this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
358 points (94.8% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2414 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assuming you're telling the truth that there's a massive shortfall in December already (a provable lie ) then you are suggesting the solution for an urgent shortfall of around a TWh per year is to build 10GW of nuclear plants which will be ready in 2045 for €300 billion and run them at an operating loss for 10-11 months per year.

This in order to provide low grade heat which could be stored in a district heating system for a few dollars per kWh for a total cost of about 3% of your suggestion or even in batteries for about 20% of the cost (which would also run at a profit the rest of the year and make the hydro go further).

Nuke shills say some colossally stupid things, but this really takes the cake.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since you couldn't be arsed to check for yourself before throwing out baseless accusations, here's a translation of a relevant part from the linked article. I doubt you'll read it, but it'll be here for anyone else that stumbles across this thread.

The past winter was at times dramatic, for example when several nuclear power reactors were shut down for repairs. But thanks to the fact that mainly households had previously reduced consumption clearly in step with the rampant electricity prices, Sweden managed to maintain the power balance even in the worst hour, the so-called peak load hour.

"But if we had maintained the consumption, we would have had to cut down.", says Lowina Lundström, Division Manager Systems at Svenska kraftnät.

The electricity had not been enough

At that time, the import would not have been enough to cover the electricity demand during the peak load hour on December 16, 2022, between 09:00 and 10:00. The import was then at a maximum of 3,290 MW, approximately equivalent to three nuclear power reactors, which was the highest level to date.

(Svenska Kraftnät a.k.a Swedish Power Grids is our national power distribution agency)

Btw, your source is 4 years out of date, and accounts for neither daily nor hourly power balance.

Here's an up to date source on monthly power balance.

Here's a report on peak loads in various northern european countries.

Here is an actual relevant source on the topic (again, in Swedish).

The above figure is taken from this report by SVK.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So the problem was nuclear being unreliable, and you can't comprehend the idea of picking the worst recent year before dropping demand due to covid (or clicking on the year dropdown or hitting the hourly output).

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The capacity factor for nuclear power in Sweden (including losses from curtailment) was 83% of installed capacity during 2022, which exceeds the global average for that year (80%), by comparison wind had a capacity factor of 26% for the year. Hence, the issue is not reliability, but rather a lack of capacity. 1700MW (20%) of nuclear has been decommissioned since 2018 (which is why those stats are entirely irrelevant to the current situation). Hence that a the unexpected outage of a single reactor (1160 MW or 17% of total capacity) could have such a large impact.

Even with that outage, nuclear power remained the energy source with the greatest capacity % during the 22/23 winter (80%), despite being lower during peak demand. "Kärnkraft" is nuclear power.

So, in summary, you are either clueless regarding our situation in Sweden (I sincerely hope that is the case) or actively spreading misinformation (which would be the more unfortunate option).

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Another bullshit attempt at paltering. Capacity factor isn't reliability. Failing unpredictably when needed and when asserting that it will work then is unreliability. Your own assertion is that the need was for a handful of hours when the nukes failed.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your own assertion is that the need was for a handful of hours when the nukes failed.

Don't put words in my mouth, that is quite rude.

Capacity factor isn’t reliability.

It is a useful comparison figure to examine reliability. Your inability to comprehend the connection clearly highlights your incompetence on the subject.

Please, either spend some time educating yourself, or refrain from commenting further on the topic of nuclear power. Your lack of knowledge is causing you to (possibly inadvertently) contribute to the spread of disinformation.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please, either spend some time educating yourself, or refrain from commenting further on the topic of nuclear power. Your lack of knowledge is causing you to (possibly inadvertently) contribute to the spread of disinformation.

More attempted projection after having your lies pointed out. Pointing out your attempts at disinformation is the opposite. What you are doing is disgusting and intentional.

[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, you're no longer arguing the topic but the person, do you have any rebuttal for the facts that they've presented? Any reason why you should be trusted above SVK?

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I pointed out your lies and contradictions.

You responded with condescending insults and accusations of ignorance.

[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

What are you talking about, when have I insulted you?

Regardless, you didn't provide much of a rebuttal to the information other than calling it cherry-picked and bullshit attempts at paltering.