this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

60078 readers
3643 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sweden’s parliament has voted to change its 100% renewable target to a 100% fossil-free target, leaving the door open for nuclear.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Wow. That would suck. Especially as noone has any solution for the problem of safely storing radioactive waste. Running nuclear power plants makes us create a problem many generations after us have to deal with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sweden tried and failed running 100% renewable energy and ended up threatening blackouts the last few winters, asking people not to hoover and to stop wasting electricity. In the end fossil energy from Germany and Eastern Europe was bought.

At the current rate we’re not leaving our future generations much either, and as it stands Sweden can’t produce 100% renewable energy which is a problem we need to solve before we shut down the Swedish power plants. Nuclear might not be the best alternative, but it’s way better than fossil.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Thanks for the background. If they already have the nuclear power plants in place, it is totally reasonable to keep them running a bit longer until the problems with renewable energy are sorted out.

load more comments (1 replies)