The first daily reading above 420 ppm this year has appeared at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory.

[NNadir]

6. From my perspective, there is no defense of wind energy. Using wind and nuclear, Sweden this...

...morning has a carbon dioxide intensity of just 34 g CO2/kwh. (8:03 AM EST US, 2:02 PM, 14:02 Uppsula, Sweden 1/30/22)

The wind capacity utilization is very high (for wind), 79.18%; one almost never sees this kind of capacity utilization for wind. It is producing 8.77 GW of electricity.

What the wind industry in Sweden is producing next week, tomorrow, on three weeks from now is uncertain, however. Just as Germany experienced dunkelflaute, so can Sweden.

Sweden's nuclear plants are producing 6.97 GW of electricity, operating at 101.46% capacity utilization (in cold weather the efficiency of nuclear plants is high, and they can operate above rated capacity.) They can operate at these high capacity utilizations indefinitely, stopping only occasionally for refueling and maintenance.

There are six reactors operating in Sweden as of now. All came on line in the 1980's. They are dependable and predictable.

Swedish nuclear reactors.

Six buildings are reliably and predictably producing as much electricity as all the wind turbines in Sweden, spread over God knows how many sq km.

All of Sweden's wind turbines will need to be replaced in the next 20-25 years. The blades, which cannot be recycled and are loaded with resin, will all be landfill, and all of the replacements will require huge diesel trucks, and huge amounts of energy to recycle what can be recycled. Every wind turbine in Sweden is thus a liability for which every infant and toddler in the country will need to pay early in their careers. There is also the long term issue of the microplastics shed by these awful wind machines during operation.

Sweden is also laced with hydroelectric dams. Although they may operate for a very long time, since they depend on the weather, my opinion is that they should also be replaced with nuclear plants, in particular to restore the ecosystems they damaged.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, as sustainable and as low risk as nuclear energy, nothing.

Sweden could actually lower its carbon intensity, right now near the best in Europe, by going 100% nuclear. They were able to build reactors, using 1980's technology, in about 5 to 7 years.