Sweden recently stirred the global climate conversation by overturning its green energy targets and shifting its focus back to nuclear power. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson cited the need for a more “stable energy system,” pointing out the inherent instability in wind and solar energy sources.
Changing the target to “100% fossil-free” electricity, from “100% renewable” is key to the government’s plan to meet an expected doubling of electricity demand to around 300 TwH by 2040 and reach net zero emissions by 2045.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/swedish-parliament-passes-new-energy-target-easing-way-new-nuclear-power-2023-06-20/
This decision provides a compelling argument against the generally perceived necessity of acting on climate change through green energy transition, bringing a much-needed reality check to the discourse around renewable energy. Despite the urgency propelled by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Bank, and the Biden administration, Sweden is demonstrating that stability and efficiency must come before ideology.
Unstable and inefficient technologies, particularly wind and solar power, have been endorsed and implemented with the noble goal of achieving 100% renewable energy. However, as Svantesson succinctly stated,
“This creates the conditions for nuclear power. We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/sweden-cancels-renewable-energy-targets-britain-should-follow/
Nuclear power, as she emphasized, creates these conditions.
The environmental campaign group, Net Zero Watch, echoed this sentiment, stating that the Swedish decision is
“an important step in the right direction, implicitly acknowledging the low quality of unstable wind and solar, and is part of a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries and in Germany.”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/sweden-cancels-renewable-energy-targets-britain-should-follow/
Indeed, in the rush to fulfill a green agenda, the inefficiency and lack of stability in renewable energy sources have often been overlooked.
It is critical to note that Sweden’s shift to nuclear power is not a regression, but a progression towards a “100% fossil-free” energy future. Nuclear power, along with hydro and biomass, is seen as an essential element of the energy mix, allowing Sweden to avoid reliance on fossil fuels.
Svantesson’s warning to other Western nations, currently doggedly adhering to the renewable energy agenda, is clear. Substantial industrial economies require a stable and secure energy source to remain competitive – and nuclear is key.
Moreover, the goal of significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions is called into question. Experts argue that the potential harms of this gas are uncertain and often exaggerated, while the potential benefits are overlooked.
Proposals by Sweden to allow countries to prolong subsidies for standby coal power plants have also been met concern in the EU, while Stockholm also wanted Brussels to water-down a landmark law to restore deteriorating natural habitats.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/swedish-parliament-passes-new-energy-target-easing-way-new-nuclear-power-2023-06-20/
Dr. John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s Energy Director, added an interesting perspective to the discussion.
“Living close to Russia focuses the mind, and the Swedish people not only wish to join NATO but also to ground their economy in an energy source, nuclear, that is physically sound and secure, unlike renewables which are neither. For the time being the UK government continues to live in a fantasy of their own making, but we are coming to the end of the green dream.”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/sweden-cancels-renewable-energy-targets-britain-should-follow/
The narrative that meeting the green agenda goals is the only way forward is slowly being challenged. As other countries continue to strive towards the green dream, they may need to pay closer attention to Sweden’s new policy direction. Sweden’s decision demonstrates the importance of pragmatic, clear-eyed assessments of renewable energy sources and their limitations. It underlines that the path to afuture is not necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution, but a strategic blend of various energy sources, tailored to each country’s unique circumstances and needs.
HT/mr
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Sweden Deals Body Blow to EU Climate Change Agenda”
Why is it a body blow? No-one disputes that nuclear avoids GHG emissions. Many prefer to avoid it for other reasons. The key test here is whether the Swedes will actually build more nukes. Otherwise, they will use renewables, like everyone else.
Giving the anti-nuke greens any credibility is a Bad Thing.
Renewables WITH FF back-up for reliability as renewable generation IS Weather Dependent
No Sun, no Solar (5pm to 8am No Solar)
Wind on the other hand is a goldilocks dependent source 55mph wind and no generation
Most of what you would call large-scale wind turbines typically start turning in winds of seven to nine miles per hour. Their top speeds are around 50-55 mph, which is their upper safety limit. Large-scale wind turbines normally have a braking system that kicks in around 55 mph to prevent damage to the blades
The key is: is Sweden done buying what the “renewables” scammers desperately want to sell (solar, wind, components, mostly)?
THAT is the “body blow.”
***********
You create a false dichotomy. Sweden can and ought to use fossil fuel energy. NO NEED for ANY “renewables.”
Sweden currently uses only 2% FF. Rest is nuke, hydro, wind and solar
Electricity is but a fraction of total energy consumption.
You’re ignoring transportation.
So?
Ah, now I see your error. You mistook “can and ought to use” for “is using and ought to use.”
How much of their energy mix provides back up spinning capacity when wind/solar fail to satisfy their grids demands – or does the sun always shine and the wind always blows in northern Scandinavia?
Norway is known for the “Land of the midnite sun”. Maybe that appears in Sweden also.
Northern latitudes for sure; still very uncertain about where their back up/spinning capacity/how comes from/is managed?
Every place on Earth has about half of all annual hours with the Sun above the horizon.
The places that have long days and short nights in Spring and Summer, have equally short days and long nights in Fall and Winter.
But, at higher latitudes, the Sun angle is always relatively low, which makes for very poor solar efficiency unless the panels have motors that adjust the angle and track with the Sun.
And the must be widely spaced if they do so.
Also, the latitudes near 60 degrees have a climatological situation similar to what occurs at the ITCZ near the Equator: Semipermanent low pressure. IOW, it is frequently cloudy, often for many days and even weeks on end, with no breaks of Sun.
and biomass- I got the following from “Implementation of bioenergy
in Sweden – 2021 update”
*******************************
good lord biomass is the worst CO2 producing way to heat anything …
and why do you give a dam about CO2 emissions?
apparently the Swedes don’t worry about it- because it’s only recycling carbon ALREADY in the carbon cycle
“and why do you give a dam about CO2 emissions?” We care because it highlights Green hypocrisy, duplicity, or stupidity.
OK, well, here’s what you need to know. The Greens do not like woody biomass for electric power. They HATE it. So it’s not a green thing. They hate it for the same reason they hate fossil fuels- because there are carbon emissions AND they claim it results in deforestation. There is a big push on in North America and the EU to stop all woody biomass for power by the Greens – and even for just heat and CHP. Woody biomass for any of these purposes is indeed a renewable resource but based on good forest management- without any pretense it has anything to do with replacing fossil fuels. It’s all about using weed trees. Better trees go into timber, pulpwood, etc. If you need proof that it’s not a green thing, I’ll give you the proof. I know all the characters in the green world who hate biomass. Now, I happen to dislike use of corn for biofuels- that’s a different thing entirely. And I understand why some UK people hate it- because they have coal which they think should be used at Drax, not imported wood. Fine, makes sense to me- but that’s a problem with the UK government, not something wrong with woody biomass as an energy source.
I recently bought some timber from a local timber merchant; during my visit he mentioned difficulties with local Planning authorities and he got onto biomass – he knows all about wood. He told me the process for “harvesting” trees for biomass, rather processes – cutting, transporting, chipping, drying, more transportation, loading, even more transportation, unloading, more processing, converting into more combustible fuel…then being fed into Drax furnaces.
“Weed trees”? – think again.
All of this “process” requires ……fuel; fossil fuels in particular;
“Woody biomass for any of these purposes is indeed a renewable resource but based on good forest management- without any pretense it has anything to do with replacing fossil fuels.” I get that; never seen, anywhere, the attrition rate of trees grown by “good forest management” that are being felled; how is that squared with replanting – or are fast growing species needed over any others because the supply cannot adequately cope with the demand? I don’t know and I may be wide, very wide of the mark. I do know people in the forestry business and am told ” we are looking after biodiversity”; in the next breath, mention is made of planting of a particularly very, non native, commercial fast growing species as evidence – except that species mentioned does not attract, eg, squirrels….
Ever wondered why, if you stand still for a few minutes, in any commercial forest ( as I have done, many times, in the UK and in Western Europe ) there is so little bird song evident, winter or summer?
Commerical forestry in the most intense areas- is comparable to agriculture. Yes, they want fast growing species- not maximizing tree species diversity. That’s a fact. Live with it. If you’re not hearing birds, go early in the morning. There are birds in such forests. Yes, the biodivesity is not the same as a wild forest- nor is it in agricultural land. If we don’t have this type of intense forestry- wood products will be far more expensive- same with growing food. But, such intense areas of forestry are not the most common. It’s certainly true in much of the American southeast- which is often called the “forestry basket of the world” because it’s so productive but even there, there remains forests not so intensily managed. Across most of the north east of America, we mostly practice a mixed sort of forestry with many species. We don’t plant- it’s too expensive. We may cut heavy or light- then we deal with whatever comes up- which is more or less predictable. But we will get some species we don’t like and we try to remove them in thinnings- leaving several of the prefered species, the oaks, the maples, pine and others. We remove some of those too if they tree is crooked, damaged, diseased. I practiced forestry for 50 years and only did 2 clearcuts. The rest were thinnings were about a third of the wood was removed- the third that was the least productive of wealth- for the owner.
All across North America there are national parks, wilderness areas, and “reserves” which have little or not management. For 8 billion people on this planet, and everyone wants a good standard of living, we aren’t going to have vast areas of maximum biodiversity. The biodiversity of the planet must suffer for the benefit of the human race. Some people don’t like this but they had better get used to it.
Small birds are very adaptable, and don’t need a mature, biodiverse forest to thrive. I live in an apartment building in a Chicago suburb with a few scattered large trees, and this time of year the sun rises before 6 AM, and if the window is open, the bird song is deafening from about 5:15 on.
There is also an unmanaged “forest preserve” a few miles away, which is allowed to grow “wild” except for a few walking / biking trails through it, which is very “biodiverse”, where fearless deer frequently cross the trail, since hunting is not allowed. But the forested area off the trails is choked with underbrush and thornbushes, and there are many scattered thick rotting logs of old trees blown down by storms a few years earlier.
In a forest used for lumber harvesting, the trees are often planted in neat rows, so that a mature tree can be felled without damaging a neighboring tree, and any underbrush is periodically cleared. Clearing underbrush reduces the competition for sunlight for the desired trees, and also reduces the risk of a wildfire. This might limit the population of small wildlife that live in underbrush, but does not deter squirrels–they move in wherever there’s an oak tree, and their only limit is the food supply and their mistaken belief in their ability to outrun cars.
You are full of misinformation.
Plantations might plant rapid growth trees in rows. Forestry plant trees helter-skelter as a mixed forest resists fungus, insect and bacterial attack better than a regimented monoculture forest.
Sheer nonsense.
Some birds may thrive in an urban environment, English sparrow, grackle, starling, rock pigeon, etc.
Many others require a specific environment; whether fields, woodland borders, understory, upper forest levels, meadows, riparian, grasslands, etc.
Large woodpeckers absolutely require large expanses of mature timber.
Many songbirds strictly reside and feed in the upper levels of the forest. Others happily live and hunt the understory or along the borders of the forest.
Quite a few birds require a large contiguous mature forest.
Exactly the environment desired by deer, but that is not a natural mature forest. A mature forest allows very little light to reach the ground sufficient for underbrush and thorn bushes to prosper.
A forest managed for timber is managed for timber, not birds.
As I sit in my living room, I do not hear any singing birds (my house is not managed for the birds).
As I sit at my desk typing this drivel, I hear less singing birds than I hear when I am outside.
If you want song birds in private forestland, buy some forest, cut the trees and add meadowed areas, pay the taxes on it, hang out in the meadows, and listen to your hearts content.
And they still want to get rid of wind and solar
What does that tell you!
Gees Nick.. why insist on faceplanting in your own BS .. yet again !
And it isn’t working, hence the desire to dump wind and solar.
A couple of things here. Sweden is not yet at net zero. It is expected that electricity consumption will go up. I believe exports of hydro power are expected to go down in both Quebec and Norway. Finland has recently opened a nuclear power plant:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-energy-just-helped-finland-110000152.html
You would expect any reasonable government to plan for how to achieve net zero if they are serious (most states in the USA seem to be clueless).
No REASONABLE government would be planning for the sheer idiocy of “net zero,” because human “emissions” do not drive the Earth’s temperature.
Like many Left Pondians you simply do not appreciate that most of Europe has no fossil fuels left at all.It all came from Russia.Fossil is simply not an option
Well, no. While it’s true that Europe has little in the way of onshore oil and gas, about 40% of it’s needs come from Norway and the North Sea fields. Also it has large amounts of coal – billions of tons mainly untouched, so European hydrocarbons are an option and I didn’t even have to resort to using ad-homs to make a point.
Has Europe being thoroughly searched for onshore oil and gas?
Not thoroughly – the estimates are being pushed upwards slightly as more accurate assessment methods are used. But it is fairly clear that Europe got the lions share of the coal whilst missing out on the oil and gas under the North and Black seas. If Ukraine joins the EU they’ll bring a huge windfall of oil and gas reserves with them. Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova have claims to some of the Black Sea oil and gas but the major fields are within the Ukraine and Crimean areas.
They have plentiful gas but fracking is necessary.
I wouldn’t say plentiful – Norway has a plentiful amount of gas, which it is exploiting and Poland has a modest amount, but other EU countries have very little. The Netherlands has some reserves but the overlying ground isn’t very good for fracking – subsidence is a major problem there. I stand by my comment that the EU desperately needs the oil and gas in the North and Black seas.
It is plentiful.
No one is ever sure what is there until a bunch of exploratory wells are drilled, but the thing about oil and gas and coal is, the more one looks, the more one finds.
They have not done a lot of looking.
15 years ago, half the people in the US were certain that there was not enough untapped oil and gas in the US to even bother drilling a single new well. See how that turned out?
Map of worldwide shale deposits:
Also plenty available by fraking, which of course the Eco-Nazis have rushed to “ban”
We (UK) have about 300 years (at least) of coal left, a fair bit of gas, and oil.
and, probably, we’ll figure out fusion energy in the next 300 years
or, the ETs will explain “zero point energy” according to UFOologists
I know that few here are following the rapid developments in the UFO area, but they should. It’s real and it’ll mean important changes to our civilization, including energy. If I wasn’t so lazy, I’d write a major essay here on this topic.
True, yet my reply to Nick is correct
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/25/sweden-deals-body-blow-to-eu-climate-change-agenda/#comment-3739289
If all the wasted wind and solar trillions had gone into nuclear, society would be far better off.
I saw this comment right away but didn’t notice it was Nick with his trademarked obtuseness.
Body Blow to EU Climate Change Agenda
What is the EU’s Climate Change Agenda? I believe it is to build out what it calls “RENEWABLE” energy. That does not include nuclear. The EU agenda:
With the energy efficiency directive, the EU has introduced measures to improve energy savings by making more efficient use of energy supply. The proposed revision of the directive includes an energy efficiency target of 36% for final energy consumption and 39% for primary energy consumption, compared to the current 32.5% headline target.
The renewable energy directive aims to increase the share of renewable energy in the EU’s economy. The current target set in the directive for 2030 is 32%. The revised proposal by the Commission is to reach at least 40% of renewables in the EU’s energy market by 2030.
at least 40%
of renewables by 2030
Relying on nuclear power for reliable baseload power is in direct conflict of those agenda items. Showing other countries that they can tell the EU to shove off and shore up their electrical grids cascades into a “Body Blow”.
” in direct conflict of those agenda items”
Certainly not the first, in any way. As for the second, there is plenty of room for Sweden to develop some nukes (they won’t) in the remaining 60%.
In fact, Sweden is already super-compliant with both. From the Reuters link:
“Around 98% of electricity in Sweden is already generated from water, nuclear and wind.”
AND (importantly) only 16% of Sweden electricity comes from wind (actual generation not nameplate 28%) so Swede wind works about 60% of the time
You keep putting nuclear in amongst renewables. Sweden has switched from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil free”, which is a direct challenge to the EU’s preferred policy direction. They recognise that renewables are destabilising, expensive, poorly performant, and inefficient.
Is it or is it not true that many, if not all studies of the results of most energy efficiency improvements are overcome before too long through greater use of those more efficient devices, resulting in no energy savings or an even greater net energy use?
If so, the energy efficiency improvements that the bureaucrats are attempting to drive are as foolish and worthless as their “renewable” energy sources. Of course their real intention is most likely energy use rationing for the most of us.
There have been moves to declare nuclear power ‘renewable’.
SInce the sun, which powers all so called ‘renewable’ energy is in fact a natural nuclear reactor, this seems no less insane than anything else in the great renewable scam
Even better there were natural nuclear fission reactors in earth’s history.
Oklo, seventeen natural nuclear fission reactors operated in Gabon in Western Africa. The energy produced by these natural nuclear reactors was modest. The average power output of the Gabon reactors was about 100 kilowatts.
At a stretch, you could possibly call geothermal a nuclear source, derived from that constant natural nuclear fission in the earth’s core?
“I saw this comment right away but didn’t notice it was Nick with his trademarked obtuseness.”
One has to wonder if Nick is really WUWT’s artificial Simplicio.
Renewables are dead. The West has wasted trillions and at least two decades in reaching this decision. Regardless what occurs, nuclear is the only path into the future. Remember nuclear encompasses a number of technologies.
Nature has shown that wind is a niche player. So, we really didn’t need to learn that the hard (and expensive) way. She has also shown that solar energy has great potential – but only because of her incredibly efficient means of storing solar energy for periods of little to no solar energy input, even extended periods. (And because she doesn’t have the need for intense amounts of energy like modern man does)
We are nowhere near ready to commit to solar as anything more than a niche player, like wind.
Our ancestors came to the same conclusion about wind power by the time of the industrial revolution, why we have taken so long to learn the same lesson is beyond me.
All five of Europe’s wind turbine manufacturers have been making huge losses for 30 months plus and the industry in Europe has told the EU
“we simply don’t have enough factories and infrastructure today to build and install the volumes Europe wants” -Wind Europe CEO , Giles Dickson in Press release 16th March 2023 ‘EU Green Industry Plan falls short for now’
https://windeurope.org/newsroom
I’m not certain governments have come to the same conclusion about renewables being dead. I hope you’re right but we’re not there yet.
Like everyone else, all 7.75 billion? You are clearly deluded.
Old mate sees a globe utterly blanketed by wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. It is “energy nirvana”.
oh, but they’re so pretty- no doubt they’ll be popular tourist attractions
The Birds love ’em. How else they gonna tan their bottoms?
Sparrow. It’s what’s for dinner.
Can’t help wondering what the UHI factor of all those black panels is.
The key test is whether Sweden will dump the EUs ‘Renewable Obligation’ and attendant subsidies.
Without them renewables are dead,
No one cares about ‘climate change’ any more:Cheap reliable energy is what they need.
With respect, I think a lot of people think about all life on this planet and have done so for many decades. I think that mentality informs many people to live their life in as responsible a way “they” can – which means people think for themselves, communicate with others and act – according to their “world view”. It requires personal checks and balances as well as “reboots” – at least for me anyway.
The fact of “global warming” morphing into “climate change” as well as other shibboleths is to be welcomed, because it exposes the intellectual vacuum and fraud, which I interpret is what you mean “no one cares” – these various fanatic driven themes have , imho, massively overplayed their cards – people who dare to think eventually see straight through them, and never give them credence again.
Whilst our lives might well be affected, “I do not comply”. I am a Baseball fan, but for me it is “One strike and you’re out” as far as GW/AWG/CC etc are concerned
Otherwise, they will freeze in the dark, like everyone else.
FIFY.
We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system”
If you make the unreliables responsible for system strength and stable energy that’s when the piggies squeal and give the dumping game away-
The “nonsense” rules that threaten to scupper dozens of wind and solar projects | RenewEconomy
Level playing fields aren’t fair!
This decision is certainly a body blow for Ruinable Energy like Solar and Wind. Once Sweden builds its nuclear fleet it will simply shut down all RE as there will be no need for it.
I have been told by a WUWT poster that you have a developed knowledge of this broad subject – even with your one good eye wide open, even you cannot fail to see how this dents the EU AWG/CC apparatchik agenda. Spare us the faux “failure to grasp” rhetoric – it does you no favours – in the extreme.
The Chinese and Russians, currently our favorite enemies, repeatedly build STANDARD, 2 unit, 2,500 MW nuclear power plants for about $10 to $12.5 BILLION, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IN ABOUT FIVE YEARS.
The French plant in Finland took about 20 years?
Think of all the interest paid on the financing during “construction and reconstruction”
The Hinckley plant in the UK is a an economic disaster, even worse than offshore wind
For example, $20 billion turnkey capital cost for a 4-unit, 4800 MW nuclear power plant in Turkey, about $4000/MW.
The first 1200 MW unit has been producing power since May 2023, with additional units to follow
Russia provides the financing at low interest rates, O&M training of plant staff, plus spare parts, plus reprocessing of spent fuel, plus new fuel bundles, plus storing of waste, under contract, for the life of the plant
Why are you shilling for Russia?
How else would you know the facts of nuclear?
He’s not. He’s telling us what the opposition are doing – that’s intelligence. Why are you shilling for the green blob?
He’s shilling for Russia, because none of his claims are true and Russia is far from the only supplier of NPPs. It’s not even close to being the best. Akkuyu is not in service and thus far has obviously produced nothing. So are you shilling for Russia as well? You think that a permanent commitment to Russia is a good idea?
The first unit was completed in May 2023, just google
Turkey, and many other countries, think it is a very good idea to make a long-term commitment to nuclear power from Russia, because it is the best full service nuclear supplier in the world, and at low cost, and at low cost financing.
Rosatom has a the largest number of nuclear plants under construction all over the world, by far.
No company gets such market share by being second rate
no they will use gas and coal LIKE everyone else …
Even the IEA, in their ‘World Energy Outlook 2022’ say
“From 80% today – a level constant for decades – fossil fuels fall to 75% by 2030 and just over 60% by 2050”
Though I suspect they are being over optimistic!
Those fossil decrease numbers are total horse manure, because they would require enormous capacity, MW, increases in wind and solar, which is not going to happen, not even in the UK, the self-proclaimed Saudi-Arabia of wind, which is already impoverished, inefficient, uncompetitive and hopelessly mismanaged, with high inflation, high interest rates
The fact that most climate change fear mongers oppose nuclear energy shows the real agenda isn’t about greenhouse gases.
No. In the end they will use whatever works and keeps society running. That is clearly not wind and solar as presently engineered. They have just reached the point of realization that their political survival demands a different path than the Net Zero religion.
Where is the body blow? Nick, sometimes the boat leaves without you. The Swedish statements ridiculed wind and solar as destructive ineffective, dangerous and impossible policy.
And you also missed the point that CAGW fears are overblown, and the benefits if CO 2 often ignored.
It turns out some folk really want to help their citizens.
Very well said; rather than stuff their populations rigid with ideological drivel that comes with no choice but to bend the knee, this is joined up thinking afaiac!!
I don’t doubt that Nick is sincere to a point – but he shoots himself in the foot as do very single one who pushes AWG/CC with CO2 being the villain – wrong – how can he and his ilk still propose that one of the triumvirate of essential elements for all life, sunlight, water and CO2, has to be “reduced” because he says so ( please dont trot out “97%” ……that fox was shot long ago).
So, Nick and everyone else who believes you preach the received ecowords, tell us all unequivocally do you wish to reduce ALL human sourced emission of CO2 to zero AND what level of CO2 do you regard as “safe and effective” for the planet?
Spill the beans.
Nick apparently only reads what he has been told to read.
Name “everyone else”, 87% of electrical generation in BC, where I live, is from hydro. Wind and `solar are less than 3% of total generation. So not everyone else is on the wind/solar bandwagon.
It’s a body blow because it goes to the heart (of the matter) . .
We should thank our creator-of-choice that not all women in Sweden are Gretas; a sensible direction to take. The universe consists of nothing but nuclear energy in its various forms, it’s a force we need to thoroughly understand if we wish to survive in such a universe.
I was just having a conversation on the back patio with my graduated fiancé about the quest for zero carbon by 2050, and that it will require more mining to take place between now and then than has been done before in the entire history of man–who’s going to do it, and with what? Windmills can’t power the mining machinery needed to obtain the materials to build windmills.
Mining has been crapped on by so many for so long that there aren’t enough people who have studied and become competent as economic geologists anymore; who’s going to do it?
If I have to come out of retirement to fill that need, after having been insulted by greenies because of being a mining geologist, for so many years–are they gonna pay.
Nukes require a lot of CO2-emitting concrete production. Maybe newer designs less so.
While I agree that’s true–first, concrete requires gravel and limestone, both of which come under mining; second, have you worked out the concrete requirement per kWh produced for nuclear vs windmills?
Even at nameplate capacity, wind turbines use more than 500 tons of concrete per megawatt generated, while nuclear power plants take 12. Factor in actual electricity generated, and the difference is off the scale. But still, conventional nukes need a lot of concrete.
Actually every form of generation requires concrete.
Ground based solar panels are mounted on steel structured mounted to concrete footings
Rooftop solar can only be placed on houses that have concrete foundations
Wind turbines require massive foundation footings
Gas generation facilities are mounted to concrete bases
Coal generation is similar to gas
Nuclear generation also requires a.fair amount of concrete
Hydro also uses concrete in the dam structure
“Rooftop solar can only be placed on houses that have concrete foundations”
Really? Why?
AND considered that the concrete ABSORBS CO2 once in place?
And, to that aspect of nuclear energy, I say, “More power to them!” 😀
*********************
PLANTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER!
(insert images of smiling trees, vegetables, and daisies)
**********************
Smiling? Without adequate CO2?
I was referring to Milo’s observation above:
“Nukes require a lot of CO2-emitting concrete production.”
THAT aspect. 🙂
Nukes require maybe 10% of the materials (concrete, steel, etc) per MWH of what wind turbines require. Th energy is a nuke is much more concentrated than with wind.
Yes, nuke power density can provide reliable base load.
My point was that every power source comes at environmental cost, but some are reliable and others aren’t.
Wind turbines also require Tons of concrete in their foundation footing.
https://www.windpowerengineering.com/take-a-closer-look-at-pouring-turbine-foundations/
The construction of 15 to 20-foot-deep concrete foundations to support all of the 328-foot-high towers with 2-MW turbines require 30,000 tons of concrete
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHkWMQMECZ0&pp
That is 30,000 tons per 2MW tower.
A Nuclear Plant like Diablo Canyon produces 2200MW.
2200MW would require 1100 – 2MW towers and over 33,000,000 tons of concrete
“That is 30,000 tons per 2MW tower.”
Do you ever think about this stuff?
The Titanic weighed about 50000 tons.
Displacement, Nick, not weight; you really don’t have a clue, do you? The Titanic’s displacement was 52,310 tons.
So do you believe each 2MW tower has 32000 tons of concrete in the foundations?
Nick, with every scrap of respect that I can charitably muster, what the bloody hell are you wittering on about? I was merely correcting you on a point that you seemed utterly unable to grasp – it’s displacement.
It may be a misreading of the original which can be read as 30,000 tonnes per turbine but probably meant 30,000 tonnes for all of them.
Why not – you believe CO2 warms the planet FFHS!
Whether or not you are nitpicking about the difference between a loaded and empty Titanic, does it not displace what it weighs?
Displacement or displacement tonnage is the weight of water that a ship pushes aside when it is floating, which in turn is the weight of a ship (and its contents).
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(ship)
Not rhetorical. Long ago I was a Navy CEC Lt. (a Seabee) and spent only 5 days on a ship. So maybe I’m way off base here.
Well yes and no. The displacement of a ship is the estimated weight of water it displaces (usually when empty, though some vessels have a loaded and unloaded displacement) not a precise measurement of its total mass, which is the usual meaning of weight. I probably am nitpicking a bit between the 2 terms but it offends my delicate sensibilities when someone talks about the weight of a vessel rather than the universally used ‘displacement’.
I thought that the amount of water a ship displaces is equal to it’s weight.
You thought correctly.
A ship does not displace “about” its weight in water, and it has nothing to do with whether it is loaded or not.
Under every possible condition, if an object is floating on water, it displaces a mass of water which is precisely equal to its weight at that exact moment.
Period.
This principle was used thousands of years ago to determine if a metalsmith has secretly mixed in some lesser metals to a golden crown, if that tale is not apocryphal that is.
The weight of a ship is what determines it’s displacement.
Any object immersed in water displaces a mass of water equal to it’s volume in water. This is the same as the force acting on it called buoyancy…not an actual force, but the amount it’s apparent weight is lessened while it is under water.
For a object that is floating, displacement and mass are the same. Weight is mass acted upon by gravity.
Semantically, the weight of a ship is the same as it’s displacement. How could it displace more or less water than it weighs?
In fairness, people have only known all this since the time of Archimedes.
Titanic is made of steel, not concrete!
The recent Titan submersible made of 23 tons of carbon fibre and titanium imploded slowly at first, then suddenly.
Just like the NetZero dream.
“Titanic is made of steel, not concrete!”
Would you please point out where Mr. Stokes said otherwise?
“The recent Titan submersible made of 23 tons of carbon fibre and titanium imploded slowly at first, then suddenly.”
A unique mix of the macabre and irrelevant. Apparently, you had to wheel and deal an entree to your last sentence.
How do you define “slowly”?
Reports say that the vessel was creaking and popping during the dives previous to its implosion. That was probably the carbon fiber slowly delaminating under pressure.
During the delamination, the pressure vessel would have gotten marginally smaller.
One person interviewed yesterday said it took the human body four milliseconds to react to an outside stimulus, and the decompression would take about two milliseconds, so the humans involved would never have known what was happening to them, once the decompression started. It would have been over before they could even realize what was happening.
If you have to go, that’s the way to go: Quick.
Nick,
That number is from the Wind power Engineering website, (hence the link) not out of my head. BTW the Titanic was HOLLOW
I believe that site says that is total for 152 windmills.
You are correct. Average for 2MW is about 750 m2 which is about 1650 tons per foundation. Still a lot per footing and a lot for 300MW of weather dependent capacity (about 108MW generation after capacity factoring)
Change that to cubic instead of square meters and I think you are close to the correct number.
Still a lot.
How many cubic yards can one truck of concrete hold?
I think about 10 yards is a full truckload.
So even 750 yards is a whole lot of trucks full.
Much of which won’t be delivered when needed the most.
It still does … The displacement isn’t quite the same as it was though.
Nick,
“The Titanic weighed about 50000 tons”
It still does … The displacement isn’t quite the same as it used to be.
*And for everyone else… “Displacement generally refers to fully loaded (and Naval). Gross tonnage is reasonable/acceptable terminology for other ships.
Nick said about 50000 tons, so it doesn’t matter if he was talking about ‘loaded’, ‘normal’, or ‘light’ displacement (weight);
… problem is that he use the Titanic as a reference, rather than telling us how many Olympic size swimming pools he was using as an equivalence.
Concrete is about 2.4 tons per cubic meter.
So 30,000 tons is about 12,500 cubic meters.
Which would be a block 12 meters by 50 meters by ten meters.
Or 24 by 25 by 10 meters.
Or about (roughly) 30 feet deep, and 80 feet on a side.
What is plainly obvious is that low density energy sources are very resource intensive to gather. And the required resources must all be mined, manufactured, transported, assembled, etc, in very spread-out locations.
Making it even more resource intensive.
And then they do not last long.
Which makes them far more resource intensive over time.
On top of everything else, they need to be fully backed up by reliable sources kept on standby…reliable sources that could be doing the job all by themselves.
Nothing about any of these facts are debatable…they are the reality of the situation.
30 feet by 80 feet by 80 feet is a really really big slab of concrete.
And a 2 MW turbine is not a large one.
For comparison, the slab supporting the Leaning Tower of San Francisco is about ten feet thick.
Not as much as windmills
Cement doesn’t have to be made with fossil fuels, either.
Cement doesn’t have to be made with fossil fuels, either.
Eh???
Haven’t you heard? We can now make cement from pixie dust mixed with unicorn turds. And magic wands for rebar.
He’s probably “thinking” of the heat used to force the CO2 out of the lime.
Leo, when lime is heated to produce concrete mix, it releases lots of CO2.
Concrete production releases CO2 sequestered by crustaceans over 100s of millions of years in limestone and chalk. As one of the few ways we have of getting this CO2 back into circulation it should praised not made into a pariah.
Think it is prehistoric recycling in action – long lived and long may it continue…?
Maybe someone can find a way to use all that plastic we have been told to recycle for these many years.
“pointing out the inherent instability in wind and solar energy sources.” The sad part is all this was knowable for decades now. Many people have been screaming this from the roof tops but the climate alarmists had the microphone and media was on their side.
“but the climate alarmists had the microphone and media was on their side. ”
That’s the problem. It still exists today.
*********************
“Moreover, the goal of significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions is called into question.”
*********************
Yes!
Nuclear power is, indeed, excellent, nevertheless and MOREOVER,
fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, etc.) should ALSO be robustly, yes, ROBUSTLY, used for, –>
–> there is NO data proving the conjecture that using fossil fuels causes meaningful shifts in the climate zones of the earth.
********************
CO2 IS PLANT FOOD.
********************
and by extension essential for humans; what I never ever see from the Renewable Unreliables lobby is IF CO2 is so polluting and antithetical to life on this planet how do they eradicate any and all human produced – that should perhaps be recycled previously sequestered – CO2 AND what level of CO2 would they be happy with? It might be over simplistically expressed but I am a simple person – and it smacks of the same brainwashed ill thought out conception that “vaccines” can eradicate a fast mutating so called viral pandemic ( that turns out to be anything but ).
That number is in the same file as the ideal global temperature.
A Google [News] search on “Sweden Nuclear Power” turns up the following list of news outlets:
EURACTIV.com, Bloomberg.com, Power Technology, World Nuclear News, AP News, Reuters, Western Standard, Financial Times, International Atomic Energy Agency, Euronews, Innovation News Network, ScandAsia, teleSUR English, Oil Price, World Nuclear News,Reuters, Bloomberg.com, World Nuclear News, Reuters, Bloomberg.com, World Nuclear News, NucNet, Nuclear Engineering International, Reuters, POWER Magazine, EURACTIV.com, Data Center Dynamics, Reuters, World Nuclear News and Offshore Wind Biz
Missing: NY Times, Washington Post, TIME, NEWSWEEK, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, PBS and so on.
Any questions?
With respect you missed the pillar of TNI unrespectability aka the BBC.
To be fair 186no, no one seeking information or indeed news, bothers with the BBC.
Quite so – I am an agitator as far as the BBC is concerned and I use their HYS facility on stuff I know to understand exactly how they lie. Not the time or place to go into that as it is off topic but suffice to say I have stitched them up, more than once and they fell for it every time. Their News bias is evident but the extent – “below the line” – is very insidious, goes against the BBC’s Charter, is very very disturbingly blatant once you get into it. Wont surprise all here but the sheer depth needs highlighting – what they condone would, if anyone said the stuff they allow to go through, attract Plod very rapidly imho.
but i really meant heme222
Well that’s a bit of a non-sequitur.
“Sweden’s decision demonstrates the importance of pragmatic, clear-eyed assessments of renewable energy sources and their limitations.” – those pragmatic clear-eyed assessments were freely available decades ago. Ok so Sweden gets a gold star, but they only get one of the five that they could have got a few years ago.
Kudos to Sweden although they are still talking bunk. They may want to step back from fossil fuels but I doubt they really want to be fossil fuel free. Think fuel for cars, tractors, trucks, trains, busses, shipping, airlines and on and on. Not to mention chemicals, plastics, fertilizers and other things I’m probably not aware of. Nope, fossil fuels are a wonderful gift.
No one wants to be free of fossil fuels, but they will ulitimately have to be,
electricity is simply the easiest to do with nuclear.
“No-one wants to be free of fossil fuels, but they will ultimately have to be.”
Really? Ultimately we may find a better fuel and want to switch to that, but ‘need’ – I doubt it.
While it’s true that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, that point is hundreds if not over a thousand years in the future. Who knows what kinds of technologies will be developed over the next thousand years?
Worrying about it now is a fool’s errand.
When I saw that post I thought of the methane seas on Titan (not the topical one) – more fossil fuel than we can imagine if we can just get to it. And that’s assuming there are no hydrocarbons on the other planets in the solar system. I don’t think we have too much to worry about.
When we do run out of fossil fuels (or they just to hard to acquire), we will either have to just give up (like the greens & antis) want us to do now, or we will be good enough to just make more (for the important & needed uses (like powering my ’67 chevy)).
As the other countries would have been wise to take into account Sweden choices with respect to masks, lockdowns and other utter absurd and harmful mandates, they would be wise to analyze to Sweden choices on the energy topic as well.
Swede are clearly on the right side of the world population dumb mediane.
Yes, for whatever reason, Sweden seem to be making far more sensible decisions about major world wide issues than any others in Europe.
Still some way to go to become totally rational when it comes to social services issues but I am confident their Nordic pragmatism will see them make the sound decisions needed in time.
As for the rest of Europe?….Let’s say the jury is still out on that question.
Where does that leave Vattenfall?
As of 2019, renewables accounted for 35% of the firm’s total generation capacity, including wind, solar and hydro power.
It is involved in UK wind, about 10 wind farms. Located right round the country.
They’ve had an interesting history with lignite in Germany as well as nuclear in Sweden and governments changing their minds.
Must very difficult being an electricity generation company in Europe
Vattenfall, unlike many European firms, have positioned themselves for the eventual collapse of renewables, whilst taking advantage of whatever market share is still available. They have seperated the renewables part, which operates as Vattenfall UK, from the parent company, which still operates the nuclear and hydrocarbon side. My guess is that if Vattenfall UK fails, it won’t affect the parent company much, if at all.
My guess is that if Vattenfall UK fails, it won’t affect the parent company much, if at all.
Yes, and I bet our so-called geniuses of the “civil service” didn’t think of writing in to their contracts that they must provide that all infrastructure is removed at end-of-life. That is not covered by their PPE degrees from Oxford!
Still, the Swedish Government strongly advocates the climate hysteria!
Well Vattenfall is still a state owned business so it’s good for overseas sales. Plus there’s Greta.
The biggest problem with solar in a country like Sweden is that it generates for long periods during the summer when it’s less needed and for only a few hours during the winter when it is needed. Also how efficient are solar panels when there’s snow on them or at below zero temperatures?
In the summer when they have long days, the sun is always close to the horizon.
This means that because the light has to penetrate through so much more of the atmosphere, so the total amount of light that makes it to the ground is smaller.
Secondly, because the sun is close to the horizon, panels have to be tilted up closer to vertical in order for the sunlight to hit the panels at close to perpendicular.
Tilting the panels creates two problems.
First, if you want the panels to be able to produce power the entire time the sun is up, you are forced to have the panels track the sun. This adds to both cost of production and the cost of maintenance.
Secondly, the closer to vertical a panel gets, the more it shades the panel behind it, so the panels have to be spaced further apart so that each panel can avoid the shadow of the panel in front of it.
Sweden was the odd one out in the lock down frenzy. And they were proved right. They now are the odd one out in the green suicide stampede. And they will be proved right again.
Can one apply for citizenship somewhere?
Don’t move to Malmo, just sayin’.
Just last week I came across the graph attached below in another article on this story.
If I squint a bit transferring the “Wind” fraction to the “Nuclear” one would effectively be “regressing” back to the 1990s situation for Sweden, when they were essentially “50% nuclear, 50% hydro”.
Having an relatively small extra “Bioenergy” segment (and maybe a very thin “Solar” one, zoom in a bit on the top right-hand corner … sorry, I meant zoom in a lot …) won’t change that (much).
I think Sweden has little choice , during the cold dark winters Solar isn’t going to work , so they have to look at nuclear and maybe blend it with some fossil fuels
Clean power good. Dirty Power bad.
An easy and moralistic position.
Green power is not necessarily clean. It is emphatically not. Biomass, wind power, hydro, PV all leave behind vast tracts of razed land, polluting fragments scattered throughout the environment, and bankrupt believers.
Modern FF thermally produced power can only be considered comparably dirty by demonizing CO2. Something that can’t be seen, smelled, heard or even detected except in extremely high quantities or with special equipment.
Nevermind. The Devil is never seen either and he surely exists. At least in the mind of men.
It is, however, difficult to see the hand of God in green power projects that displace beautiful green forests, desert vistas, and flowering meadows with man made monstrosities
A light goes on in Sweden!
Sweden’s pursuit of Nuclear for 100% fossil-free” electricity is more logical than pursuit of wind and solar as the world needs more than intermittent electricity from wind and solar.
Wind and solar only generate intermittent electricity from unreliable breezes and sunshine, but manufacture nothing for the eight billion on this planet.
Ridding the world of oil, without a replacement in mind, would be immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of the products now manufactured from fossil fuels will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths, and could be the greatest threat to the world’s population.
Sweden : Total energy supply by energy commodity : 1970-2020 : TWh
Source:
https://www.energimyndigheten.se/en/facts-and-figures/statistics/
It’s good to see more countries are starting to face reality regarding renewable power, Net Zero and the like.
Elisa does look school Marmish but she’s on the right track I’d say.
But good for Sweden they do need all the luck they can get . .
This is about Sweden, not the US. The Biden administration has nothing to do with it.
Kudos to Elisabeth Svantesson for endorsing zero-carbon, reliable nuclear power over unreliable solar and wind power.
Hopefully she has more influence than her younger and immature compatriot–How dare you!