• CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is reliability, Europe sees more and more droughts building energy facilities that turn useful water into useless steam makes little sens when there are other options.

    Also nuclear makes Sweden dependant on a country thaz exports nuclear fule.

    And for solar the costs are shrinking and shrinking, the newest and most efficient panels don’t even need rare earths anymore and are recyclable. Btw Sweeden would be better suited for Hydroelectric dams and Wind wich have even less such problems.

    • Testnummer37@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Might be a problem for landlocked countries like Switzerland or so but all swedish reactors are cooled with sea water which is not in short supply any time soon.

      • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seaside reactors have other problems like rising Sea levels… Just putting some wind turbines up would not lead to another Chernobyl when something bad happens…

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fukushima had structural risks and wasn’t compliant with international standards. Modern reactors don’t carry runaway reaction risks. They just shut down in the event of a power loss. There is zero risk of another Chernobyl with modern reactors.

    • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sweden?

      Drought?

      Anyway I’m not a civil engineer or geologist or renewable energy engineer or anything, so I won’t pretend to know what the best path is. I’m just hoping they did their studies correctly and are picking the best option.

      But even if they’re not, it’s good they’re moving away from fossil fuels, whichever direction they move in.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well no, that’s the thing. They’ve replaced moving away from fossil fuels now with promising they’re going to in 2045