5 ms·

Energy security is something I expect the government to invest my tax dollars in especially energy generation that is resilient to international politics and re

Energy 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 3mo ago
Then 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 3mo ago
  >Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. What on earth are you talking about?
  - Arodex 3mo ago
    Slight 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 3mo ago
      I 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 3mo ago
        https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam-roasts.amp https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam...
        s1artibartfast 3mo ago
        Relevance? That's not proof that we are teetering on the edge of that with a proposed nuclear reactor
    - palata 3mo 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.
      - Arodex 3mo ago
        No, it isn't a made-up number. We know pretty well when do fishes die en masse, as we have seen it in periods of extreme heat before. The research has been done and is how the limits have been defined.
        palata 3mo ago
        Are you saying that the limit is set to exactly when fishes die en masse, so if we raise the limit by 0.0001 degree they will actually die en masse? Or did we choose an arbitrary number that is lower than that limit, with some arbitrary margin?
    - Moldoteck 3mo ago
      The impact is 0.2% of annual power in France in units without cooling towers during a period of overcapacity. The statement is pure inflamatory nonsense
- ttoinou 3mo ago
  You can make decades stocks of the fissile source
  - Arodex 3mo ago
    What is the cost of storing fissile radioactive material? This is making less and less economic sense. All paid by public money.
    - Moldoteck 3mo ago
      not much at all
- BJones12 3mo ago
  > has no uranium and no strong relationship with an uranium-producing country The uranium-producing countries are Kazakhstan, Canada, and Namibia. There is zero chance that you cannot get one of those to sell to you. > Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. Wut?
  - Arodex 3mo ago
    If you don't know that nuclear plants are routinely shut down in the heat of summer because the cooling water is too hot, you should learn more before opining on the topic. See this comment for more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48589742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48589742
- eightysixfour 3mo ago
  > 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. It is reasonable to have a many-year strategic reserve of uranium for what you need. A modern reactor is going to go through 20 tonnes of enriched fuel a year and they refuel every 18-24 months. 5-10 years of security and stability is much, much better than oil and gas. > 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 There isn't enough room in my house for anymore people but there's enough room for a new couch. How can these things both be true? Probably because the two have entirely different requirements and "there isn't room" is shorthand for many, many things. Not saying they're right, just that this is a bad counter argument, especially since the alternatives all have the same problem. > Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. Yes, you need water capacity for cooling, about 2x as much as a gas plant for the same output. Definitely a trade-off. I don't know or care enough about Swiss water access to argue here.
- Moldoteck 3mo ago
  nuclear requires least amount of materials and hence imports per kwh. It in fact is one of the best option. "Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes." - what an inflamatory nonsense. Plants without cooling towers are modulated. Plants with cooling towers have marginal impact of less than +0.2dg if we look at french Garone with 4 units.

Energy 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 3mo ago

Then 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 3mo ago
>Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. What on earth are you talking about?
- Arodex 3mo ago
  Slight 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 3mo ago
    I 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 3mo ago
      https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam-roasts.amp https://phys.org/visualstories/2024-05-mass-fish-die-vietnam...
      - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
        Relevance? That's not proof that we are teetering on the edge of that with a proposed nuclear reactor
  - palata 3mo 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.
    - Arodex 3mo ago
      No, it isn't a made-up number. We know pretty well when do fishes die en masse, as we have seen it in periods of extreme heat before. The research has been done and is how the limits have been defined.
      - palata 3mo ago
        Are you saying that the limit is set to exactly when fishes die en masse, so if we raise the limit by 0.0001 degree they will actually die en masse? Or did we choose an arbitrary number that is lower than that limit, with some arbitrary margin?
  - Moldoteck 3mo ago
    The impact is 0.2% of annual power in France in units without cooling towers during a period of overcapacity. The statement is pure inflamatory nonsense
ttoinou 3mo ago
You can make decades stocks of the fissile source
- Arodex 3mo ago
  What is the cost of storing fissile radioactive material? This is making less and less economic sense. All paid by public money.
  - Moldoteck 3mo ago
    not much at all
BJones12 3mo ago
> has no uranium and no strong relationship with an uranium-producing country The uranium-producing countries are Kazakhstan, Canada, and Namibia. There is zero chance that you cannot get one of those to sell to you. > Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. Wut?
- Arodex 3mo ago
  If you don't know that nuclear plants are routinely shut down in the heat of summer because the cooling water is too hot, you should learn more before opining on the topic. See this comment for more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48589742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48589742
eightysixfour 3mo ago
> 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. It is reasonable to have a many-year strategic reserve of uranium for what you need. A modern reactor is going to go through 20 tonnes of enriched fuel a year and they refuel every 18-24 months. 5-10 years of security and stability is much, much better than oil and gas. > 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 There isn't enough room in my house for anymore people but there's enough room for a new couch. How can these things both be true? Probably because the two have entirely different requirements and "there isn't room" is shorthand for many, many things. Not saying they're right, just that this is a bad counter argument, especially since the alternatives all have the same problem. > Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes. Yes, you need water capacity for cooling, about 2x as much as a gas plant for the same output. Definitely a trade-off. I don't know or care enough about Swiss water access to argue here.
Moldoteck 3mo ago
nuclear requires least amount of materials and hence imports per kwh. It in fact is one of the best option. "Nuclear will also boil over Swiss rivers and shallow lakes." - what an inflamatory nonsense. Plants without cooling towers are modulated. Plants with cooling towers have marginal impact of less than +0.2dg if we look at french Garone with 4 units.