World News

22056 readers

66 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

192

Sweden adopts new fossil-free target, making way for nuclear (www.power-technology.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm one of those guys. I voted to ban nuclear here in 2017.

I absolutely would love to put 0% fossil before 100% renewable. But as long as nuclear was a choice little more than token efforts were made to expand renewable capacity. Then we banned it and suddenly solar installations are sprouting like mushrooms. Before the ban we put in 330MW per year. The increase in the increase in solar was this much last year (670->1000MW)!

This month we had another vote in a climate bill and as soon as that was accepted the regressives came out and called for more nuclear and complained how all that solar and wind is going to ruin ~~christmas~~ the landscape. I'd love to have renewables AND nuclear but somehow it always ends up being an OR...

Just to be clear: This isn't an attack on pro-nuclear folks. I get your point and in theory you're right. I just never seen it put into practice...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the installed capacity is a nice number but unless you also install batteries AND take capacity factor into account, you're replacing load following dispatchable generation with intermittent ones that is backed by literal fossil fuels

I mean just look at the carbon intensity of a German kWh

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Switzerland imports so much of it's energy I don't think it matters much yet. When it starts to matter we have huge hydro dams we can use for that.