• Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most of those costs are similar for renewables…rather than a building it’s the production and installation of fields of solar panels, for example.

    In both cases I’m pretty sure it’s a negligible fraction of the lifecycle emissions compared to energy generated.

    • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is reliability, Europe sees more and more droughts building energy facilities that turn useful water into useless steam makes little sens when there are other options.

      Also nuclear makes Sweden dependant on a country thaz exports nuclear fule.

      And for solar the costs are shrinking and shrinking, the newest and most efficient panels don’t even need rare earths anymore and are recyclable. Btw Sweeden would be better suited for Hydroelectric dams and Wind wich have even less such problems.

      • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sweden?

        Drought?

        Anyway I’m not a civil engineer or geologist or renewable energy engineer or anything, so I won’t pretend to know what the best path is. I’m just hoping they did their studies correctly and are picking the best option.

        But even if they’re not, it’s good they’re moving away from fossil fuels, whichever direction they move in.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well no, that’s the thing. They’ve replaced moving away from fossil fuels now with promising they’re going to in 2045