• Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why are people in this thread acting like the intent here is to cut renewables? The target was deemed unrealisitic to hit andr raised concerns about reliability.

    They are simply removing potential future renewables that have not been paid for or even ordered yet from the agenda and replacing the planned supply with nuclear, which is carbon neutral and requires less workers maintaining larger fields of solar and wind, two types of power that are not reliable during a Scandinavian blizzard… Something Sweden has to consider among many other things

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

      I can’t find any indication that they’re changing their target…it’s just going from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil-fuel free”.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds like a win-win to me, Outdated Nuclear fission reactors are among the safest and cleanest forms of energy to ever exist, to say nothing of modern designs and theoretical ones that at the bare minimum could fill in the gap until Fusion becomes economically viable or manage some kind of orbital/space based solar collection grid.