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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#711

Post by tfourb »

throw0101c wrote: post #550
tfourb wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s only expensive and brittle because environmentalists have choked it to death. The only reason why "environmentalists" were able to influence the debate around nuclear is because nuclear is uneconomical and studded with actual, real problems. Look at fossil fuels. Environmentally and in terms of public health it is way worse than nuclear (at least a current respective buildout levels). And environmentalists hav…

> "Cheap nuclear" is a pipe dream that has never been realized. Not even Chinese nuclear (no environmentalists there) is anywhere near as cheap as solar. In Ontario, Canada, 50% of all power comes from nuclear and costs CAD 0.12/kWh (USD 0.08/kWh); see Table 2: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2025... On the spectrum from "cheap" to expensive, where would that fall? For many years it was actu…

> In Ontario, Canada, 50% of all power comes from nuclear and costs CAD 0.12/kWh (USD 0.08/kWh); see Table 2:

The website does not open for me. Are the quoted prices consumer prices including tax or wholesale prices before tax?

If it’s the latter, 8 cents is not that cheap and comparable to the average price per kWh (all sources) in Germany. In most cases in most places, the lion’s share of electricity costs is tax and infrastructure refinancing, not actual production. Levellized cost of PV+storage is well below new nuclear virtually in every deployment scenario.

> For many years it was actually cheaper than (methane/natural) gas:

Because NG is one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity, if you are not producing NG yourself locally AND don’t have to pay for environmental costs.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#712

Post by awesome_dude »

palata wrote: post #423
awesome_dude wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has to be snark - Waste is never safe to store - the containment has to prevent leeching - over a lifespan of thousand, or tens of thousands of years And it only takes one earthquake, or animal digging to completely upend that strategy

An earthquake will not suddenly take the waste from hundreds of meters underground and throw it in the air. I mean, assuming you store it in a reasonable place.

It doesn't need to - all that needs to happen is for water to suddenly have a course to where the materials are being stored.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#713

Post by mpweiher »

Krasnol wrote: post #708
mpweiher wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 100 years: sure. Unless we have civilizational collapse in which case a bit of nuclear waste will be the least of our problems. It won't have to be monitored for a 1000 years. First, by that time the level of radioactivity is very low, and when it's in a deep-geological repository (like the ones we already use for vastly greater amounts of highly toxic chemicals that never decay) it is gone. We know enough about h…

It won't be "the least of our problems", it would be an additional problem. The fuel and related will have to be monitored for 1000 years and more. Yes, we know how geology works, which is why we have found a single place where it might be safe. ONE.

Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems.

No it won't.

That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological.

For example: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#714

Post by SJC_Hacker »

lukan wrote: post #674
int_19h wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet China is building new nuclear plants just as fast as it's building solar and wind. It's almost as if the "grinding halt" was political in nature.

Source needed, a quick search if mine showed very different numbers: "China aims to reach 110 gigawatts (GWe) of nuclear capacity by 2030." "China installed over 430 GW of renewables in 2025" In other words china installed last year alone 5x the energy capacity in solar and wind, what the are planning to have in 2030 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab…

110 GW at a 90% capacity factor vs 430 GW at maybe 20% capacity factor

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#715

Post by mpweiher »

frollogaston wrote: post #702
mpweiher wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No technology is 100% safe, so that is a straw man. However, nuclear energy is the safest form of electricity generation we have.

"Solved problem" was what the parent comment said. Tell me instead that it's going to leak like everything else.

"Solved problem" does not imply it is 100% safe.

Because no technology is 100% safe.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#716

Post by mpweiher »

frm88 wrote: post #675
mpweiher wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 100 years: sure. Unless we have civilizational collapse in which case a bit of nuclear waste will be the least of our problems. It won't have to be monitored for a 1000 years. First, by that time the level of radioactivity is very low, and when it's in a deep-geological repository (like the ones we already use for vastly greater amounts of highly toxic chemicals that never decay) it is gone. We know enough about h…

We know enough about how geology works. We also know how a BLU-122 works. Can you be sure the US wouldn't use one on its allies in yet another moment of irrational tantrum? What about Russia?

How does the BLU-122 relate to a deep geological repository, in your esteemed opinion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#717

Post by mpweiher »

Krasnol wrote: post #691
mpweiher wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is REDUCING the overall danger. Because the alternatives are much more dangerous.

How are renewables more dangerous?

"How" is not really a relevant question in this context. They are, empirically.

Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe, meaning it doesn't really matter that much which of these you use, the overall risk is always going to be very low, and the relative numbers are going to be very sensitive to small changes or variations in analyses.

Hydro is significantly more dangerous, and all the fossil fuels are tremendously more dangerous.

Due to the fact that intermittent renewables usually require fossil backup for that majority of countries that don't have abundant hydro, you have to take that into account.

A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html

A 2019 study shows that reduced use of nuclear energy post-Fukushima cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

https://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Kharecha.Sato_Jpn.Ger_post.Fuku...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...

Whereas the WHO predicts that there will be no measurable health effects on the general Japanese public from Fukushima, and the majority of negative health consequences were from the unnecessary evacuations.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...

Radiophobia kills!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#718

Post by lukan »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #714
lukan wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source needed, a quick search if mine showed very different numbers: "China aims to reach 110 gigawatts (GWe) of nuclear capacity by 2030." "China installed over 430 GW of renewables in 2025" In other words china installed last year alone 5x the energy capacity in solar and wind, what the are planning to have in 2030 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab…

110 GW at a 90% capacity factor vs 430 GW at maybe 20% capacity factor

430 GW a year on 20% (which it is not, as china has lots of desserts with no clouds) would still be a way bigger number than 110 GW that are planned to be reached in a few years.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#719

Post by Jolter »

mpweiher wrote: post #692
Jolter wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, the total system costs include a lot of things, including disposal of spent fuel. Which is apparently so expensive, nuclear can’t compete with renewables fairly.

That's not true. Disposal of spent fuel was always included in the price of electricity (for example in Germany, but many/most others as well) and is negligible in cost. Finland just built a spent-fuel repository for ~ € 1 billion. For the entire country. Just the single EPR at Olkiluoto 3 will produce electricity worth €100 billion over its lifetime if you assume a price of 10 cents/kWh. So at 10 cents, it would be…

What part isn’t true? That disposal of fuel is part of the total systems cost? Or that the new nuclear can’t compete without subsidies? I think both are evident truths.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#720

Post by creatonez »

pbgcp2026 wrote: post #634
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.

"The technology is so unbelievably safe". Absolutely! Chernobyl and Fukushima are post card holiday resort destinations ...

There's nothing to fear about these locations unless you are heavily disturbing the soil
Post reply on HN