Switzerland Is Paying Poorer Nations to Cut Emissions on Its Behalf

Again. If the greens are so powerful as to single handedly set the policy of a government whose leader was working for a russian gas company, why is beef, plastic, coal, and driving still a thing? Why did they make a massive investment in gas and cancel large portions of the renewable program? Why is a massive multi trillion dollar industry backed by the militaries of the most powerful countries in the world powerless in the face of a party that can barely hold a few seats?

The reality is the PWR industry is just a bunch of liars, grifters and scammers that came into a cash cow as part of a program to force tax payers to fund weapons programs, and now they're crying because they didn't get to have a turn raping and destroying the planet and forcing every government on the planet to be subservient to Framatome, Urenco and Rosatom. Fossil fuel interests are amplifying their voice because they know every dollar spent on PWRs is a watt of fossil fuels that won't be replaced.

> We'll have such reactors long before we run out of uranium. And once operational, they will be able to use the stored waste from the non breeder reactors as fuel.

The most optimistic programs have breeders just barely producing a surplus in an experimental reactor in the late 2030s. You can't produce 100t of fuel for a PWR in a reactor that produces 30t and needs 28t for itself. PWRs are completely irrelevant for power generation and if your goal is to promote nuclear power rather than grift more money you'd be pushing for completely defunding all of the reactors in construction and planning and putting the money into breeder development.

> and especially if that were combined with next gen nuclear tech got anywhere close to as much funding as solar/wind for deploying generation potential, the technology would have rapidly progressed, and today would dominate energy sources.

It did. It's had trillions of dollars poured into it. Nothing happened. Noone in the nuclear industry wants it to happen because it would end the grift, and no-one in the military or government wants it to happen because any country with one can build bombs. China's probably the only exception because they mostly use their small minority of nuclear reactors for power (with a little bit of geopolitical domination on the side). The similar trillions poured into renewables created working power infrastructure the whole time, and now the cost is approaching the cost of just the steam generator portion.

Plenty of studies look at renewables through rose colored glasses and are funded by groups with ideological agendas and financial conflicts of interest. This study is quite sober compared to them.

The study projects out the costs of going 100% renewable in Minnesota as the current plan calls for, so the assumption of 3x penetration is appropriate. I also don't see the basis for your claim that it triples/quadruples costs.

>>by fossil fuel interest

Which fossil fuel interests?

The study says that Minnesota could achieve the 100% zero carbon goal without unduly burdering the state's residents if it depends on hydroelectric and nuclear, neither of which is fossil fuel.

That's a really bad report.

"We don't need Californian solutions in Minnesota" is not the kind of argument you want to be making if you want to be taken seriously as an objective source.

Why isn't renewables a Texas solution? They got help from someone in Texas to write this and Texas has lots of renewables.

> Because greens don't have the political capital to institute a zero tolerance policy toward fossil fuels, and probably don't want to implement such a policy as it would mean their standard of living would regress 80 years.

So you agree that the power to stop it didn't come from the greens but from general political will and the complete lack of any economic or practical viability? Good.

> My understanding was that breeder reactors are already producing surpluses and the only issue being that they're not economical because they have higher capital costs and it's cheaper to just enrich or use more uranium.

Give me a single example of a breeder reactor running a full load of fuel without prolonged shutdowns for repairs or to deal with it catching fire in breeding mode and coming out with more. It hasn't happened. A reactor that could, in principle, breed if it was operated completely differently like BN-800 whicb has the primary function of destroying plutonium doesn't count.

> I know this is not true but I'm open to seeing any credible source that proves me otherwise.

Phenix, Superphenix, the french MOX program (which existed only to serve Phenix and cost even more), IFR, the BN series.. the list is very long. They cost tens of billions each.