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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#921

Post by Moldoteck »

Matumio wrote: post #358
durandal1 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Not sure if that's fair. Sometimes the sun actually does shine, and while you won't get rich selling energy during that time, having electricity available essentially for free during some of the peak hours is worth something. Someone will eventually find a use for free energy. If nothing else, at least we can turn off all coal, gas and oil plants while the sun shines.

it's perfectly fair. The goal is to have decarbonized electricity when you need it, not only randomly. Countries solve this with gas, see DE

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#922

Post by Moldoteck »

gpm wrote: post #341
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…

> - nuclear power is expensive by choice. It is not inherent to nuclear power Nuclear power is fundamentally expensive. It's large pieces of infrastructure, involving handling and securing extremely dangerous materials. Solar panels, wind, and batteries have all dropped in price so much that solar backed by batteries to create stable powers (and/or wind doing the same, or a mix), is in the vast majority of the world…

So ABWR is fundamentally expensive? So is Hualong?

"Every kw of nuclear production we create is resources we could have instead put into adding more than 1 kw of solar backed with batteries at this point. Moreover the other renewables would come online and displace fossil fuel usage faster. Thus spending money on nuclear results in a more polluted higher CO2 world, not the other way around." - what a nice nonsense argument. With the same success I can say without nuclear - if you build ren and keep fossils for firming, you'll pollute in fact more over time, because you'll still use them. That's also why DE wants to expand gas capacity. And this plan was laid out not by CDU but Fraunhofer ISE itself

Not that many died from rad exposure or cancers from power plants. I mean, depends with what you compare. Entire Chernobyl deaths are expected to be 4k or less depending on data. That's how many ppl die in Germany in 2y from car accidents. That's probably how many died from early phaseout of nuclear https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-025-01002-z

You are right that radioactive material still needs special handling. Just like many other toxic materials like https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6nly288j4o

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#923

Post by embedding-shape »

eimrine wrote: post #828
embedding-shape wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're in one place, you'll just have a battery+solar I bet, but for when on the go, maybe for days, having a tiny nuclear battery that lasts N years would be great.

Check "Burevestnik" nuclear rocket, seems Russian scientists have developed a compact nuclear battery if to subtract the rocket from the power device.

> It is considered the first nuclear-powered missile and nuclear-powered aircraft

Very interesting stuff, even though the origin probably means we won't get much details on it until decades later. Thanks a bunch for sharing!

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#924

Post by Moldoteck »

locallost wrote: post #372
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…

I have a better list: * every dollar spent on building new nuclear will be put to use so late it effectively increases CO2 emissions * A country like Poland is the biggest emissions perpetrator in Europe, and the fact they are building nuclear means they will stay that way for literally decades * The fossil fuel exporter countries are pushing nuclear as their agenda. Why do you think that is? * Not a single country h…

every $ spent on not building nuclear results in higher CO2 emissions due to gas firming.

Germany plans gas expansion to firm renewables.

* Antinuclear movement resulted in DK/DE having worse emissions vs France/Sweden even today.

* Finland will give final authorization for Onkalo this summer https://qazinform.com/news/finland-set-to-launch-worlds-firs... Sweden already started construction at Fosmark. But ultimately conceptually it's not much different from Herfa Neurode

* Most of Sellafield problems are from nuclear weapon test experiments with esoteric waste, not classic commercial reactor waste.

Your list is kinda weak

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#925

Post by Moldoteck »

4ggr0 wrote: post #446

my summarized thoughts when reading through this comment section and being swiss myself - have y'all ever heard of solar and wind[0]? i know that battery storage is a challenge, but hey, we constantly glaze ourselves as having great universities, lots of wealth, stability, precise engineering etc. so let's put our strength into battery storage. invest in research towards it. research it ourselves. build out renewable…

We've heard of Germany going antinuclear and being one of the worst polluters while planning to expand gas to firm renewables because storage is not a simple challenge.

The only countries that really tried are France and Sweden and the result was stellar.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#926

Post by Moldoteck »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3
whycome wrote: post #2

Best way to provide power to a population over 10 million

And if the world goes to shit again, having a baseline for building an Alpine nuclear deterrent isn't the worst thing to have on soil.

PWRs are unsuitable for that

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#927

Post by Moldoteck »

iso1631 wrote: post #147
iso1631 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best way for who? Nuclear is vastly more expensive per MWh than renewables. It's better than pumping stuff out the ground sure, but that's about it.

And as usual the nuclear brainwashed lobby on HN still think it's 1990 and nuclear is cost effective. It can't cope with peaks. It has to generate the same power 24/7 to be anywhere near economical at two-three times the cost of solar+storage, so it either needs massive storage or massive overprovision Lets say you have a peak demand of say 40GW but average demand of 600GWh a day (25GW), or 219TWh a year Lets also sa…

Ah yes, everyone is brainwashed. Sure. We see today how non brainwashed is Germany that not only is a bad polluter but plans gas expansion to firm renewables.

Nuclear requires far less overcapacity and transmission. You can cycle maintenance schedules and if country's demand is smaller, you build smaller units like Candu to make this rotation.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#928

Post by Moldoteck »

rz2k wrote: post #11
whycome wrote: post #2

Best way to provide power to a population over 10 million

I wonder if they’ll stagger their waking hours so that electric power consumption matches the inflexible output of nuclear reactors.

nuclear is very flexible, especially with ALFC upgrades

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#929

Post by Moldoteck »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #890
Moldoteck wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ren also require gas firming expansion(see germany). And Germany spends in ren subsidies about equivalent of 1 failed french nuclear project, each year... to have far worse emissions

Always the laser focus on Germany. Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online? Who cares if the emergency reserves are fossil gas when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, aviation, industry, maritime shipping and so on? When those emergency reserve emissions ma…

Germany is just a prime example. Germany was better off to not shut down existing plants and invest in ren+nuclear to retire leftover fossils. It's also fascinating to hear the "horrifyingly expensive" statement. Germany spends on EEG equivalent of one failed french nuclear project each year. It also spends the same on transmission to acomodate distributed generation. And also plans to expand gas. Anyone suggesting German path is sane/correct and expanding nuclear is the worst decision ever loves fossils more than nuclear - as simple as that.

"Who cares if the emergency reserves are fossil gas when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, aviation, industry, maritime shipping and so on?" - many.

German EEG/y spending is about to increase because it's paid more frequently despite most expensive contracts being over. And for offshore this already didn't pan out well. Solar has the advantage of lower capex but will be hit too.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#930

Post by Moldoteck »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #884
Moldoteck wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, EPR2 is overcomplicated mess. But the subsidy is not that great either... considering many EU countries are subsidizing biomass today at 18ct/kwh...

Always the false comparisons. Please do tell me the expected capacity factor of these biomass plants, even if 18 cents per kWh is correct, after renewables, storage, hydro if available and existing nuclear plants with 80 year LTOs do the heavy lifting. Can you see the difference compared to new built nuclear power which requires that absolutely insane price when running at 100% 24/7 for 40 years?

Why only 40y for new nuclear? When min license is 60 for gen3 and many gen2 already got extensions to 80y. And where did you get the 100% 24/7 number? The min profitability of FLA3 doesnt assume that. And that's for an ultimately failed project which could have been much better if not EDF incompetence
Post reply on HN