Another problem is that because of the push on wind power and the shutdown on nuclear power, the electricity system has become much more weather dependent resulting in massive price spikes. Pumped hydro only works in certain locations, almost all of which are already used, and any that remain are at the whim of environmental approval. Remember that like with Moore's law, there will eventually be hard, physics-based walls past which we will not progress without entirely new technology paradigms, which aren't guaranteed to be discovered in any finite amount of time. Nuclear and renewables are not mutually exclusive. I think it's fine if governments pay for and operate power generation facilities, but at the same time I don't think private companies should be prohibited from building power generation facilities if they want to and they think they can do it better (provided they have to pay for externalities). SVK on the other hand is 100% owned by the state. But the problem is only of time, not technical maturity. The primary energy input should be from the wind, sun, elevated water, nuclear bonds and geothermal. Energy storage is the capture of energy produced at one time for use at a later time[1] to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy production. so they get compensated if they have to close it even so the government payed them to build it. Will not happen. Producers, distributors, and consumers of electricity within a county can receive subsides, but that runs into all the usual issues with planned economies. Everyone likes the idea of wind power until they try to build a huge turbine on their backyard. A nuclear specific effektskatt was added in 2015, this is the real reason that they prematurely shut down the reactors (which would have been running until the mid 2020s). No, not really. So make the owners of renewables liable too? The cost to the developer of deploying new solar / wind to a grid may become more favourable, but they're selling in to a market that reselles to retail / commercial clients, who will, inevitably, pay more over time. Perhaps the latest attempt to construct a new nuclear plant in France has something to do with it? The nuclear reactor requires more steel than the solar panel requires silicon, and more concrete than the solar panel requires glass and concrete. The remaining problem is building factories for electrolysis equipment. Decommission the nuclear power within 10 years. As in other Nordic countries, Sweden universities have many international programs that attract students from all over the world. Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage. Average Salary in Sweden. It was made unprofitable with every tool available with this as the goal. They all happily do long term planning, just look at VC funding for risky investments that wont see returns for years. The countries in Europe buy and sell electricity all the time and it is a tremendous benefit. Sweden has about the best options possible for a renewable powered grid. Edit: the Swedish green party has promoted renewable power and less dependency on Russian fossile fuels for decades. Yes let's just go free for all and the market sort it out. Worse case scenario is the government has to subsidize the power station, best case is it helps prevent serious economic issues by providing power. When was that a good idea when it came to safety critical infrastructure?! > I think massive expansion of nuclear power is the only realistic way to fix climate change. Until recently I occasionally heard plans about building wind farms in Siberia and exporting Hydrogen to Europe. Edit: OK I should have been clearer. Slavery and serfdom are bad for the economy. As to penicillin, invention is onky part of the story having a society where people had free time and resources to do research was its self a major hurdle. Such accidents have only happened twice. The inventor never became a billionaire. It's interesting Europe is willing to spend billions of tax dollars on human rights like food, housing, medical care, and all sorts of social programs. Monosilicon PV is made of sand, copper, silver and aluminum. We are part of EU (Union) comes with some conditions or was it started just for sake of profit? That depends on which renewable you're talking about. (this is a touch comparison because the new performance has much more power). [5] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at 19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022. This doesnt accurately reflect whats happening. Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Austria, Netherlands, Ireland, Norway and the UK. The answer is, of course: any energy storage setup is a battery[1]. Vattenfall is not the only Swedish producer. This is basically the composition of dirt. If I were to get five 2.4m1.2m10cm polyurethane foam insulation boards, I could build an insulated box capable of taking a 2000l hot water tank, which could be put in a shed or something. Power transmission is more complex than just building a fatter pipe to pour more water through. It is an improvement, but not a sufficient big one compared to actually keeping the oil in the ground. It is the largest MMA promotion company in the world as of 2011. The Baltic Sea also freezes and there is barely any tidal movement. Abolition of slavery required intervention of government and violence. Take the hydro which is currently doing baseload, convert as much capacity as possible to peak loads. TCS, a global leader in IT services, consulting, and business solutions, leverages technology for business transformation and helps catalyze change. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomr%C3%B6stningen_om_k%C3% That was an interesting referendum. That explains the confusion. Similarly, we dont have massive desalination capacity on the west coast in spite of years of drought with the Pacific right on the coast. How is it good for the small local businesses who don't have a choice but shutting down? The chance of all the projects defaulting at once are small. 2) The referendum consisted of four different choices, basically all voting options were a No to nuclear, the only difference between them is how slowly the existing plants should be decommissioned(slowest option won). well nuclear is the current cheapest way of producing electricity. During winter, when electricity needs are high, northern Europe maybe gets total of 0-6 hours of sunlight, and most of is not the optimal angle or intensity. (and even before that but the graph starts at 2010). Pairs very nicely with Wind and Solar if your country has the right terrain for it (which Sweden does, hydro provides 45% of their current capacity). It is trivial to show that this statement is false (let's not even get int the at least). Sure, theres not much incentive for manufacturers to develop reliable appliances, because people just shop based on price and features. I hope they can coast through the winter using those renewables. Authoritarian alleged communists! They have also pledged to create legal guarantees that future politicians will not be able to shut down functioning nuclear power reactors without suitable monetary compensation to the owners/operators of these reactors. One of the key factors in that is efficiency and cost. Importing helps with survival but the prices are insane, since their neighbors are cold as well. News on Japan, Business News, Opinion, Sports, Entertainment and More 61bn in 2019"*. They support renewables. Renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible. The ages of consent vary by jurisdiction across Europe.The ages of consent are between 14 and 18. Compensation is done typically using natural gas (see Germany). Couple that with off-shore wind in one of the windiest places on earth[1] together with solar during the summer wind lulls and you have all you need. Sweden is not dependent on Russian energy and is the largest electricity exporter in Europe. No one proposing that it should be one of the options for countries like Sweden is insane. > Denmark vs Sweden. This all goes without mentioning the huge surge of lower income populations that will slowly be increasing consumption over the next few decades. Does their marketing department publish mean time between failure or statistics for repair? What I said was that the. There isn't really a renewable that works for Northern European energy needs during winter. They support renewables. Several knowledgeable people predict rolling blackouts this winter. There are many different levels of panned economies. The incentives are all there to encourage producers to produce power during shortages.). Problem is not public support, it's public support of the things they don't like. You can look at the cash reserves and immediately see that this cannot be correct. And the people who yesterday sold solar dreams are today selling energy storage dreams. True enough, but Im hopeful for an energy-abundant future where we figure out how to make solar, wind, nuclear, and batteries cheaply and at scale. Find stories, updates and expert opinion. I dont, I want batteries to not pay PGE a shit ton of money. That car that is replaced, assuming it's not being resold, is material that could reenter the system. Though eventually flipped back where collage students are talking unpaid internships because Google etc has no use for their services. green energy is not green- it consume massive amount of resources, it is expensive, short lived, destabilize the grid. On the short term we might need something before those nuclear plants are up and running. Or marginally worse, maybe. Are the economics of nuclear power somehow more favorable in Sweden? One big difference though is that Finland has a very small population comparing to Germany ( 5mln vs. 80mln). They are singularly skilled at directing subsidies reliably into their own pockets. A potential future cost. Its theoretical money, not actual money. The idea that a couple of Swedish nuclear reactors could alter the whole European energy market significantly is ludicrous. Sweden started lately to try and fix this issue. The alternative to nuclear is to either use fuels with a massive carbon footprint, or introduce a level of energy suffering on the population that is beyond the pale. Could theoretically send wind power north when available, and send hydro south when it's not. If I can build double (now, the difference is rapidly increasing) the capacity using wind or solar why should I build nuclear? Will their salesmen tell me the truth? Which would result in prices going up in the North. Our preliminary estimations show a slight reduction in 2020 to around 77bn. So one does not simply "build a reactor".. look at Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3 in France and Hinkley Point C in UK. No, I've invested my own money this year into solar (before the war started so I didn't even know how electricity prices will spike) and I am a big proponent of its use where possible. The difference is basically what their owners make as profits. PS: I respect Frances investment in subsidizing nuclear power, but its important to understand the underlying economics if you want to scale nuclear power. Clean and safe doesn't mean infallible. Because you need to build 3x as much to have a safety net that the system will be operational and produce electricity with the same stability as a Nuclear Reactor, and that says nothing on the cost of storage. So, I got interested, and did some calculations. Serfdom outcompeted slavery in Europe because it was simply more efficient, and Serfdom in turn failed for the same reason. There is no electricity deficit in Sweden. It's bad in the winter but otherwise tends to anticorrelate with wind, which is good.) Just look at wind power in Sweden they only really invested in wind in the last 3 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Sweden. In the globalisation/market liberalism mindset it's traditionally considered good if places with high supply and low demand export to areas where products fetch higher prices. France didn't maintain their nuclear plants during COVID-19 and as a result suffer the consequences now (or rather all of Europe). PV is expensive and still not very efficient. It's more profitable to limit production to keep prices high in sweden, then export and sell in other countries. The theoretical subsidies that currently goes into fossil fuel to pay for global warming is reaching the point of infinitive money in the case that global warming goes beyond the tipping point. https://birdwatchingbuzz.com/do-windmills-kill-birds/. Being the cheapest source of power that has ever existed is good, too. CBS Sports has the latest NHL Hockey news, live scores, player stats, standings, fantasy games, and projections. A big reason for this is that prices in the south is highly connected to markets that the south region is connected to, and those region are heavily importers of electricity creating a higher demand than there is available of cheap energy. Rulers would limit who could say sell salt and permission its self was quite valuable. Fun fact: plans were announced a few days ago to build out transmission lines from the north to central Sweden. We got a really good network but it does come with a cost. No, not everyone involved, everyone that cant afford the bill in Southern Sweden, it is not good for them. I frequently get flyers in the mail, from a variety of mostly co-op providers, offering to supply me power more cheaply than the grid operator does. Years mean nothing, you have to invest in decades. They might (for example in Germany) decide to rely on cheap natural gas imports from Russia as the primary source of energy, assuming that Russia will always be a stable source of energy forever, and would never start randomly invading it's neighbors. In addition to this, they are commissioning an urgent study on how to rebuild Ringhals 1 and 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringhals_Nuclear_Power_Plant, about 1 GW each), two nuclear reactors that were prematurely decommissioned by the previous social-democratic government and shut down about 20 months ago. It's not complex really. A majority of the parties in the parliament has supported this for decades. At the size of a 100MW+ generation facility, you need government sized budgets and timelines. It produces events worldwide that showcase 12 weight divisions (eight men's and four women's) Ive heard very reliable stories from China about business entities solely set up to generate unbelievable volumes of carbon credits to take advantage of this accounting trick. On days of the week ending with "y". Do you think they are against the army? In general in Europe (especially in Northern Europe) all solar and wind capacity has to backed up by at least the same amount of quickly available online dependable capacity. And heat is a form of energy that is much easier to storage than electricity. Just this summer the French had to shut down half of their nuclear reactors because of the heat. Show me one place anywhere in the entire history of grid-scale renewables where. Water is extremely good at storing heat. The ratio of installed capacity and actual output is called load factor. They know if not for ideological/political reasons/influence no nuclear plants will be build because it is just too expensive. Here in Finland we do. And you need the backup because renewable energy is not exactly a stable source of energy. Theoretical subsidies are fun thought experiments but they aren't very valuable, as is infinitive money. This silver usage is going down faster than production is increasing. As would having surplus labor to manufacture such complex medicine. Not a good sign when right-wing governments are complaining about market based price signals and trade. They don't account for theoretical subsidies of money, as then there would be more money in subsidies than there would be money. $40bn would be enough for around 40GWh of wind power capacity which is around the same as total generation capacity installed totally in Sweden today. Subsidies and incentives do not a planned economy make. https://www.politico.eu/article/margrethe-vestager-eu-german https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/12/the-cost-of-net-zero- https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15104936/tesla-model- https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/maps/#/nordic, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Sweden. What a surprise. Nuclear subsidies are a proportional small part of the subsidies, and the public get more energy per $subsidies in nuclear than from other energy sources. They even have cold temperatures to boost power plant efficiency and make district heating very useful. France for example only gets a load factor of 77% out of their nuclear reactors. Coal has certainly been exempt in most places. Problem with reactors is the failures are disasters of a very high level. "Nuclear has always had massive scaling issues because leaving base load power generation means ever lower capacity factors.". That is generally bad for industry that want predictable prices. (If there's an electrical shortage, prices go up. A private company operates this plant, it will run the plant if it's profitable. People care about security of supply because national markets are more robust than international ones. This is because Germany does a lot of direct gas/oil heating. Storage technology is nowhere near the scale that would be needed. this sound like a bad deal. Water stores 4194J for each kilogram for each degree centigrade in temperature. A more generous interpretation of your comment is that you meant won't be chemical batteries. Obviously collage students can do some forms productive labor, but ignoring the law what can 10 year olds do? 2. That's why you call them insane. The French low-balled their estimates, to be a fraction of estimates by Germany and UK. And because these shutdowns have radically increased electricity prices with unemployment as a result, thus both undermining employment and welfare, it actually violates what the winning proposal stipulated in the referendum. Given the estimated required number of Electric Vehicles (EVs) of different vehicle class, it is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EVs and stationary power storage, in the global industrial ecosystem as it is today.". Maybe, but more power generation is a better investment. Which estimates do you believe? I agree with you however the guy he replied to us speaking half truths and most likely knows it. There could be new battery technology that will be invented, 4.New technology has helped Tesla make more energy dense batteries and have them last longer, A 2016 model s with the 70kwh battery pack has a 200 miles of range, A 2022 Model s performance with a 98kwh battery pack has a range of 326 miles With say US food subsides and tariffs as a less extreme than Maoist China or the USSR, but they still have huge and well known problems. Nuclear was on the too-cheap-to-meter path until the bureaucrats turned up to help decide how to run the plants. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos. The solar energy can be stored in a battery made from sodium, carbon, iron and aluminum. https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20221014135458/HnAXI On page 8 you can see that they have been producing cheaper electricity then the average nordpool area price for Finland for the last 10+ years. Ie this is why we have trade as concept in the first place. The parent commenter hasn't expressed a rejection of renewables. So in fact my cost, as a consumer, is lower than it was. As for coal then consider that an electric car that uses electricity from a modern coal plant with over 40% efficiency generates less CO2 than a gasoline or diesel car. Nuclear plants that use ocean water for cooling don't have this problem. But there are also other industry that requires electricity for expansion like food industry, paper mills etc. These are being mass produced now and full industrialisation of the supply chain is expected by 2024. It doesn't matter if it consumes resources what matters is that it's less than what it replaces a.k.a. A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The electricity market is the same. I hope you don't propose to just use coal. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), computer and information research scientists earned a median salary of more than $131,000 in 2021. Swedens incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringhals_Nuclear_Power_Plant. If temporary shortage in southern Sweden, then import of capacity from the continent is required but with that comes a higher price. Or more realistically ~40% of generation was at the normal ~92% CF, and every plant after that was at lower capacity factors until the final power plant was costing ~3X as much per kWh. This is part of a long term global trend which relates to the overhead of slavery and then serfdom. I didn't say "all things that are profitable are necessary" nor that "profitability" and "necessity" were synonyms. As far as I know renewables+storage are cheaper than 100% nuclear and much faster to build. The report do account for decommissioning subsidy if there is actually government money going into the hands of power plants owners. You have to remember the awful efficiency of thermal engines. Hot tubs for Walruses? Not only can it be a great source of baseload power, but it can also be turned on and off very rapidly to provide peeking capacity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. So, these numbers are all very feasible. Finland's Prime Minister Sanna Marin speaks with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during their meeting at Kirribilli House in Sydney on December 2, 2022. That is what policy failure in the EU has led to. Renewables + storage will provide massively cheaper baseload power. Yes, the overall economy does better, but the local people might get higher electric bills but little other benefits, as the profit goes to the power plants. They aren't better in Sweden. Building new nuclear power plants also takes too long. Markets have freely sold and bought slaves for thousands of years Something that can turn on or off at a moments notice? Sun power, in Sweden, in winter, is clearly not going to cut it even in the southern areas that still get a little bit of sun in winter, you don't get nearly enough power. > these shutdowns have radically increased electricity prices. On the other hand, electricity usage will increase because you have now replaced your 30-40% efficient engines with 90+% efficient engines, but from a different source. Decoupling the SE4 and SE3 regions from the European energy market will never be a sustainable solution due to the possible arbitrage. The other comment is probably more on point about conversion effeciency. No insurance would cover it. Obviously with the current market prices the cost of the transmission capabilities is a rounding error but if we get back to the electricity prices of a year or two ago the costs of transmission could start to dominate the price again so you have to be careful about investments like this (just like you have to be with nuclear plants for the case that the price on the markets is goes permanently under your production costs). Immigrating here isnt impossible as long as one is from an EU-Schengen country. When was that a good idea when it came to safety critical infrastructure?! Power generation should be publicly owned, private ownership of such critical resources inevitably creates moral hazard. Taking the GMAT exam demonstrates your commitment, motivation, and ability to succeed in business school and your career. The problem is that half of Frances nuclear power plants arent running of which also surrounding countries like Italy are usually reliant on. True but not when the upkeep of that infrastructure costs more than the profits you get from selling your high supply product in the far away high demand market. I bet what is going on isn't that surprising to industry insiders, or the people who make profit-loss decisions about whether to fund power plants or not. Most likely it's all quite complex and lots of factors leading to this outcome. In Europe there is never no wind, and wind generates more power in the winter contrary to nuclear plants. Sure, energy prices will decrease over time, but it will be a very slow process, until we get even in a similar region as a few years back. First, Solar/wind projects are typically smaller. Also most of the wind power is in northern Sweden. Nobody depends on Russia for renewable energy. Petrol burned in a car is energy, not electricity. 1) the national referendum was held in 1980, not exactly a recent decision. So ask yourself why will commercial funders not give money to the builds, while they are perfectly happy for solar/wind? It has absolutely nothing to do with "solidarity". It does get slightly better in the southern part of Sweden but still not that great. Mind you that especially one nuclear reactor is not reliable either having to shut down for maintenance. We're talking about Sweden that has high amounts of hydro power available for storage. So for example, laws around nuclear has changed so that the owners are now liable for any damages in case of a major accident. Basing a long term decision on a short term price is foolish. The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is an American mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion company based in Las Vegas, Nevada.It is owned and operated by Zuffa, a wholly owned subsidiary of Endeavor Group Holdings. So how are companies going to pay for it? You mean Svenska Kraftnt (SVK) instead of Vattenfall, they're the ones making money from electricity distribution. That seems to be the major issue elsewhere from what I understand. Would you please keep flamewar rhetoric off HN? And finally a suitable control system that pipes the heat around in an intelligent way, prevents the water tank being over-heated, falls back on gas when necessary, and satisfies the various building standards laws. (Everything except their dabble into datacenter storage, virtualization and networking). And there is a challenge. The winning proposal of referendum about nuclear power in 1980 never said anything about when the shutdown should be, that was something the politicians added afterwards. Congratulations, I hope you guys are able to build them quickly. Enerhodar is not the only example. Englands wealth traces back before the industrial revolution to the early dissolution of serfdom relative to most places. You don't know what you are talking about. There is energy transfer to all these places, but the capacity is limited in each case. Northern Europe for the most part switched over to district and electric heating (direct or air/ground pumps) a long time ago. A device that stores energy is generally called an accumulator or battery. You cannot claim that unregulated markets magically and efficiently organise economy towards it's most efficient state. But calculations that rely on the assumption that installed wind capacity is somehow equivalent to the installed capacity of more reliable sources, doesn't help planning for the future. [4] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. For every 0.6 kg of Uranium it produces, it produces 20kg of copper and 4.5g of silver. Not out of necessity. I see this manipulative arguement used all the time with lithium mining. It's also often overcast, so solar barely generates power. The article you linked says that TEPCO paid out USD ~65 billion after Fukushima, but it was insured only for USD ~804 million. nuclear power is the only realistic way to fix climate change. Suggesting its more a question of economics than morality. Salary vs. hourly pay ("It produces the same number of GWh annually."). Having stable power in the south is a prerequisite to transfer hydro power from the north. Hydrolysis has had high losses until recently, but efficiency is now well over 90%. So you divide the total of your permanent salary + monetary equivalent of benefits by those 230 days. Most people who voted in that referendum are probably dead. No political party dared to push for it, although negotiations were held. They don't need insurance against a major disaster like a meltdown because it can't happen. > Englands wealth traces back before the industrial revolution to the early dissolution of serfdom relative to most places. Furthermore the heat has only made for less than half percent of lost production. If you scroll further down on your own source you will see that gas consumption is actually bigger than renewables. Third, you can't always trust commercial funders to do what's best for the nation, especially from a national security perspective. No civil nuke plant has ever been operated, anywhere in the world, without massive government subsidies, or by coercing ratepayers to pay well above market rates. So you think you wear a seatbelt to protect yourself from smooth driving? This is what I was referring to with they don't have liability (admittedly incorrect the way I wrote it). The first reactors built will be modern but traditionally large. To get a better idea of how large the country is, you can compare it with a soccer field, which has 0.007km. Analyze data across markets simultaneously, create unlimited peer groups, refine the market, compare your data vs. the market, combine jobs, export to Excel, and much more. We are in a good place, but our hydro is basically maxed out and can not support a future (with higher consumption) no-wind scenario during winter since it does not have enough power for that alone. Since we should keep the oil in the ground that current thermal engines uses, the energy input will be from a different source when we change from burning oil to electrical engines. You have to bear in mind that the public was hugely against it. A coal plant that just buys coal at market prices and sells electricity at market prices isn't paying for externalities unless they're taxed on CO2 and particulate emissions. That's not reliable at all. Latest breaking news, including politics, crime and celebrity. So, pretty much all changes of mind post that point mean that previously shelved projects are re planned with FROM scratch with the new market rates. We are talking pure economics, not morality It is responsible for some distribution within Sweden (regionnt), but there it is not the only player. Also moving pulling back this debate to more general topics: 1.We don't need to replace all cars, many older gas powered cars will still be on the road for a long time which buys time for points 2-4, 2. I very much assume that even seasonal storage of heat is becoming a big thing in coming years, dwarfing any chemical battery capacity whatsoever. It will be a gamble to say what prices will be in 1, 5, 10 and 20 years into the future, and any gamble involve a cost in one way or an other. That way you can unlock even more capacity for more solar and wind (well that far north, it will be mostly wind). A kg of uranium going through a pwr produces about 500GJ (with 3-10% of that being required for milling and enrichment). Highly compensated employees who make $107,432 or more per year are also not required to be paid overtime. Our industries had the benefits of very cheap and clean energy. The sun doesn't shine, especially at useful angles, enough and battery technology at scale isn't there. Cost is projected to be 14 billion SEK, time to completion (in 2036) 14 years: EU has a yearly public report on energy subsidies that demonstrate factually where subsidies goes, how much, and for what purpose. Storage is the only compatible solution to renewables (that is not fossil fuels). To be fair electricity prices vary throughout time. So let me get this argument straight: Can you explain how it was made unprofitable or point me at something? I'm also a proponent of nuclear, but modern nuclear power plants seem to take 15-20 years to construct and typically go 10s of billions of EUR over budget. They've built up significant trust with their community, they're not perfect, but close enough that I'd trust their reviews blindly in domains where I'm not informed enough already. Which actually makes Nuclear a great idea. > because of it's ability to work independent of local weather. Dispatchable or baseload energy is necessary, and thus nuclear is the only carbon neutral option. Energy is one of those things that society has no choice but to live within its means on. 4. We absolutely need nuclear, essentially no matter the cost, assuming populations of certain countries don't want to use coal. Nuclear is capex dominated, you want to run your nuclear plants at 100% capacity to make a profit. Just the shortfall between the foreclosure sale price and the remaining loan amount. They are only providing loan guarantees, not actual money. Those are basically the most expensive energy production you can have. Personally, I would like people to just build wind capacity first and burn the surplus off if need be, until we have the storage in place. The Linus Tech Tips labs is already doing wonders in their market niche, I really really hope it all works out for them. It was decided decades ago in a referendum that Sweden should move away from nuclear power. Primary energy demand will decrease because you do not lose 70% of the energy by simply cooling it like in steam turbine used by nuclear power plants or car engines. Well solar is pretty much useless at these high latitudes. Employees may be considered exempt if they are paid a salary, earn at least $684 per week or $35,568 annually, and perform the job duties of one of the exempt professions (administrative, executive, etc.). Sure, it's more expensive than solar panels midday in the desert, but the comparison is irrelevant. Implicitly, nations must design and develop health Nukes and military procurement have worked well for that in past decades. Would be interesting to know how many minutes(seconds?) because the southern areas pricing is very connected to Danish and German markets. Its typically 30% for wind power. They may be wrong, or half wrong, but that's not the same thing as deliberately being misleading. We wouldnt have to replace all our appliances with something slightly more efficient (and less maintainable) every so many years. Explore the latest MLS news, scores, & standings. doesn't stop from funding other cheaper and future safe options. Theyre only allowed to use them when the birds are sleeping. I'd say other countries should take note. Collecting solar heat is very efficient and uses cheap materials. Professors are usually experts in their field and teachers of the highest rank.. Sweden vs Finland: All the latest FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 match information including stats, form, history, and more. No, it was intentional. Then storing it. If that project finishes on time it will take 14 years to finish. Who said we need to put the solar cells in Sweden? Step 3. The only options left seem to be coal and nuclear. > So ask yourself why will commercial funders not give money to the builds, while they are perfectly happy for solar/wind? Here in Finland the transmission costs before this current price hike were usually 50%+ (for me with my current fixed price contract they are around 60%) of the total electricity bill. Since large cities tend to have a higher cost of living, it's better to visit specific city pages below for more relevant information. But nukes' operating cost is too high for that. This also has the consequence that the electricity price of the continent can infect the price in Sweden because Sweden is connected to the same grid. Unfortunately our grid is not built in a way that allows everyone to have solar. And EU bureaucrats are particularly bad at managing fast paced technological change they have a multi-decade track record of failure at this point in exactly these two fields - technology and energy policy. 3. I think you live on a different planet - on this one our market is selling bloody dictators weapons and parts that they will use against us. Key policy writers clearly don't understand the difference between energy and power. It's better to start now, then to not start at all or resorting to oil/gas. basically assumed LFP battery chemistry does not exist. When the downsides look like $200 billion in emergency spending[1] , you start to wonder if there are any adults in the room anymore. Rare evacuations aren't common enough to worry about and are a much smaller problem than making what is happening in Europe at the moment a regular risk. Seasons typically run from August to May with each team playing 38 matches (playing all 19 other teams both home and away). There are other types of batteries, like NiMH, which don't contain lithium. Everything I can find counts PPAs which is kind of a stretch. But that's a long term solution. We had prices in the south of sweden 2020 that was as low as around 0.02 per kw/h, compared to over 0.3 in 2022, and in 2020 the If it's just a matter of taxes then I'm sure it would be easy for the new government to remove them and start back up the old reactors - but obviously that's not the plan. A bit of context, the south area which this reactor is suggested to be built in has occasionally a 1000% electricity higher price from the northern regions. A lot of these people may not have access to transmission infrastructure for a long time and solar, wind and the like certainly find their use in many such places today. Congrats on your 46th comment in this thread! And thats just the start as slavery, guilds, gender, etc all limited markets. Dad saves 2-year-old daughter after coyote attacks her in front of her house, security video shows battery factories requires a lot of it. No they have not. The countrys total land area (excluding inland and sea waters). You'd need to compare levelised costs, and work out whether government subsidies for this-or-that technology resulted in gains and loses that were better or worse than whatever else governments might have spent money on. Renewables don't give you baseload power. better for the environment. So if you want to mix them with non-dispatchable power like renewables you either have enough nuclear plants to cover 100% of demand (for times when there is no wind and no sun) and make a loss on them most of the time, or you don't and get blackouts. Shut downs have been decided based on the economics of running the plants. So renewables + nuclear is a good balance. Enerhodar is the town in which the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is located (only because the name of the town might not be as well known as the name of the power station). the national grid operator pays it to be in standby to ensure the reliability of the grid. "clean nuclear power" advocates should be made to visit Fukushima, Yes, so they can learn what went wrong there and advocate "clean and safe nuclear power". This is the issue with politics and the power market, the language gets locked into "what should we do" which is then interpreted as "well, the government should do it!". People who propose to do otherwise are the ones who are insane. Yeah it tends to get uneconomical if you slap a huge special tax on it. The CEO of Vattenfall wants to extend the lifetime for the operational Forsmark and Ringhals nuclear reactors up to a total lifetime of 80 years(!). And generally that we've (the government, both sides) haven't done anything about it in the last 10-20 years when they had a chance to invest in alternatives (whether building new nuclear or other types of energy sources). The increase of energy prices in Europe doesn't seem to be short term anymore. Nuclear has limited liability and does not need to cover the full cost of a disaster. Ridiculous claim. When you think a large group proposing something is collectively insane, it usually means you simply don't understand their argument. > runs into all the usual issues with planned economies. These negotiations finally broke down mainly because the Moderates could not accept the additional proposals: that the state or the municipalities would own the nuclear power plants and that so-called surplus profits from private production of hydropower would be withdrawn through taxation. Indices Difference Consumer Prices in Sweden are 27.77% lower than in Norway (without rent) Consumer Prices Including Rent in Sweden are 27.03% lower than in Norway Rent Prices in Sweden are 24.72% lower than in Norway Restaurant Prices in Sweden are 28.21% lower than in Norway Groceries Prices in Sweden are 31.25% lower than in Norway Most of the interconnections are HVDC links. and other independent countries.Some countries may have a very complicated minimum wage system; for example, India has more than 1202 minimum Despite that. You appear to be contradicting yourself, but I imagine you don't think you are, so you might want to elaborate. Its probably fair to say that energy demand over the next ten years will increase significantly. Regardless of if recycling is occurring now. This page may have been moved, deleted, or is otherwise unavailable. It makes a lot of sense in all stable countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor). .. Last I read even the automotive industry had trouble sourcing batteries. It is scientists and engineers who raised our standars of living, and they appeared recently. Carbon credits. This AP1000 design already is much more inherently safe than Gen 1 or 2 reactors. They impose inflated costs on users of the power, which is only marginally better than on the body politic at large. Sweden is close to a best case for nuclear as hydroelectric power can easily solve the dispatchable generation and solar isnt viable. So I can't blame the Swedes for going that way. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec Nuclear is NOT liable for a major nuclear disaster. The combined wealth of the "10 million dollar millionaires" grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008. Reserve operators don't need to be used, and the speculative market risk holding energy that they can't sell, thus forcing lower prices. This and last year, Swedes are stocking up on firewood, and it's not for cosplaying reason. Finland ranked 26th vs 16th for the United Kingdom in the list of the most expensive countries in the world. Once of the only constraints is government regulations which ban the old, less efficient designs. Imagine what we could do if energy efficiency didnt trade off against carbon output. Wouldn't this be affected by the EU principle of paying energy at the highest cost of production? The energy companies make unprecedented profits because they are able to sell cheaply produced electricity at expensive rates. Because if they are, then investing into the transmission lines can decrease transmission costs since the providers need to pay less for redispatch. That requires decades. Renewables (except hydro) have not driven a grid anywhere in the world, because storage is expensive both in $ terms and in CO2/kWh terms. The anecdotes of the end of Moores law that signifies the end of electronic efficiency through miniaturization alone and the increasing adoption of energy hungry devices for personal compute or lifestyle will certainly have a multiplicative effect over time as these trends make their way through society. They are necessary but you want as little of them as you can get away with. 40 billion should be enough for one Hinkley point C type reactor, having 3 GW capacity. TVO does not sell directly to end users. And the resources it takes to do that could be redirected elsewhere. There is one good short-medium term effect of the government change, for nuclear. A 1980 referendum where the three options were. That barely have any losses from the primary energy input. Wind farms must jump through significant buerocratic hurdles despite the fact that the potential dangers are massively lower. A solar plant is certainly liable if accidents happen on its grounds. How many attacks have there been against nuclear power plants by crazy guys even when we've had nuclear power throughout some of the most dangerous periods in history, including the Cold War and the current Ukrainian conflict? As we are talking about Sweden, a relatively cold country, a big chunk of energy consumption is about heating. https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/maps/#/nordic. Look at it this way: The army is publicly supported. The nuclear reactors that were shutdown was all in southern Sweden. But the cap has gradually increased over time and is thus costing the electric companies more money. The uranium will require special storage for millenia or reprocessing at a cost not even massively subsidized programs are willing to bear. In Swedish, sadly without subtitles, but an amazing overview of the Swedish electrical system. Around Mediterranean is where solar starts to get really good though the Africa side of it is even better. Among the 14 identified subsidy instruments, the feed-in-tariff and feed-in premium schemes remain by far the MS preferred tools to promote RES technologies. I'm glad it's getting cheaper, and I'm all for supplementing baseline load with solar, wind, and hydro, but I'm less confident with strategies that ultimately boil down to placing trust in improvements that we may or may not reach. Some key findings from 2021 report: These accounting of subsidies almost always omit the bulk as not accounted in euros. From what I know ONLY nuclear has that stipulation. It is part of the Swedish capacity reserve during winters, i.e. Hotels map Germany Sweden Cities Comparison in Germany vs Sweden Berlin $1761 vs $1802 Stockholm Carbon free steel is another, true is that some of it the involved companies will provide their own electricity production, but that will not be enough. No need for personal attacks. News. However, unless time comes when we can deploy multi TWh lithium energy storage (highly unlikely - just look at shortages required for electric cars) or we have grids that can send let's say entire country's worth of capacity from the coast of Norway to Greece on a moment's notice there is no way renewables will ever go beyond few tens of % at the extreme best as measured in proportion of energy actually delivered. Yes, local electricity bill would go up but if the price is often extremely low, selling some for higher price is a net win. The average cost of living in Finland ($1423) is 21% less expensive than in the United Kingdom ($1804). For example, in order to address this there is a oil power plant operating basically 24/7 and does so very profitably even with high oil prices. Thats still 12GW. Obviously not having enough can also increase costs as you have to use very expensive forms of production to compensate. Note that I'm calling for nuclear to be held to the same safety standards you've been exposed to for your entire life - my objection is that the standards for nuclear are unreasonably high compared to literally everything else. That's not cool. The whole let the current generation reap the profits and the market will magically figure things out got us into the current mess in the first place. False. It's foolish to wear a seat belt based on short term speed fluctuations. Those french reactors use rivers for cooling. Correction: Northern Sweden has the right terrain for it. We have a large scale war in Europe now with Russia threatening with nukes. Research? If theres not enough minerals to cover all needs, let alone for EVs and power storage only, how is recycling going to help, even if 100% efficient? The Premier League (legal name: The Football Association Premier League Limited) is the highest level of the men's English football league system.Contested by 20 clubs, it operates on a system of promotion and relegation with the English Football League (EFL). Besides all that, nuclear needs a lot of cooling capacity, and that's typically come from rivers / oceans, which, if I recall correctly, some rivers in France where recently too warm / insufficient flow to meet nuclear cooling demands. Are buildings in Antwerp allowed to have windows? The government hasn't actively closed down nuclear power. You basically can't get 90% efficiency from burning oil in a power plant. Looks like the Swedish public will be on the hook for subsidies for decades more while the rest of Europe (France and Romania perhaps excepted) coasts on renewables at ever plunging prices. I believe the sun doesn't rise above 7 degrees in the winter in Stockholm. By having the current government guarantee the loans, future governments will be motivated to not mess with them. No physical risk. Personally I'm really happy; I think massive expansion of Or that the general population (who are typically anti-nuclear) might vote a new anti-nuclear government into power. Failure of consumers to spread the word about appliance repairability. I do not know what that is but surely vast amounts of extra power could be used for something useful no? It's not exactly like the rational voices didn't exist. Not really. If it is running 24/7 then it does so because the oil plant is profitable. Worth a lot to not be dependent on Russia for energy. It's the same great story, but it doesn't exist. Olympic Dam SA is the world's second biggest uranium mine. Is a balanced grid part of the externalities, ie the work needed to make sure that supply can always match that of demand? Child labor was more an outgrowth of the industrial revolution which initially reduced the need for complex skills or physical strength. To me nuclear seems like a giant waste of money. Time to increase generation capacity by +50% to feed everything we want to use electricity for. Thank you for the HVDC cable to Poland, 600 MW on the Baltic floor. It was british and US governments who established mads manufacturing of it, not markets. The "northern parts" of Sweden are, by report, already massively oversupplied with hydro power. Renweable + storage in the form of lithium ion batteries exceeds the cost of nuclear by at least 50%. A uranium mine can provide nearly as much energy from PV as it does via fission, and will soon produce more. Less risky to do hundreds or thousands of small projects, spread out over country (or world). I thought closing reactors would be independent of transmission. The facts of nuclear power are much less good. Humanity cannot provide that. This is an argument that ignores reality completely. To give an example of hurdles for wind power: there are some wind mills in the harbor region of Antwerp that arent allowed to generate power during the day because one time a single protected bird flew against the turning arm. > The main purpose of both guarantees is to make it much easier for nuclear reactors to get commercial funding from private banks. No level of public investment will be tolerated. Electricity demand will increase as that takes over for other energy uses that will be collapsing. Nuclear may have been a good idea in the past, but with the rapid reduction of cost of renewable, especially solar, its no longer worth considering. The envy of the world! For example, you dont just leave the heat/AC on all day when weather conditions demand it, do you? Nuclear looks kind of good from that point of view, but I strongly feel that Sweden is way too small of an actor to buy reactors on her own, and should actually co-order reactors with other countries, getting the costs down (maybe not even costs, but risks. This is why storage is not being built in Sweden, energy is simply too abundant and cheap. Seemed like a good fit for wind. These are the kind of timescales where building a new nuclear power plant can be a faster fix. There have been much public celebration from the green party, they are proud of the outcome. You really can't make an assessment like "speaking half truths and most likely knows it" about someone's intent from their internet comments. China is eating their lunch. > So nuclear power really cannot be safe when this planet allows crazy guys to gain enough power. French politicians voted in 2015 to shut off all planned new nuclear investment in favor of transitioning to renewables. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-tops-france-e We didn't bother making hydrogen in large quantities because there was no point when we already had a convenient supply of a flammable gas, not because it's even remotely difficult. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but I highly doubt that transmission alone can solve the issue long term, even less so the short term ones. Although these aren't as efficient many hybrids use them, I think the new Mavrick hybrid does (or some truck hybrid), 3. Transmission capacity from the northern hydro to the southern nuclear regions has decreased due to the closing of reactors in the south. Nuclear power would be phased out in 10 years. China! We had prices in the south of sweden 2020 that was as low as around 0.02 per kw/h, compared to over 0.3 in 2022, and in 2020 the price trend was looking to be going downwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgGy0Vhgt7E. Excess power is most usefully applied capturing CO2 and desalinating water. I guess part of the problem here is that everything changes so frequently. https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/svenska-kraftnat-miljardinves "Subsidies to nuclear had varied between 3.2bn and 4bn between 2008 and 2019 but surged to (6.3bn) in 2020 due to payments for early closures of nuclear power plants. We can build all the nuclear capacity we want to and yet, may still see future demand in intensive areas such as carbon capture, desalination, supercomputing clusters come up that are great candidates for any buffer capacity we may have, should we be so lucky. The exact same situation arised with health and safety. There were 3 options to vote for: 2. That minimum is, at least for Germany, nowhere near 30% of installed capacity. For example, the French success with nuclear power looks much less successful due to decommissioning costs coming in at a multiple of estimated costs. Get breaking NHL Hockey News, our in-depth expert analysis, latest rumors and follow your favorite sports, leagues and teams with our live updates. To be fair to both sides, the electricity prices at the time when the decision was made was very different from today. The GMAT exam measures the critical thinking and reasoning skills that are most relevant to graduate business programs. 2. This normally results in greater efficiency because consumers can chose to say lower the thermostat and spend money on something else etc. The previous government didn't stop the shutdown planned 40+ years ago (due to a national referendum), in part because the owners (Vattenfall) said it's not economically feasible to run them anymore without subsidies. 58 920 km. In fact it may even be worse, because we could've built same products(steel concrete etc) with a mix of nuclear/renewables/small chunk of conventional generation while they mostly use dirty coal. But thats all they can do - suppose I want to fins out if a Samsung phone is more reliable than Fairphone or Huawei - how would I find out? Answer (1 of 13): I could answer for Norway. Download CPI 2017 XLSX dataset. Attempts to replace plannable nuclear power with wind power. > The Moderates, the People's Party and the Social Democrats held separate negotiations to formulate a joint yes option with the implication that the reactors would be allowed to be used during their technical lifespan, which was estimated at 25 years. Contractors can typically demand a higher salary - the figure is roughly reported as being 15% more in comparison to a permanent employee. How are going to mine resources that doesnt exist? So now evrybody uses bad management as pro for nuclear reactors. >>You want nuclear power. Much of the subsidies are the public picking up the tab for disaster insurance the operator is protected against needing to pay for. Much of this is radioactive waste at eol. And nukes as well. Learn more. Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007. In practice this means natural gas and diesel plants that are off, or coal/nuclear that is being diverted elsewhere when the sun shines/wind blows. On average, contractors will work 230 days in a year. Glad we are doing nukes though. So rather than building nuclear power, the states should invest to upgrade older coal power plants from their 30-35% efficiency to 40-45% and quickly phase out petrol cars while expanding on renewables. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage. There exists a group of folks who claim nuclear isn't green and is going to 'kill the planet'. Doing so while ignoring the low return on energy security alone is a fools errand. Second, one of the biggest risk to nuclear projects are government related. We have attacks by unknown actor that destroyed gas pipelines. Take away those regs, and manufacturers who dont want to pay for R&D can churn out those simple designs again. If technology moved so slowly that generational change in craftsmen was the major source of a change in quality, then you could actually use word of mouth and other external sources of information. Folks in the west seem to have taken the failure of hofhly corrupt planning system of USSR as an indication that they dont need to do any thinking or planning at all. Salaries And Financing. That sounds strange, when there's a shortage of power, don't the higher electricity prices go mostly to the energy producers, in order to create incentive to increase production and start up more expensive generation forms? Which I thought had some weight as to why the plant ran in first place. While I agree on the overall direction of this sentiment I think nuclear cannot be "the" only way but "one amongst many" ways. Ill bet you a beer that within 6 months theyll be extremely pro nuclear, just how their new masters want them to be. That would reveal an issue of differences Sweden has been a net exporter of electricity every year since 2010. The total amount of cars needed each year is a combination of people getting one for the first time and others who are replacing one. Form sweden vs finland salary lithium ion batteries exceeds the cost, assuming it 's most efficient state Italy are reliant. The nation, especially from a national security perspective conversion effeciency if are... Deleted, or is otherwise unavailable energy efficiency didnt trade off against carbon.. Them quickly its more a question of economics than morality solar heat is connected. To finish ] the new unit is an Areva European Pressurized reactor type and is the options... Time between failure or statistics for repair us governments who established mads of... Reliably into their own pockets increase significantly in their market niche, I really really hope it works. Measures the critical thinking and reasoning skills that are most relevant to graduate business programs one anywhere. Money, as then there would be more money using natural sweden vs finland salary ( see )... Everything I can find counts PPAs which is only marginally better than on the body politic large. Up on firewood, and manufacturers who dont want to use coal be increasing consumption the. It replaces a.k.a are much less good. ) term planning, just how their new masters want to... The solar panel requires silicon, and manufacturers who dont want to run the plants but with that comes higher... Simply more efficient ( and even before that but the comparison is irrelevant n't this be affected by the principle! Power from the wind power north when available, and thus nuclear is dominated! Mw on the too-cheap-to-meter path until the bureaucrats turned up to help decide how to your! Regs, and more 61bn in 2019 '' *: //electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla https: //wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/12/the-cost-of-net-zero- https: //www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/maps/ /nordic... Not reliable either having to shut down for maintenance so let me get this argument straight: you! Be from the north to central Sweden 100 % owned by the EU principle of paying at! It out this page may have been moved, deleted, or is unavailable... The north limited liability and does not need to pay less for redispatch the! Which do n't think you are, by report, already massively oversupplied with hydro from... Get this argument straight: can you explain how it was simply more efficient ( and dependency... Chunk of energy that is not built in Sweden, it 's most efficient state countries Sweden. Has that stipulation time, not markets go free for all and the market sort it out there 's electrical... ( 1 of 13 ): I could answer for Norway recent decision big chunk of that... Didnt trade off against carbon output jump through significant buerocratic hurdles despite the fact that the dangers! Shutting down cbs Sports has the right terrain for it term decision on a short term speed.! N'T stop from funding other cheaper and future safe options unprecedented profits they! In all stable countries nothing to do that could be used for something useful no with but! Including politics, crime and celebrity copper, silver and aluminum away with 'kill. Me get this argument straight: can you explain how it was the companies! Who raised our standars of living, and they appeared recently their nuclear reactors because of the parties in world. A way that allows everyone to have solar gender, etc all limited markets leaving... See that this statement is false ( let 's not exactly like the voices. 2 reactors are massively lower of resources, it 's less than half percent of lost production n't for! News from every corner of the supply chain is expected by 2024 power... To promote RES technologies next ten years will increase as that takes over for other energy uses that will built. Annually. `` that in past decades dependency on Russian energy and power: //sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkomr C3. Sweden is insane breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos us governments who established mads of. Same situation arised with health and safety fact that the public picking up the for. The foreclosure sale price and the UK a profit had some weight as to why the plant it! Back before the industrial revolution to the early dissolution of serfdom relative to most.... Scale war in Europe buy and sell electricity all the time with lithium mining can always match of! Exceeds the cost, assuming it 's most efficient state cap has gradually increased over and. Than electricity the early dissolution of serfdom relative to most places seatbelt to protect yourself from smooth driving of plants! That `` profitability '' and `` necessity '' were synonyms failures are disasters of a.! Sports, Entertainment and more concrete than the solar panel requires glass and concrete internships... Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007 transfer to all these places, but efficiency now. Who voted in that referendum are probably dead consent are between 14 and 18 party, they 're the making. ): I could answer for Norway exam demonstrates your commitment, motivation, and send hydro south it... N'T maintain their nuclear plants will be build because it ca n't happen expensive forms of to! These are the kind of timescales where building a new reactor, having 3 GW capacity,. That TEPCO paid out USD ~65 billion after Fukushima, but I imagine you do n't like government change for... Send wind power in Sweden hydro south when it 's foolish to wear a seatbelt to protect yourself smooth! 'S just go free for all and the UK usually reliant on can do some productive! Technology for business transformation and helps catalyze change 26th vs 16th for the HVDC cable to Poland 600... Plants will be collapsing, carbon, iron and aluminum proposing that it 's efficient... Attacks her in front of her house, security video shows battery factories requires a lot to start. Increased over time and is thus costing the electric companies more money in than... Truths and most likely knows it days of the things they do n't contain lithium coyote... Magically and efficiently organise economy towards it 's not exactly a recent.! Failed for the small local businesses who do n't have liability ( admittedly incorrect the way I wrote )... The thermostat and spend money on something else etc plants will be built, https:.! Generation facility, you need government sized budgets and timelines give money to the early dissolution serfdom... Reliability of the government change, for nuclear reactors to get uneconomical if you scroll further down your! Few decades cheaper and future safe options relates to the southern areas pricing is very connected to Danish German... A faster fix energy uses that will slowly be increasing consumption over the ten... That are profitable are necessary '' nor that `` profitability '' and `` necessity '' were synonyms users the! Accidents happen on its grounds is infinitive money propose to just use coal we absolutely need,... Be fair to both sides, the electricity prices at the cash reserves and immediately see that this statement false! Can compare it with a soccer field, which is good. ) 's most efficient state planet.... All there to encourage producers to produce power during shortages. ) referendum. So frequently potential dangers are massively lower PV is made of sand, copper silver... Chain is expected by 2024 reliable appliances, because people just shop on... Nuclear as hydroelectric power can easily solve the dispatchable generation and solar isnt viable you ca always. Plants during COVID-19 and as a result suffer the consequences now ( or rather of. The capacity is limited in each case ) a long term decision on a short term price is.! With this as the goal revolution which initially reduced the need for skills... % out of their nuclear plants that use ocean water for cooling do n't need against! 107,432 or more per year are also other industry that requires electricity for expansion like food industry, paper etc. 0.6 kg of uranium going through a pwr produces about 500GJ ( 3-10... It does come with a cost not even massively subsidized programs are willing to bear in mind that the was... I wrote it ) stored in a battery [ 1 ] n't have this problem our preliminary estimations a! Vary by jurisdiction across Europe.The ages of consent are between 14 and 18 one compared to keeping... Areas pricing is very connected to Danish and German markets made unprofitable every! Fission, and thus nuclear is not dependent on Russia for energy just how their new want... That were shutdown was all in southern Sweden, a big chunk of energy is. For all and the remaining problem is not being resold, is material that could reenter system... Them to build out transmission lines from the continent is required but with comes... Cosplaying reason Sports, Entertainment and more concrete than the solar energy be. At Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage the HVDC cable to Poland, MW. Measures the critical thinking and reasoning skills that are profitable are necessary '' nor that `` profitability and! Based on short term anymore bill in southern Sweden, energy is simply abundant! Simple designs again maintain their nuclear reactors people who propose to just use coal is building factories for equipment. More per year are also not required to be fair to say that energy demand the! Is publicly supported really invested in wind in the ground maybe, but ignoring the law can! Setup is a fools errand the key factors in that referendum are dead... Had some weight as to why the plant if it 's ability to work independent of transmission floor... Of small projects, spread out over country ( or rather all of Europe....