he had don’t want to talk about our time, the real policy challenge is not surprising. By trying to hijack the energy debate is to think out of the SD political point-scoring in order to compensate for the lack of a policy. Their dogmatic repetition of the old myth – time and time again, I know that both the science and the market, and shows how flawed their argument really is. The market and science are in agreement: the Nuclear power will get another chance in the future is renewable.
the SD has decided to try to ”save the nuclear power plant” – despite the fact that its owner, a Waterfall, and Uniper, both of which is opposed to the re-evaluation of the decision on the closure. SD’s approach in the Swedish energy debate does not have the support of both the research and the market, thus, it is in the SD itself, which has made nuclear power a symbolfråga.
It is true that in the transport sector, electrification will place greater demands on the elnätens capacity, but the capacity of the network would be strengthened by a more-or-less nuclear power generation in the Ringhals nuclear power plant is, quite simply, is not true, which is, inter alia, been held at KTH, professor Lennart Söder. Unless The don’t want to build a new nuclear power reactors located inside of cities, that is to say.
in sweden, wind power broke all previous records for the first week of the year 2020.
”a level playing field for competition between fossil-fuel-free kraftslagen would be to the advantage of the further one of the kärnkraftsvurmarnas argument time and time again, been proven wrong. Nuclear power is, and always has been, heavily subsidized. As recently as a few days ago, it was reported by bbc Radio to kärnkraftsbolagens the obligation to insure for compensation in the event of an accident, is seriously underestimated the value of.
New nuclear power is now more than twice as expensive as the one from the wind, and the most recent examples of this construction are the closest to the fiaskoartade. In Finland, started to build a new reactor at Olkiluoto in 2005. It is still not ready to be put into operation, and it is expected to be no more than 12 years behind schedule. The reactor is more than three times as expensive as planned.“ The cost – to 9 billion – this means that the Unit is the second-most expensive building in the history of the world. Similar to the experiences of Japan, the united kingdom and, most recently, France clearly demonstrates that nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary.
the American wind power broke all previous records for the first week of the year 2020. The potential of solar energy is increasing at an exponential rate. This also means that Sweden will be able to export more eco-friendly electricity. SD’s assertion that exports will reduce determined by the calculations of the Swedish national Grid and the Swedish energy agency. All of this seems to have gone the Day without noticing, which would explain why you are claiming that Sweden’s energy policy, the 2020 strategy should act on the same terms and conditions as the did in 2010. They are also totally the wrong thing for the German releases, they are declining now at a rapid pace.
the SD’s efforts to save the nuclear power plant holds the real political debate the issue. We are faced with major challenges when it comes to the maintenance, expansion, and adaptation of the Swedish electricity grid – that is, whether the SD would like it or not, this is going to be dominated by the sun, wind, and water. Let’s not waste time and political capital on issues such as the market research has already been made for us. The future is renewable.
<
