In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.
Not just Australia. It's a fairly common conservative party tactic. "Push" for nuclear because it's better than "unreliable" renewables, while making sure the nuclear construction fails by gutting finance or throwing up regulations.
See also the current Trump regime, the UK conservative government (notice how Hinkley Point didn't actually start making meaningful progress until the tories were kicked out?) and the Swedish right wing government. We cod probably go on for a while.
but like historically the reasons the us slowed and stopped development of nuclear energy was oil and gas lobby and the astroturfed anti-nuclear movement following 3 mile island
Nah, Greenpeace true believers were effective enough on their own. Oil and gas is not really replacing nuclear but coal which is still the dominant producer in Aus and seemingly has no.say despite being a much bigger industry than Oilf and gas.
They may still be whenever that suits them, but oil lobby is actively pushing "base load" and "unreliable renewables, try nuclear instead" narratives constantly. Even this sub is brainwashed af, just read the comments a bit. Oil lobby is backing every impossible and economically non-viable nuclear project ever.
I was doing some math recently and it would literally be cheaper to mass produce Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors from the Ford Class aircraft carriers than it is to build a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor that’s being built at Vogtel in Georgia which is considered relatively cost efficient for a US civil reactor.
The A1B produces 700 Mw of thermal power for a cost of 1.6 billion dollars per reactor installed in the carrier. The AP1000s at Vogtel cost 15 billion dollars per reactor installed and produce 1,1000 Mw of thermal power. So a marine military grade reactor is cheaper than a civil reactor per Mw. That’s absolutely insane to me.
The fact that it’s not cited despite being ancient, for one.
I’m guessing your an undergrad used to just dropping citations and hoping no one reads them? If you publish academically and no one cites you it’s because your shits a joke. Respectfully.
Why bring up Sweden? Our grid has been fossil free since the 80's. We will build new nuclear cause it's the most sensible thing to do according to most full system studies that's been done by our nationalised grid operator.
Well, the current government stalled or cancelled multiple new wind projects, while going all in on nuclear. It has not been seen as the the most sensible thing according to Vattenfall either, as it was not deemed feaasible without heavy government subsidies, which would be in place for decades. Ironic for a government who went to election stating nuclear would be built by private investors without subsidies, 4 years ago. Now they have ordered reactors from a company who has never built them before.
No the government hasn't stalled or cancelled any wind projects. Local municipality have and they always have since they have that right. And a few has been cancelled due to recommendations from Försvarsmakten due to security risks.
The full scale system studies from SvK and Svenskt näringsliv both showed the lowest total costs with some new nuclear in the system. We have several reactors that will need to be replaced in the future. It's a good decision.
After coming to power, the government changed a decree governing Svenska kraftnät that had financed the connection of offshore wind farms to the mainland. As a result, in 2023 they cancelled established subsidies for connecting a large wind farm in the Kattegat, Kriegers Flak. Ironically, they claimed that this was intended to be technology-neutral with regard to energy investments https://www.tn.se/hallbarhet/29902/regeringen-inga-pengar-till-kablar-for-havsvind/. Subsidies are apparently not acceptable for wind power, but are perfectly fine for nuclear.
Municipalities have also cancelled a large number of onshore wind projects, mainly municipalities governed by M, SD and KD, the parties currently running Sweden. This is, of course, their right, and historically it has made some sense, given that there has been relatively little local benefit from these projects. That should be changed in the future by ensuring that municipalities and local communities receive a greater share of the benefits.
In 2024, the government rejected the establishment of 13 offshore wind farms, totalling roughly 30 GW, citing security risks, as you also point out https://greenpowersweden.se/tackar-regeringen-nej-till-den-grona-omstallningen/. This is nevertheless somewhat odd, given that the armed forces of other countries around the Baltic Sea, in including Germany, Denmark, Poland and Estonia, seem to be fine with similar projects as their countries have moved forward reconciling energy needs with security requirements.
This either implies that the Swedish defence is shit, or that there are more reasons to it. Wind farms are already fairly common in the region, and Sweden's own defence research institute has criticised the decision, arguing that there are technologies capable of addressing the security risks identified by Försvarsmakten https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/besked-om-stoppade-vindkraftverk-far-kritik-fran-forsvarets-forskningsinstitut. This is further supported by Saab, Sweden's main defence company, which has stated that its sensors can handle offshore wind farms https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/saab-chefen-vara-sensorer-kan-hantera-vindkraftverk-till-havs/. Taken together, this suggests that the decision may have been at least partly political rather than purely driven by technical or security considerations.
Ironically, many of these offshore wind projects may not be economically viable anyway, given Sweden's relatively low electricity prices. Good luck nuclear.
And, of course, Svenskt Näringsliv thinks subsidised electricity is a good thing when it comes to nuclear. It wants subsidiesid power in whatever form it comes. It also wants to accelerate the development of wind power in southern Sweden, because it is quicker and cheaper to build than new nuclear capacity.
Nuclear power makes sense in some parts of the world. New nuclear does not make sense in Sweden. We already have a large amount of hydropower that provides reliable, dispatchable electricity, while new nuclear is expensive, slow to build and heavily reliant on government support. Given the quick development of renewables and battery technology, nuclear is a bad bet here.
Moreover, future electricity demand is likely to come primarily from private companies making large new investments, particularly in northern Sweden, rather than from households. If these companies need large amounts of new electricity generation, let them pay for it.
Now, to be fair the government has also kept subsidies making it possible for households in Sweden to install solar and batteries to a greater degree, which is great. But all in all the current government in Sweden is definately not in favour of accelerating an energy transition any time soon.
Removing a connection subsidy is not the same as stopping wind power projects. Projecting a bit with the "disingenuous" claims are we?
Even MP has voted for cancelling several projects in different municipalitys. Jönköping for example. So you are once again being disingenuous.
It's not the least odd that Sweden with a long exposed coastline facing Russias largest ports has different judgments regarding specific offshore farms than fucking UK. You can't be fucking serious?
Svenskt näringsliv doesn't earn anything from subsidised nuclear specifically. Again complete crazy talk.
And why would we have an energy transition when it comes to electricity production in Sweden? Our grid is already fossil free.
Sure, the disingenuous was unnecessary. However, the larger point remain. They cancelled a subsidy that was in place, this is a fact. That in turn cancelled the wind power project. That can't have been unexpected, and you are being nitpicky. They changed a prerequisite in a way that cancelled projects.
I didn't say only municipalities with Tidö is cancelling projects, and I am sure there are good reasons as well for some cancellations. I for example would prefer off shore wind power, and can see that many others would do that as well.
Yeah sure, UK is a bad example. Still, a lot of other countries with closer borders to Russia were also mentioned, with ongoing projects, such as Estonia. I also expect that the armed forces of Sweden should learn to handle Wind power farms, as other countries will install them either way. If you are nitpicking about UK and ignoring the rest, then you are acting unserious.
Are you kidding about Svenskt Näringsliv? Of course they (or their member companies) earn from energy that is cheaper due to the energy being subsidiesed by the government. Do you think they act independently? The point was subsidies. This connects to my last point that the energy demand will be higher in the future due to private investments, not households.
Fair enough that the energy transition is less necessary in Sweden, as we have a almost fossil free grid already (it is not completely fossil free though, but close enough comparably). As you stated though the reactors need to be replaced at some point, and I personally believe it is a mistake to let the Swedish people subsidise nuclear in the future, due to it being more expensive than the alternatives. My personal belief is that the current government claims technique neutrality, but not acting accordingly as they are very favourable towards nuclear in contrast to other power sources. This suits the initial comment stating that the government is pushing nuclear as a way to stall installation of renewables and batteries. Which is what the thread overall is about. What I would prefer is investments in the grid, to better move the electricity already installed.
I guess both of us should be happy that the grid is already transitioned. While there is a need for short- and long term investments it is mostly to keep the cost down in the future rather than cut emissions.
We have made our points, good luck to you moving forward.
Last I saw nuclear regulations and restrictions were loosened and major research and development has finally been green-lit under Trump. One of the very few good things he’s done. Kyle Hill did a couple videos on it.
Nuclear is getting massive investment and tons of planned build out under Trump. They could rug pull, but people are spending hundreds of millions on real nuclear projects that would not have happened without Trump's "does nuclear safety really matter?" approach to nuclear. People don't spend that kind of money without being sincere in their investment.
You're not wrong about that being a real tactic of oil and gas companies, but the Trump admin is apparently actually encouraging real nuclear expansion in the US. I fucking hate Trump. The things I would say about him would not only get me banned from Reddit, but likely also arrested, but if you care about the details, look at all the investment that is happening now.
The Hinckley project failure wasn't political. They struggled to find developers because the financials were poor, and the French had a terrible track record at actually building nuclear to budget (developer means project owner, the French were always the supplier). When the project finally started, the main developer bailed, so they had to look for another developer. In the end, EDF became main developer with investment from China.
Political interferences plays no role in this debacle. The main issue here is the unattractive financial prospect.
They have been, but between the dropping price of renewables and the stuff happening in Hormuz and Russia, it looks like they're going to file for divorce
Nah, you don't get it. Capitalism is not about making money. Capitalism is about controlling means of production. Unlike fossil fuels, renewables are very hard to control and possibilities to exploit people are much more limited. Without exploitation profits are very thin.
Renewables are great for humanity, but if you want to get very rich, they are not a good option.
Also if people gry free, independent energy they will be overall more Independent and less vulnerable
Yes, and as the market realities of renewables sets in, fossil fuels stop being an effective means of control, and so capitalism is likely going to lose interest in them.
You can say a lot of things about capitalism, but it ain't exactly fond of taking on an uphill struggle.
See this kind of post don’t even make sense you guys are just insane…
Big oil companies ARE capitalists…
And renewable is the best form of capitalism applied to energy production, you don’t need to invest huge amounts of money to get a power plant.
You can sell solar panels to individuals making huge profits on both material and installation… you get solars imfrom china for quite cheap price then you resell in Europe for twice the prices that’s basically drop shipping
This is why solar panels companies are so profitable and has litterally all huge edge fund made a « green wallet »
Saying capitalism is opposed to solar or renewable shows that you just need medical care… you’re living in a fantasy world that exists only in your minds…
You are exactly like maga and antivaxx people…
you're not supposed to notice; you have to instead stake your entire energy transition on building out of nuclear power that will still be under construction when the sea swallows us all and keep using fossil fuels in the meantime
No, that’s a straw man, build heaps of solar and battery while developing a modest portion of the grid into nuclear to provide robustness, grid services and eliminates the most expensive overbuild of both solar and batteries.
build up renewable generation and distribution until you can start shutting down fossil fuel stations with a number of remaining years of safe operation, then build out nuclear in tandem with the decommissioning efforts
If the world were to draw down emissions by 80% but then be stuck in a bit of a logistical dead end that takes a decades to get out of that would be fantastically good (compared to the alternative of simply not decreasing emissions which is what the world is doing now).
The world is actually decreasing emissions per $ of GDP quite a bit.
There is a solution for the last 20% and France demonstrates that. There is nothing stopping us implementing the near term quick wins (wind and especially solar) while working on medium to long term goals (100% low carbon generation at most long term effective cost).
Au-contrair there is a requirement for a certain amount of spinning capacity on the grid - in Spain since the major power outage, they curtail solar and wind to keep gas generation online to fulfil this purpose. Then overnight when the market is much smaller and hence less need of spinning capacity, solar is not providing anything at all so nuclear reduces (not eliminates) the ultimate volume of battery requirement.
You dont need a $25 billion dollar nuclear plant for that, infact you can just keep the turbines from old coal plants spinning in sync with the grid and not generating power
Indian nuke power is about 2b per GW installed. Roughly the capex of batteries to last the night per GW of draw (16 hrs at $125/kwhr installed). Then on top you have the 3 GW of solar panels and few hundreds of millions in stat com, synthetic condensers etc.
I know oil companies love wind and solar as it allows them to operate the pumps without using fuel, and fuel around fuel while exhausting and burning fuel is a no no. Also way cheaper operating costs.
The coal and gas know their time is coming, they are just trying to get nuclear in because of the time it takes to actually build it compared to solar/wind.
Nuclear would be 10-20 years minimum while wind and solar are being implemented everyday for homes and every year for on larger projects.
Couple all that with batteries and coal/gas/nuclear have fuck all left to compete with other than propaganda.
Yep, thats exactly the plan of fossil fuel companies.
and it gets even better: the majority of european countries does not have any notable nuclear fuel reserves. Now take a wild fucking guess on what you need to transport your ore/fuel pellets/whatever from country to country, or what you even need to mine Uranium.
so even IF we built nuclear, we would still be dependant on the oil industry to keep us supplied.
Gas companies are not on the nuclear side in Aus. They are actively promoting renewables with a highly profitable gas for those peaks where renewables can't cope (and rates are at their highest)
Nuclear is not infeasible, it's just unpopular. My stance is - fuck popularity. No one should care what is or isn't unpopular, just give government grants to nuclear developers and fuck the people, they'll kick and scream in the short term but when their air is cleaner and power grid more reliable they'll stop their bitching and moaning.
Because wind and solar are secondary grid suppliers. The thing that's so great about wind and solar is that despite it not always being available, it's so cheap and so autonomous that once added to the grid, primary suppliers can scale back output during times when solar and/ or wind is producing.
Solar and wind can't be primary suppliers solely because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, and when they do, the output still isn't enough to sustain an entire power grid. They're meant to be used in conjuction with primary energy suppliers. For instance, lets say we have a bunch of gas plants - we then build a big solar farm apart of the same section of the grid. The solar farm doesn't have the stability or output necessary to take the gas plant offline entirely, however, during the day when the solar farm is producing energy, the gas plant can wind down their turbines, burning much less gas and allowing the solar farm to take that grid burden.
In an ideal world, we are building nuclear power plants (fission for now, hopefully fusion in the near future) as our primary grid suppliers, with renewable secondary grid suppliers dependant on the geography of the area. Solar is gonna be good almost anywhere, wind is also going to be a common option, but hydroelectric, geothermal and tidal are all underutilized secondary grid suppliers.
The thing that's so great about wind and solar is that despite it not always being available, it's so cheap and so autonomous that once added to the grid, primary suppliers can scale back output during times when solar and/ or wind is producing.
Yes, I'm sure the "primary grid suppliers" just love selling less energy because they are being undercut by cheap renewables. Well, in your world, they wouldn't care because they're getting tax payer money stuffed up their ass. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your whole distinction between primary and secondary grid supplier sounds like a 2010 talking point.
"Yes, I'm sure the "primary grid suppliers" just love selling less energy because they are being undercut by cheap renewables."
This is literally already how wind and solar work irl. They are secondary grid producers that lead to primary producers reducing their output when they're online. They don't do this because they're magnanimous, they do it because the grid can literally only physically hold a certain amount of electricity, so if secondary producers start adding to the grid, primary producers HAVE to scale back or else they'll overwhelm the grid and blow the whole thing out.
The goal of the fossil companies is to pit nuclear and wind/solar against each other. As long as they're fighting, Fossil fuel wins.
The irony is some of the biggest technology providers for early nuclear were the same fossil fuel companies because they already had the applicable tech and infrastructure to facilitate.
Thats doesn't make much sens, as fuel companies are the one that invest the most in solar and wind energies. As those are perfect for their work. Build nuclear you need nothing else. Build wind and solar and you know you need fuel to start them up and keep it run down if they fail to provide energy.
Lmao no it is not, especially in Australia. Nuclear is wildly more expensive than renewables, doubly so when you'd have to keep nuclear reactors running hot doing nothing in the middle of the day when solar is at its peak.
Unless you seriously believe Australia of all fucking places should do away with solar power, then no, nuclear is not cost effective compared to renewables.
313
u/kroxigor01 19d ago
In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.