Every time this argument comes up, “it’s too slow and expensive “, I ask that person to please explain to me how my home country Sweden managed to build all those reactors in the 70s and 80s both fast and cheap?

They’ve been amazing for us, despite the fact that some of them was recklessly shutdown prematurely by an ignorant political class.

▲

adjejmxbdjdn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1. Nuclear has a negative learning curve. It’s gotten more expensive with time. Part of the reason is increasing geopolitical risks (the U.S. just launched a war on Iran because of the possibility it may upgrade nuclear material to weapon capabilities), lost knowledge and expertise, and also the increasing relative cost of financing in the cost of energy projects.

2. Nuclear was built at a time when governments were much more likely to directly invest in energy projects. It didn’t have to compete with Labubus for private dollars.

3. Its current competition didn’t exist, given how much cheaper solar and wind have gotten, and how much cheaper battery tech has gotten with signs all of them will only get even cheaper. And on the non renewable side, natural gas has become incredibly cheaper as well.

	▲	palata 38 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> given how much cheaper solar and wind have gotten In a world with a lot of oil. How does that evolve when we don't have enough oil anymore? Feels like renewables are extremely distributed, which sounds like it may be harder to manage without the happy globalisation brought by accessible oil. To be clear, I believe we also need renewables. But I also believe that we won't remotely replace oil, so we need absolutely everything we can imagine, and that includes nuclear energy.
	▲	Gud 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		1. I personally believe the “lost knowledge “ is overstated. Europe knows very well how to manage large scale infrastructure projects. It still has a healthy nuclear industry. 2. Once the vote is there(Switzerland is a direct democracy), the public funds will be there. Sweden has recently chosen to invest ~40B Euro. 3. Solar, really? In Switzerland? Many parts of the industrialised world receive very little sun, especially in winter, where coincidentally, energy usage peaks. And intermittent power generation like wind is no competition to nuclear. These are very weak arguments. Good luck replacing Oskarshamn with solar panels…

▲

tialaramex 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What counts as "fast and cheap" ?

For the renewables "Fast and cheap" turns out to mean you get the paperwork in the winter and you build a solar farm that summer, it's not quite sowing wheat - teams of competent people building the farm isn't the same thing as just chucking the seeds into the dirt with a machine, but the timeframe isn't so different.

Sweden's nuclear plants seem to have taken maybe 6+ years from breaking ground (not paperwork) to first power, so if you begin today you might have a plant in 2032 at the earliest. I can't see any prices, not even a CfD strike price for Sweden's new proposed plants.

The UK agreed £92.50 strike price (2012 prices) for the new nukes it may never actually receive, but unlike Sweden the UK has never pledged to relinquish nuclear weapons so to some extent having a native "nuclear" capability is relevant to national security.

▲

tokioyoyo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Process works if you keep building, expanding and making it safer. If you don’t build it for decades, you’re basically starting from scratch.

It is a hard sell when you have to front a good chunk of money, without a track record of successful build ups. It applies to other infrastructure stuff like HSR.

	▲	Gud 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So let’s learn from that lesson and rebuild nuclear power in Europe? Let’s hope Switzerland takes the lead here, Sweden are already building. The political will is there. Let’s do it?

▲

Scroll_Swe 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Fellow Swede here, what is crazy is I also learned this from this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France

The electricity sector in France is dominated by its nuclear power, which accounted for 71.7% of total production in 2018, while renewables and fossil fuels accounted for 21.3% and 7.1%, respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

SVT or SR has never shown me this, wonder why...

And what is crazy is we, in Europe, act and talk as if we cannot do anything without sucking up to USA or China.

We also have massive Hydro in Sweden. We can see what is currently giving us electricity.

https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/

oh and dont get us started on the electricity zones and germany...

Turn on Barsebäck again... absolute asenine they shut it down. Will never happen, been too long, also owned by Uniper... (Germans)

And sadly S+MP+V will win this election it looks like. Say goodbye to any new nuclear power. Also it will be 2015 all over again but that is off topic...