• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, if you decide to ramp up nuclear now, you’re only going to see the results in 10 years. Nothing is stopping you from continuing to add wind, solar and stuff like home/grid batteries in the meantime. Pretty sure Sweden has plenty of hydro storage options as well, which can be easily used to regulate the fluctuations wind and solar give you.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mines take a lot longer than 10 years, as do power-plants (the whole thing starting at permit submission and ending at last reactor coming online). 2045 is optimistic.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, 10 years was a best case scenario, where you basically already have the plans drawn up and are ready to build. Not sure what your point about mines is, I’m assuming they’d be importing uranium?

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the Russia issue is kind of hilarious. You’re trying to reduce fossil fuel use so you’re not dependent on Russia for energy, so instead you’re going to use nuclear, which uses fuel rods almost exclusively refined by Russia.

            Not sure if new mining would be needed, but I guess that depends on what happens in Niger.