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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#331

Post by bryanlarsen »

eldaisfish wrote: post #313
bryanlarsen wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that China has started building battery banks at massive scale recently.

Is china building new coal plants or not? Do you want to hazard a guess as to why? The answer is because we still do not know how to supply expanding electricity demand with wind, solar and batteries. The side of the story that people on this website love to bring up is the fact that China happens to be the largest builder of solar and wind, which is true, but the increased electricity demand is being met via coal, f…

> Do you want to hazard a guess as to why?

Because it was only in 2025 that batteries became cheaper than coal, so the lead times involved mean they are still building coal.

They're very rapidly ramping up battery bank installation, it's too early to tell if they're also ramping down coal plant installations, but it seems likely.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#332

Post by LinXitoW »

UltraSane wrote: post #200
esarbe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no measure by which nuclear energy is the "energy of the future". It's too complex, too expensive and it doesn't scale. SMRs are proving to be a fever dream with ever rising costs and the number of nuclear reactors in operation is decreasing year by year and both Wind and PV are now each producing more electricity than nuclear. Nuclear has had its moment. That moment is gone.

PWRs are not really that complicated. They are just very hot metal rods inside a thick steel pressure vessel that boil water to make steam. "Nuclear has had its moment. That moment is gone." When CO2 caused climate changed is posed to be civilization altering this is a very very foolish thing to say.

That's a foolish thing to say because building enough nuclear, even with the fairy tale prices and times people make up, would take soooo much longer and cost sooo much more than green energy.

Even more importantly, it's very hard to compromise and downscale a project when the inevitable fossil fuel lobbyists vote against you. It's a lot easier to half a solar park project than a nuclear project.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#333

Post by lightedman »

Arodex wrote: post #144
lightedman wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"SMR make as much sense as space datacenters." So a whole lot of sense given the entire US Navy uses them and I already have one datacenter operating up in space (small test unit that over 3 months has provided ZERO issues) and a bigger one heading up into orbit next year when it's done being made. "but you can't gaslight thermodynamics" No but you can certainly conflate them like you're doing right now.

>the entire US Navy uses them Is the business of the US Navy to sell electrity on the market? You are the one conflating things that have absolutely no connections.

"Is the business of the US Navy to sell electrity on the market?"

No but they do use those reactors to power areas in times of disaster relief.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#334

Post by m101 »

durandal1 wrote: post #322
m101 wrote: post #319

It is depressing reading hacker news threads on nuclear power because of just how misinformed so many people still are. These things are all true, and it's on the reader for not knowing: - nuclear power is expensive by choice. It is not inherent to nuclear power - nuclear waste is not a problem - nuclear energy comes in many forms. Not only high pressure reactors - we are all going to be poorer, and live in a more po…

The only fair way to compare the cost to solar and wind, is if wind and solar producers would have to make power guarantees 24/7 and cover the cost of the production gaps (hint: this makes solar and wind very expensive).

If only that were not just the start of the issue. Regulation means nuclear is probably an order of magnitude more expensive than it could be.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#335

Post by audunw »

UltraSane wrote: post #200
esarbe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no measure by which nuclear energy is the "energy of the future". It's too complex, too expensive and it doesn't scale. SMRs are proving to be a fever dream with ever rising costs and the number of nuclear reactors in operation is decreasing year by year and both Wind and PV are now each producing more electricity than nuclear. Nuclear has had its moment. That moment is gone.

PWRs are not really that complicated. They are just very hot metal rods inside a thick steel pressure vessel that boil water to make steam. "Nuclear has had its moment. That moment is gone." When CO2 caused climate changed is posed to be civilization altering this is a very very foolish thing to say.

Shutting down nuclear power plants prematurely was very foolish (looking at you Germany). But other than that, it’s true.

When you boil the issue down to the fundamental facts, our challenge is simply: add as much power production as fast as possible. We have no other hope to tackle the issue but to optimise for this. Nuclear is a dangerous distraction. Solar+wind is now growing faster than nuclear ever did at its peak and they’re showing no signs of slowing down. It’s the only way to get more power fast enough.

We are building power for a future where we cut all CO2 emissions. Not just those from electricity. Our second biggest priority (well third after EVs, but I’m not too worried about EVs right now, it’s a self sustaining transition) is to bring down the capital costs of hydrogen plants. That’s the key to bringing down CO2 emissions in several sectors of industry. This pairs perfectly with variable power. We’ve already seen green ammonia fertiliser plants paired with renewables and now with the Iran crisis there will be higher pressure to build more of them to be self sustained. This way also lets us distribute production which is nice to be less vulnerable in case of war.

Once green hydrogen production has reached critical mass, and growth of renewables have pushed gas power plants into more of a backup role, with low fuel consumption, they will naturally switch to hydrogen. Many of the newer ones are already ready for hydrogen and others have an upgrade path. Perhaps hydrogen consuming industry will co-locate with gas power plants to share production/storage infrastructure. This path has very low capital costs besides the ones we anyway need to make the hydrogen necessary to decarbonise industry. The gas power plants are already built in most countries that will need them.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#336

Post by m101 »

LinXitoW wrote: post #325
m101 wrote: post #319

It is depressing reading hacker news threads on nuclear power because of just how misinformed so many people still are. These things are all true, and it's on the reader for not knowing: - nuclear power is expensive by choice. It is not inherent to nuclear power - nuclear waste is not a problem - nuclear energy comes in many forms. Not only high pressure reactors - we are all going to be poorer, and live in a more po…

What choices make nuclear expensive that we could actually get rid of WITHOUT IMMEDIATELY increasing risk (which is low because of regulation)? Moreover, it's crazy that so much regulation was provably written in blood paid by workers and public after a company got greedy. Sure, let's build 50 AND reduce regulations. Finally, the biggest fucking thing: It is MORE expensive NOW than the green alternatives, AND green e…

The Gordian Knot and Jack Devanney's website is a goldmine of information which will address almost any question anybody has on the subject.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#337

Post by [deleted] »

zchrykng wrote: post #207
bryanlarsen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need both Why do you need both? It's possible to get 99.99% reliability with wind & solar & batteries & weather modelling. There are multiple ways to handle a week long dankelflaute without nuclear: overbuilding, continental scale distribution, lots of batteries, etc. All are cheaper than nuclear. It's also virtually impossible to get more than 99.99% reliability out of any grid, even a nuclear dominated one. L…

How much do those batteries cost and can they supply power for multiple days or a season if your renewable sources aren't providing like normal? Not to mention the environmental damage from producing and disposing of batteries.

[deleted]

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#338

Post by lightedman »

RealityVoid wrote: post #129
lightedman wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"SMR make as much sense as space datacenters." So a whole lot of sense given the entire US Navy uses them and I already have one datacenter operating up in space (small test unit that over 3 months has provided ZERO issues) and a bigger one heading up into orbit next year when it's done being made. "but you can't gaslight thermodynamics" No but you can certainly conflate them like you're doing right now.

Ok, this is interesting. I am skeptic about DC's in space, but I do appreciate people actually doing stuff. What is it computing up there. How did you get it up? How does one usually talk with their satellite. I guess you don't merely have a dish since it's probably not geostationary.

"What is it computing up there."

Hyperspectral satellite imagery - think ASTER/LANDSAT/MODIS but more modern, for surficial minerals study.

"How did you get it up?"

How else? Paid a rocket company to launch it into orbit after proving various flightworthiness tests and getting various certifications and permissions from relevant gov't authorities.

"How does one usually talk with their satellite. I guess you don't merely have a dish since it's probably not geostationary."

K-band. Don't need tons of power, just a good LoS from ground on your target. And yea, not Geostat, I'm in LEO.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#339

Post by chinathrow »

m101 wrote: post #319

It is depressing reading hacker news threads on nuclear power because of just how misinformed so many people still are. These things are all true, and it's on the reader for not knowing: - nuclear power is expensive by choice. It is not inherent to nuclear power - nuclear waste is not a problem - nuclear energy comes in many forms. Not only high pressure reactors - we are all going to be poorer, and live in a more po…

Can you elaborate why waste is not a problem?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#340

Post by tfourb »

coryrc wrote: post #317
tfourb wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany will need a total of 1,867 TWh per year in 2030, so an average of 155 TWh/month. fossil fuels are very inefficient when used in most applications (especially ICE and oil for heating). As countries use more and more electricity instead of fossil fuels to generate motion and heat, total energy demand will decrease accordingly. Currently, Germany imports almost all of its fossil fuel from abroad. Mainly Norway,…

> we paid dearly for that And if you had invested in Drake Landing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community solar setup instead of PV, then neither the Russian invasion of Ukraine nor Hormuz blockade would have been a huge deal. The cost of energy is destroying your industrial base. > Also, Germany will (and does) a large share of it energy requirement ... from wind 15TWh in January 2025. Again, yo…

> Do you have an order of magnitude more land and water you're able to put wind generation on?

Actually yes. We currently use less than 0.5% of our agricultural land for PV (and some agricultural use is technically possible below PV). We could of course dedicate 5% or even 10% of land use to PV, if we really needed to (which we don't). We also could still expand PV to large swathes of build-up area (car parks and the like).

And Wind turbines actually don't need much space at all, the main issue is distance to settlements because of noise/shadow concerns.

> And are you willing to base your life and economy on not having Dunkelflaute?

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had. If we could i.e. half the cost of energy but have to live with drastically reducing energy consumption every few years for a couple of weeks in winter, would that be worth it?

We actually did so in the first winter after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because energy prices rose dramatically and people and businesses reacted accordingly. That was painful (and had no upside whatsoever), but I think if it didn't come completely by surprise but would be a designed part of the system, it might be worth it.

Post reply on HN