this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
256 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39386 readers
2335 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The right choice. Nuclear would be a great solution if we went all in 40 years ago. But we didnt and now we need a solution as soon as possible, not in 15 years to build a plant or in 25 years when it breaks even, now.

It takes just 6 months to build a 50 MW wind farm https://www.edfenergy.com/energywise/all-you-need-to-know-about-wind-power#:~:text=Wind%20farms%20can%20be%20built,last%20between%2020%E2%80%9325%20years.

Sweden uses 130 TW/h per year (130000000000 KW/h) as of 2020 https://www.iea.org/countries/sweden

and about 25% of that is fossil fuels. as of 2017 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SWE/sweden/fossil-fuel-consumption

So they would need to replace 32500000000 KW/h per year to get off fossil fuels

But KW/h/y is dumb so lets just make it KW/h

3710045

Then make it MW (yes I know I converted from TW to KW to MW.) so

3710 MW needed to replace fossil fuels.

So they would need 74 50MW wind farms to match that.

If they wanted to do that in 10 years to be faster than building a single nuclear plant, they would only need to be building 4 farms concurrently.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

and about 25% of that is fossil fuels.

Sweden uses essentially no fossil fuels in the grid - it's basically hydro, nuclear and wind for all of it. The small amount of fossil fuels used is stuff like burning plastics, and one oil plant that is turned on once in a blue moon when there's an energy crisis. It's national news when they turn that one on, and it's considered a huge failure every time it happens.

The real figure for fossil versus non-fossil energy in Sweden is 2% fossil versus 98% non-fossil, with hydro being the primary energy source (35-45%), followed by nuclear (30%) and then wind (20%). Source, in Swedish: https://www.energiforetagen.se/energifakta/elsystemet/produktion/

[–] OriginalUsername@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A few errors

  • 130TWh is the final electricity consumption, not the generation. Since Sweden is a big net exporter of electricity, there is a big difference
  • I'm not sure what macrotrends refers to by "Fossil fuel consumption", but it's pobably referring to raw energy rather than electricity (which doesnt consider conversion efficiency)
  • In reality, sweden uses almost no fossil fuels in its electricity mix, and that is in large part due to nuclear
  • KWh and KW, not KW and KW/h
  • In your calculations you failed to account for capacity factors. Wind plants have average capacity factors of about 42% in sweden, so the capacity would need to be over double the consumption, even ignoring the variability of consumption and production

Nevertheless, I do agree that Sweden doesn't need more nuclear. It already generates some of the cleanest electricity in the world and I'd imagine fossil fuels are really only used for peak load.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the corrections!

[–] smollittlefrog 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But KW/h/y is dumb so lets just make it KW/h

It's kW, not KW/h.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] smollittlefrog 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

32500000000 KW/h per year

That's 32500000000 kWh/y
= 32500000000 * k * W * h / y
= 32500000000 * k * W * h / (365 * 24 * h)
= 32500000000 * k * W * h / 8760 / h
= 32500000000 / 8760 * k * W * h / h
= 3710046 * k * W * 1
= 3710046 kW

(You actually corrected yourself later when converting to mW.)

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

...... exactly as I intended

[–] SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since watt is joule per second, kwh per year is one kilojoule per second per hour per year.

Electricians have played us like fools

[–] ammonium@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

kWh is kilojoule per second times 3600 seconds or 3600 kilojoule. kWh/y is 3600 joule per year or 3600 kilojoule / (24*3600*365) ~0.1W

[–] SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Even more cursed

[–] goostaf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A kW/h would imply that the power changes by that amount every hour, while a kWh is the amount of energy spent in an hour

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, lol, I blame Friday morning fatigue.