[ViewTrick1002]

I love it when 45% having an simultaneous outage is acceptable for nuclear power but dealing with renewable variability is a dealbreaker.

The logical inconsistencies are amazing.

You do know that a 90% averaged capacity factor and simultaneous outages of 45% doesn’t have to be a disjoint set?

Yes. Way way easier, cheaper and faster using renewables and maybe all storage.

Or are you suggesting that we should stave off renewable implementation, continuing with the current emission, and wait until the 2040s for new built nuclear power to come online?

[Moldoteck]

I suggest do both. 45% in sweden was 2 units going offline? I even doubt that's 45%. And for most part outages were planned. But that's maybe why swedish govt wants to go with smaller bwrx units. This way you can schedule easier annual maintenance for each unit

[ViewTrick1002]

3 units. 2 unplanned. One being a 7 month outage.

Just like during the energy crisis Sweden had another 7 month outage. With the worst week of all with the winter peak consumption happening with 2 reactors having outages.

But it is much easier to pretend that the capacity factor over the lifetime applies and then cry about renewables eating their lunch.

Hahahaha if that ever happens. The government seems to like the idea of nuclear power but not politically bearing the costs of tens of billions in handouts.

Now they’ve soon spent four years dallying without any real progress and the next election is coming up in September.

The question you need to answer is:

Why should a home owner with rooftop solar and a home storage buy 18 cents/kWh + backup (you know, 2 out of 6 reactors having outages when needed the most) when their rooftop solar or home storage delivers?