Nice pick. I went from my dying LG V60 to the S23 Plus. It was inevitable...
Arcturus
joined 1 year ago
In theory, when it's working, yes it will. Only after being over a decade late and being everal times over budget. They'll probably keep it going for as long as humanly possible, until the cost of maintaining it is no longer economically feasible. They'll try to claw back as much of that investment as possible. But as we know with nuclear projects, they never will. It's why China is betting big on renewables.
You think nuclear powerplants don't require parts replacements, maintenance, or shut down over the weather either? France, US, and Finland had to delay the opening of their latest plants because they already had to replace parts before they even started. This isn't Finland's first nuclear reactor. Their next one has been cancelled because of the war in Ukraine (Rosatom) The others are being throttled down for maintenance, and it won't be long until this new one also requires it. As it is, they're already understaffed.
This one? In what universe would, planning to build nuclear, and then later finding out how impractical it is, or eventually building a plant, only for it to take nearly two decades, be cheaper, quicker, or less polluting?
It's not profitable. For example, in Sweden, the companies involved aren't interested. There was talk of EDF being restructured a couple of years back separating the unprofitable nuclear away from their other businesses (until state bailout and investment). Their CFO resigned over their decision to carry on building UK's latest nuclear powerplant. The Conservatives only pushed through the UK's next nuclear powerplant only after giving EDF assurances and ability to start taking in profits before the completion of the project.
This is what it takes to build nuclear. A lot of state money... Whereas renewables are cheaper, easier, and faster to decarbonise.
Overall, probably cheaper, as it requires less tax to help pay for the cost of nuclear infrastructure.
But it's not the general public who is averse to nuclear, they're as a whole, probably more in favour of it. The current Swedish governmrnt campaigned on it. It's nuclear companies themselves who don't want it. Which is partially why Sweden suddenly and quietly scrapped their plans.
It's still overall, a small part of their grid. They don't have plans to expand their nuclear fleet all too much. A good chunk are experimental, and for military research.
Renewables?
I have two family subscriptions. I find it worth it. It's quite cheap on Stacksocial (even cheaper if you have a discount code).
On top of that, I have one of these routers at home. It comes in-built with Adguard Home. There is a newer, better model coming out soon as well.
Sweden's approach is over.
They have no targets, the industry isn't interested, and the government's analysis has been based on nothing.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Q70mzQ/regeringen-svanger-om-karnkraftsreaktorerna
view more: next ›
That's actually shrinking now, it used to be a larger share a decade, two decades ago. Being replaced by renewables.