It is sad that this has become a topic of the culture wars. Nothing good comes out of this, certainly not a rational weighing of the pros and cons of nuclear power.
I’m particularly interested in how they plan to finance reactors in a grid dominated by solar. I wouldn’t be surprised if they legally allow the building of new reactors but then fail to find investors. But perhaps they plan on using them as some sort of strategic assets and will just run them at a loss?
Time and demographics are also a component. Italy is old, has worker shortages for living wage work (and is currently issuing ~500k work visas over three years to attract labor to the market), and a new nuclear generator takes at least ten years to build. Each year, an additional 1TW of solar will be deployed globally. Solar panel prices have fallen by around 20% every time global capacity doubled.
> 49% of Italy’s electricity was generated from low-carbon sources in 2025, below the EU average of 71%. As of 1 January 2026, Italy was aiming for 69% of renewable electricity generation by 2030. For the country’s latest renewables targets, see our 2030 Global Renewable Target Tracker.
Record 2026 summer heat impaired nuclear generation in France, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, so I'd be curious how they intend to solve for that as the climate continues to warm (reduced capacity factor from reduced output due to cooling constraints impairs the economics).
France to Upgrade Heat Wave Modeling After Record Nuclear Curbs - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49790006">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49790006 - September 2026
Europe's Heatwaves Are Putting Nuclear Power Under Pressure - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49466909">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49466909 - August 2026
Bulgaria's Nuclear Plant Plans First Output Cut Due to Low Danube - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49376860">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49376860 - August 2026
Record heat is drying up Europe's major rivers, as these striking images show - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283344">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283344 - August 2026
Bloomberg: Hungary Casts Doubt on Nuclear Plant Expansion After Danube Low Levels - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-13/hungary-casts-doubt-on-nuclear-plant-expansion-after-danube-woes" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-13/hungary-c... - August 13th, 2026
Italy to issue half million non-EU work visas over next three years - <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/italy-issue-half-million-non-eu-work-visas-over-next-three-years-2025-06-30/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/italy-issue-half-million-non-e... - June 30th, 2025
It is actually an enemy of nuclear, economically. Solar is so cheap, it will naturally grow until it satisfies 100% of the daytime load. This pushes nuclear off the grid during the day - it’s power costs too much. But nukes need to be running and selling at 100% 24/7 to have any chance of breaking even.
This is what the OP means - they make no economic sense on most modern grids.
Wind and solar generated more power than fossil fuels in the EU for the first time in 2025 - <a href="https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-generated-more-power-than-fossil-fuels-in-the-eu-for-the-first-time-in-2025/" rel="nofollow">https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-gener... - January 22nd, 2026
> Wind and solar overtaking fossil fuels in 2025 can be largely attributed to a staggering rise in solar power. Solar grew by more than a fifth (+20.1%) for the fourth year running. It generated a record 13% of EU power in 2025, above both coal and hydro. This trend was widespread: all EU countries saw growth in solar generation compared to the year before, amid a huge expansion in EU solar installations. Solar provided more than a fifth of electricity in Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands. Renewables provided nearly half of EU power (48%) as unusual weather conditions caused hydro generation to fall by 12% and wind by 2%, but boosted solar generation. Wind remained the second largest EU electricity source at 17% of EU power, generating more than gas. Signs of a structural shift are clear across the EU, as wind and solar generated more electricity than all fossil sources in 14 of the 27 EU countries in 2025. Over the past five years, wind and solar have experienced massive growth (from 20% in 2020 to 30% in 2025). Fossil fuels have fallen from 37% to 29% in the same period, while hydro and nuclear remained stable or slightly declined.
<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci... (installed solar energy capacity goes brrr)
We need to increase energy output by an order of magnitude in order to upgrade civilization to the next level. Does solar offer a pathway to doing that today, once you account for the costs of battery storage?
Nuclear, moreover, keeps us on the tech tree for space exploration. I don’t think solar is going to lead us to fusion or antimatter powered spaceships.
To produce 10x the current power demand with nuclear you’d need breeder reactors or perhaps thorium unless you want to run out of fuel rather quickly. That’s not what is being proposed here.
I also don’t believe that fission, fusion or antimatter are on the same branch of the tech tree.
> I also don’t believe that fission, fusion or antimatter are on the same branch of the tech tree.
I mean, you need to radiation-harden your structural materials and electronics for both fission and fusion, and some hypothetical antimatter reactor is probably using an evolutionary version of EM confinement techniques from fusion.
But, yes, fission reactors are ultimately kind of ooga-booga (put a pile of metal in some water and run a steam engine) that's hard to characterize as on track for something sci-fi like an antimatter reactor.
Total world energy usage is about 1/10,000 what the sun provides. Bumping that up an order of magnitude means 1/1,000 instead. Seems reasonable for solar.
I don’t see research into fission power doing anything useful for spacecraft. The big bottleneck right now is getting stuff to orbit. The rest is easy, relatively speaking. And getting stuff to orbit is not practical with nuclear unless you use something like Orion, which has some downsides to put it mildly, and is already doable with 1950s tech.
Why shouldn't our civilization be defined by how efficiently we use the energy we gather? Or the lifespan and health of our citizens?
Claiming that the sum of a civilization is how much energy it controls is just a meme from the 50's. It's a shitty, short-sighted metric. One that would consider building a nuclear reactor and dumping the power into a bank of resistors as contributing "more progress" than growing abundant food, or protecting the ecosystem.
It's our civilization, we can define progress however we want.
If you're asking why we would want to progress as a species, I suppose that's a rather subjective question. I like the idea of materially improving the lives of humans. That includes scientific discoveries, curing ageing and other diseases, space exploration and interplanetary colonisation, material abundance like unlimited food, etc. We don't achieve this unless we make major technological advancements, and this requires major new sources of energy.
You’ve got it backwards. The Star Trek universe is depicted as originating out of a recognizable United States. Warp Drive was of course, invented by a Musk-like individual in Montana, not a committee or government. Cochrane is depicted as having no particular moral philosophy and as having invented warp drive in pursuit of profit. It’s very clear that post scarcity came first and the socialist/military model came afterwards.
It’s notable that while Roddenberry had various humanist philosophies, TOS and TNG more than anything resemble the U.S. military officer culture, reflecting his Air Force service. You’ll see the exact same culture if you walk into an officer’s club at the U.S. Naval Academy.
I'm not sure I want to argue how a fictional universe's fictional history is arranged.
I can tell you however, that in the real world, with real incentive structures, if we remove scarcity before we fix ownership, we will get a few feudal lords and the rest of us lacking any leverage their dependence on labour used to give us and dependent on their (historically rather limited) charity.
You cannot have a Star Trek future if you don't fix the social part first. Technological progress will make the social issues worse otherwise. There is no point of technological progress that will magically make the rich and powerful suddenly give up their wealth and power. Maybe in a made-up world, people are less power hungry and greedy. In the real one, more technology owned by a few effectively means that their concentration of wealth and power will just keep increasing at the expense of everyone else.
Your theory is contrary to the evidence of history. Technological progress makes people more free, not less. 500 years ago, you would have been a serf and your life would be literally worthless. In much of the undeveloped world, that’s still true.
> And 30 years ago you could still afford a house.
It is the people, who had build houses 30 years ago, and who set a price for those houses. Then came the government and start to regulate, redistribute, optimize and improve housing. And We live with the results.
The industrial revolution begot the labor movement, which is what caused greater freedom.
It could do that because of the dependence on labor for production, or in other words leverage over the ownership class.
If we accelerate technology to the point where we sever this dependency, all those freedoms will no longer have the leverage required to extract them. Our lives didn't become not worthless because of the steam machine. They became not worthless because of leverage over capital reproduction, and once that's gone they may well become worthless again.
Technology doesn't cause freedom, or at least not directly. Social relations and power dynamics do. Technology just drives those.
I think you're both right in different ways. Some labour movements were not dependent on technological advancement. Some technological advancements materially and independently improved the lives of people. The contraceptive pill gave women much greater control over the timing of pregnancy. [Its diffusion substantially affected women's investment in professional careers and the timing of marriage.](<a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w7527" rel="nofollow">https://www.nber.org/papers/w7527) Medical and reproductive technologies played an important role in increasing married women's ability to participate in paid work. Those are changes in actual individual choice brought about, in significant part, by technology.
However if we circle back to your original comment that social change (and I'm reading that as some form of communism) is required before technology delivers material abundance, then I feel compelled to remind you that the last 37 times humanity attempted this, it failed so spectacularly that 100+ million people died. I think it's clear that whatever the nuance of this discussion, communism (or whatever aphorism you prefer) is incompatible with scarce resources. I therefore argue that the abundance must come first.
So I think abundance completely changes the game and I think we can all agree on that.
I would argue that if we get abundance before fundamentally changing ownership structures, we will get a handful of people that control said abundance and with that, have basically infinite leverage over the rest of humanity.
Labor will no longer be required for their productive needs, so that handful of people that controls the abundance machines will no longer have any incentive to keep the rest of humanity satisfied, or even alive for that matter.
In other words, if we don't change social relations before we get to this state, we will end up in a world where the Musks, Bezos and Zucks of this world control all material production, with the rest of us reduced to being dependent on their charity.
Personally, that sounds like the worst dystopia imaginable.
I will give you that prior attempts at socialism weren't necessarily successful and a lot of people died, however, I also think that argument requires holding one eye shut.
People are dying from capitalism right now. There's a homeless guy in SoMa that is breathing his last breath as we speak. There's entire villages in Africa that can't afford clean water while Nestle sells it in plastic bottles that pollute our planet. The status quo is not without its own violence and I think that is a point that too often gets swept under the rug.
Either way though, I think even if I were to concede that capitalism historically had better outcomes (which I have not been fully sold on! it's positives have just been more articulated imo, but that's another debate.), we are in a critical moment right now.
If we really believe we're to transition into a post-scarcity world, we need to make sure the right social relations are in place before that happens and whatever we have right now is locked in forever.
All criticism of socialism's supposed productive ineffectiveness becomes irrelevant once the transition is done anyways.
> I would argue that if we get abundance before fundamentally changing ownership structures, we will get a handful of people that control said abundance and with that, have basically infinite leverage over the rest of humanity.
It's a valid concern. We use democracy right now to address inequality. Are you concerned that those in charge of the abundance machines will create their own nations with militaries to prevent other nations from taking said resources? To this I would respond: there is nothing stopping other nations from building their own abundance machines. As we've seen with AI, distillation cannot be stopped. The knowledge of how to build these machines cannot be censored. Here in Denmark I have high confidence that people will vote to build nationalised abundance machines for the good of all.
Perhaps this is more of a regional risk? There are some nations which culturally value individuality. I'm not sure the U.S. would build national abundance machines.
I think I broadly agree with your thesis, however. Abundance is going to force massive social change. If goods and services are effectively free, most jobs disappear. So too does their income and consumer demand, which destroys the entire premise of capitalism. You might be surprised to learn that Elon Musk believes capitalism will cease to function in the next 10-20 years because of this. So abundance will force us to move to a system which much more closely resembles communism. It's the transition I'm worried about.
When Middle American manufacturing jobs were offshored to China, Hilary Clinton famously laughed at them and told them to "learn to code." I fear many more people whose jobs are lost to AI will be met with similar derision. It is only when things get very bad that change will occur. The Star Trek timeline describes this collapse between 2020s-2053.
> Are you concerned that those in charge of the abundance machines will create their own nations with militaries to prevent other nations from taking said resources?
Even though I'm not too concerned about that specifically, that is clearly a plan they have. [0]
> To this I would respond: there is nothing stopping other nations from building their own abundance machines. As we've seen with AI, distillation cannot be stopped. The knowledge of how to build these machines cannot be censored. Here in Denmark I have high confidence that people will vote to build nationalised abundance machines for the good of all.
I'm not worried about the knowledge. I'm worried about the material conditions. These machines need compute and with that all sorts of inputs. I worry that the first to achieve such an abundance machine will use the abundance generated by it to monopolize control over these inputs.
> You might be surprised to learn that Elon Musk believes capitalism will cease to function in the next 10-20 years because of this. So abundance will force us to move to a system which much more closely resembles communism. It's the transition I'm worried about.
I, too, am worried about the transition, but for different reasons. I believe Elon when he says he believes capitalism will end in a few decades. However, I don't think he has prosperity for all in mind and that end state won't just naturally happen by itself.
I think if we leave the transition to him and his peers, they will use it to build a system where they are untouchable god kings and the rest of us are paupers reduced to their charity.
That, to me, is the core transition risk we need to manage. We need to make sure abundance machines aren't just a device for completely centralizing power in the hands of a few.
> I'm not worried about the knowledge. I'm worried about the material conditions. These machines need compute and with that all sorts of inputs. I worry that the first to achieve such an abundance machine will use the abundance generated by it to monopolize control over these inputs.
I understand. I place less weight into this risk. The current AI supply chain is so globally interdependent that it has effectively distributed itself beyond centralised control. China has received the full weight of global chip sanctions and still somehow manages to provide competitive coding models using either grey imports, offshore cloud compute, or locally produced chips. It would be very difficult (and I would argue almost impossible) for a nation and especially an individual/company to seize ownership of the entire supply chain and prevent everyone else in the world from producing their own AI/chips/abundance machines.
> I think if we leave the transition to him and his peers, they will use it to build a system where they are untouchable god kings and the rest of us are paupers reduced to their charity.
No doubt many people in positions of power are megalomaniacs. This is why I place such emphasis on democracy. This allows the powerless to retain control of their nation and borders.
> This is why I place such emphasis on democracy. This allows the powerless to retain control of their nation and borders.
I think this is also a core part of our disagreement. I think if we allow privatized power structures to grow indefinitely, democracy will no longer be able to constrain them at some point, or they will subvert democracy itself by corrupting elected leadership.
You see both of these in action right now. Think of Elon Musk actively defying Brazilian rule of law [0] or him literally being put into a position where he can neuter the institutions designed to hold him democratically accountable with the DOGE appointment.
To quote MLK - "Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God's children."
I think fundamentally one cannot disentangle democratic control of political power from democratic control of the economy, because economic power can be converted into political power.
> I think this is also a core part of our disagreement. I think if we allow privatized power structures to grow indefinitely, democracy will no longer be able to constrain them at some point, or they will subvert democracy itself by corrupting elected leadership.
I agree there is a risk, and I think defence of democracy should be at the forefront of fighting against the future you fear. I do not think the risk appears at the end of a gun. Rather, via propaganda and corruption. We know how effective propaganda can be, starting with Goebbels and all the way through to social media today. The problem here is that there is no clearly defined solution. Some people prescribe state control of information, which has historically resulted in catastrophic outcomes. Some people prescribe uncensored information to the greatest degree possible, and to the degree we have that today, it's also not working out very well. Perhaps this will be the great question of our time.
For the record, re DOGE, I see that as the people getting what they voted for. Musk campaigned clearly on his intended actions, and for better or worse, a plurality of voters voted for that. We should be careful not to criticise democracy just because voters chose a different direction. However I think this is partly influenced by what I describe above.
> However if we circle back to your original comment that social change (and I'm reading that as some form of communism) is required before technology delivers material abundance, then I feel compelled to remind you that the last 37 times humanity attempted this, it failed so spectacularly that 100+ million people died. I think it's clear that whatever the nuance of this discussion, communism (or whatever aphorism you prefer) is incompatible with scarce resources. I therefore argue that the abundance must come first.
This is somewhat overstating the case, though I currently agree "the abundance must come first".
Capitalism, as it was understood when the Communist Manifesto was written, basically doesn't exist any more. A large subset of what it called for is now so widespread even in "capitalist" nations that the absence of those things is considered a sign of being a failed state.
Yes, there are three primary examples of Communism absolutely failing, hard: Four Pests, Holodomor, and Pol Pot.
The Communist Manifesto was written during the famous potato famine. Less famously, the impact of the blight hurt the Irish much more than other places that were also using potatoes as staple crops, and the British Government of the era (which controlled Ireland) was pursuing laissez-faire capitalism at the time.
Similar (that a capitalist regime was in charge) can be said about subsequent famines in India before independence.
Some say that Communism ended with the USSR, that while modern China uses the name "Communist" for their one-party state it is really state-capitalism. By this standard, capitalism (as the term was understood by Marx et al) ended roughly in the era containing both Roosevelt's New Deal taking root in the USA and the UK's Labour Party replacement of the Liberal Party's position in Westminster.
Roddenberry was interested in communism during his involvement The Next Generation and he insisted that in its fictional world, human society had overcome greed and political polarization. No scripts in which one faction inside human society competed with another were allowed. Somehow over the 100+ episodes of the show, no two workers on the Enterprise ever competed for a promotion. AFAICR the show depicts no corporations, human investors or human merchants, and Cochrane is the only person depicted who might be a human entrepreneur. Also, Roddenberry insisted that human society had done away with money, and he made that stick for the duration of the show.
I was once in a (private) vigorous debate over socialism in which my socialist interlocutor hoped his bringing up the portrayal of human society in Star Trek would get me to warm towards socialism.
Do you really believe that human society as portrayed in The Next Generation was not socialist? (Socialist countries have militaries, too.)
The proper reply to your parent IMHO is that the first two shows of Star Trek are evil propaganda, not that the society depicted in the propaganda is not socialist.
I regret publishing that second paragraph. I knew (or would've known if I had been paying sufficient attention) it would offend many in this audience, and I should've held my tongue.
But I really do believe that Star Trek, specifically the parts that Roddenberry personally oversaw (namely the original series and the first four seasons of The Next Generation) had a very negative effect on the world.
In addition to making some viewers more committed to socialist ideology[1] Roddenberry's Star Trek made many committed to the ideology of technological progress.
Although it can have a beneficial effect on a person, a commitment to an ideology tends to have a deleterious effect on the world when many share a commitment to the same ideology.
[1] In a (private) debate with me, a committed socialist asserted that a successful transition to socialism would result in a society much like the one depicted in Star Trek. Since it is very unlikely that he engaged in many debates about socialism before his debate with me, the reason he believed that that assertion might make me warm to socialism is probably because it had contributed to his own warming to socialism.
> Although it can have a beneficial effect on a person, a commitment to an ideology tends to have a deleterious effect on the world when many share a commitment to the same ideology.
I think you may have fallen victim to a common misconception of how ideology actually functions.
The most affected by ideology aren't the ones consciously committing to a cause. Ideology is strongest precisely when you think you're outside of it - when your ideological commitments have become so normalized that they are completely invisible to you.
There is no such thing as being unideological, whatever you perceive as such is just a reflection of your own ideology.
If you'd like to delve deeper into the theory of ideology and how it functions, I'd recommend the works of philosophy legend and ideology expert Slavoj Zizek.
There's his seminal work, The Sublime Object of Ideology, which goes into this at depth, but is a very dry and academic read. If you'd like something a bit more digestible, I would recommend the movie The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, which uses a more pop-sci approach of dissecting popular movies to demonstrate their ideological function.
I'm pointing at a different thing in the world than you're pointing at.
One reason I know they're different is that the thing I'm pointing at is vastly less influential in some people than other, so much so that it clearly makes sense to call some people "unideological"
I'm willing to switch to a different term for the thing I'm interested in, but I haven't been able to come up with one.
You're right. I had something I really wanted to say, which would have fit into
the conversation if you had said something somewhat similar but actually quite
different from what you actually said, but I overlooked the difference so that
I could say what I really wanted to say.
In other words, I sacrificed the
quality of the conversation (namely, I introduced not only a tangent, but also a tangent rooted in a
confusion) so that I could express some thought that had risen to salience in my solitary mind. My doing that made the conversation worse, and the conversation is what matters, not whether I got to express myself in a way that is quick and easy for me.
> Cochrane is depicted as having no particular moral philosophy and as having invented warp drive in pursuit of profit.
And as a drunk, who got to this stage in the aftermath of WW3, which was definitely not post-scarcity at this point because of how hard it was to "scrounge together enough titanium for the cockpit".
And immediately after the test flight, some pointy-eared vegetarian space Buddhists landed and said hi.
> It’s notable that while Roddenberry had various humanist philosophies, TOS and TNG more than anything resemble the U.S. military officer culture, reflecting his Air Force service. You’ll see the exact same culture if you walk into an officer’s club at the U.S. Naval Academy.
TOS is very much "space is an ocean". NCC-1701 is very obviously a shoe-in for CVN-65, the "colonies" and other locations they visit are scaled more like Pacific islands than planets, the episode with Romulan cloaking device is classic submarine warfare filmography including getting people to be quiet (so the space sonar wouldn't pick them up?)
TNG kept a lot of this, but was also "families on board" from the get-go.
Only a tiny fraction of the Federation's population is part of Star Fleet. There are only a few thousand star ships scattered over thousands of light years. Crew complements are rather small, so at most a single-digit million people are on Star Fleet ships. That's comparable to the size of just the current US military personnel but the Federation has hundreds of planets and many billions of people.
Sir I'd like you to step out of the car and breathe into this Kool-Aid detector.
Planets aren't going to be colonized like colonies were on this Earth. Economic growth and prosperity have decoupled not only from fossil fuels, but it's no longer a function of energy consumption in general. Humans simply do not flourish without the Earth ecosystem. The future you paint here is only credible to 13 year-old boys who just finished their third Jerry Pournelle book.
> The future you paint here is only credible to 13 year-old boys who just finished their third Jerry Pournelle book.
My mom is in her mid 70s and grew up reading Jules Verne and H.G. Wells as a child in Bangladesh. She still imagines a Star Trek future is inevitable. If anything it’s Gen Z that has a small and narrow vision of what’s possible.
And the nuclear power boosters, especially the SMR fans, are riding in the data center slipstream. All kinds of debunked ideas have seen a chance for revival in the AI bubble.
I'm no fun because I've spent a lot of time doing critical path analysis in projects. A lot of planned data centers will never power up because the lead time for gas turbines is a few years now. You can't expect the first SMR to power a data center to come online with in 10 years. And while Bloom has done impressive work making a credible methane fuel cell, they have only a slim chance of scaling up their production to power the big Oracle data center in New Mexico.
There is an exasperating amount of BS to call out on this planet even before we get to wild promises of what's going to be put into orbit or on the moon or on Mars,
There is no incompatibility between "calling out bullshit" and <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .
There is, however, an incompatibility between GGP's rhetoric and the guidelines.
What does that even mean? Will we have no more wars? Will we overcome capitalist ownership structures? Will we save our planets ecosystems from extinction? Will we finally be able to eradicate hunger and homelessness?
Or are we just talking more fancy gadgets for the rich at the expense of all of the above?
What does "Upgrade to the next level" even mean? What next level? Where is the dividing line? Why should we, beside all other concerns there are?
> Does solar offer a pathway to doing that today, once you account for the costs of battery storage?
Trivially. If we push hard, more than three orders of magnitude are possible (even for overall energy use, which is itself around an order of magnitude more than electricity), even without launching anything to orbit.
IMO it's much better if we go to space after the first of those orders of magnitude, rather than pursuing K1 on the ground.
> I don’t think solar is going to lead us to fusion or antimatter powered spaceships.
Solar is as likely as fission to lead to either of these things. Each of the four is a different beast.
Solar is also the only way to scale up to a K2, which would trivially obviate both even when the ships' primary propulsion is solar (laser) sails.
> certainly not a rational weighing of the pros and cons of nuclear power.
Nuclear has no real cons other than time/cost of deployment, and it should be a no brainer for a place like Europe without significant energy resources. Once the power plant is built, it provides 50+ years of nearly free energy. It's that or buying gas from Russia.
Conspiracy hat time: I think this is the main reason it's being pushed so hard. The US and Russia feel threatened by the rise of renewables and will do anything to get countries dependent on them again.
This isn't right, in fact one of the main reasons for building nuclear power plants is independence from politically unstable places like Russia and the Mideast.
There are some better mines in different areas of course, but it is available across most of the planet. Processing it is way harder than finding a source of it, but that is also a solved problem, you just gotta put in the capital to build it.
But it also secures your energy needs independent from anybody else and still scales. Solar lasts a long time, but not nearly as many countries have the minerals for building more panels and batteries as they do uranium refinement.
What? Solar panels last virtually forever. The oft-quoted 25 years is for a 30% efficiency loss, they actually last way longer.
Any country that can figure out uranium processing can figure out solar panel production, and they are made entirely from common materials with advanced processing steps. I'm not sure about batteries though.
> it should be a no brainer for a place like Europe without significant energy resources.
The uranium needs to be regularly replaced. Europe currently imports virtually all of the uranium used by its nuclear power plants. While Europe has some decommissioned uranium mines, they would have to be reopened, but the known deposits are estimated to cover less than the 50 years you cite, at current levels of nuclear production (much less when expanding production).
So if this is about energy independence rather than cost, I’m not sure that it would be such a great win.
Nuclear fuel rods get used for 1-2 years before they need to be replaced. This is much longer than it takes to burn a shipload of liquefied natural gas, though it's much shorter than it takes for solar panels or grid scale batteries to need replacement. Both nuclear energy and renewable energy are less sensitive to supply shocks than fossil energy, even if Europe doesn't reduce the percentage of its energy needs that depend on imports.
It would cost a bit more is the worst case if you had to build your own centerfuges, uranium is not all that rare. And a single ship could carry a decades worth of fuel (not that I recommend a decade of fuel on a single ship), so even if shipping was costly it would be cheap compared to the actual fuel refinement. You couldn't Hormuz a uranium fuel supply because it doesn't take thousands of ships or miles of pipeline to deliver.
So maybe not worry free, but if you are able to run nuclear reactors for power to start with, obtaining fuel for them in any scenario shouldn't be impossible. You got atleast a year or two lead time between refuelings, and it might be able to be stretched a little longer in an emergency. And even more time if you hold some in reserve.
Australia and Canada are top producers of uranium ore, and uranium ore is a small fraction of total lifecycle costs. Given a ~2 year refuelling cycle and the possibility of stockpiling uranium, this is very far from an interruption to oil and gas flows - which you need a continuous supply of. Security isn't just a function of autarkic raw material supplies.
Cost of deployment is a massive consideration in our not-yet-post-scarcity society.
It takes billions to certify a nuclear power plant, and it takes billions more to re-certify it every few decades, to say nothing of the costs of modernization.
To be clear, I consider myself generally pro-nuclear power, but let's not ignore the massive upfront and ongoing capital and operational costs that really undermine this idea that it's free power.
> Nuclear has no real cons other than time/cost of deployment
... and cost of operation and the fact that you have radioactive material you need to securely and safely store for quite a bit (which no one has figured out yet)
> and the fact that you have radioactive material you need to securely and safely store for quite a bit (which no one has figured out yet)
It's perfectly figured out. Just entomb it in concrete and store it on site. All spent nuclear fuel to date combined would quite comfortably fit in an average Walmart parking lot. It's a complete non-issue. And if we'd get really desperate, the spent fuel could be re-enriched.
>Nuclear has no real cons other than time/cost of deployment,
That's not true. It's extremely expensive to operate for one, so expensive in fact that nobody in the private sector wants to do it without having nation states basically guarantee profits for the lifetime of the plant or accept all liability. Which in several countries means that he operator is the nation state. Like in France.
The profits are guaranteed by collecting extra taxes from the population, not by increasing the price of electricity. Which is why people believe France has cheap electricity when they really don't.
Also of course each nuclear plant carries a nonzero chance of a trillion dollar incident (we've had two so far) as well as a nonzero chance of millions of casualties. Both these cons are entirely unique to nuclear power plants. No hydro plant, solar plant, wind farm, coal, oil or gas plant can cause as much damage as a nuclear plant.
>t's that or buying gas from Russia.
Not at all, there are many options (including buying gas from someone else). Some options got viable so recently people still haven't realized it. Like batteries. They're cheap now, you know, and China can build as many as we want. China has also caused a severe drop in the cost of hydrolyzers, used to create e-fuel. E-fuel means you can use solar power in winter and during night, which removes the remaining weakness of renewable sources. Europe should spend every eurocent in that direction instead of nuclear. That's the path to true energy independence.
And anyway, europe still gets 70% of it's nuclear fuel from Russia. How is that better than gas?
> Also of course each nuclear plant carries a nonzero chance of a trillion dollar incident (we've had two so far) as well as a nonzero chance of millions of casualties. Both these cons are entirely unique to nuclear power plants. No hydro plant, solar plant, wind farm, coal, oil or gas plant can cause as much damage as a nuclear plant.
The Banqiao dam failure killed 250,000 people in a single incident. Pollution from coal plants running normally causes 1 million premature deaths per year. The deepwater horizon spill was a $100 billion disaster with an environmental impact greater than any nuclear incident. The Centralia fires in PA are still burning after over 60 years and lead to a town being abandoned. Nuclear is not uniquely risky by any rational metric.
>The Banqiao dam failure killed 250,000 people in a single incident.
The incident was a typhoon that caused 60 dam failures in a densely populated area prone to flooding. Estimates range from 26000 to 240000 people dead, but rationally one has to assume the typhoon would have caused some damage in these areas even without the dams.
So claiming this was a single hydro dam causing 250 000 dead is hardly rational.
If you live in a narrow valley downstream from a dam you are aware of the danger. You as an individual can take action to protect yourself. If you live upstream by even 10 feet you are in no danger at all from the dam.
With nuclear, people in Scotland are in danger from a plant in the Ukraine, can't do anything to protect themselves from it, and have to live with the consequences for 30+ years. That's much worse by any metric.
Deepwater horizon was bad, but nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl or Fukushima. Also it wasn't a power plant, not even indirectly as oil is mostly used for transportation, not electricity. Chernobyl and Fukushima were power plants.
So again, there is just no comparison between nuclear plants and any other power plant. Nuclear really does have a unique level of risk.
Risk is often defined as consequence x likelihood, and for nuclear the consequence is immense. Meaning effort has to be spent keeping the likelihood extremely small, in order for the risk to be low.
This has to be accepted and considered in any discussion about nuclear power. Pretending it doesn't exist is not rational.
> The incident was a typhoon that caused 60 dam failures in a densely populated area prone to flooding.
So we're not counting natural disasters that cause power infrastructure failure? I take it you don't consider the events of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami to be a nuclear accident then.
> With nuclear, people in Scotland are in danger from a plant in the Ukraine, can't do anything to protect themselves from it, and have to live with the consequences for 30+ years. That's much worse by any metric.
And people in Scotland are in substantially greater danger from the emissions of coal plants in China.
> Deepwater horizon was bad, but nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl or Fukushima.
It was much worse in terms of environmental impact, particularly the area impacted.
> Also it wasn't a power plant
I don't see any reason to limit the discussion to electrical power plants.
> Risk is often defined as consequence x likelihood
I was being generous in only looking at consequences without considering likelihood. The consequences are no worse than the dominant alternatives, but the likelihood has been astronomically less, hence Nuclear has been the safest power source ever utilized by mankind. So yes, in a way nuclear's risk is unique - uniquely low. I fully agree this should be accepted and considered in any discussion.
>So we're not counting natural disasters that cause power infrastructure failure? I take it you don't consider the events of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami to be a nuclear accident then.
Of course not, if I did that's 20 000 dead from a "nuclear accident" right there. But that would be dishonest and silly, and I aim for rationality.
>And people in Scotland are in substantially greater danger from the emissions of coal plants in China
Not even if you assign all the blame of global warming to chinese coal plants would this be even remotely true.
>I don't see any reason to limit the discussion to electrical power plants.
You responded to a claim that no other power plant represent as great a risk at a nuclear power plant.
Maybe you should have created a new thread saying something like "a nuclear plant is not as bad as the entire fossil fuel industry worldwide"? ;-)
>The consequences are no worse than the dominant alternatives
You completely ignored the facts that clearly tell you that the consequences are orders of magnitude worse.
That's no way to convince anyone. Just saying.
So you are in a phase where coal is safer than nuclear? Sorry but that's bullshit. German early nuclear phaseout did already cause due to pollution half of total nr of estimated deaths from Chernobyl per UN assuming LNT is true at low doses. It's you that are ignoring facts and spread literally fossils fuel propaganda to justify your antinuclear position
>So you are in a phase where coal is safer than nuclear?
The permanent truth phase yes. Coal is so much safer than nuclear that a comparison is hardly meaningful.
Let me put it this way - If coal power plants were run with as much security as nuclear plants they wouldn't kill mosquitoes sleeping in their chimneys.
If nuclear power plants were run with as little security as coal plants however, we would not be here to have this discussion.
You seem to be well aware of the dangers of fossil fuels, but you come across as entirely ignorant of the dangers of nuclear power. Good decisions need knowledge of both.
I'm as anti coal as I am anti nuclear because both are terrible ideas. Renewables, batteries, e-fuels and other storage options are here now. They're better, faster, cheaper, safer. Let's do that.
It's cheap to operate. See <a href="https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...
The statement about getting 70% from Russia is total bullshit
What non zero chance of millions of casualties? Chernobyl, a shit design that weren't allowed in the west even then is estimated to kill about 4k in total. In Fukushima the number is zero or 1 deaths from radiation due to low dose. And that's old gen2 reactor striken by tsunami and earthquake
I've seen what antinuclear europe does to remove the weakness of renewables - subsidies for new gas peakers in Germany
>It's cheap to operate. See <a href="https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte" rel="nofollow">https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...
It's not, the estimated production cost for existing swiss nuclear plants is 4-6 centimes per kWh, which is already expensive electricity and frequently higher than the market prices today. That is also the self-cost price, meaning whenever the market pays less for electricity, ch nuclear plants lose money.
And as always, swiss taxpayers cover that loss so you won't ever see it in the operators financial reports.
Also worth noting is that EDF in France sells for 7 cents after being bailed out when sellng at 4 cents. This is not cheap electricity.
> What non zero chance of millions of casualties?
Just to take one trivial example:
If nobody is able to refill the water in spent fuel pools at any nuclear plant, they will catch fire. Assuming a radial spread of the fallout it will be near guaranteed lethal for at least 50 miles, probably lethal for some 500 miles, and you "won't want to live there" for even further than that. And this will remain the case for millennia to decades, depending on weather and distance.
So basically 500 miles radius, uninhabitable for several generations if you run out of water.
Then consider that Switzerland is covered by a circle of some 120 miles, and has a population of several million.
Do you think the 4-6 centimes per kWh covers a scenario like that? I don't. Good thing Switzerland has lots of water...
4-6ct/kwh is dirt cheap. It's so cheap that even curtailing renewables to let it run more instead of using gas peakers is cheaper
And it's far from being higher than avg market prices today in Switzerland, where did you get this nonsense?
The price includes their profit margin. Even if they sell at lower, they'll still make profit, just less.
The claim about swiss taxpayers is bullshit, please stop spreading it, there's no proof to this whatsoever. Swiss nuclear plants operation is not subsidized.
Edf was not bailed out. It was renationalized (albeit state was always majority owner) to push for construction of epr2. EDF debt to EBITDA is healthy. It made profit pretty much every single year despite arenh, except 2022. EDF could definitely operate their npp more profitable but that's another story.
But even if we assume that 9bn transaction was a subsidy, do you realize it's merely half of what Germany is spending for EEG alone EACH YEAR?
"If nobody is able to refill the water in spent fuel pools at any nuclear plant, they will catch fire. Assuming a radial spread of the fallout it will be near guaranteed lethal for at least 50 miles, probably lethal for some 500 miles, and you "won't want to live there" for even further than that. And this will remain the case for millennia to decades, depending on weather and distance."
Please refrain from spread utter bullshit again. Not only you don't comprehend under what conditions used fuel catches fire or that if by some absurd reason nobody can cool the spent fuel to avoid boiling, something much more terrible happened, but catching fire/melting doesn't mean it'll be a fallout. It's clear you are antinuclear person and enjoy fossils. You don't need to invent bullshit to firm your position.
Land is not uninhabitable. Heck, even in freaking Chernobyl animals are thriving. Try saying the same about german coal mines
>And it's far from being higher than avg market prices today in Switzerland, where did you get this nonsense?
It's not nonsense but you made a different statement than I.
Switzerland doesn't use market prices. Electricity in Switzerland is regulated so they pay vastly more than the european market at most times.
This Sunday for example, Germany enjoyed spot wholesale prices of 2 centimes per kWh while Switzerland had 12. You can verify the German prices on nordpool and an equivalent swiss energy market site.
Citizens in Switzerland pay much more than wholesale, averaging over 20 centimes last year. They are forced to do so by regulations.
When you force your population, aka the taxpayers, to pay 5-10x as much for electricity as it costs in the open market you using taxpayer money to subsidize electricity.
You follow?
>Edf was not bailed out. It was renationalized
Thats synonymous, and it was actually the second time EDF were bailed out, France had to pay for the overruns on the plant in Finland too. Lucky Finland!
The mechanism varies by country, but the bottom line is that taxpayers always have to pay for nuclear. They have no choice.
There is no option to walk away, you can't leave it, it has to be taken care of. Every other power plant you can shut down and walk away but nuclear is, again, unique in this respect.
When all the swiss nuclear operators go bankrupt, the swiss will still have to pay people to operate the plants, or decommision them, and then store the waste, for longer than Rolex has existed as a company.
Nobody else will. So it's the taxpayers, always.
>by some absurd reason nobody can cool the spent fuel to avoid boiling,
Absurd reasons are not that uncommon. War for example. Also, landslides, earthquakes, terrorists, pandemics, sinkholes. Stupid politicians. Lots of things. Non-zero.
>something much more terrible happened,
The spent fuel fire will be the most terrible thing that happened that day, unless the cause was an actual nuclear weapon strike.
Or well, since it's Switzerland I guess CERN could have come up with something worse but I can't imagine what. ;-)
1. It's the most expensive form of electricity;
2. Even that cost is only obtained by accounting tricks, basically arguing the life of the plant is 60 years;
3. The true cost in the last 30 years just isn't known (eg Hinkley Point-C);
4. Processing of uranium ore into fuel creates is an unsolved problem when it comes to waste byproducts eg UF6;
5. Processing and storage of spent fuel is an unsolved problem. No, you can't just stick it in a cave. Most spent fuel requires active cooling for years, possibly decades;
6. Long term investment in maintenance is super-important and something that particularly private companies are incredibly bad at as evidence by the infrastructure management of every private utility in the US;
7. They take 15-25 years to build, typically, if you're anyone but China. Who know how cheap the alternatives will be by then? Look at solar's price collapse;
8. SMR does not work and will not work. It's a myth sold to government to siphon grants;
9. The cost of a catastrophe of a single plant is many orders of magnitude higher than any other power plants. Examples: Chernobyl, Fukushima. And yes I can already feel the hand-waving away of "outliers";
10. No nuclear power plant has ever been built without significant government subsidies; and
11. No nuclear power plant pays the true insurance cost. Those costs will ultimately fall onto the taxpayer who will typically enjoy none of the proits.
> No nuclear power plant pays the true insurance cost.
Do fossil fuel plants pay co2 costs, or insurance costs for killing the planet? Well, it wouldn't make any sense, since it's not accidents that kill in that case, but the steady state.
The radiation from coal power alone (excluding accidents) kills more people every single year than nuclear power has killed in its entire existence (even including accidents).
About waste: somehow, this is a solved problem (at scale) ? Fast breeder reactor, half life ~= 30 years (IIRC)
From your message, I understand that your country fails to build nuclear plant in a timely fashion but that other (china) can. Seems like a lack of skill/willingness to me, not a technical issue.
Nuclear power plants are uninsurable in the private market. There is no natural investor base for a product that is uninsurable. Unless you are an imagining a culture war where real capitalists are fighting corporate welfare queens, it's not a culture war issue.
> It is sad that this has become a topic of the culture wars. Nothing good comes out of this, certainly not a rational weighing of the pros and cons of nuclear power.
For at least the past decade, about all I've seen argued about nuclear is that it is not economical. I've been arguing that for around 15 years now.
People have been arguing nuclear is too expensive and soon renewables will be so cheap they will push fossil fuels out of the grid for 30 years, if not more. Meanwhile during those 30 years, while waiting for the price of renewables to drop sufficiently, the world has built massive amounts of fossil power generation and emissions have been going up and up.
That being said, it seems finally solar+wind+storage+a little bit of other stuff is becoming cheap enough that it's starting to make a dent in the emissions. Which is fantastic, don't get me wrong. But it's also sad we've lost decades.
My argument was that while waiting for renewables to become cheap, we could have built nuclear instead of fossil capacity and avoided a shitton of emissions. The Messmer plan being an existence proof that such a thing would have been possible.
Wether we like it or not power generation at this scale is political. And whilst the culture war stuff is rubbish we can't escape the fact that these questions exist on dozens of different dimensions and include things like economics, politics, emotional, human factors, the environment etc. ultimately the argument needs to be won rather than settled.
adrianN · · focus · HN ↗
I’m particularly interested in how they plan to finance reactors in a grid dominated by solar. I wouldn’t be surprised if they legally allow the building of new reactors but then fail to find investors. But perhaps they plan on using them as some sort of strategic assets and will just run them at a loss?
toomuchtodo · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/italy/" rel="nofollow">https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/italy/
> 49% of Italy’s electricity was generated from low-carbon sources in 2025, below the EU average of 71%. As of 1 January 2026, Italy was aiming for 69% of renewable electricity generation by 2030. For the country’s latest renewables targets, see our 2030 Global Renewable Target Tracker.
<a href="https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/IT/fifteen_minutes" rel="nofollow">https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/IT/fifteen_minutes
Record 2026 summer heat impaired nuclear generation in France, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, so I'd be curious how they intend to solve for that as the climate continues to warm (reduced capacity factor from reduced output due to cooling constraints impairs the economics).
France to Upgrade Heat Wave Modeling After Record Nuclear Curbs - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49790006">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49790006 - September 2026
Europe's Heatwaves Are Putting Nuclear Power Under Pressure - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49466909">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49466909 - August 2026
Bulgaria's Nuclear Plant Plans First Output Cut Due to Low Danube - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49376860">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49376860 - August 2026
Record heat is drying up Europe's major rivers, as these striking images show - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283344">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283344 - August 2026
Bloomberg: Hungary Casts Doubt on Nuclear Plant Expansion After Danube Low Levels - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-13/hungary-casts-doubt-on-nuclear-plant-expansion-after-danube-woes" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-13/hungary-c... - August 13th, 2026
Italy to issue half million non-EU work visas over next three years - <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/italy-issue-half-million-non-eu-work-visas-over-next-three-years-2025-06-30/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/italy-issue-half-million-non-e... - June 30th, 2025
citrin_ru · · focus · HN ↗
Solar is 15% - a lot but not yet dominated. Solar works at day and demand is also highest during the day so solar should not be an enemy of nuclear.
dalyons · · focus · HN ↗
This is what the OP means - they make no economic sense on most modern grids.
toomuchtodo · · focus · HN ↗
France's EDF Warns Solar, Wind Surge Straining Nuclear Fleet Costs - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47037839">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47037839 - February 2026
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260217122120/https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/the-edf-group-shares-the-key-findings-of-its-report-on-the-modulation-of-its-fleet" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20260217122120/https://www.edf.f...
Related:
Wind and solar generated more power than fossil fuels in the EU for the first time in 2025 - <a href="https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-generated-more-power-than-fossil-fuels-in-the-eu-for-the-first-time-in-2025/" rel="nofollow">https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-gener... - January 22nd, 2026
> Wind and solar overtaking fossil fuels in 2025 can be largely attributed to a staggering rise in solar power. Solar grew by more than a fifth (+20.1%) for the fourth year running. It generated a record 13% of EU power in 2025, above both coal and hydro. This trend was widespread: all EU countries saw growth in solar generation compared to the year before, amid a huge expansion in EU solar installations. Solar provided more than a fifth of electricity in Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands. Renewables provided nearly half of EU power (48%) as unusual weather conditions caused hydro generation to fall by 12% and wind by 2%, but boosted solar generation. Wind remained the second largest EU electricity source at 17% of EU power, generating more than gas. Signs of a structural shift are clear across the EU, as wind and solar generated more electricity than all fossil sources in 14 of the 27 EU countries in 2025. Over the past five years, wind and solar have experienced massive growth (from 20% in 2020 to 30% in 2025). Fossil fuels have fallen from 37% to 29% in the same period, while hydro and nuclear remained stable or slightly declined.
<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci... (installed solar energy capacity goes brrr)
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
Nuclear, moreover, keeps us on the tech tree for space exploration. I don’t think solar is going to lead us to fusion or antimatter powered spaceships.
adrianN · · focus · HN ↗
I also don’t believe that fission, fusion or antimatter are on the same branch of the tech tree.
neutronicus · · focus · HN ↗
I mean, you need to radiation-harden your structural materials and electronics for both fission and fusion, and some hypothetical antimatter reactor is probably using an evolutionary version of EM confinement techniques from fusion.
But, yes, fission reactors are ultimately kind of ooga-booga (put a pile of metal in some water and run a steam engine) that's hard to characterize as on track for something sci-fi like an antimatter reactor.
wat10000 · · focus · HN ↗
I don’t see research into fission power doing anything useful for spacecraft. The big bottleneck right now is getting stuff to orbit. The rest is easy, relatively speaking. And getting stuff to orbit is not practical with nuclear unless you use something like Orion, which has some downsides to put it mildly, and is already doable with 1950s tech.
diarrhea · · focus · HN ↗
Why?
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
solid_fuel · · focus · HN ↗
Why shouldn't our civilization be defined by how efficiently we use the energy we gather? Or the lifespan and health of our citizens?
Claiming that the sum of a civilization is how much energy it controls is just a meme from the 50's. It's a shitty, short-sighted metric. One that would consider building a nuclear reactor and dumping the power into a bank of resistors as contributing "more progress" than growing abundant food, or protecting the ecosystem.
It's our civilization, we can define progress however we want.
rangestransform · · focus · HN ↗
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
Hikikomori · · focus · HN ↗
dguest · · focus · HN ↗
Hand him the nerds and you'll hand him the future, for better or worse.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
Getting the tech without the social change first (e.g. what Musk et al are going for) gets you a Cyberpunk dystopia, not a post-scarcity utopia.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
It’s notable that while Roddenberry had various humanist philosophies, TOS and TNG more than anything resemble the U.S. military officer culture, reflecting his Air Force service. You’ll see the exact same culture if you walk into an officer’s club at the U.S. Naval Academy.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
I can tell you however, that in the real world, with real incentive structures, if we remove scarcity before we fix ownership, we will get a few feudal lords and the rest of us lacking any leverage their dependence on labour used to give us and dependent on their (historically rather limited) charity.
You cannot have a Star Trek future if you don't fix the social part first. Technological progress will make the social issues worse otherwise. There is no point of technological progress that will magically make the rich and powerful suddenly give up their wealth and power. Maybe in a made-up world, people are less power hungry and greedy. In the real one, more technology owned by a few effectively means that their concentration of wealth and power will just keep increasing at the expense of everyone else.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
43187 · · focus · HN ↗
All new energy initiatives should be nationalized and out of the hands of the tech robber barons.
MentalM · · focus · HN ↗
It is the people, who had build houses 30 years ago, and who set a price for those houses. Then came the government and start to regulate, redistribute, optimize and improve housing. And We live with the results.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
It could do that because of the dependence on labor for production, or in other words leverage over the ownership class.
If we accelerate technology to the point where we sever this dependency, all those freedoms will no longer have the leverage required to extract them. Our lives didn't become not worthless because of the steam machine. They became not worthless because of leverage over capital reproduction, and once that's gone they may well become worthless again.
Technology doesn't cause freedom, or at least not directly. Social relations and power dynamics do. Technology just drives those.
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
However if we circle back to your original comment that social change (and I'm reading that as some form of communism) is required before technology delivers material abundance, then I feel compelled to remind you that the last 37 times humanity attempted this, it failed so spectacularly that 100+ million people died. I think it's clear that whatever the nuance of this discussion, communism (or whatever aphorism you prefer) is incompatible with scarce resources. I therefore argue that the abundance must come first.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
I would argue that if we get abundance before fundamentally changing ownership structures, we will get a handful of people that control said abundance and with that, have basically infinite leverage over the rest of humanity.
Labor will no longer be required for their productive needs, so that handful of people that controls the abundance machines will no longer have any incentive to keep the rest of humanity satisfied, or even alive for that matter.
In other words, if we don't change social relations before we get to this state, we will end up in a world where the Musks, Bezos and Zucks of this world control all material production, with the rest of us reduced to being dependent on their charity.
Personally, that sounds like the worst dystopia imaginable.
I will give you that prior attempts at socialism weren't necessarily successful and a lot of people died, however, I also think that argument requires holding one eye shut.
People are dying from capitalism right now. There's a homeless guy in SoMa that is breathing his last breath as we speak. There's entire villages in Africa that can't afford clean water while Nestle sells it in plastic bottles that pollute our planet. The status quo is not without its own violence and I think that is a point that too often gets swept under the rug.
Either way though, I think even if I were to concede that capitalism historically had better outcomes (which I have not been fully sold on! it's positives have just been more articulated imo, but that's another debate.), we are in a critical moment right now.
If we really believe we're to transition into a post-scarcity world, we need to make sure the right social relations are in place before that happens and whatever we have right now is locked in forever.
All criticism of socialism's supposed productive ineffectiveness becomes irrelevant once the transition is done anyways.
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
It's a valid concern. We use democracy right now to address inequality. Are you concerned that those in charge of the abundance machines will create their own nations with militaries to prevent other nations from taking said resources? To this I would respond: there is nothing stopping other nations from building their own abundance machines. As we've seen with AI, distillation cannot be stopped. The knowledge of how to build these machines cannot be censored. Here in Denmark I have high confidence that people will vote to build nationalised abundance machines for the good of all.
Perhaps this is more of a regional risk? There are some nations which culturally value individuality. I'm not sure the U.S. would build national abundance machines.
I think I broadly agree with your thesis, however. Abundance is going to force massive social change. If goods and services are effectively free, most jobs disappear. So too does their income and consumer demand, which destroys the entire premise of capitalism. You might be surprised to learn that Elon Musk believes capitalism will cease to function in the next 10-20 years because of this. So abundance will force us to move to a system which much more closely resembles communism. It's the transition I'm worried about.
When Middle American manufacturing jobs were offshored to China, Hilary Clinton famously laughed at them and told them to "learn to code." I fear many more people whose jobs are lost to AI will be met with similar derision. It is only when things get very bad that change will occur. The Star Trek timeline describes this collapse between 2020s-2053.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
Even though I'm not too concerned about that specifically, that is clearly a plan they have. [0]
> To this I would respond: there is nothing stopping other nations from building their own abundance machines. As we've seen with AI, distillation cannot be stopped. The knowledge of how to build these machines cannot be censored. Here in Denmark I have high confidence that people will vote to build nationalised abundance machines for the good of all.
I'm not worried about the knowledge. I'm worried about the material conditions. These machines need compute and with that all sorts of inputs. I worry that the first to achieve such an abundance machine will use the abundance generated by it to monopolize control over these inputs.
> You might be surprised to learn that Elon Musk believes capitalism will cease to function in the next 10-20 years because of this. So abundance will force us to move to a system which much more closely resembles communism. It's the transition I'm worried about.
I, too, am worried about the transition, but for different reasons. I believe Elon when he says he believes capitalism will end in a few decades. However, I don't think he has prosperity for all in mind and that end state won't just naturally happen by itself.
I think if we leave the transition to him and his peers, they will use it to build a system where they are untouchable god kings and the rest of us are paupers reduced to their charity.
That, to me, is the core transition risk we need to manage. We need to make sure abundance machines aren't just a device for completely centralizing power in the hands of a few.
[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%B3spera" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%B3spera
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
I understand. I place less weight into this risk. The current AI supply chain is so globally interdependent that it has effectively distributed itself beyond centralised control. China has received the full weight of global chip sanctions and still somehow manages to provide competitive coding models using either grey imports, offshore cloud compute, or locally produced chips. It would be very difficult (and I would argue almost impossible) for a nation and especially an individual/company to seize ownership of the entire supply chain and prevent everyone else in the world from producing their own AI/chips/abundance machines.
> I think if we leave the transition to him and his peers, they will use it to build a system where they are untouchable god kings and the rest of us are paupers reduced to their charity.
No doubt many people in positions of power are megalomaniacs. This is why I place such emphasis on democracy. This allows the powerless to retain control of their nation and borders.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
I think this is also a core part of our disagreement. I think if we allow privatized power structures to grow indefinitely, democracy will no longer be able to constrain them at some point, or they will subvert democracy itself by corrupting elected leadership.
You see both of these in action right now. Think of Elon Musk actively defying Brazilian rule of law [0] or him literally being put into a position where he can neuter the institutions designed to hold him democratically accountable with the DOGE appointment.
To quote MLK - "Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God's children."
I think fundamentally one cannot disentangle democratic control of political power from democratic control of the economy, because economic power can be converted into political power.
[0] <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/starlink-tells-brazil-regulator-it-will-not-comply-with-x-suspension-2024-09-02/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/technology/starlink-tells-brazil-reg...
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
I agree there is a risk, and I think defence of democracy should be at the forefront of fighting against the future you fear. I do not think the risk appears at the end of a gun. Rather, via propaganda and corruption. We know how effective propaganda can be, starting with Goebbels and all the way through to social media today. The problem here is that there is no clearly defined solution. Some people prescribe state control of information, which has historically resulted in catastrophic outcomes. Some people prescribe uncensored information to the greatest degree possible, and to the degree we have that today, it's also not working out very well. Perhaps this will be the great question of our time.
For the record, re DOGE, I see that as the people getting what they voted for. Musk campaigned clearly on his intended actions, and for better or worse, a plurality of voters voted for that. We should be careful not to criticise democracy just because voters chose a different direction. However I think this is partly influenced by what I describe above.
ben_w · · focus · HN ↗
This is somewhat overstating the case, though I currently agree "the abundance must come first".
Capitalism, as it was understood when the Communist Manifesto was written, basically doesn't exist any more. A large subset of what it called for is now so widespread even in "capitalist" nations that the absence of those things is considered a sign of being a failed state.
Yes, there are three primary examples of Communism absolutely failing, hard: Four Pests, Holodomor, and Pol Pot.
The Communist Manifesto was written during the famous potato famine. Less famously, the impact of the blight hurt the Irish much more than other places that were also using potatoes as staple crops, and the British Government of the era (which controlled Ireland) was pursuing laissez-faire capitalism at the time.
Similar (that a capitalist regime was in charge) can be said about subsequent famines in India before independence.
Some say that Communism ended with the USSR, that while modern China uses the name "Communist" for their one-party state it is really state-capitalism. By this standard, capitalism (as the term was understood by Marx et al) ended roughly in the era containing both Roosevelt's New Deal taking root in the USA and the UK's Labour Party replacement of the Liberal Party's position in Westminster.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
Technology drives and makes possible changes in social relations.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
I was once in a (private) vigorous debate over socialism in which my socialist interlocutor hoped his bringing up the portrayal of human society in Star Trek would get me to warm towards socialism.
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
The proper reply to your parent IMHO is that the first two shows of Star Trek are evil propaganda, not that the society depicted in the propaganda is not socialist.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
But I really do believe that Star Trek, specifically the parts that Roddenberry personally oversaw (namely the original series and the first four seasons of The Next Generation) had a very negative effect on the world.
In addition to making some viewers more committed to socialist ideology[1] Roddenberry's Star Trek made many committed to the ideology of technological progress.
Although it can have a beneficial effect on a person, a commitment to an ideology tends to have a deleterious effect on the world when many share a commitment to the same ideology.
[1] In a (private) debate with me, a committed socialist asserted that a successful transition to socialism would result in a society much like the one depicted in Star Trek. Since it is very unlikely that he engaged in many debates about socialism before his debate with me, the reason he believed that that assertion might make me warm to socialism is probably because it had contributed to his own warming to socialism.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
I think you may have fallen victim to a common misconception of how ideology actually functions.
The most affected by ideology aren't the ones consciously committing to a cause. Ideology is strongest precisely when you think you're outside of it - when your ideological commitments have become so normalized that they are completely invisible to you.
There is no such thing as being unideological, whatever you perceive as such is just a reflection of your own ideology.
If you'd like to delve deeper into the theory of ideology and how it functions, I'd recommend the works of philosophy legend and ideology expert Slavoj Zizek.
There's his seminal work, The Sublime Object of Ideology, which goes into this at depth, but is a very dry and academic read. If you'd like something a bit more digestible, I would recommend the movie The Pervert's Guide to Ideology, which uses a more pop-sci approach of dissecting popular movies to demonstrate their ideological function.
tuesdaynight · · focus · HN ↗
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
One reason I know they're different is that the thing I'm pointing at is vastly less influential in some people than other, so much so that it clearly makes sense to call some people "unideological"
I'm willing to switch to a different term for the thing I'm interested in, but I haven't been able to come up with one.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
In other words, I sacrificed the quality of the conversation (namely, I introduced not only a tangent, but also a tangent rooted in a confusion) so that I could express some thought that had risen to salience in my solitary mind. My doing that made the conversation worse, and the conversation is what matters, not whether I got to express myself in a way that is quick and easy for me.
ben_w · · focus · HN ↗
And as a drunk, who got to this stage in the aftermath of WW3, which was definitely not post-scarcity at this point because of how hard it was to "scrounge together enough titanium for the cockpit".
And immediately after the test flight, some pointy-eared vegetarian space Buddhists landed and said hi.
> It’s notable that while Roddenberry had various humanist philosophies, TOS and TNG more than anything resemble the U.S. military officer culture, reflecting his Air Force service. You’ll see the exact same culture if you walk into an officer’s club at the U.S. Naval Academy.
TOS is very much "space is an ocean". NCC-1701 is very obviously a shoe-in for CVN-65, the "colonies" and other locations they visit are scaled more like Pacific islands than planets, the episode with Romulan cloaking device is classic submarine warfare filmography including getting people to be quiet (so the space sonar wouldn't pick them up?)
TNG kept a lot of this, but was also "families on board" from the get-go.
31aHgd · · focus · HN ↗
adrianN · · focus · HN ↗
Zigurd · · focus · HN ↗
Planets aren't going to be colonized like colonies were on this Earth. Economic growth and prosperity have decoupled not only from fossil fuels, but it's no longer a function of energy consumption in general. Humans simply do not flourish without the Earth ecosystem. The future you paint here is only credible to 13 year-old boys who just finished their third Jerry Pournelle book.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
My mom is in her mid 70s and grew up reading Jules Verne and H.G. Wells as a child in Bangladesh. She still imagines a Star Trek future is inevitable. If anything it’s Gen Z that has a small and narrow vision of what’s possible.
hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
And sometimes I think Star Trek did more damage to the world than Das Kapital did.
31aHgd · · focus · HN ↗
Zigurd · · focus · HN ↗
I'm no fun because I've spent a lot of time doing critical path analysis in projects. A lot of planned data centers will never power up because the lead time for gas turbines is a few years now. You can't expect the first SMR to power a data center to come online with in 10 years. And while Bloom has done impressive work making a credible methane fuel cell, they have only a slim chance of scaling up their production to power the big Oracle data center in New Mexico.
There is an exasperating amount of BS to call out on this planet even before we get to wild promises of what's going to be put into orbit or on the moon or on Mars,
zahlman · · focus · HN ↗
martin_a · · focus · HN ↗
zahlman · · focus · HN ↗
There is no incompatibility between "calling out bullshit" and <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .
There is, however, an incompatibility between GGP's rhetoric and the guidelines.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
What does that even mean? Will we have no more wars? Will we overcome capitalist ownership structures? Will we save our planets ecosystems from extinction? Will we finally be able to eradicate hunger and homelessness?
Or are we just talking more fancy gadgets for the rich at the expense of all of the above?
chrystalkey · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
ben_w · · focus · HN ↗
Trivially. If we push hard, more than three orders of magnitude are possible (even for overall energy use, which is itself around an order of magnitude more than electricity), even without launching anything to orbit.
IMO it's much better if we go to space after the first of those orders of magnitude, rather than pursuing K1 on the ground.
> I don’t think solar is going to lead us to fusion or antimatter powered spaceships.
Solar is as likely as fission to lead to either of these things. Each of the four is a different beast.
Solar is also the only way to scale up to a K2, which would trivially obviate both even when the ships' primary propulsion is solar (laser) sails.
drnick1 · · focus · HN ↗
Nuclear has no real cons other than time/cost of deployment, and it should be a no brainer for a place like Europe without significant energy resources. Once the power plant is built, it provides 50+ years of nearly free energy. It's that or buying gas from Russia.
adrianN · · focus · HN ↗
dalyons · · focus · HN ↗
fl0id · · focus · HN ↗
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
drnick1 · · focus · HN ↗
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
AngryData · · focus · HN ↗
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
AngryData · · focus · HN ↗
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
Any country that can figure out uranium processing can figure out solar panel production, and they are made entirely from common materials with advanced processing steps. I'm not sure about batteries though.
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
It would also not make sense considering china is the largest builder and they also sell most of vre
sien · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment" rel="nofollow">https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
Orano and Urenco are European and have massive enrichment capability.
Canada, Australia and Namibia have massive Uranium reserves.
<a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production" rel="nofollow">https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
layer8 · · focus · HN ↗
The uranium needs to be regularly replaced. Europe currently imports virtually all of the uranium used by its nuclear power plants. While Europe has some decommissioned uranium mines, they would have to be reopened, but the known deposits are estimated to cover less than the 50 years you cite, at current levels of nuclear production (much less when expanding production).
So if this is about energy independence rather than cost, I’m not sure that it would be such a great win.
icantevenhold · · focus · HN ↗
But I just don’t get why it’s being discussed at all - its obviously so much more expensive and time consuming to build than the alternatives
philipkglass · · focus · HN ↗
layer8 · · focus · HN ↗
AngryData · · focus · HN ↗
So maybe not worry free, but if you are able to run nuclear reactors for power to start with, obtaining fuel for them in any scenario shouldn't be impossible. You got atleast a year or two lead time between refuelings, and it might be able to be stretched a little longer in an emergency. And even more time if you hold some in reserve.
Emma_Goldman · · focus · HN ↗
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
_verandaguy · · focus · HN ↗
It takes billions to certify a nuclear power plant, and it takes billions more to re-certify it every few decades, to say nothing of the costs of modernization.
To be clear, I consider myself generally pro-nuclear power, but let's not ignore the massive upfront and ongoing capital and operational costs that really undermine this idea that it's free power.
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
JackSlateur · · focus · HN ↗
Perhaps the self-induced costs can be volontarily reduced and not inflated ?
Phelinofist · · focus · HN ↗
... and cost of operation and the fact that you have radioactive material you need to securely and safely store for quite a bit (which no one has figured out yet)
sgjohnson · · focus · HN ↗
It's perfectly figured out. Just entomb it in concrete and store it on site. All spent nuclear fuel to date combined would quite comfortably fit in an average Walmart parking lot. It's a complete non-issue. And if we'd get really desperate, the spent fuel could be re-enriched.
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
Kon5ole · · focus · HN ↗
That's not true. It's extremely expensive to operate for one, so expensive in fact that nobody in the private sector wants to do it without having nation states basically guarantee profits for the lifetime of the plant or accept all liability. Which in several countries means that he operator is the nation state. Like in France.
The profits are guaranteed by collecting extra taxes from the population, not by increasing the price of electricity. Which is why people believe France has cheap electricity when they really don't.
Also of course each nuclear plant carries a nonzero chance of a trillion dollar incident (we've had two so far) as well as a nonzero chance of millions of casualties. Both these cons are entirely unique to nuclear power plants. No hydro plant, solar plant, wind farm, coal, oil or gas plant can cause as much damage as a nuclear plant.
>t's that or buying gas from Russia.
Not at all, there are many options (including buying gas from someone else). Some options got viable so recently people still haven't realized it. Like batteries. They're cheap now, you know, and China can build as many as we want. China has also caused a severe drop in the cost of hydrolyzers, used to create e-fuel. E-fuel means you can use solar power in winter and during night, which removes the remaining weakness of renewable sources. Europe should spend every eurocent in that direction instead of nuclear. That's the path to true energy independence.
And anyway, europe still gets 70% of it's nuclear fuel from Russia. How is that better than gas?
jjk166 · · focus · HN ↗
The Banqiao dam failure killed 250,000 people in a single incident. Pollution from coal plants running normally causes 1 million premature deaths per year. The deepwater horizon spill was a $100 billion disaster with an environmental impact greater than any nuclear incident. The Centralia fires in PA are still burning after over 60 years and lead to a town being abandoned. Nuclear is not uniquely risky by any rational metric.
Kon5ole · · focus · HN ↗
The incident was a typhoon that caused 60 dam failures in a densely populated area prone to flooding. Estimates range from 26000 to 240000 people dead, but rationally one has to assume the typhoon would have caused some damage in these areas even without the dams.
So claiming this was a single hydro dam causing 250 000 dead is hardly rational.
If you live in a narrow valley downstream from a dam you are aware of the danger. You as an individual can take action to protect yourself. If you live upstream by even 10 feet you are in no danger at all from the dam.
With nuclear, people in Scotland are in danger from a plant in the Ukraine, can't do anything to protect themselves from it, and have to live with the consequences for 30+ years. That's much worse by any metric.
Deepwater horizon was bad, but nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl or Fukushima. Also it wasn't a power plant, not even indirectly as oil is mostly used for transportation, not electricity. Chernobyl and Fukushima were power plants.
So again, there is just no comparison between nuclear plants and any other power plant. Nuclear really does have a unique level of risk.
Risk is often defined as consequence x likelihood, and for nuclear the consequence is immense. Meaning effort has to be spent keeping the likelihood extremely small, in order for the risk to be low.
This has to be accepted and considered in any discussion about nuclear power. Pretending it doesn't exist is not rational.
jjk166 · · focus · HN ↗
So we're not counting natural disasters that cause power infrastructure failure? I take it you don't consider the events of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami to be a nuclear accident then.
> With nuclear, people in Scotland are in danger from a plant in the Ukraine, can't do anything to protect themselves from it, and have to live with the consequences for 30+ years. That's much worse by any metric.
And people in Scotland are in substantially greater danger from the emissions of coal plants in China.
> Deepwater horizon was bad, but nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl or Fukushima.
It was much worse in terms of environmental impact, particularly the area impacted.
> Also it wasn't a power plant
I don't see any reason to limit the discussion to electrical power plants.
> Risk is often defined as consequence x likelihood
I was being generous in only looking at consequences without considering likelihood. The consequences are no worse than the dominant alternatives, but the likelihood has been astronomically less, hence Nuclear has been the safest power source ever utilized by mankind. So yes, in a way nuclear's risk is unique - uniquely low. I fully agree this should be accepted and considered in any discussion.
Kon5ole · · focus · HN ↗
Of course not, if I did that's 20 000 dead from a "nuclear accident" right there. But that would be dishonest and silly, and I aim for rationality.
>And people in Scotland are in substantially greater danger from the emissions of coal plants in China
Not even if you assign all the blame of global warming to chinese coal plants would this be even remotely true.
>I don't see any reason to limit the discussion to electrical power plants.
You responded to a claim that no other power plant represent as great a risk at a nuclear power plant.
Maybe you should have created a new thread saying something like "a nuclear plant is not as bad as the entire fossil fuel industry worldwide"? ;-)
>The consequences are no worse than the dominant alternatives
You completely ignored the facts that clearly tell you that the consequences are orders of magnitude worse.
That's no way to convince anyone. Just saying.
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
Kon5ole · · focus · HN ↗
The permanent truth phase yes. Coal is so much safer than nuclear that a comparison is hardly meaningful.
Let me put it this way - If coal power plants were run with as much security as nuclear plants they wouldn't kill mosquitoes sleeping in their chimneys. If nuclear power plants were run with as little security as coal plants however, we would not be here to have this discussion.
You seem to be well aware of the dangers of fossil fuels, but you come across as entirely ignorant of the dangers of nuclear power. Good decisions need knowledge of both.
I'm as anti coal as I am anti nuclear because both are terrible ideas. Renewables, batteries, e-fuels and other storage options are here now. They're better, faster, cheaper, safer. Let's do that.
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
The statement about getting 70% from Russia is total bullshit
What non zero chance of millions of casualties? Chernobyl, a shit design that weren't allowed in the west even then is estimated to kill about 4k in total. In Fukushima the number is zero or 1 deaths from radiation due to low dose. And that's old gen2 reactor striken by tsunami and earthquake
I've seen what antinuclear europe does to remove the weakness of renewables - subsidies for new gas peakers in Germany
Kon5ole · · focus · HN ↗
It's not, the estimated production cost for existing swiss nuclear plants is 4-6 centimes per kWh, which is already expensive electricity and frequently higher than the market prices today. That is also the self-cost price, meaning whenever the market pays less for electricity, ch nuclear plants lose money.
And as always, swiss taxpayers cover that loss so you won't ever see it in the operators financial reports.
Also worth noting is that EDF in France sells for 7 cents after being bailed out when sellng at 4 cents. This is not cheap electricity.
> What non zero chance of millions of casualties?
Just to take one trivial example:
If nobody is able to refill the water in spent fuel pools at any nuclear plant, they will catch fire. Assuming a radial spread of the fallout it will be near guaranteed lethal for at least 50 miles, probably lethal for some 500 miles, and you "won't want to live there" for even further than that. And this will remain the case for millennia to decades, depending on weather and distance.
So basically 500 miles radius, uninhabitable for several generations if you run out of water.
Then consider that Switzerland is covered by a circle of some 120 miles, and has a population of several million.
Do you think the 4-6 centimes per kWh covers a scenario like that? I don't. Good thing Switzerland has lots of water...
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
And it's far from being higher than avg market prices today in Switzerland, where did you get this nonsense?
The price includes their profit margin. Even if they sell at lower, they'll still make profit, just less.
The claim about swiss taxpayers is bullshit, please stop spreading it, there's no proof to this whatsoever. Swiss nuclear plants operation is not subsidized.
Edf was not bailed out. It was renationalized (albeit state was always majority owner) to push for construction of epr2. EDF debt to EBITDA is healthy. It made profit pretty much every single year despite arenh, except 2022. EDF could definitely operate their npp more profitable but that's another story.
But even if we assume that 9bn transaction was a subsidy, do you realize it's merely half of what Germany is spending for EEG alone EACH YEAR?
"If nobody is able to refill the water in spent fuel pools at any nuclear plant, they will catch fire. Assuming a radial spread of the fallout it will be near guaranteed lethal for at least 50 miles, probably lethal for some 500 miles, and you "won't want to live there" for even further than that. And this will remain the case for millennia to decades, depending on weather and distance."
Please refrain from spread utter bullshit again. Not only you don't comprehend under what conditions used fuel catches fire or that if by some absurd reason nobody can cool the spent fuel to avoid boiling, something much more terrible happened, but catching fire/melting doesn't mean it'll be a fallout. It's clear you are antinuclear person and enjoy fossils. You don't need to invent bullshit to firm your position.
Land is not uninhabitable. Heck, even in freaking Chernobyl animals are thriving. Try saying the same about german coal mines
Kon5ole · · focus · HN ↗
It's not nonsense but you made a different statement than I.
Switzerland doesn't use market prices. Electricity in Switzerland is regulated so they pay vastly more than the european market at most times.
This Sunday for example, Germany enjoyed spot wholesale prices of 2 centimes per kWh while Switzerland had 12. You can verify the German prices on nordpool and an equivalent swiss energy market site.
Citizens in Switzerland pay much more than wholesale, averaging over 20 centimes last year. They are forced to do so by regulations.
When you force your population, aka the taxpayers, to pay 5-10x as much for electricity as it costs in the open market you using taxpayer money to subsidize electricity.
You follow?
>Edf was not bailed out. It was renationalized
Thats synonymous, and it was actually the second time EDF were bailed out, France had to pay for the overruns on the plant in Finland too. Lucky Finland!
The mechanism varies by country, but the bottom line is that taxpayers always have to pay for nuclear. They have no choice.
There is no option to walk away, you can't leave it, it has to be taken care of. Every other power plant you can shut down and walk away but nuclear is, again, unique in this respect.
When all the swiss nuclear operators go bankrupt, the swiss will still have to pay people to operate the plants, or decommision them, and then store the waste, for longer than Rolex has existed as a company.
Nobody else will. So it's the taxpayers, always.
>by some absurd reason nobody can cool the spent fuel to avoid boiling,
Absurd reasons are not that uncommon. War for example. Also, landslides, earthquakes, terrorists, pandemics, sinkholes. Stupid politicians. Lots of things. Non-zero.
>something much more terrible happened,
The spent fuel fire will be the most terrible thing that happened that day, unless the cause was an actual nuclear weapon strike.
Or well, since it's Switzerland I guess CERN could have come up with something worse but I can't imagine what. ;-)
jmyeet · · focus · HN ↗
1. It's the most expensive form of electricity;
2. Even that cost is only obtained by accounting tricks, basically arguing the life of the plant is 60 years;
3. The true cost in the last 30 years just isn't known (eg Hinkley Point-C);
4. Processing of uranium ore into fuel creates is an unsolved problem when it comes to waste byproducts eg UF6;
5. Processing and storage of spent fuel is an unsolved problem. No, you can't just stick it in a cave. Most spent fuel requires active cooling for years, possibly decades;
6. Long term investment in maintenance is super-important and something that particularly private companies are incredibly bad at as evidence by the infrastructure management of every private utility in the US;
7. They take 15-25 years to build, typically, if you're anyone but China. Who know how cheap the alternatives will be by then? Look at solar's price collapse;
8. SMR does not work and will not work. It's a myth sold to government to siphon grants;
9. The cost of a catastrophe of a single plant is many orders of magnitude higher than any other power plants. Examples: Chernobyl, Fukushima. And yes I can already feel the hand-waving away of "outliers";
10. No nuclear power plant has ever been built without significant government subsidies; and
11. No nuclear power plant pays the true insurance cost. Those costs will ultimately fall onto the taxpayer who will typically enjoy none of the proits.
thomashabets2 · · focus · HN ↗
Do fossil fuel plants pay co2 costs, or insurance costs for killing the planet? Well, it wouldn't make any sense, since it's not accidents that kill in that case, but the steady state.
The radiation from coal power alone (excluding accidents) kills more people every single year than nuclear power has killed in its entire existence (even including accidents).
JackSlateur · · focus · HN ↗
From your message, I understand that your country fails to build nuclear plant in a timely fashion but that other (china) can. Seems like a lack of skill/willingness to me, not a technical issue.
Zigurd · · focus · HN ↗
dualvariable · · focus · HN ↗
For at least the past decade, about all I've seen argued about nuclear is that it is not economical. I've been arguing that for around 15 years now.
jabl · · focus · HN ↗
That being said, it seems finally solar+wind+storage+a little bit of other stuff is becoming cheap enough that it's starting to make a dent in the emissions. Which is fantastic, don't get me wrong. But it's also sad we've lost decades.
dualvariable · · focus · HN ↗
jabl · · focus · HN ↗
dualvariable · · focus · HN ↗
ViewTrick1002 · · focus · HN ↗
Moldoteck · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
poolingdrool · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
7952 · · focus · HN ↗