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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#911

Post by Moldoteck »

Kon5ole wrote: post #818
noosphr wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

You do realize that existing swiss plants don't get CFD's right?

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#912

Post by Moldoteck »

DownGoat wrote: post #297
t1234s wrote: post #184

Switzerland seems like a country where they wouldn't have trouble hiring enough very responsible serious people capable of running nuclear plants. Aside from being able to acquire fuel is there any reason they are not near 100% nuclear?

They built their existing nuclear plant in order to hide their nuclear weapons program. So the point really wasn’t energy generation. Nuclear weapons is the main reason countries build nuclear power.

what a nonsense. Weapons are unrelated to PWR's due to parasitic isotopes. If you want wpn you build much cheaper enrichment facility just for that.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#913

Post by Moldoteck »

jurgenaut23 wrote: post #368

Lots of people in this thread look at this as a pro/anti-nuclear debate. But few people consider the fact that the first election from the said nuclear plant will be produced 25 years from now in the very best case. Plus, nuclear plants have a huge cooling problem during summertime.

They don't have a huge cooling problem. It's a nonsense repeated again and again without understanding the details. In France it impacts 0.2% of annual production to save fish during a period of high overcapacity that France is eager to export. It happens only in plants without cooling tower (except Garone for it's specifics).

Even if nuclear comes after 25y it's still welcome - much better than Germany building gas plants to firm renewables

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#914

Post by Moldoteck »

KeiferWise wrote: post #762

Everyone here is arguing about solar vs nuclear like it's an either-or thing. everyone in the energy industry (who's not biased) knows that a healthy mix of different fuel types depending on various factors is the way to go.

It's exactly this way now - Switzerland has a healthy mix

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#915

Post by Moldoteck »

bbu wrote: post #26

that's just lifting the ban and is pure virtue signaling. none of the electricity producers in switzerland actually want build nuclear power plants, because they are way too expensive.

If ppl vote positive, it'll probably be built just like Sweden is advancing despite Vatenfall initially being against

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#916

Post by Moldoteck »

dukoid wrote: post #134
Zigurd wrote: post #107

This is at best the concept of a vibe shift. Even if they started sprinting now, it would be 20 years before anyone would see the results of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear is so much more expensive than solar and wind that building one is certain to raise electricity prices.

It's why big oil loves it: We need to do nothing now because nuclear is coming "soon"

Big oil loves to dismantle nuclear like in Germany and later push for gas expansion to firm renewables like in Germany. Big oil hates when countries like France/Sweden decarbonize in record time

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#917

Post by Moldoteck »

thelastgallon wrote: post #580

Don't worry about nuclear waste. Its a solved problem. Musk can take it with him on his weekly trips to Mars which he should be starting anytime soon.

No, it'll be stored in TerraDura just like in Onkalo or like Germany has biggest facility for toxic chemicals on the planet

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#918

Post by Moldoteck »

pfdietz wrote: post #370
SXX wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biggest problem is that people not aware of how many closed down or not built nuclear power plants been replaced with coal power plants. And coal kills more people in a week than all nuclear incidents killed in all history of humanity. Not even mention that coal power plants release more radioactive materials too.

Which nuclear plants were replaced with coal plants? If you say "German plants", I'll point out coal consumption for power generation in Germany has gone down since the decision to phase out nuclear. Coal consumption would likely have gone down even more with nuclear still being used, but that doesn't support your claim as stated.

Germany has coal and no nuclear? Each MW of closed nuclear could have erased that coal. As simple as that. You can come with mental gymnastics but it doesnt change the fact Germany still has coal.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#919

Post by Moldoteck »

pfdietz wrote: post #758
jrflowers wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you call it when you turn off a nuclear power plant and then turn on a coal power plant? This isn’t rocket surgery. If Germany eventually got more renewables, great. That does not retroactively mean that they didn’t replace nuclear with coal. That’s just replacing nuclear with coal and then doing something else afterward . It’s like if someone left their first wife and got married to someone else, then did th…

> What do you call it when you turn off a nuclear power plant and then turn on a coal power plant? This isn’t rocket surgery. Still waiting for examples of countries that did that. Also, that's not replacing nuclear with coal. Plants age out and are replaced even if one is not replacing one kind with the other. We retire pickup trucks and build sports cars; that doesn't mean sports cars are replacing pickup trucks.

IT IS REPLACING. If you had nuclear plants that worked fine (highest CF globally probably after US), some even not reaching 40y (when most are extended to 60-80y) and you retire them instead of retiring coal, it means coal replaced nuclear. This is not hard to comprehend. You as a country have a choice - retire coal/gas or retire nuclear. Germany made it's choice and paid heavily https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-025-01002-z And now Germany must build new gas plants to replace that leftover coal

Antinuclear movement in Denmark put a ban on construction and guess what happened later? DK became one of the biggest coal consumers on the planet with newly built coal plants.

France got a bit of antinuclear frenzy too by dismantling 2 Fassenheim units to allow connection of Flamanville. All this instead of retiring the leftover gas/coal capacity.

Spain retired several nuclear units before all coal and gas capacity too.

Re: Swiss parliament lifts ban on new nuclear power plants

#920

Post by Moldoteck »

Kon5ole wrote: post #420
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 feel the same frustration but for the opposite reason. I am entirely confident you must be misinformed, not me. I suggest you read actual bookkeeping statements from nuclear operators, national budget items, historical records about radiation incidents, nuclear deposits, agreement texts and the like, instead of reading books that can only be true if they adhere to the information in such sources. - nuclear power is…

Nuclear was safe even considering gen2 units which were not subject to all curent requirements. But the biggest impact is supply chain, not regulation.

"Of course it is. Malicious actors can kill millions with the amount of nuclear waste generated daily." - ah yes. And a meteor can kill the entire earth. What's the possibility?

Entire US interim storage of commercial waste costs merely 0.5bn/y until a final repository is built like in Finland. That's dirt cheap.

Nuclear is statistically safe as you said, even accounting with major incidents. Nuclear requires least mining, materials, land per kwh - can be proven too and has one of the lowest env impact per UNECE.

It's your choice to be antinuclear but the data is clear - have the world followed the french/swedish path - we'll not talk about climate change in it's current form. We also know what an antinuclear path leads to - both in Germany and even Denmark which still can't reach french emissions and started pissing off neighbors montelnews.com/news/0138d712-3afd-4590-883e-4b9221fd776a/norways-ruling-party-rejects-renewal-of-denmark-cables https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-pauses-plans-...

Post reply on HN