EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by vidarh » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

j-pb wrote: post #123

cbmuser wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is not finding a place that's geologically stable now. But finding one that's geologically stable in 850.000 years. Something that takes several hundred thousand years for decay isn't actually dangerous. Short half-life: High radioactivity. Long half-life: Low radioactivity. Furthermore, spent nuclear fuel can be recycled up to 95%: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... > https…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morsleben_radioactive_waste_... Yeah because only fuel is highly radioactive... Texas failed to secure their electrical grid, that has nothing to do with renewables. We got renewables running in far worse weather conditions. Capitalism and greed killed those texans. You're making my case that people can't be trusted with nuclear, even though the tech in and of itself could be safe.

Renewables also cost numerous deaths for other reasons.

Hydro is the cause of the by far most lethal single power plant related failure (the Banqiao dam failures).

Rooftop solar causes more deaths per unit of electricity delivered from installation related accidents alone to be uncompetitive with nuclear.

Generally the more construction that is needed for a given production method, the more deaths, and that tends to go in the favour of nuclear given the sheer amount of power generated once a plant is operational.

Large solar installations may win out over nuclear in terms of safety, but it's hard to get good data.

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

#152

Post by option » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #144

cbmuser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

Saying Nuclear waste is not a problem is like saying taking a shit in your neighbors yard is not a problem. Shit can be packed into plastic bags, composted, and eventually stops smelling. Some of us believe that if we can't generate power without creating waste for future generations, we should go without the power. Seriously, we don't need it.

yes, nuclear waste is like taking a 10x smaller than the grain of rise shit in your neighbor’s yard.

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

#153

Post by vidarh » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #41

Lammy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the standard response is “but what about a hypothetical future civilization somehow disconnected enough from ours to not know what nuclear waste is who find it and dig it up thinking it’s holy or whatever” and a link to the spiky ground and “this is not a place of honor”. Assuming a future civilization gets to exist considering we keep burning petroleum products and calling them clean while we waste time argu…

> I think the standard response is “but what about a hypothetical future civilization somehow disconnected enough from ours to not know what nuclear waste is who find it and dig it up thinking it’s holy or whatever” It is not. Why is it one straw man after another in this discussion? The response is that countries like Germany have already spent a lot of time looking for a suitable place, and haven't found one. At th…

The problem is that in the meantime the alternatives that are actually being used are killing thousands of people a year right now.

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

#154

Post by dijit » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #144

cbmuser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

Saying Nuclear waste is not a problem is like saying taking a shit in your neighbors yard is not a problem. Shit can be packed into plastic bags, composted, and eventually stops smelling. Some of us believe that if we can't generate power without creating waste for future generations, we should go without the power. Seriously, we don't need it.

You know what, you’re right- I agree.

However our largest energy creation mechanism is absolutely destroying the planet in non-linear and difficult to measure ways. Coal is not a dramatic killer but it kills us in droves, now and long into the future.

Nuclear waste, in comparison, is more of a “known” issue, and were scared of what we know.

I’m talking about coal because Sweden is displacing its nuclear power draw with mostly coal.

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

#155

Post by godelski » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #144

cbmuser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

Saying Nuclear waste is not a problem is like saying taking a shit in your neighbors yard is not a problem. Shit can be packed into plastic bags, composted, and eventually stops smelling. Some of us believe that if we can't generate power without creating waste for future generations, we should go without the power. Seriously, we don't need it.

> Saying Nuclear waste is not a problem is like saying taking a shit in your neighbors yard is not a problem.

The weird thing is that you're taking a shit in your neighbor's yard. I mean if they do it in their own yard it's weird, but there's nothing wrong with it. I mean this is what we do with dog shit.

The problem is that everyone shits. Sure, nuclear shit smells a lot more than solar shit or coal shit, but there's a hell of a lot less of it. We're talking a cat vs herd of rhinos. If I had to clean up one of the two I honestly don't care how much that cat's shit smells, I'm picking that job every single time. And you know what, the researchers seem to agree

> The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies

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

#156

Post by tpmx » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #147

oblio wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> demand adapts to more variable supply and dynamic pricing You want demand to adapt? I'm supposed to turn the lights out when the wind's not blowing, or what? Demand shouldn't adapt, supply should adapt. Connect more and bigger power grids, add energy storage to the grid in large enough quantities. Your "solution" is like telling people to give up cars. They won't.

Yes, you get the gist of my position (for cars too).

So when it gets really cold and there's little wind, we'll freeze to death? Gotcha.

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

#157

Post by kergonath » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

kcmastrpc wrote: post #16

pitaj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't sign up for pollution from fossil fuels either.

Yes, they do. If you drive a car, heat your home via gas/electricity, use the internet (to post this) -- you signed up for it.

How so? Do the particulates and aerosols avoid me breathing them in because I don’t drive a car and use electric heating? How does it work?

Pollution from fossil fuel is unavoidable in quite a lot of places regardless of your life style. Also, much more deadly than anything related to nuclear so far.

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

#158

Post by biren34 » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #144

cbmuser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

Saying Nuclear waste is not a problem is like saying taking a shit in your neighbors yard is not a problem. Shit can be packed into plastic bags, composted, and eventually stops smelling. Some of us believe that if we can't generate power without creating waste for future generations, we should go without the power. Seriously, we don't need it.

I'm sorry to say, but the idea that "we don't need energy" is both false and dangerous.

The earth's carrying capacity before fossil fuels was far, far lower than the 7 billion current population, especially with current living standards.

The only reason we can support that many is because of a complex web of economics that causes the earth to produce far more food than it otherwise could, and then enables distribution of that food to where the people are.

Without fossil fuels, we couldn't even produce the fertilizer needed to support the food. You could argue that there is some alternative set of lifestyles that would enable to eliminate fossil fuels without asking 90% of the population to die, but that would similarly require some sort of top-down totalitarian regime in order to get there and keep us there.

At this point, we do need the energy. The only way to maybe not need it would be to somehow put a global version of Stalin in a position of absolute power.

Failing to understand just how critical energy is to any sort of non-apocalyptic future is one of the biggest dangers in our current political debate about what should come next.

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

#159

Post by Cerium » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #135

cbmuser wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is not finding a place that's geologically stable now. But finding one that's geologically stable in 850.000 years. Something that takes several hundred thousand years for decay isn't actually dangerous. Short half-life: High radioactivity. Long half-life: Low radioactivity. Furthermore, spent nuclear fuel can be recycled up to 95%: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... > https…

> Renewables have actually caused multiple deaths [...] Question: in which sectors do we currently optimise for minimum deaths (above anything else)?

In general, automation that reduces human control - self driving cars and amusement park rides.

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

#160

Post by kergonath » Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

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.

A combination of NIMBY, genuine concerns, poor education and political point scoring.

It does not make any rational sense.