Sweden Gov Announces 'Massive Expansion' of Nuclear Energy

Re:Sweden Gov Announces 'Massive Expansion' of Nuclear Energy by epistasis on Saturday November 18, 2023 @02:37PM (#38323503)

Not sure what you mean by blockers or "impractical right now" but at best that's "we haven't built the mines or factories, yet." Which is not in any way a fundamental blocker on our ability to build what we want to build.

There are of course feasible ways of running our entire economy entirely on renewables, saying otherwise means ignoring the massive amount of literature on the topic:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910

Every argument I have ever seen attempted to say it is not possible makes simplifying unrealistic assumptions. Such as saying something silly like "here's our known lithium reserves, that's not enough."" Of course, our known reserves of lithium is going up every year, because we keep on looking for more, and the argument is not even sophisticated enough to acknowledge what proven reserves means as a concept.

So if you think you have a solid argument present it, and if I'm convinced let's get it published and overturn all this other literature.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sweden Gov Announces 'Massive Expansion' of Nuclear Energy by alvah on Saturday November 18, 2023 @07:41PM (#38326884)

Your link talks (theoretically, not practically) about 100% RE by 2060! Do you understand what “currently” means?

You hand-wave with “we haven’t built the mines or factories, yet”. In the real world, discovery, proving, permits, construction, and commissioning new mines can take many years - and that’s if sufficient quantities of the required minerals are feasibly recoverable, or in a jurisdiction that allows extraction and export (e.g. not China).

So let’s get back to the real world & be realistic. 100% RE is not currently viable for an advanced industrial economy. Let’s get all the published literature revised to get rid of the hand-waves and ivory tower theoretical BS.

[ Parent | on HN ]