Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 567 posts

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#101

Post by Angostura »

chmod775 wrote: post #15

There's a lot of straw men being fought in the comments again. The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Proponents of nuclear power like to pretend the opposition exists merely on the basis of "but what if it goes boom!", so they don't need to face the reality that countries like Germany are sitting on a l…

I absolutely agree that we don't have a long term solution for storing nuclear waste.

The thing is, we don't have a long term solution for storing CO2 either.

The thing I like about nuclear waste is is it's obvious, its tangle and it sits around in sinister looking containers.

As opposed to CO2.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#102

Post by brtkdotse »

enkid wrote: post #89
loeg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either? The problem is that combusting it produces CO₂.

Methane is going to come out of sewage whether we process it or not, and methane itself is a greenhouse gas. It's not going to come out of the ground without help (in the quantities we are using).

Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, however it breaks down rather quickly.

Like I said in a sibling post, the big advantage is that biogas is Net 0 carbon wise as you’re reusing carbon already in the carbon cycle

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#103

Post by loeg »

hekker wrote: post #80
pitaj wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste storage isn't a technology issue: we know how to store it safely. It's an issue of political obstructionism.

If that’s true why would be this obstructionism be there? It does not make any rational sense if we can use nuclear to win us time until we have working fusion and/or wind/sun/etc energy implemented.

> If that’s true why would be this obstructionism be there? It does not make any rational sense if we can use nuclear to win us time until we have working fusion and/or wind/sun/etc energy implemented.

You said it — it's irrational.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#104

Post by hedora »

loeg wrote: post #85
brtkdotse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas or biogas? Same gas but the first is fossil while the other is made from fermenting sewage and hence renewable

Either? The problem is that combusting it produces CO₂.

If the CO2 was recently extracted from the atmosphere, then burning the gas is carbon neutral.

It might be more thermodynamically favorable to use the gas as input to a carbon capture process. Even if that is the case, bootstrapping a market for biogas will lower the cost of biogas. In turn, that will lower the cost of biogas-based carbon sequestration.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#105

Post by jhgb »

Kuinox wrote: post #35
natch wrote: post #7

Let’s just ignore the carbon released by cement production.

Yes, cement production for the windmills: https://youtu.be/0vE6QkvcV-s?t=13

Windmills didn't use cement. I assume they used lime mortar like most medieval structures.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#106

Post by [deleted] »

tpmx wrote: post #95
fulafel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Base load is just a made up convention though closely related to traditional fixed rate prices, and may become increasingly fictional in the future as demand adapts to more variable supply and dynamic pricing.

> Base load is just a made up convention. Seriously.

[deleted]

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#107

Post by croes »

rando57 wrote: post #69

I hope that in the future we will seriously consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power Compared to current methods of producing nuclear energy, thorium: - produces significantly more energy per ton - produces significantly less waste - the waste is significantly less dangerous (cools down in x00 years, instead of x0000 years)

We can't even handle a pandemic and you think we can handle nuclear energy?

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#108

Post by black_puppydog »

max_ wrote: post #77
rando57 wrote: post #69

I hope that in the future we will seriously consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power Compared to current methods of producing nuclear energy, thorium: - produces significantly more energy per ton - produces significantly less waste - the waste is significantly less dangerous (cools down in x00 years, instead of x0000 years)

You can make your own thorium battery. [0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optoelectric_nuclear_battery

> A failure of containment would release high-pressure jets of finely-divided radioisotopes, forming an effective dirty bomb.

I'll let you do that first. Please do it somewhere remote kay? :D

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#109

Post by mlyle »

brtkdotse wrote: post #102
enkid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane is going to come out of sewage whether we process it or not, and methane itself is a greenhouse gas. It's not going to come out of the ground without help (in the quantities we are using).

Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, however it breaks down rather quickly. Like I said in a sibling post, the big advantage is that biogas is Net 0 carbon wise as you’re reusing carbon already in the carbon cycle

... it's incredibly potent as CH4... and then it "breaks down" into CO2 and H2O.

I think enkid's point is agreeing with you: might as well burn that sewage CH4 for energy-- you end up with the same CO2 in the end and less CH4 in the atmosphere in the short term.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#110

Post by fulafel »

tpmx wrote: post #95
fulafel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Base load is just a made up convention though closely related to traditional fixed rate prices, and may become increasingly fictional in the future as demand adapts to more variable supply and dynamic pricing.

> Base load is just a made up convention. Seriously.

Ok, bad wording. How about: It emerges from conventional fixed supply. In any case it's no law of nature. So not a concept that is necessarily relevant in the furure.
Post reply on HN