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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#171

Post by BJones12 »

Arodex wrote: post #104
eightysixfour wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy security is something I expect the government to invest my tax dollars in especially energy generation that is resilient to international politics and reduced carbon emissions.

Then nuclear isn't it. Switzerland has no uranium and no strong relationship with an uranium-producing country. They also regularly antagonise the EU (especially the far-right isolationisz SVP/UDC, which is... pro-nuclear, of course) which controls every way fission products could be brought inside Switzerland. The same far-right country is also the one who wanted to cap the population because "there isn't room anymo…

> has no uranium and no strong relationship with an uranium-producing country

The uranium-producing countries are Kazakhstan, Canada, and Namibia. There is zero chance that you cannot get one of those to sell to you.

> Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes.

Wut?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#172

Post by jltsiren »

bilekas wrote: post #146
jokteur wrote: post #32

This still has to pass with the people in a referendum. The discourse on nuclear is still quite chaotic in politics in Switzerland. All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear. I am not expecting informed and civil discussions about this topic. Switzerland has a summer/winter energy problem. We have lots of potential of producing energy in the spring and summer (when our dams are full fro…

Switzerland has an amazing opportunity to be the standard setter in the EU with nuclear though. The technology is so unbelievably safe and efficient these days. It a real shame to leave it all on the table because of poorly designed and managed disasters.

Political will is not the actual bottleneck.

Finland has given the initial permit for three nuclear reactors in the past 25 years. One was eventually built after massive delays and cost overruns. Another was canceled, because the company chosen to build it first proved to be incompetent and later also politically undesirable. As for the third reactor, the company that got the permit determined that it makes more sense to invest the money in something else.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#173

Post by UltraSane »

jokteur wrote: post #32

This still has to pass with the people in a referendum. The discourse on nuclear is still quite chaotic in politics in Switzerland. All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear. I am not expecting informed and civil discussions about this topic. Switzerland has a summer/winter energy problem. We have lots of potential of producing energy in the spring and summer (when our dams are full fro…

"All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear"

This is like firefighters opposing using water.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#174

Post by eightysixfour »

Arodex wrote: post #104
eightysixfour wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy security is something I expect the government to invest my tax dollars in especially energy generation that is resilient to international politics and reduced carbon emissions.

Then nuclear isn't it. Switzerland has no uranium and no strong relationship with an uranium-producing country. They also regularly antagonise the EU (especially the far-right isolationisz SVP/UDC, which is... pro-nuclear, of course) which controls every way fission products could be brought inside Switzerland. The same far-right country is also the one who wanted to cap the population because "there isn't room anymo…

> Switzerland has no uranium and no strong relationship with an uranium-producing country. They also regularly antagonise the EU (especially the far-right isolationisz SVP/UDC, which is... pro-nuclear, of course) which controls every way fission products could be brought inside Switzerland.

It is reasonable to have a many-year strategic reserve of uranium for what you need. A modern reactor is going to go through 20 tonnes of enriched fuel a year and they refuel every 18-24 months. 5-10 years of security and stability is much, much better than oil and gas.

> The same far-right country is also the one who wanted to cap the population because "there isn't room anymore", but I guess there is now room for massive nuclear plants and the storage of fuel and spent fuel shrugs

There isn't enough room in my house for anymore people but there's enough room for a new couch. How can these things both be true? Probably because the two have entirely different requirements and "there isn't room" is shorthand for many, many things.

Not saying they're right, just that this is a bad counter argument, especially since the alternatives all have the same problem.

> Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes.

Yes, you need water capacity for cooling, about 2x as much as a gas plant for the same output. Definitely a trade-off. I don't know or care enough about Swiss water access to argue here.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#175

Post by UltraSane »

jltsiren wrote: post #172
bilekas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland has an amazing opportunity to be the standard setter in the EU with nuclear though. The technology is so unbelievably safe and efficient these days. It a real shame to leave it all on the table because of poorly designed and managed disasters.

Political will is not the actual bottleneck. Finland has given the initial permit for three nuclear reactors in the past 25 years. One was eventually built after massive delays and cost overruns. Another was canceled, because the company chosen to build it first proved to be incompetent and later also politically undesirable. As for the third reactor, the company that got the permit determined that it makes more sens…

China and South Korea can build nuclear reactors cheaply.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#176

Post by UltraSane »

esarbe wrote: post #152
bilekas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland has an amazing opportunity to be the standard setter in the EU with nuclear though. The technology is so unbelievably safe and efficient these days. It a real shame to leave it all on the table because of poorly designed and managed disasters.

It's also incredibly expensive and brittle and cannot be moderated without additional costs[1]. At this point nuclear is just a dead horse. It hasn't managed to displace fossil fuels in over 70 years - a feat that renewables have done within 20 years. Nuclear is too slow and too expensive. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/france...

Nuclear reactors can last up to 80 years. The main reason nuclear hasn't displaced fossil fuels over the last 70 years is due to relentless irrational opposition.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#177

Post by yulker »

lopis wrote: post #166
Gud wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland is not in the EU.

While it's not part of the EU as a member, Switzerland is quite literally in the EU.

Just the opposite. It's literally not in the EU. It's literally in Europe but not in the EU.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#178

Post by pydry »

UltraSane wrote: post #175
jltsiren wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political will is not the actual bottleneck. Finland has given the initial permit for three nuclear reactors in the past 25 years. One was eventually built after massive delays and cost overruns. Another was canceled, because the company chosen to build it first proved to be incompetent and later also politically undesirable. As for the third reactor, the company that got the permit determined that it makes more sens…

China and South Korea can build nuclear reactors cheaply.

China and South Korea build everything more cheaply because they have a better developed industrial base.

Solar and wind is still vastly cheaper for them and still much cheaper when paired with storage.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#179

Post by whatisthiseven »

Tepix wrote: post #155
mpweiher wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That competition is handily won by wind and solar. In the meantime in Switzerland: "Our cheapest electricity product is nuclear electricity." https://ewr.ch/elektrizitaet/stromprodukte/

Existing nuclear power plants can be very cheap at $30 – $40 / MWh New nuclear power plants would be much more expensive at $180 / MWh or more, due to strict modern regulations. Even with these regulations, there is no nuclear plant that is safe against a terrorist crashing an airplane into it. The unsolved permanent repository problem is left to future generations. Finally, building a new nuclear power plant will ea…

Cool, the price of solar right now is $30-$85 / MWh, and that range is dependent on whether you got storage included in the bill or not.

And that price will only get cheaper, as both the US and China continue ramping up production.

Nuclear? It would need to reduce its costs by 70% to get where solar is now. And then do it again to be competitive with where solar+storage will be in 10 years.

Nuclear is economically a dead technology.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#180

Post by staticshock »

While I'm sold on the fact that modern nuclear can be built & administered safely in the face of natural disasters, and is a net good environmentally, I'm worried about corporate cronyism's corrosive effects on safety (a la Fukushima) and future instability in the form of cornered animals (e.g. Putin, Trump) acting erratically by bombing civilian infrastructure.
Post reply on HN