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

Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

bluewin.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#131

Post by dukoid »

cloudie78 wrote: post #125
Kon5ole wrote: post #76

Citizens should take note that no nuclear plants are ever built without many billions in state loans and guarantees. It's not a cheap source of electricity, it's a way for someone to get money from taxpayers to subsidize their business.

You should take note that you’re uninformed or intentionally spreading false information and misrepresenting reality. Fact of the matter is it takes a large upfront investment to build a nuclear reactor and it has a longer time horizon before it becomes profitable in comparison to something like a gas or coal power plant. It comes down to whether or not the country, government, citizens and country have the ability t…

Show us just a single NPP that is properly insured

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#132

Post by warumdarum »

Swiss will get nukes, denmark will get nukes, sweden will get nukes, finland will get..poland, ukraine, germany, armenia, georgia, armenia, turkey, vietnam, japan, south korea, emirates all gonna get, saudi already got.. [this list is incomplete, you can help to complete this list by doing a empire]. Ironically during the cold war a ton of countries went and became almost nuclear powers. Now thos world is so back baby and the reality denial and loud noises do nothing. Almost as if this plot device never had any connection to anything.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6uxLHWVYRg&t=534s

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#133

Post by iknowstuff »

Kipters wrote: post #119
Arodex wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely ridiculous: of all countries, Italy has totally the means to rely only on solar and batteries. You even have the industrial prowess to make it all in the country step by step, whereas nuclear reactors are such humongous engineering projects that building the capacity is very out of reach. Edit: and with the Mediterranean and rivers warming severely - and the latter even suffering from draught - how a…

Why not both? We still need rotating mass to keep the grid stable, which means either building giant flywheels, keep burning gas or bring nuclear into the mix. One of these can also produce a ton of energy when needed, the other two cant. We can and should build more renewables, but we can't risk grid stability!

We actually don’t need those anymore. Grid forming inverters and batteries will take over that role.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#134

Post by dukoid »

Zigurd wrote: post #107

This is at best the concept of a vibe shift. Even if they started sprinting now, it would be 20 years before anyone would see the results of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear is so much more expensive than solar and wind that building one is certain to raise electricity prices.

It's why big oil loves it: We need to do nothing now because nuclear is coming "soon"

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#135

Post by john_strinlai »

cauch wrote: post #130
john_strinlai wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of these favor again bigger reactors. how does having less available space favor a bigger reactor? and how is constructing a bigger reactor faster than constructing a smaller one?

Just a guess (I'm not the previous user), but I guess you need to look at the space _per GWh_? If a big nuclear reactor takes 10x more space but has 20x more capacity, then it means not having much space favors the big nuclear reactor rather than building 10 small ones that will take twice more space. (and same for the time)

its probably my fault for not making myself clear. i mean when the available space is constrained to a specific amount of space that cannot be exceeded.

just picking random numbers:

i have 1 square mile available. a big reactor takes 4 square miles. i cannot fit a big reactor, despite the bigger reactor being more efficient.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#136

Post by Arodex »

john_strinlai wrote: post #124
Arodex wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>i feel like available space, time to complete construction All of these favor again bigger reactors. >considering the length of time and sheer number of people, companies, and governments considering/investing in SMR tech it seems unlikely to be a mania. All of the Swiss energy companies are asking to be bailed out in advance of the investment in nuclear.

> All of these favor again bigger reactors. how does having less available space favor a bigger reactor? and how is constructing a bigger reactor faster than constructing a smaller one?

If you need 500 MW, you build one 500 MW reactor, not five 100 MW reactors. They will take more space.

As for speed, a 100 MW reactor is not commissioned in 1/5 of the time a 500 MW reactor is.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#137

Post by abecedarius »

gpm wrote: post #79
abecedarius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I expect they're too expensive" is a terrible reason to ban them, though.

It is when it's tied to "and I expect they're going to ask for giant subsidies from taxpayers". Which nuclear inevitably does, both in the form of direct requests for money and by refusing to pay for adequate insurance to compensate everyone who will be damaged in the event of a meltdown externalizing the risks.

If you're in "everything not banned is subsidized"-land where absolutely everything is political, you need to work on getting out of that hole, not digging it deeper.

(I wouldn't assume the Swiss are there yet, but I've only visited a couple times for a few weeks. Their politics seemed healthier than I've seen elsewhere, fwiw.)

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#138

Post by well_ackshually »

tcfhgj wrote: post #100
anon7725 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a cleaner, more consistent technology for baseload? At a certain point, dollars are funny money if you are destroying the environment to save a few now by generating baseload with a carbon-producing tech. Of course, let’s build the safest and most efficient nuclear that we can, but “its capex is too high” is not a compelling argument to me. And to be clear: renewables should form as much of the capacity as p…

we don't need reliable "base load" but peakers - with more renewables more than ever. Baseload won't be price competitive with renewables in average or shiny/windy conditions ever

you'll be so happy about being price competitive when the conditions are bad for like a week and the country just doesn't run (or rely on other countries price gouging you for what your country needs to exist.)

Opposing nuclear & renewables is stupid. You need both. You need as many power sources as you can, as quick as you can while the resources are available. Energy is not something you leave up to the invisible hand of the market hoping that price competitiveness means that it works well. Lives are at play.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#139

Post by pmontra »

_diyar wrote: post #25
orwin wrote: post #8

Switzerland, Norway and Austria are probably the country that needs nuclear the less, but anything to start the discussion in other European countries is good. Probably not economically viable in Switzerland though.

Hard disagree. As a. swiss voter, this is close to my heart. 50% of all energy in the swiss economy is oil / gas. Of the remaining 50% (electricity), 2/3 are generated by hydro. The remaining ~1/3 by nuclear fission. Swiss electricity prices are sky-high, and the demand for electricity is going to continue to rise. To remain a competitive industrial economy, to transition away from oil/gas, and to offset any potentia…

As you are Swiss, where would you get the uranium from? I expect that the Swiss Alps have some mine, especially in the south west (I didn't check) but is that enough? You might end up swapping a dependency from foreign providers of oil and gas with a dependency from foreign providers of uranium.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#140

Post by iso1631 »

sisve wrote: post #65
iso1631 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With little land usable for solar and wind I was thinking that Switzerland and Austria would need it more Edit: Not Norway - Doh!

Norwegian here. - We have a lot of hydro, that are very cheap to produces and for some of the power plants we fill up water by using solar and wind when that is very cheap and generate power back when it's demand for it (meaning selling it expensive) -Norway export more then we are importing. But that could shift in the coming years. -Nuclear power are expensive, so with the current prices it do not make sense to hav…

Sorry not sure why I wrote Norway rather than Austria!

Obviously Norway has massive amounts of offshore wind potential too

Post reply on HN