|
Considering what's happening in every community that Russia gets their hands on. I would not stake Sweden's future on "probably won't be invaded" Especially as the last 25 years or even 35 years have been pretty much dominated by unthinkable things just happening all the time. Over and over again.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
well, even more of a reason to start exploring a nordic defensive alliance, then!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
Sweden really shouldn't have canceled its nuke program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
i tend to hold the old-fashioned view that weapons of mass destruction are, on the whole, bad, and nuclear weapons especially so given that their main use is threatening the end of the world in my view, occupation would be vastly preferable to nuclear war
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
To me that depends on the amount of war criming and genociding that’s going to be happening. At a point, having a nuclear weapon to deter that seems prudent, even if it is an unthinkable weapon. Tbh, I have a lot of sympathy for the pacifist stance even if I think it’s a untenable, because it relies on the goodwill of the adversary. For myself though, I’ve always thought that it was the moral duty of anyone able, to resist violent oppression.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
There have been motions for a nuclear-weapons free "pohjola", but sadly at the time Norway and Denmark felt compelled to be faithful to their allies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Lol of course Chiang Frick was behind Paludan burning a book. SD working against the government to derail the NATO application is just 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:To me that depends on the amount of war criming and genociding that’s going to be happening. At a point, having a nuclear weapon to deter that seems prudent, even if it is an unthinkable weapon. unto the end of the world? e: to be clear, this is not a pacifist line of argument, it's just an anti-nuclear-weapons line of argument the point being, for a nuclear weapon to be an effective deterrent you really do have to be willing to use it, and to credibly demonstrate that will to use it. this takes a substantial toll on the politics of one's country, because electing certain political leaders effectively voids the nuclear deterrent - this was a major argument against jeremy corbyn, for instance, and now a serious candidate for high office in britain has to at least pretend to be OK with triggering the potential end of civilisation or at least the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
AFAIK the Swedish nuclear weapons program was focused on tactical weapons for taking out massive Soviet tank columns, groups of landing ships, forward bases, etc. There was one wind tunnel mock-up of a sci-fi bomber (Sweden never had strategic bombers) but I don’t think there was ever any talk of ICBMs. I’m sure somebody in this thread knows more. In other words even if Swedish nukes did exist they wouldn’t be the city killers needed for a MAD deterrence, and I doubt they would have done much to influence Putin’s thinking either way david_a fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jan 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/veolenes/status/1618162518199005186?s=46&t=ODqNPqcu-2VFpp5jkIfuMQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 10:11
|
|
|
I think we should replace all fossil fuel power with nuclear power, and then replace that with renewable as much as we're able. But with Ebba Busch as the primary nuclear proponent... Good luck seeing that in my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 10:16
|
|
|
A good mix of renewables along with enough nuclear power plants to keep the grid stable, until we make one or more big leaps in terms of energy storage, seems to be the way forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 11:38
|
|
|
david_a posted:AFAIK the Swedish nuclear weapons program was focused on tactical weapons for taking out massive Soviet tank columns, groups of landing ships, forward bases, etc. There was one wind tunnel mock-up of a sci-fi bomber (Sweden never had strategic bombers) but I don’t think there was ever any talk of ICBMs. I’m sure somebody in this thread knows more. Well that was the original goal, doesn't mean it couldn't change as the scenarios changed. At any rate joining NATO is basically doing the same, putting us under their nuclear umbrella, just somebody elses nukes. So IMO it would've been the same thing in the end, just without hooks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 12:35
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:A good mix of renewables along with enough nuclear power plants to keep the grid stable, until we make one or more big leaps in terms of energy storage, seems to be the way forward. Agreed. But opposition to nuclear seems to be this magic bullet that can unite both the most left wing environmentalists and the richest corporate conservatives. You pretty much have everything to gain and nothing to lose with an anti-nuclear stance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:08
|
|
|
I really can't understand why die hard (young) environmentalists are militantly opposed to nuclear and militantly in favour of wind/solar. The latter has orders of magnitude higher impact on the environment they allegedly care about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:20
|
|
|
IMO nuclear is more of a right/left issue in Sweden than say Finland and that divide basically colors peoples opinions the most.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I really can't understand why die hard (young) environmentalists are militantly opposed to nuclear and militantly in favour of wind/solar. The latter has orders of magnitude higher impact on the environment they allegedly care about. It's self-harm to feel like they have a sense of agency. We've had a generation of environmental thinking focused on reducing CO2, and there's little way to reduce our electricity's CO2-intensity further -- and no realistic way to force transport to do the same -- but shutting down nuclear plants that the state already owns is highly realistic. His Divine Shadow posted:IMO nuclear is more of a right/left issue in Sweden than say Finland and that divide basically colors peoples opinions the most. Nuclear is more of a generational issue in Sweden than anyone gives it credit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:28
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I really can't understand why die hard (young) environmentalists are militantly opposed to nuclear and militantly in favour of wind/solar. The latter has orders of magnitude higher impact on the environment they allegedly care about. Windmills are part of the culture war, like wolves and other stuff like that. Gotta be in favour to signal you're not one of those dumb hicks, or whoever it is you want to distance yourself from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Nuclear is also not economically that great compared to, well, most ways to make electricity, but hardly anyone seems to care about that. If you look at modern nuclear plants they often produce electricity at round 1 SEK/kWh, which is like three times as expensive as building wind or solar power. You can't both complain about expensive electricity AND dry-hump switching to nuclear as the silver bullet like KD is doing. I.e if you love money, coal and gas makes more sense. If you love the environment, renewables makes more sense. If you like both, renewables still makes mores sense overall. Also, existing renewable sources doen't take a decade to build, so "build nuclear first and then switch over to renewables" is also an inferior option than, well, just build more renewables. Honestly I don't get the fawning over nuclear, I get that it's better than loving coal but still, it's not a silver bullet by far. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jan 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I really can't understand why die hard (young) environmentalists are militantly opposed to nuclear and militantly in favour of wind/solar. The latter has orders of magnitude higher impact on the environment they allegedly care about. in norway, the young greens are explicitly pro-nuclear. lilljonas posted:Nuclear is also not economically that great compared to, well, most ways to make electricity, but hardly anyone seems to care about that. If you look at modern nuclear plants they often produce electricity at round 1 SEK/kWh, which is like three times as expensive as building wind or solar power. a couple of issues here: where i live, right now the price of electricity is 3NOK/kWh. i'd welcome cutting that to a third. the price per kWh is a bit contentious. as far as i understand it, there's a real possibility that the price per kWh will go substantially down with economies of scale - and also, nuclear provides an effective baseload which doesn't vary with weather. it's also much less area intensive than wind. the alternative arrangement is further integration into the european electricity market, which will wreak havoc on at least norwegian industry. finally, it doesn't make that much sense for nuclear power to be perceived as so uniquely evil anymore. we've given up on nuclear disarmament, which was imo the strongest principled reason to want to get rid of nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:in norway, the young greens are explicitly pro-nuclear. Yeah but baseline is that existing renewables for the Swedish market (such as land-based wind) is a lot cheaper than nuclear. Not slightly cheaper, like a third of the price. I can see the point of having nuclear as a smaller base that supports a basket of renewables. But nuclear is not an economic method of electricity production in Sweden. It already survives on subsidies. For nuclear power to take the place of renewables in a green switch (which is more or less the M/KD line) will require a loooooot of state subsidies, since it is such a bad deal economically that no private parties are interested in building it. This is never mentioned by the pro-nuclear factions, at least in Sweden. Also, the "evil" of nuclear is not nuclear armament, at least hasn't been for five decades in Sweden. The main downsides are the mining of uran (which is super dirty, another thing not mentioned by pro-nuclear), the consequences of accidents (admittedly lower in newer generations of plants) and the waste storage issue. E: you can of course have different opinions on everything involved here, including if it's good or not for the state to heavily subsidize nuclear power, but my point is that it's a bit more complex than nuclear being cheap and super powerful and great and only resisted by hippies who are stuck in the 80's. It has a lot of cons, and being a comparatively expensive way to make electricity is one of them. But yeah of course I'd rather see the state pay through the nose for nuclear than to burn loving brown coal in Germany, but there are also other options. For example, if you want to build nuclear in Norway because you think your electricity is too expensive, you'd get a hell of a lot of wind and wave power for the same price as a nuclear plant, it'd be online far quicker, and the output over time would be cheaper. Just today it was revealed that Vattenfall has applied to see if they can expand Ringhals. They estimate that it will take at least nine years. Not building a new plant, just expanding on a current one. Nuclear is a solution if you want to kick the bucket a decade down the road and hope that everything stays fine until then. That's one way that it sucks, it means politicians can SAY they are dealing with the problem without doing anything, as any impact is so far into the future. We need a solution now (or really, a decade ago), not in 2033. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jan 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
Anyone who mentions waste as a serious issue I can't take seriously on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:For example, if you want to build nuclear in Norway because you think your electricity is too expensive, you'd get a hell of a lot of wind and wave power for the same price as a nuclear plant, it'd be online far quicker, and the output over time would be cheaper. What if I have a peculiar affection for birds, fish and the pristine mountains?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Or a stable supply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Anyone who mentions waste as a serious issue I can't take seriously on this. AFAIK the solution is not going to be settled in another 70 years in Sweden, so at least it's not a finalized and solved issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
TheRat posted:What if I have a peculiar affection for birds, fish and the pristine mountains? We've been building a lot of wind turbines in Öresund and the fauna there is healthier than it's been in a decade. Birds and fish are not noticable harned by them. And if you are a NIMBY preferring your view to renewable electricity you're a part of the problem, not the solution. But more seriously, the reason why so few new nuclear plants are built in Europe the last couple of decades is not because power companies care about the environment or that they are afraid of nuclear armament, it's simply because they are expensive to build and to operate. It's the big elephant in the room, and if you want to replace your current power production you have to accept that it'll be expensive up front, take a lot of time, and then it will produce electricity that is relatively expensive. You can still love nuclear, sure, but don't try to sell it as a quick and cheap solution. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jan 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:AFAIK the solution is not going to be settled in another 70 years in Sweden, so at least it's not a finalized and solved issue. Yeah that's just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Groda posted:Yeah that's just wrong. Well that's what the official plan says. There's a plan, but the final say on if it works or not will be in 70 years. https://www.regeringen.se/artiklar/2022/01/slutforvaret-for-anvant-karnbransle/ "När tillståndet börjar gälla kommer Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten sedan att pröva varje steg av uppförandet av slutförvaret i en så kallad stegvis prövning. Uppförandet och driften av slutförvaret fram till det att allt kärnbränsle är på plats beräknas ta ca 70 år." ... "Om 70 år, när slutförvaret finns på plats och alla kapslar med använt kärnavfall har deponerats, ska den då sittande regeringen pröva om slutförvaret får förslutas permanent." lilljonas fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jan 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:
I'm not a NIMBY, I'd just rather not sodomize the environment so a dickhead in a tax haven can make a few billion more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I'm not a NIMBY, I'd just rather not sodomize the environment so a dickhead in a tax haven can make a few billion more. This doesn't sound super constructive. What is the issue here, beyond snippy one-liners? Genuine question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Beeswax posted:This doesn't sound super constructive. What is the issue here, beyond snippy one-liners? Genuine question. Birds https://www.tu.no/artikler/faktasjekk-mangelfullt-om-vindkraft-og-fugl/510472/ Marshes https://www.nrk.no/klima/xl/vindkraft---ikke-sa-bra-for-klima-som-vi-tror_-1.15157461 Massive amounts of unrecyclable waste https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101 Reindeer, the Sami and violation of human rights https://www.domstol.no/no/hoyesterett/avgjorelser/2021/hoyesterett-sivil/hr-2021-1975-s/ Tax havens https://www.taxjustice.no/artikkel/skatteparadis-i-norsk-vindkraft And in time I guess we'll see what massive impact ocean wind farms will have on fish and sea life in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Birds https://www.tu.no/artikler/faktasjekk-mangelfullt-om-vindkraft-og-fugl/510472/ Again, Öresund is healthier than it has been in a looooooong time and there's quite a lot of ocean wind farms in it. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/algraset-brer-ut-sig-i-allt-friskare-oresund https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6872841 But yeah, there's no way to produce electricity that has zero environmental impact. That's pretty much a given. What we need to look at is the size of impact relative to other methods, and how quickly it can be expanded and to what extent it can be expanded. Facing that, nothing is perfect. But nuclear is far from perfect too, and if we want a decrease in carbon emission now instead of two decades into the future, we can't rely on nuclear. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
I think that's more despite than because of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:I think that's more despite than because of. Sure but there's not been a drastic wave of fish jumping up and getting cut into pieces by wind turbines, or whatever scenario is imagined where they have a drastic effect on the sea fauna.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Nuclear isn't going to save the day, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:But nuclear is far from perfect too, and if we want a decrease in carbon emission now instead of two decades into the future, we can't rely on nuclear. This is the same argument people were making two decades ago and it seems like having a bunch of nuclear baseline when the Russian gas supply suddenly went away would have been pretty handy. Thanks to the weird auction system in the European energy market consumers pay the price of the most expensive MWh sold. So while producers benefit a lot from generating electricity cheaply since they get the same price no matter how much it cost to produce, as long as there's some oil generator being spun up to meet demand consumers don't see lower prices. Maybe the time for mass nuclear power really is passing with renewables having improved so much in recent years. But it's hard to make that argument while still burning a bunch of fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
I think the jury is still out on the ecological impact of offshore wind. A surprising benefit of oil rigs is that there is often a local resurgence in marine life since it's not possible to trawl near to them. However the constant discharges into the water during normal operation are definitely not a good thing, without even considering the worst case scenarios. So you could better achieve the same positive effect by simply preventing trawling without the rig. Wind farms will probably provide a similar effect, and since they can float there's also less disruption to the seabed environment, which we now understand a little better than in previous decades and it turns out to be incredibly important for ocean health. But I know that impact studies are still being done and it's not a settled question what harmful effects they might have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Floating wind turbines are bleeding edge, with only a small smattering of test turbines out there. We'll probably see a lot more of them in the next few years, but basically all current installed offshore turbines are anchored to the seabed using monopiles or jackets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
I've heard good things about having several pillars with rocks in between them in the seabed, essentially acting as an artificial reef which fish love to hide in. But when talking environmental impact, the worst is definitely hydro, with the dams loving the natural eco system up a lot. Which is a shame, because it's a great way to store and regulate wind and solar supply. The real elephant in the room is of course that maybe we should decrease consumption. Not just electricity, but in general. But specifically for electricity, that could maybe allow us to transition faster?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Floating wind turbines are bleeding edge, with only a small smattering of test turbines out there. We'll probably see a lot more of them in the next few years, but basically all current installed offshore turbines are anchored to the seabed using monopiles or jackets. ∇ ⋅ B = 0
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 21:27
|
|
