Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#231

Post by Jolter » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:29 PM UTC

Arodex wrote: post #136

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?

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.

I think the promise of SMR is that the 1/5th reactor can be built in 1/2 the time. And you build five of them in parallell. And you have your power sources gradually online over about the same time as one ”big bang” build would take.

I don’t think it’s going to work out that way, but that’s how it’s being sold.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#232

Post by ethbr1 » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:32 PM UTC

LinXitoW wrote: post #202

rayiner wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only expensive and brittle because environmentalists have choked it to death. They’re the third biggest villains of climate change, after consumers and oil companies. If the whole developed world had nuclearized the way France did, our discussions about climate change would be entirely different. We would have decades more runway to avoid 2C+ scenarios. We would have already electrified vast swaths of the econom…

So its really safe, but also the evil regulations make it expensive. I'm certain there's ZERO correlation between regulations that make it expensive and regulations making it safe.................... So, where is the free market shitting out nuclear power? Anywhere?

> So its really safe, but also the evil regulations make it expensive

Yes, with extra steps.

Regulations, more so than their impact on price, cost calendar time.

Time, especially for already-lengthy and complicated infrastructure projects, costs volume.

And low volume means high prices and a slow pace of improvement.

Henry Ford wouldn't have built many automobiles, or improved them as quickly as he did, if every one needed to be individually permitted by multiple government agencies.

The failure of nuclear is that it never standardized and scaled to industrially-efficient volumes (outside of arguably France) at exactly the point that it could have technologically done so (~1970s). Had Offshore Power Systems^ begun producing floating reactors at volume in Jacksonville, FL in the late 70s, we'd be having a very different conversation about cheap American nuclear power today.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_Power_Systems

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#233

Post by asdff » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

starbix wrote: post #6

This is going to be a huge waste of time and money until we realize that building new nuclear power plants will be too expensive and too late, since we'll have figured out a renewable energy concept that'll handle the load by then. Instead we could also just join a French project, who have way more experience. We should focus on extending our hydro power storage capacity instead. There will be a referendum anyways, s…

Hydro power is often brutal for the local environment. There has been a whole lot of expensive and careful undoing of hydro power around the world in recent years in attempt to save various local species from extinction. There are second order effects too like how silt is typically deposited in an unblocked vs blocked waterway and what that means for downstream land or water quality.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#234

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #219

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…

What kind of environmental impact does hydro have in Switzerland? I’d expect it’s less because they are in the mountains. I’m against a lot of Hydro power in the US because the environmental damage is high. Plus I like to fish and they have huge impacts on the ecosystems. But these are relatively flat places compared to Switzerland.

[deleted]

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#235

Post by slibhb » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

Arodex wrote: post #116

vablings wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a misunderstanding of what a SMR is supposed to be. Nuclear power plants are eye watering levels of expensive. The require massive scale and cost with lengthy approvals and requirements, the fundamental idea of SMRs is to move that cost and approvals into a smaller scale so that multiple standard units can be produced and deployed in a turnkey situation, they still will be expensive but the time to d…

>The problem with solar is that you need power 24/7 and solar will not make power in the night. Ok, question: for the cost of one nuclear power plant, how many batteries can you have? For the cost of the R&D of one next generation nuclear reactor design, how many next generation battery and solar panels technologies can you develop?

This is such a silly argument. Battery and solar technologies are progressing regardless of people building nuclear. It's simply not the case that we can stop investing in nuclear and use that money to accelerate battery/solar.

The best energy strategies are all-of-the-above.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#236

Post by triceratops » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

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.

How much per kW?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#237

Post by triceratops » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #164

esarbe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It’s only expensive and brittle because environmentalists have choked it to death. They’re the third biggest villains of climate change, after consumers and oil companies. If the whole developed world had nuclearized the way France did, our discussions about climate change would be entirely different. We would have decades more runway to avoid 2C+ scenarios. We would have already electrified vast swaths of the econom…

> It’s only expensive and brittle because environmentalists have choked it to death

How did they succeed with nuclear energy but fail so miserably with everything else - fossil fuels, meat, even whaling?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#238

Post by thomasmg » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

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.

Solar, wind and hydro are all much cheaper, far safer and more efficient these days.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#239

Post by Kon5ole » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

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…

Everybody knows about the upfront cost, but the size and long tail of costs after the plant has been built, or when unforeseen events occur, is largely hidden from all financial statements. So much so that people actually believe that nuclear power is cheap, when it's not.

But the truth surfaces of course - you can look at the financials of EDF in France (nationalized in 2022 with 60+ bn euros in debt), KEPCO in Korea (145 bn in debt), or incidents like Asse II in Germany, Sellafield in the UK, Rancho Seco in the US.

Billions of taxpayer money covering costs caused by the nuclear industry, and not appearing anywhere in any statement of estimates of nuclear power costs. Large, double-digit plant operators basically or literally bankrupt.

Different CEOs of the swedish electric company Vattenfall have stated repeatedly that nuclear power is not viable unless the state pays. Here is a recent such statement: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/swedis...

This to me is the bottom line. If nuclear power was cheap and profitable, people would be in line to build them as soon as they get approval! Instead, they want money.

The truth is that the industry sees no way to profitability here, except when they get access to current and future taxpayer money. This has always been the case for nuclear power and still is.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#240

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #208

yulker wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

OP was making a geometric observation.

By that light, the UK is still in the EU. I bet they would disagree though.