hear a convincing argument but have you been listening?

fifilura 3y ago

The current government is pretty weak and one of their promises before the election was to increase nuclear energy. So this is pretty much something they had to announce to keep voters happy. Whether it will happen in practice is another question. I guess at some point someone will have to make a business plan that shows that it is also a good investment.

UberFly 3y ago
Is moving away from Russian energy also a factor?
- fifilura 3y ago
  For Sweden not that much. Sweden was always an energy exporter and not really depending on Russia. Neighbouring countries such as Finland have been more dependant on Russia and the imports from Sweden have increased because of cutting the Russian gas. This has had secondary effects on Sweden by increasing the electricity price.
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    >Neighbouring countries such as Finland have been more dependant on Russia and the imports from Sweden have increased because of cutting the Russian gas. Eh. Natural gas accounted for less than 5% of Finland's total energy consumption before Russia cut off the gas pipelines. And this was before Finland got a new floating LNG terminal (January 2023) and the new 1600 MW reactor came online (April 2023).
    - fifilura 3y ago
      But I guess those 5% made a difference before 2023.
- Erikun 3y ago
  Not directly, Sweden is a net exporter of electricity.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Geee 3y ago

Someone should build a factory which builds small nuclear plants. These one-off nuclear plants are just a distraction. The ultimate solution is to make floating and 99% automatic nuclear plants. This makes it possible to mass manufacture them in a massive factory with low unit costs, ship them all over the world, and run them scalably with low operating costs. Make millions of them. Include waste-management solution as a service.

floxy 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power
jjordan 3y ago
That's the motivation behind small nuclear reactors (SMRs). Compared to the larger models, these are more "set it and forget it" type of systems, and with it comes the ability to build them much more rapidly than a traditional plant. Check out NuScale Power's VOYGR SMR, as they are pretty far along in the process.
- Geee 3y ago
  NuScale is cool, but their reactors don't float. Floating is necessary so anyone can just order one and get it shipped, just by pressing a button on their website. And building on land requires all kinds of permissions.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Most of the world is landlocked, besides, you're not going to dock your precious nuclear plant in the middle of a busy harbor one accident, tsunami or other event away from a serious problem. Big reactors have both an efficiency and a security benefit over smaller ones. But they're still not cost effective which is why the biggest question with nuclear plants always is 'how much subsidy can we get'.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago

philipkglass 3y ago

This article cuts off before revealing much information to non-subscribers. Here's the corresponding Reuters article, which I could read in its entirety: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2035-can-take-costs-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-plans-new-nuc... Key points: - They intend to build the equivalent of two new conventional nuclear reactors by 2035 (presumably meaning something like 2000 megawatts of generating capacity, but it could come from small reactors). - They intend to build the equivalent of 10 new conventional reactors by 2045. The government has not yet announced what sort of funding model will be used to get the new reactors built.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rakkhi 3y ago
Along with the post yesterday that the US is re-entering the nuclear fuel industry this is great news. We need more: https://open.substack.com/pub/rakkhi/p/nuclear-energy?r=1afqp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://open.substack.com/pub/rakkhi/p/nuclear-energy?r=1afq...
- collegeburner 3y ago
  it's in rather poor taste to link to your own paywalled article and provide almost nothing in the comment
  - godelski 3y ago
    Extra weird considering 1) the link didn't work for me, 2) parent is a cyber security expert and his cyber security posts look to be mostly open and when not have more details before the paywall. Why is the thing you're not an expert on the thing that's paywalled... Nuclear energy is a pretty sophisticated topic and I'll be honest, as someone with a degree in physics, who has worked on radiation shielding, and worked at DoE labs (in CS, not physics or engineering, but I was talking to those folks quite a lot given my background and worked on analyzing data), I'm not even confident enough to put my face to my statements. I'm not putting my credentials to boast, but to say that this is a threshold for "unqualified." It's just too easy to get something little wrong which makes your whole belief collapse. I can tell you, I even see people on the pro-nuclear side make a lot of blunders that have meaningful changes (I've even seen this in shielding even when I have slides showing Geant4 simulations and the results are expected from the math). Nuclear is a pretty tough topic and requires a lot of nuance. Climate even more so. I know a lot of people have strong opinions on these topics but I hope those opinions also do not come with high confidence. A paywall to me suggests higher confidence. Plus is a weird move to advertise your substack. Advertise your domain expertise! That's your quality content.

lnsru 3y ago

Doing electrician’s certification in Germany right now. And there is elephant in the room - energy demand can’t be met internally anymore. So politicians draw nice plans for smart grids and heat pumps with wall boxes that can be turned off remotely by grid operators. I really don’t know how it ends. Probably burning coal in Poland and begging France to provide enough nuclear energy.

TMWNN 3y ago
>Doing electrician’s certification in Germany right now. And there is elephant in the room - energy demand can’t be met internally anymore. I've heard that there has been substantial moving out of energy-intensive industries like aluminum from Germany because of this. >So politicians draw nice plans for smart grids and heat pumps with wall boxes that can be turned off remotely by grid operators. I really don’t know how it ends. Well, last winter wasn't as bad as expected/feared in Germany and elsewhere in Europe in terms of energy shortages. How is this winter looking?
- martin_a 3y ago
  > How is this winter looking? Gas storage is at 100% right now, so no shortcomings to expect really. [1] Building of renewables has been huge this year with 10.000 MW of new power generation in the first three quarters. Might still get a little bit higher with Q4/23 but as the whole year was expected with 9.000 MW in total those numbers look pretty good, with for example over 700k new solar systems across the country. [2] I was looking into getting a new electricity rate for my parents and have prices have fallen steeply in comparison to last year. Prices per kWh are down from something like 45 cents to 30 cents for fully renewable energy. While that might be still more expensive than elsewhere I think that's a good price. Little bump is that the Constitutional Court just ruled that money from the Covid-19 rescue packages, that was not used, might not be repurposed for fighting climate change. Obviously it's not like that money really _existed_ somewhere at all, but just moving it in the books was ruled not okay. We'll see what that leads too. Companies moving out of Germany because of high energy prices seems like a poor excuse. Power for the industry was/is subsidized like crazy, that has been cut somewhat down so everybody pays a fair share. For our company, that finally got things going. We're looking into modernizing our heating, utilizing heat recovery systems, switching all lights to LEDs (that alone is heavily subsidized, so not that expensive), putting up movement sensors to automatically turn off lights and installing even more solar panels on the roof. Numbers might look a bit worse next year due to those investments but it will help long-term. In society there's just quite a bit of fearmongering going on and people always feel like they personally are fucked especially hard in these times. Like ten times harder than the neighbor whose name they don't even know. Change sometimes hurts. But it's necessary. [1]: (German) https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Gasspeicher-in-Deutschland-So-steht-es-um-die-Fuellstaende,gasspeicher120.html#gasspeicherfuellstand https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Gasspeicher-in-Deutschla... [2]: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/ausbau-erneuerbare-energien-2225808 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/ausbau-erne...

bjourne 3y ago

Here is a better source you can read using Google Translate: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-massiv-utbyggnad-av-ny-karnkraft-till-2045--xnz1ud https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-massiv-utbyggn... The agreement is neither bi-partisan nor contains anything guaranteeing a massive expansion. The article says that if private companies wants to build nuclear reactors they will be able to lend money from the state and also be shielded from (some or all) of the risk. So when the projected cost of the reactors double then triple and the whole project gets delayed a decade or more you can guess who will foot the bill. Sucks to be paying tax. Fortunately, private investors aren't that interested. They don't want to waste one billion of their money even if the taxpayers waste nine billion of theirs.

m101 3y ago

This is a great resource to learn more about the history of nuclear power https://gordianknotbook.com/ https://gordianknotbook.com/

stickfigure 3y ago

Before anyone suggests solar, keep in mind that Sweden is roughly the same latitude as Alaska. For half the year, there's very little sunlight.

leke 3y ago

I guess this means thorium reactors are just a pipe dream.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
They might be 50 years down the pipe… but in another reality we wouldn’t have done basically nothing for the last 50 years.

daniel_iversen 3y ago

I wonder if some country with lots of space (e.g. also Sweden) could build many nuclear reactors through a massive government investment and export it profitably across Europe and beyond?

_ph_ 3y ago
Because of the massive investment necessary, you cannot sell the energy profitably. It is just too expensive.

locallost 3y ago

They did not learn from their neighbors experience with Olkiluoto. I don't know how many times people will try to make this energy corpse alive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JohnCClarke 3y ago

My take is that the Swedes think Trump has a realistic chance in 2024 and that would be the end of NATO. And they don't want to be the next Ukraine. "From 1945 to 1972[1] the government ran a clandestine nuclear weapons program" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_progra...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jes5199 3y ago

by 2035, the solar+battery revolution will be in full swing. I’d be surprised if these reactors are ever switched on.

TradingPlaces 3y ago

At US scale, that is a $1.7 trillion subsidy (6.7% of 2022 GDP)

Gud 3y ago

Immediately negative comments every time nuclear is brought up on HN. I just want to say two things: Nuclear power has been incredibly advantageous for Sweden. Sweden was an early adopter and it worked out well for us. Average time to build a reactor here is less than a decade. Swedes are great at building large scale energy infrastructure. Wind and solar are not very suitable here. The wind is too intermittent, and we are too far away from the equator for solar.

CRConrad 3y ago
Hmm yeah, all correct in and of itself, but perhaps just a little storhetsvansinnig user ID... ;-)

throwaway2037 3y ago

After the mess of Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, I cannot believe that Sweden is proceeding so aggressively with nuclear power. Personally, I am a fan of nuclear power, but I find it hard to believe in 2023 this plan is better than an equivalent spend on wind power (and maybe batteries). Note: I did not mention solar, which will not be very efficient in Sweden.

sakjur 3y ago
I don’t have a source for any of this, this is more of a rant about what I’ve seen over an extended time in my home country. I hope it’s a helpful base to dig further from nonetheless, I’ve tried to focus on verifiable matters rather than basing this too much on just my annoyance with the situation, but it’ll definitely shine through. Politics. The sitting government sees nuclear power and electric airplanes as the solution to all environmental problems. Because of a referendum in 1980, Sweden stopped investing in nuclear power and the now ageing reactors are going offline. In Sweden’s historical power mix, it’s pretty much a direct split between hydro and nuclear, with hydro having to go offline during critical ice forming periods. We’re looking at a future where more and more electricity is needed, in particular as the crucial steel production is electrified. The left with the green party in particular has long been opponents of nuclear power, so the conservatives and liberals based their environmental policy on its brilliance and historical value to the country. The opposition to wind power in Sweden is surprisingly strong for a scarcely populated country with a long coastline and lots of elevation. A lot of that seem to do with the politically important rural population’s resistance to hosting noisy and view-intruding wind powerplants. On the other side of that, when looking at the sea, similar arguments are being used, but also defense-politics. The perhaps most obvious wind park area unfortunately lies in between Sweden and Russia. Solar is seeing quite some deployment, in particular during the summer it can be quite effective, Sweden has more sun hours over the full year than some of our southern neighbors. The winter argument is used against overreliance on it, but it’s still seen as a good thing to install solar on the top of buildings and in other otherwise unused areas. I’m a bit tired of this all, because it seems like the energy production discussion has devolved into a two-sided debate where the only thing that matters is whether you’re on team redgreen or blue. Whether or not nuclear power is a good idea or not barely matter.

dsq 3y ago

This will, of course, also maintain a steady supply of fissile material for an independent Scandinavian nuclear weapons program if it is ever (re-)activated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_prog...