• laxsill@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think some local context is worth it (I’m Swedish). This is a result of the fairly new parliamentary coalition in Sweden between the right wing conservatives and the fascist party. The position of the fascists range from that climate change is a hoax to climate policy doesn’t work. The conservatives have generally just used nuclear power as a copout so they won’t have to acknowledge that they lack any climate policy. They also have several open climate change deniers in parliament.

    Since they took power, they’ve been shutting down project after project, budget after budget relating to climate policy (edit: especially when to comes to solar and wind power, and deforestation), especially after completely shutting down the department for environmental policy. So my guess is that this is mostly a way to cancel the old plan to make Sweden fossil free.

    • Kempeth@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for the context. This is exactly the reason I voted to exit nuclear here in Switzerland back in 2017. I’d have been happy to keep nuclear (it’s not ideal but trading a problem that needs solving in a decade for one that needs solving in a century is an improvemnt) but I felt it was used as a crutch to kick the sustainability issue down the road. And it sure looks like I was right.

      They dragged their feet some more in 2018-19 but 2020 was the first year where the previous record from 2015 of 340MW of additional capacity was surpassed and since then each year we’re building a good chunk more than the year before. We still got a huge ways to go but it feels good no longer being the back end of the train.

      But as soon as the new climate law was voted in the regressives in the country started crying for more nuclear again…

    • awsamation@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which, the “nuclear is evil and any power that isn’t solar, wind, or hydro deserves literal death” circlejerk?

      • LordR@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The biggest problem with Nuclear Power Plants is their price and the fact that they are centralized. While they might produce a good amount of baseline electricity, their energy is more expensive than solar and wind.

        Obviously solar and wind also have disadvantages like fluctuating production but that could be solved by building battery storage. In another comment line I commented about Aqueous Hybrid Ion Batteries that could be used that way, they are heaavier than other battery types but environmentally friendly and could therefore easily be used in buildings.
        The main advantage of solar combined with batteries is that it will help regular people instead of a huge company. A decentralized energy production would also help in wars or with natural catastrophies.

        • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The main advantage of solar combined with batteries is that it will help regular people instead of a huge company. A decentralized energy production would also help in wars or with natural catastrophies.

          Oh, right. The “the only solution is to completely topple capitalism and government and nothing else will do” circlejerk.

          Unless you actually believe solar panels aren’t manufactured, marketed, installed, and maintained primarily by the electric companies, in which case, it’s the “I refuse to do any actual research on my positions” reddit circlejerk, with a dash of the “what do you mean that not everyone can live an off-grid mountain-man life?” circlejerk.

          • LordR@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You do realize that solar panels are usually installed and maintained by small companies and not multi-billion dollar companies, right?

            That means that it’s more likely for the profits to stay in the local economy.

            It’s quite funny how you assume things about me though and thinking that I I don’t do any research. How about you showing some research?

            • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You do realize that solar panels are usually installed and maintained by small companies and not multi-billion dollar companies, right?

              According to whom? You? Every solar panel installed in my county was done by local contractors on the behest of either the electric company or Tesla.

              • Denaton@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hi, Swedish here, since the topic is on Sweden, the installment is made by small companies not big electric companies like Vattenfall. We also have subvented solar panels.

              • LordR@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In my country it is mostly small local companies installing solar panels. And I think in most of Europe it’s the same.