Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has announced that Sweden aims to begin the construction of a new nuclear reactor before 2026 as part of his pa...
On the contrary it will be very expensive for the tax payers and only pay off if the energy price is above some certain price, which it probably wont since renewable energy has given Sweden negative energy prices recently, and most certainly will continue to do. And if that’s the case, the state has to pay the reactor owner the difference instead.
The only way to generate short-term profits from nuclear power is to take over a running reactor. But building these things takes a close-to-prohibitive amount of money in all Western countries. There must be motivations other than cost effectiveness.
And those don’t even need to be pro-nuclear lobbyists… fossil fuel ones will do to as every single “sure, we totally will build nuclear power and it will magically solve all our problems (even i fthe capacity is meaningless to actually solve anything)”-story helps to delay reneweable power.
Weird how fossil fuel companies also managed
to instrumentalize solar PV too. Iirc, both Shell and BP created solar departments which they then allowed to generate a low single-digit percentage of revenue. Thus, a) generating positive media coverage and b) not endangering their fossil core business.
Yay, short term power and profits!!! Who cares about future generations?
On the contrary it will be very expensive for the tax payers and only pay off if the energy price is above some certain price, which it probably wont since renewable energy has given Sweden negative energy prices recently, and most certainly will continue to do. And if that’s the case, the state has to pay the reactor owner the difference instead.
All correct. The profit being earned is by the companies building the reactors - not tax/rate payers.
The only way to generate short-term profits from nuclear power is to take over a running reactor. But building these things takes a close-to-prohibitive amount of money in all Western countries. There must be motivations other than cost effectiveness.
The motivation is getting money from lobbyists.
And those don’t even need to be pro-nuclear lobbyists… fossil fuel ones will do to as every single “sure, we totally will build nuclear power and it will magically solve all our problems (even i fthe capacity is meaningless to actually solve anything)”-story helps to delay reneweable power.
Weird how fossil fuel companies also managed to instrumentalize solar PV too. Iirc, both Shell and BP created solar departments which they then allowed to generate a low single-digit percentage of revenue. Thus, a) generating positive media coverage and b) not endangering their fossil core business.
Agreed that other motivations exist, but the companies building the reactors are the ones making the profit - not tax/rate payers