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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#811

Post by onraglanroad »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #490
TimorousBestie wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winning arguments on the internet is more important than ideological consistency.

Or alternatively a reasonable person will accept the observation that sufficiently large problems with sufficiently bad consequences need to be socialized. However even then there is still going to be disagreement about where exactly to draw the line. That nuclear and climate change falls far to one side of it should not be a surprise.

Ask rayiner if they observe that large problems need to be socialized.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#812

Post by throwthrowuknow »

Krasnol wrote: post #777
throwthrowuknow wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice new beginning my foot. Go live in the woods without power, petrochemical fuel or modern technology for a year and then tell me what you think.

Why should I when there are cheap solar panels and batteries out there?

Good luck making a solar panel without an industrial base.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#813

Post by awesome_dude »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #724
awesome_dude wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Ukraine nuclear power plants are a massive liability - they make for easy targets for the Russians to obliterate the country - is that what you want for Switzerland? 2. The waste - nobody wants it - it's a hazard for tens of thousands of years - what's the plan for managing it? Yes energy generation (and independence) is important, no nuclear ain't it.

> Ukraine nuclear power plants are a massive liability - they make for easy targets for the Russians to obliterate the country - is that what you want for Switzerland? This makes no sense. Russia has actual nuclear weapons, it can "obliterate" Ukraine (or Switzerland) on a whim with them, if they decide to. Also, as you can verify by looking at the containment zone of Chernobyl catastrophe, full blown meltdown/explos…

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

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#814

Post by awesome_dude »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #722
awesome_dude wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Ukraine nuclear power plants are a massive liability - they make for easy targets for the Russians to obliterate the country - is that what you want for Switzerland? 2. The waste - nobody wants it - it's a hazard for tens of thousands of years - what's the plan for managing it? Yes energy generation (and independence) is important, no nuclear ain't it.

by your logic, then what's preventing another country just nuking Switzerland?

By your logic there are no wars.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#815

Post by bit-anarchist »

dalyons wrote: post #620
bit-anarchist wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil engineering and power equipment companies also profit from other plants. In fact, there are specialized power companies for wind and solar. If private energy companies won't invest, then either don't invest public funding, or invest but with focus on developing long-term technologies. After all, the primary reason for nuclear being uneconomic today is lack of investment. If solar and wind can be made profitable…

> If solar and wind can be made profitable, I don't see how nuclear is any different. Nuclear is fundamentally way more complicated than wind and especially solar. Nuclear is 10s of kilometers of high pressure piping, 1000s of tons of concrete, exotic pressure welding. Solar on the other hand is brain dead simple and amenable to mass production in a way that nuclear can never be. As such, nuclear will never see the s…

We also used to say that solar and wind were fundamentally flawed: solar panels had an exotic manufacturing process, energy storage was limited and expensive, they are fundamentally tied to specific environmental conditions which may not hold, etc. We still managed.

Likewise, we could see cost reductions with cheaper/better alternatives to concrete, models that don't require so much piping, the exotic pressure welding becoming not so exotic, etc. We also could see better reactor models with yields, increasing energy production.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#816

Post by UltraSane »

audunw wrote: post #335
UltraSane wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

Germany's choice to exit nuclear power before phasing out coal has resulted in a carbon intensity that is consistently 5 to 8 times higher than France's nuclear-heavy grid, alongside some of the highest industrial electricity costs globally. This has made many industries too expensive to operate inside Germany. That is an impressive level of incompetence. The world should use them as a negative example.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#817

Post by Kon5ole »

thelastgallon wrote: post #567

Two things to keep in mind when thinking about nuclear 1) Has the lowest deaths/TWH: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... 2) Any country that is not US absolutely needs to invest in nuclear technology. This is for your own security. In addition to providing energy security, it also provides physical security (with a bit more work). Without nuclear, your country will remain vulnerable to: 1)…

>Has the lowest deaths/TWH

One should also keep in mind that it has the highest potential deaths per TWh.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#818

Post by Kon5ole »

noosphr wrote: post #445
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.

Just like solar then. Or are we only happy with state subsidies when China does it?

I am happy with subsidies that are paid now so that the future can benefit from it. That's what states should be doing.

I am not happy with subsidies that lets people consume things cheaply now by leaving the bill to the future. That's not what states should be doing.

Subsidizing solar until the production got cheap enough not to need any more subsidies is a good example of the former, building nuclear plants is a good example of the latter.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#819

Post by bryanlarsen »

throw0101c wrote: post #809
bryanlarsen wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some impressive financial engineering to go from $500B for a few gigawatts of power to "reasonably priced".

Can you provide a citation for the $500B? Because Carney has mentioned federal money in that amount for projects Canada-wide that include "energy" generally, but not nuclear specifically. I did find this (potential?) $100B number on Ontario nuclear energy: * https://archive.is/https://www.thestar.com/politics/provinci... but if you take that number and 'ammortize' it over the average 40-year life span of reactors, it…

It was "only" $400B:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-...

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#820

Post by bryanlarsen »

throw0101c wrote: post #792
bryanlarsen wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Ontarian, I love CANDU. As an Ontarian, the thought of spending $500B on a couple of reactors makes me furious. Ontario is not going to become competitive again with the most expensive electricity in the world.

Ontario nuclear is cheaper than Ontario solar and wind (Table 2): * https://fao-on.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Nuclear-Refurb... Until a few years ago it was cheaper than methane/natural gas: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023... At least when it comes to refurbishment, the independent (reports to provincial parliament) FAO found: > Overall, despite near-term Nuclear Price increases, th…

Your documents are from 2017. The numbers for solar will be almost an order of magnitude wrong.
Post reply on HN