Completely replacing fossil fuels is not here right now, it’s not cheap, and it’s not highly profitable.
This is almost completely wrong
Completely replacing fossil fuels with renewables is possible - and has been achieved - in some regions. Off the top of my head, both Denmark and Scotland have produced an excess of their daily consumption through renewables alone. It isn’t hard to imagine that if we built a large enough excess of renewable generation we could account for the times when the wind isn’t blowing by importing and exporting between areas where it is.
Nuclear can fill a role in the grid, and is needed long term for a bit of voltage and frequency stability, however a shit ton of renewables can be built and energised quicker than a little bit of nuclear.
If we want to turn off the fossile fuels as quickly and as much as possible, renewables are needed first. Investing in nuclear takes investment away from renewables and delays things. Cancelling renewables in favour of nuclear, like this, with 20 years to build 10 plants, is just ridiculous. How many MW of renewables could they build in 10 years with half that money?
Renewables aren’t being cancelled. What is being done is creating a target to construct nuclear power, which inherently means that Sweden is no longer aiming for 100% renewables, but instead a target where 100%=renewables+nuclear.
What’s being proposed here is 10 new nuclear plants to help cover 200% of current demand, which is the predicted demand in 20 years’ time.
Currently there are 3 plants in Sweden providing 30% of the country’s demand. If we assume the new plants are each as big as the current 3 (chances are they’ll be bigger), then you’re looking at at least 100% of the country’s current demand as nuclear power, or more than 50% of the predicted demand in 20 years.
With a conservative estimate, if all existing plants close and each new plant is 20% larger, that’s around 4 times the country’s current nuclear capacity, to be built over 20 years. 60% of the predicted demand in 20 years. That most definitely is putting nuclear before renewables, and will incur significant expense.
What I’m saying is that more of that money should go towards an excess of renewable capacity now, along with the transmission infrastructure to connect it, which can be built more quickly and cheaper than nuclear such that fossil fuels can be switched off sooner.
Once fossil fuels are completely replaced, then it will make sense to prioritise nuclear development. Right now, nuclear is a medium-long term solution to a short term problem, where fossil fuels end up being the only option in the meantime.
Scotland could provide enough renewable energy for the whole of the UK. The only reason the PM says they need more fossil fuel is that his family entered into a billion pound contract with BP.
I think Scotland’s total MW capacity is more than the UK’s demand, however the actual generated amount hasn’t been an excess of the country’s demand - not like Denmark, which has produced more than 100% of its capacity as renewables while exporting excess to other countries. However, that probably doesn’t account for curtailment - the grid operators can tell larger renewable generators to limit or switch off depending on demand.
When this happens typically the renewable generator still gets paid as if they were generating at capacity.
They produced an excess of energy with renewable. For how long? What energy are they importing when they’re not? What fossile energy are they using to provide when they don’t? What about countries farther than 100km extremely windy sea?
Why should nuclear and renewable be opposed btw?
It isn’t an opposition, but a matter of priority.
The goal is to switch off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Nuclear takes a long time, renewables can be done quickly - very quickly.
If we spend money on nuclear, that’s money that could have been spent on renewables, money that could have turned off fossil fuel generation more quickly. Thus it makes more sense -right now- to spend money on renewables. Once we have an excess of renewables and have reached net zero, then nuclear builds should come into play. While the nuclear is being built, rotating stabilisers can be installed to provide voltage & frequency stability.
What fossil fuel will they import in the next 10-20 years that it will take to make the nuclear plants?
Nuclear and renewables shouldn’t be opposed. Ideally we would have both. The problem is we needed to stop burning fossil fuels a long time ago so we don’t have another 10-20 years to keep burning fossil fuels while we wait for nuclear plants to be made.
The fossil fuel industry knows that if we take the nuclear ONLY route that we will continue to burn their fuels for decades longer. So they lobby to support that option, hoping that a lot or some of the nuclear plants will never even get finish like we’ve seen happen so many times.
In addition to that, countries don’t have infinite money to spend on energy. So any amount of the budget spent on nuclear will mean less spent on solar and wind. Solar and wind are the only sources that can be deployed fast enough to allow us to avoid extinction.
If we don’t replace fossil fuels now we go extinct. It’s really that simple.
I didn’t say that.
I was responding to TWeak who’s entire sentence was wrong.
Completely replacing fossil fuels is super expensive right now with renewables, and it’s not profitable.
Idiotic straw men about assuming order of storage rollout aside. Replacing just that portion which is profitable right now will lower emissions over the next century than stopping and building nuclear instead.
