4 ms·
Citizens should take note that no nuclear plants are ever built without many billions in state loans and guarantees. It's not a cheap source of electricity, it
by Kon5ole 4mo ago
Citizens should take note that no nuclear plants are ever built without many billions in state loans and guarantees.
It's not a cheap source of electricity, it's a way for someone to get money from taxpayers to subsidize their business.
- doublepg23 4mo ago..as opposed to other green energy programs that received no government investment? ...or the externality-free fossil fuel industry?
- paytonjjones 4mo agoPor que no los dos?
- functionmouse 4mo agoIs that meaningfully different than modern coal and natural gas plants?
- eightysixfour 4mo agoEnergy security is something I expect the government to invest my tax dollars in especially energy generation that is resilient to international politics and reduced carbon emissions.
- Arodex 4mo agoThen nuclear isn't it. Switzerland has no uranium and no strong relationship with an uranium-producing country. They also regularly antagonise the EU (especially the far-right isolationisz SVP/UDC, which is... pro-nuclear, of course) which controls every way fission products could be brought inside Switzerland. The same far-right country is also the one who wanted to cap the population because "there isn't room anymore", but I guess there is now room for massive nuclear plants and the storage of fuel and spent fuel shrugs Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes.
- suddenlybananas 4mo ago>Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. What on earth are you talking about?
- Arodex 4mo agoSlight hyperbole, but nuclear reactors in Switzerland and France shut down more and more often because the water needed to cool them down is already too hot: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-adaptation/beznau-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down-one-of-its-reactors-due-to-the-heat/89617209 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-adaptation/beznau-nucle... It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers.
- s1artibartfast 4mo agoI think it would be more accurate to say "avoid killing the most vulnerable life" crossing the line would not be the end of the world.
- Arodex 4mo agohttps://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam-roasts.amp https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam...
- s1artibartfast 4mo agoRelevance? That's not proof that we are teetering on the edge of that with a proposed nuclear reactor
- palata 4mo ago> It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers. Note though that those limits exist just like the emission limits for WiFi: it was a sane number when it was decided. It's not clear at all that raising the temperature a little more will "kill all life in the rivers". It would probably deserve some research.
- kdheiwns 4mo agoThat's what infrastructure is, yes.
- hereme888 4mo agoThe estimated levelized cost of electricity changes dramatically with financing cost: from roughly the low-$100s/MWh under cheap capital to well above $200/MWh under high capital-cost assumptions. But wasn't that the case for wind and solar too?
- Kon5ole 4mo agoFor solar I believe it's profitable without subsidies in most parts of the world by now. It's the fastest growing power source by far worldwide and it wouldn't be if it had to be financed by subsidies. I don't know enough about wind to say either way about that. But both wind and solar have the benefit of being able to just abandon the plants if they turn out to lose money. Which you of course cannot do with a nuclear plant. Rancho Seco in the US has had a taxpayer financed security crew for 36 years without producing any electricity. That costs eats away at the profits (if any) generated by the plant when it was operational, but nobody keeps track of that. The costs are not relevant to the nuclear operator and are not retroactively counted as costs for the electricity, since the government pays. But they pay with our money. And our children's money. And their children's money.
- hereme888 4mo agoWell, wind and solar were absolutely subsidy-driven. The difference is that after subsidies, they became cheap and modular, and I hope nuclear becoming modular and cheaper as well. Rancho Seco.... what an insane story. Didn't know about that. So if your have a bad nuclear project, people are basically stuck with it, unlike replacing solar panels or wind turbines.
- Kon5ole 4mo agoI think it's possible that the actual construction of nuclear power plants could become cheap if they were mass produced, but I don't think that's the real problem. The inherent long-lasting dangers of the fuel and waste are the real cost, and we are still in the first few percent of years where we have to pay for those. In 100 years, the french might be on synthesized fuels from solar and there will be a multibillion budget post dealing with the old nuclear plants that haven't generated anything for years. Many plants are in the "downpayment of the construction costs" phase and current calculations are made on the idea that once paid for, nuclear is cheap. But that's not true. There are costs for every nuclear plant that will come due 50-70-100+ years down the line and they are very rarely considered. The "stuck with it" aspect is what bugs me the most. Once a few politicians today decide to get rich from building nuclear, many, many generations of people are robbed from the ability to make any decision on the matter afterwards. They get stuck with it.
- testing22321 4mo agoAlso absolutely minimum of 20 years to build it. So this is fixing nothing short term.
- cloudie78 4mo agoYou 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 to think beyond a 4 year horizon or not.
- dukoid 4mo agoShow us just a single NPP that is properly insured
- cloudie78 4mo agoSlovenia - Krško nuclear power plant. I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
- selimthegrim 4mo agoYou mean the one Croatia was supposed to be on the hook for half of?
- Moldoteck 4mo agopretty much all
- esarbe 4mo agoThere'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, upgrades, refits and infrastructure. Nuclear is just not worth the hassle.
- zchrykng 4mo ago
- ttoinou 4mo agoCould we try to make companies compete and reduce a bit the amount of corruption ? Note that it’s similar with eoliens wind turbines, they are heavily subsidized
- palata 4mo agoCannot be worse than wasting many billions in F35s, can it?
- dolia 4mo agoAre you opposed to F35s only or to army spendings in general?
- palata 4mo agoNot opposed to defence in principle. But Switzerland's army has proven, repeatedly these last few years, that they are incompetent. From understanding a multi-billions contract before signing it to selecting relevant technology (drones that fundamentally cannot fly in a civilian airspace, etc). Not only incompetent: the way the F35 was handled really looks like corruption from the outside. And for some reason the head of the defence ministry AND the head of the army left not so long after that...
- noosphr 4mo agoJust like solar then. Or are we only happy with state subsidies when China does it?
- Kon5ole 4mo agoI 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 good example of the latter.
- Moldoteck 4mo agoYou do realize that existing swiss plants don't get CFD's right?
- Moldoteck 4mo agoIt's not like Germany is not subsidizing renewables and building gas plants in parallel to firm them... Entire EEG is already double the price of entire french nuclear fleet...