Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 583 posts

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#361

Post by phire »

ncmncm wrote: post #339
phire wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government isn't paying to build it. They are only providing loan guarantees, not actual money. And they only have to pay to shut it down if a future government forces it to shut it down before the plant stops being commercially viable. The main purpose of both guarantees is to make it much easier for nuclear reactors to get commercial funding from private banks.

Quoted post unavailable.

They are theoretical money that might become real money in the future.

They don't cost the government anything unless a power plant fails and defaults on it's loans. And even the it's not the full $40 billion. Just the shortfall between what the bank can recover and the cost of the loan. And if the project got anywhere near completely, there should still be a nuclear power plant.

Given that one of the bigger risks to nuclear power plans are changing government regulations, it's actually a pretty low risk loan guarantee for the government to make. There is a decent chance they will never have to activate the guarantee.

> Or, how would you like to provide me loan guarantees? They won't cost you anything. Right?

I mean... What are you taking a loan out on? how does it benefit me? What are the risks of you defaulting? Why is my risk assessment different from the bank? In the case of a default, what is the shortfall likely to be?

With the right answers to those questions, it might be in my interests to guarantee a loan for you.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#362

Post by ncmncm »

tored wrote: post #316
ncmncm wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody suggested power plants should not be constructed. At issue is what to construct. Starting nukes now brings catastrophe nearer, as they displace exactly zero CO2 output for many years, vs. alternatives that start displacing CO2 output immediately.

What can be built now that displaces CO2 immediately?

No post body was provided.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#363

Post by ncmncm »

jansan wrote: post #169
locallost wrote: post #68

Quoted post unavailable.

What do you mean by this? Are they actually building the intergalactical highway? If not, there will eb a planet. And there will be people. And they will enjoy life.

If global civilization collapses, the majority will starve. Some won't.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#365

Post by ncmncm »

hackerlight wrote: post #321
Gwypaas wrote: post #86

Typical right-wing reactionary environmental policy. When you do not have any climate-related politics to bring to the table, all you do is shout "nuclear" at the top of your lungs and tote it as the solution to everything climate. > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible…

I guess you were downvoted for the first paragraph but the core claim you've made later on is factually accurate. Getting 80 percent of the grid onto RE, with no storage required to do that, is far cheaper and far quicker than nuclear. The variability is a non-issue. The idea that variability is a problem is propaganda by the fossil fuel lobby. They know that nuclear is too slow to build and too expensive so they cre…

Right: the fossil fuel lobby has discovered that nuke-mongering is in their interest. The nukes don't need to ever be completed, but as long as they haven't been, their market is secure.

They know the writing is on the wall, but profits can be good right up to the end.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#366

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ncmncm wrote: post #298
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you mean not up as fast , otherwise where is this fantidy land where consumers prices have gone down ?

Quoted post unavailable.

Rooftop solar doesn't work for renters, apartment buildings, and those who can't afford to purchase panels.

Those groups buy power from electricity retailers.

Show me an electricity retailer who has deceased prices in the past 10 years.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#367

Post by rongopo »

ncmncm wrote: post #305
brutusborn wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand, surely the southern grid is stabilized by interconnections to europe? I thought closing reactors would be independent of transmission. What am I missing?

Quoted post unavailable.

Fact: transmission lines are the bottlenecks of EU energy markets.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#368

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

heartbreak wrote: post #193
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll bite. What type of utility scale storage isn't a battery ? The answer is, of course: any energy storage setup is a battery[1]. A more generous interpretation of your comment is that you meant won't be chemical batteries . In which case, I'll bite: what then? 1. Energy storage is the capture of energy produced at one time for use at a later time[1] to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy product…

In the US we have utility scale pumped storage hydro power which is a non-chemical battery (assuming you’re referring to chemicals other than water).

Pumped hydro only works in certain locations, almost all of which are already used, and any that remain are at the whim of environmental approval.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#369

Post by kalleboo »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #172
Retric wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear has always had massive scaling issues because leaving base load power generation means ever lower capacity factors. Running a nuclear power plant with a 40% capacity factor more than doubles the cost per kWh. You can look at Frances ~70% average Capacity factor in 2 ways either it’s a ~30% cost premium over most of the rest of the world on every power plant. Or more realistically ~40% of generation was at the…

> You can look at Frances ~70% average Capacity factor in 2 ways either it’s a ~30% cost premium over most of the rest of the world on every power plant. Insufficient detail. You'd need to compare levelised costs, and work out whether government subsidies for this-or-that technology resulted in gains and loses that were better or worse than whatever else governments might have spent money on. There's a good argument…

> which, if I recall correctly, some rivers in France where recently too warm / insufficient flow to meet nuclear cooling demands

There was no problem with nuclear cooling demands, the problem was if the nuclear plants put more heat into the rivers, it would be bad for the wildlife living there.

Re: Sweden’s incoming cabinet says new nuclear reactors will be built

#370

Post by dang »

ncmncm wrote: post #310
Manuel_D wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pumped storage is geographically limited: as more convenient sites are developed, viable locations become more and more remote. Hydroelectric storage is great, but not the pumped kind. The energy storage supplies by the Hoover dam, the Coolie dam, dwarf pumped hydro. It's great for countries that have it, but you're not going to be storing much hydroelectricity outside of mountainous regions.

Quoted post unavailable.

Edit: I've taken a closer look at your recent comments in other threads and it turns out you've been breaking the site guidelines so frequently and so aggressively that I've banned your account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

---

Original post:

Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines? You've been posting tons of unsubstantive and flamebait comments and even (as here) crossing into personal attack. Besides being the sort of thing we ban accounts for, this has the disadvantage of discrediting your own view, which is a bad thing if you happen to be right.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. We've had to ask you about well over a dozen times in the past, which is not cool.

Edit: you've posted over 80 comments in this thread alone- most of them flamewar comments. That's extreme. Please don't do anything like that on HN again, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

Edit 2: you've been breaking the site guidelines badly in other threads recently too. As I said, we've warned you many times. If you keep it up we're going to have to ban you, so please fix this. It's seriously not ok.

Post reply on HN