• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It sounds like the biggest issue is transmission, you need high capacity transmission lines between the north and south. That way, you could not only use more than the 30% currently, but expand that capacity. Also, transmission between neighbouring countries could help.

    • Tuss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Currently we sell the surplus in the north to Finland and Norway as well as to Denmark and Germany in the south when we are over capacity.

      What we would need is a better connection between north and south but that hasn’t been a priority until now and it’s 30 years too late.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What we would need is a better connection between north and south but that hasn’t been a priority until now and it’s 30 years too late.

        The best time to plant a tree…

        Nuclear takes a hell of a lot of subsidised state money, and that pot of money only ever grows. Renewables don’t need state money, they’re profitable on their own. Renewables will grow readily if the transmission infrastructure is there, and moreso if the planning process capacity is expanded (hire more civil servants), let alone if rates were subsidised anywhere near the same level as nuclear.

        The best case scenario would be the government itself building state-owned renewable infrastructure, where the profit from selling cheap electricity on the commercial market would come directly back to the community. Most wind farms are owned by one company and managed & operated by another, with the turbine manufacturer providing turbine services. There’s no reason the government couldn’t be the owning company.

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

      Funnily enough, projects for green steel and the construction of new massive factories in Northern Sweden mean that the power surplus is expected to be gone by 2030. We need more electricity production, from all carbon neutral sources being built everywhere, ASAP.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We need more electricity production, from all carbon neutral sources being built everywhere, ASAP.

        Exactly. We need it quickly.

        Renewables are here now and can be deployed quickly. Nuclear takes time and is often heavily delayed and over budget.

        We need nuclear as well, but we need renewables first, to build capacity as quickly as possible. We need a huge excess of renewable capacity, to account for times when the full capacity isn’t available. We shouldn’t expect to be using the full capacity at any time.

        Once we’ve phased out fossil fuels, then nuclear will be important. But right now nuclear only serves to sustain our dependency on fossil fuels.

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

          Care to elaborate on this?

          Once we’ve phased out fossil fuels, then nuclear will be important. But right now nuclear only serves to sustain our dependency on fossil fuels.

          The two largest economies with the low reliance on fossil fuels for energy (Sweden & France) get significant portions of their energy production from nuclear power. Iceland relies on geothermal, and the others (Tajikistan, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Norway) have lots of hydro capacity, which are all excellent, but also largely dependent on geography.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t have figures to hand, but I’d gladly dig into them with you, if you have suggestions.

            Sweden does have some amount of fossil fuel generation. The article claims 3 nuclear plants provide 30% of the country’s needs right now, and says the target being set is for 10 new nuclear plants over the next 20 years. In 2045 (~20 years), demand is predicted to be double that of today.

            If we assume all current nuclear plants will close and all new plants will be 20% larger, that means these 10 new nuclear plants will fulfill 60% of predicted demand in ~2045. Again, I’m happy to review actual numbers - I imagine most if not all of these 10 plants are at least in early design proposal stages, so there are some actual MW numbers to be crunched.


            I think keeping Sweden’s nuclear at about 30-40%, while investing more into a large excess of renewables, would allow fossil fuels to be switched off more quickly. This would still mean investment and growth in nuclear, with maybe 5 or 6 plants (if the 3 existing plants have to close), but would get rid of fossil fuels more quickly.

            In maybe 10 years’ time, with fossil fuels well and truly on their way out, that would be a better time to expand nuclear.

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

              Our world in data has excellent stats on the topic, and I am quite familiar with the electricity production of Sweden (my home country). Excepting 2003 and 2010 (both quite cold winters) the share of electricity from fossil fuel sources has been sub 5% since 1997. Thus, for my own country I tend to look more at the share of all energy that comes from fossil fuels (currently 26%) rather than just electricity, but below is a chart detailing the shares of electricity produced by each category.

              As you can see, investments in wind have been massive, adding 30 TWh of production (~15%) since 2010. However, in the meantime, nuclear energy has not only been neglected, but actively dismantled. Since 2010, some 15 TWh of production has been removed from the grid. Whilst this isn’t an issue in isolation, import demands for electricity from continental Europe have increased noticeably during the same time period. In 2010, we had net 0 power flow, whilst 2021 saw a net export of ~16TWh (mainly to a country that completely dismantled their fleet of nuclear reactors instead of their coal power plants and shall not be named)

              What this means is that in a decade, with a population increase of 10% and a GDP increase of 20%, electricity availability has actually declined, which is becoming a serious problem now that some of the most energy intensive areas of society are starting to electrify in earnest (transports and heavy industries).

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

        Green steel is the perfect dispatchable load. The steps up until sponge iron require very little capex, with the input costs being driven by energy price it is a far better match for renewables.

        Same goes for high temperature electrolysis.

        The resulting iron stores 2-8kWh/kg with nothing more than a box as infrastructure (and maybe some oil or nitrogen to stop rust).

        Both are so ideal as dispatchable loads that iron js seriously being considered as a fuel/energy carrier instead of hydrogen.

        Then run the arc furnaces which are higher capex and labour cost but a fifth of the energy at a constant rate.

        The idea of buildkng nuclear to run green steel is utterly deranged.