this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
358 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2295 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. I'm not critising nuclear for not being green.
  2. Renewables should grow (they're profitable), but there should be further incentivised growth to help reduce reliance on fossile fuels more quickly.
  3. Yes, nuclear is brilliant for voltage and frequency stability. Large turbines have momentum in their spinning mass, when loads are switched on and off they keep spinning the same speed. However there are other options, eg rotating stabilisers, often used on very large ships but land installations are now being made also. These can be built without the nuclear red tape.
  4. Replacing existing nuclear plants is always a decent thing to do. You skip over many of the hurdles by building on the same site under the same nuclear permits. However taking money away from renewables to pay for this is questionable at best.

I think Sweden does have some geographical complications, along with a lackluster transmission network. These are much harder to get private investment for. However if there was a decent transmission network then there would be more utility of renewable generation in the north as well as the capability for import of energy from neighbouring countries or even export when Sweden has an excess.

Putting my balls on the table, I reckon if Sweden put all the money they've got in nuclear into transmission first and then renewables, I reckon they could switch off more fossil fuels more quickly.

[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The points I listed are the strongest arguments to expand nuclear power which both the left and right of Riksdagen generally agrees on.

So how this is a right wing conspiracy to further the fossil energy industry as you point out is still to me a mystery, that's all you need to explain.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

The fact that left and right wing parties both currently (in the middle of soaring energy prices and a cost of livings crisis) agree with measures that support fossil fuel interests does not change the fact that the Swedish government (which is currently right wing) is implementing policies that benefit the fossil fuel industry.

Also, I question the nuance in that - I'm sure many in the left that support nuclear investment, but are less happy about renewable targets being scrapped.

However I apologise if I came on a bit too hard with it being a left vs right wing issue. It's wealth vs society.