Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#771

Post by inigyou » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

UltraSane wrote: post #761

inigyou wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American regime has recently solved this problem by removing safety requirements - they have de-recognized the linear no-threshold model of radiation damage, which means the official fact is that there is a threshold of radiation that's safe to receive. That threshold is, of course, just above whatever one of the nuclear reactors they're about to build will emit. They removed the "as low as reasonably possible" d…

The linear no threshold model is not supported by actual evidence. More accurate models include Linear-Quadratic (LQ) Model Threshold Model Hormesis model The linear no-threshold model is less realistic than threshold or hormesis-based models: An evolutionary perspective https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000927971... "They removed the "as low as reasonably possible" design goal which means it's now a…

Sounds like it wasn't reasonably possible?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#772

Post by lightedman » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:46 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #568

lightedman wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What is it computing up there." Hyperspectral satellite imagery - think ASTER/LANDSAT/MODIS but more modern, for surficial minerals study. "How did you get it up?" How else? Paid a rocket company to launch it into orbit after proving various flightworthiness tests and getting various certifications and permissions from relevant gov't authorities. "How does one usually talk with their satellite. I guess you don't mer…

Right, so a regular satellite. That's indeed as relevant to the multi-100kW-scale "space datacenter" idiots like Musk are proposing as naval SMRs are to commercial power plants.

All satellites are regular satellites, there is literally nothing special about anything in orbit outside of what it carries - it's still just a falling body in space.

100kw is literally nothing to generate in space. At typical silicon efficiencies that's football field in size, and about 70% that if you jump to more expensive multi-junction cells. I can make a folding panel the size of a compact car that'd unfurl out to cover that. That's maybe 4 hours in NX just retooling my current design. The only limitation is the capabilities of the launch vehicle.

I've already got one small (single 4U) datacenter in orbit. It works. It works GREAT. It can scale up to constellation quantity.

And I don't have to waste any water for cooling or constantly pollute the air for power generation or throw extra waste heat into our atmosphere, as a side bonus.

It makes plenty of sense to those with the education. What's hilarious is I'm doing all this on a GED.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#773

Post by mpweiher » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #753

mpweiher wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe Who said that? What are you talking about? How is a solar panel even on the same safety-shelf with nuclear material?? What are you talking about?? > A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011. Which is again related to the Astroturf tactic of playing nuclear vs. coal and is not related to toda…

> Who said [that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe]?

Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that.

Empirically. Completely independent of whether you understand how.

And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year, 2025 was another record production year, the number of states adopting nuclear power is rising, the number of reactors is rising, the number of builds is rising, the rate of the increase in number of builds is rising.

Empirically.

And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels. Which is why almost all industrialized nations are doing nuclear AND renewables.

Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive.

In the real world they are complementary. Here's the Finnish environment minister:

"If we consider the [consumption] growth figures, the question isn't whether it's wind or nuclear power. We need both," Mykkänen said at a press conference on Tuesday morning.

He added that Finland's newest nuclear reactor, Olkiluoto 3, enabled the expansion of the country's wind power infrastructure. Nuclear power, he said, is needed to counterbalance output fluctuations of wind turbines.

https://yle.fi/a/74-20136905

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#774

Post by mpweiher » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:53 PM UTC

Jolter wrote: post #719

mpweiher wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The part I explained: disposal is, unlike your claim, not a significant part of total cost of nuclear power.

Therefore, even assuming for a second your counterfactual that nuclear power isn't cost-competitive, it wouldn't be due to the disposal costs.

Of course it's also not true that nuclear isn't cost competitive. It absolutely is.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#775

Post by bryanlarsen » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:53 PM UTC

throw0101c wrote: post #545

pocksuppet wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you trust that any of today's politicians will not be poor at nuclear reactor design and management?

> Do you trust that any of today's politicians will not be poor at nuclear reactor design and management? As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, where 50% of all electricity currently comes from nuclear power: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data?type=supply I have no problem with getting more CANDU reactors (which is the current plan).

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.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#776

Post by bryanlarsen » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

throw0101c wrote: post #559

moogly wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technology is so unbelievably safe and efficient these days I think you mean unbelievably expensive and takes an eternity to build outside of China and Korea.

> I think you mean unbelievably expensive and takes an eternity to build outside of China and Korea. Japan was able to start construction on a new nuclear reactor and have its construction (and start commercial service) with-in five years, and did so every year from the mid-1980s to the early-2000s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... The first unit you build will be expensive, the secon…

The 5 years of construction is the fast part. How many years of planning and permits did it take before they broke ground?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#777

Post by Krasnol » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #746

Krasnol wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know it will still be properly monitored in 100 years? What about 1000? How would you know if there are even people left who know what it is?? May be societal collapse isn't a problem. Maybe we're having a nice new beginning but someone finds some nice, warm stuff?

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?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#778

Post by triceratops » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #304

triceratops wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not asking where they got funding. I'm asking why anyone else listened to them on this topic alone . You don't find that strange at all? The elites, powers that be, whatever you want to call them, had their own reasons for killing nuclear power. And nuclear's economics, compared to fossil fuels, didn't make it a slam dunk to adopt despite powerful opposition. So it had no one to defend it. Environmentalists weren…

> I'm asking why anyone else listened to them on this topic alone First, it wasn't this topic alone; whaling too. You also don't need 100% of people to listen. You just need to shift from 45% to 55%. If people were already skeptical about nuclear because they conflate nuclear weapons and nuclear power, then they only need to shift ~10% on the issue. And money gets their message out much stronger. > That had the doubl…

> And money gets their message out much stronger

And yet you blame the messenger more than the money. If environmentalists didn't exist do you think fossil fuel wouldn't have found a different way to get the message out there? When money talks, people listen.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#779

Post by bryanlarsen » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 2:00 PM UTC

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…

That's because the utility went bankrupt and its construction costs were absorbed onto the public debt.

Nuclear is cheap to operate. It's expensive to build and expensive to decommission. Any analysis that doesn't include those two costs is highly misleading.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#780

Post by triceratops » Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 2:00 PM UTC

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #430

triceratops wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s only expensive and brittle because environmentalists have choked it to death How did they succeed with nuclear energy but fail so miserably with everything else - fossil fuels, meat, even whaling?

It’s easy to make the general public fearful of nuclear because they have no direct experience with it in daily life.

People take on dangers all the time if the benefit (perceived or otherwise) outweighs the risk. That just tells me nuclear's economics didn't make it a clear winner over fossil fuels.

It's just weird to me that environmentalists get blamed for killing nuclear more than the group that actually made it happen and had something to gain - the fossil fuel industry. They funded the environmentalists to protest against it, and they funded the politicians to write laws against it.