Environmental experts had criticised the government announcement, saying the new reactors would be too expensive and not meet needs fast enough.
Sure, that’s the logical analysis. Is there an opposition and argument?
The new right-of-centre coalition has said that new reactors are essential to ensure the shift to a fossil-free economy, promising generous loans.
Ah, yes, “it doesn’t matter that it’s a solution fit for a different problem, we want to subsidize our buddies’ companies and get a kickback” should have been the expected right-wing criticism in retrospect.
For all of the base-load talk, this is the real reason people are pushing nuclear.
The projects always go over budget. They always go way over time, too. Both of these things are good for the banks who loan out the billions to build new plants. And they know that if the company goes bankrupt the government will subsidize it.
Nuclear is just not economical enough to be part of a sustainable energy system.
During the time when Sweden built the current nuclear reactors, some where built in just a few years. Sweden had experienced people back then that knew how to build them. We don’t have that anymore. Pretty much no one has.
We also had less examples of issues we need to be prepared for.
One thing people always get wrong is that they assume Fukushima wasn’t build to withstand tsunamis and how stupid that supposedly was. But it was built to withstand tsunamis. Up to 9 meters of height, which was 50% more than the largest one they had on record. And it’s not like they had other projects to look for to figure out that a 50% margin of safety was too little for this. Turns out, it was. So now, you want to build at least 100% margin of error in tsunami areas, something you couldn’t have known before.
And that’s just one example from one rather specific type of engineering during a construction process that isn’t even specific to nuclear power. And as accidents happen (see for example Admiral Cloudberg’s excellent air crash investigation series!) we figure out more and more things we need to engineer against to prevent this in the future. As a result, what we build nowadays is orders of magnitude safer than what we did in the past. But it also means that building it has become a huge obstacle, if for no other reason than the sheer number of things you need to be aware of, abide by and track during construction and planning.
Fukushima was not a failure of engineering or proper safety measures with construction. It failed because they were old plants that hadn’t been maintained properly and were in disrepair.
So no, the margin of safety was not too little. The “lesson” learned from the Fukushima Daichi reactor flooding was about proper maintenance and funding.
That’s the fundamental problem with nuclear energy. Where there are corners, they will be cut.
Turns out, it was.
It’s actually a bit worse than that.
The diesel generators flooded and that’s why the plant failed. The generators were asininely low; one was even in the basement. And yet it was built to code - the code simply had an oversight, as they often do. They could have built for 100 meter waves but if the design didn’t require sufficiently elevated generators, this was still going to happen.
The generator failure was known pretty immediately iirc but here is a source from USC (2015).
I knew a guy who worked at a hydro plant in a relatively remote area who gave up his car and walked a narrow, winding, mountainous road to work every day after the accident. He did so for years and may still do so. One man making what protest he can against our reckless growth. The accident rejuvenated the anti-nuclear sentiment all around. But the right-wing government has been working for years to counter them and is now planning new reactors. I don’t consider myself anti-nuclear but I think they are the wrong tool for the job. I’ve been ranting for years and now we are out of time. Plus regulation upheld by complex governments will suffer when society goes through a major simplification event (due to climate change). I already find building them in the Ring of Fire to be questionable, even with strong regulations.
But miraculously that isn’t the case of renewable? Let me lough.
In the last ten years solar power has gone down in price by 80% and is now producing more power than nuclear.
Plus when you buy a solar panel it starts making money immediately, unlike a reactor that doesn’t make money for 10-20 years after it starts up.
Then why is Germany opening coal mines?
Because they won’t have new nuclear plants online for a decade at least and because Putin invaded Ukraine and cut off their natural gas supply
Too bad for the climate I guess
Yeah well… Nuclear is too expensive and now I heard another rethoric on how renewables are not making enough profit to be worth it for the big companies. We’re going in circles before these people admit that coal and gas won’t be replaced by anything.
Nuclear is just not economical enough to be part of a sustainable energy system.
It’s chicken and egg. We have no experience building nuclear on budget because nuclear is too expensive.
We also don’t have 20 years to slash emissions to pre-industrial levels!
