Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 10:39 AM UTC

Handrail wrote: post #579

nxy wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Decades" is an extreme POV. Big tech companies are actively investing into nuclear power. Unlike those green renewables you described, nuclear runs almost nonstop. At least 90%+ of the time! Let's not forget about China, who can do it faster and cheaper compared to western standards. Obviously short term we'll be forced to use gas, renewables, etc. But saying nuclear will be irrelevant is wrong.. Reliable 24/7 clean…

It's not clean though? It requires massive amounts of mining and refining to even get the fuel, and it's no more renewable than fossiles

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 10:47 AM UTC

Kon5ole wrote: post #239

cloudie78 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Kore…

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 10:49 AM UTC

esarbe wrote: post #165

cloudie78 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's no false information there. Nuclear is complex and so expensive that despite 70 years of tinkering and trying it hasn't managed to make a noticeable dent in fossil fuel. It's also slow, with building times up to more than a decade. France tried it. Now their nuclear operator is €50 billion in the negatives, makes about €3 billion per year in profits and has to invest about €150 billion in new reactors, upgrad…

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 10:52 AM UTC

Kon5ole wrote: post #249

cryptonym wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France also produces less CO2, sell electricity at reasonable and stable cost. If fossil fuel weren't massively subsided (impact the environment for free, wars with taxpayer money), Nuclear would have made a massive dent. Producing the same with other sources will have a massive immediate impact on the land / environment.

I like the idea that fossil fuel should take the hit from the impact on the environment, but don't see why nuclear should at the same time get a free pass for Chernobyl and Fukushima. Surely nuclear needs to take the hit from those as well in order to make the comparison apples-to-apples?

Post by Moldoteck » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 10:55 AM UTC

Arodex wrote: post #481

ttoinou wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make decades stocks of the fissile source

What is the cost of storing fissile radioactive material? This is making less and less economic sense. All paid by public money.