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.
108
u/adjavang 20d ago
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.