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

231–240 of 567 posts

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

#231

Post by jay_kyburz »

dijit wrote: post #154
jay_kyburz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

I haven't read that we can't just recapture the carbon by re-planting a bazzilion trees. I'll do some googling now.

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

#232

Post by fulafel »

tpmx wrote: post #177
fulafel wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who decided to use directly grid electricity for heating but are not willing or able to pay for it during cold spells will find they have a summer house. Consumers can of course have electricity contracts that have fixed monthly prices as a derivative bought from electricity market actors. As the transition doesn't happen overnight, people and the social safety net will have time to cope and adapt. In cold cli…

Well, it's good that you're transparent. People should abandon their homes because of your policy. Which energy sources that emit less co2/kWh than nuclear power should be used to heat houses in that case? > (In cold climates people have well insulated houses that are relatively affordable to heat, and mostly use non electricity heating, like thus far) What are talking about? What kind of non-electricity heating? Let…

So why would the electricity prices become unaffordable for heat pump heating in your well insulated houses with local hydro and nuclear power?

By non electric heating methods I meant CHP and biomass based heating.

But yes, old energy inefficient houses in cold climates should be replaced. There's no need to get dramatic over it, houses are machines for living and it depends on circumstances how far to extend their lifespan. (Except some historical houses of course)

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

#234

Post by godelski »

IshKebab wrote: post #202
godelski wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bigger factor to note is that 95% of radiation is contained within 1% of the waste. I think the problem here is that people don't realize how small this number is. Because 11ktons sounds like a lot. But if you compare it to any other waste in the world it is tiny. Perspective is lost. I also don't understand why not having a geological repository is an issue. Many researchers propose just storing it in place after…

Yes it's a lot less waste, but most waste isn't radioactive!!

It also just isn't a lot of waste. It sounds like a lot, but consider that the US produces 100 million tons of coal waste per year (2014). Hell, solar has ~30ktons of waste a year (just PV panels). 11ktons over 60 years just is astronomically tiny. That's 138 tons a year, 150x less than solar and 500000x less than coal. They just don't compare.

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

#235

Post by consumer451 »

My only concerns are the timelines required for nuclear plant construction, and also that no one wants one constructed near them.

I believe that HVDC conduits going to solar farms in Spain, even under the Mediterranean to Africa could be built faster than nuclear plants.

I also believe that most people would prefer a compressed gas storage system built in a old coal or salt mine built nearby over a nuclear plant.

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

#236

Post by webreac »

patall wrote: post #201
godelski wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bigger factor to note is that 95% of radiation is contained within 1% of the waste. I think the problem here is that people don't realize how small this number is. Because 11ktons sounds like a lot. But if you compare it to any other waste in the world it is tiny. Perspective is lost. I also don't understand why not having a geological repository is an issue. Many researchers propose just storing it in place after…

Call me irrational but storing small amounts of highly radio active material in many locations is, from my point of view, basically asking for a dirty bomb to happen at some point. It only needs an event like the end of the soviet union to happen in a single country on earth and any terrorist organization would be able to buy enough of it. I acknowledge that this may happen anyways with the current situation but your…

The "highly radio active" material that is dispersed is mainly radioactive by contamination and unsuitable for any bomb. In La Hague, uranium and plutonium are recycled. The part that could be used for a dirty bomb (other fission products) does not leave La Hague. It is called "glass storage" if you do a google search. This storage is the origin of the old logo of cogema.

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

#237

Post by beefield »

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…

What I really, really do not get is why the countries that do have long term solution do not start selling nuclear waste disposal services to other countries.

First, you could charge outrageus amounts of money for the service.

Second, you could practically ditch your defence forces simply because absolutely nobody would want anyone else to attack a country with huge amounts of radioactive waste.

Finally, after some time, you could likely sell the waste back as a fuel ingredient to new nuclear technologies.

This only slightly tongue in cheek. Of course I understand that proposing that would be a political suicide, but nevertheless, it would make sense.

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

#238

Post by tsimionescu »

fulafel wrote: post #208
tsimionescu wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you believe the grid can be said to be working well with occasional dips to 0MWh? Or is some base load in fact an obvious necessity? You may argue that the current value of the base load is artificially high, but there obviously is some fundamental base load given by the kinds of consumers you have.

It's unlikely to hit 0 even at night, no reason to stop all the windmills and hydro, and there will be stored energy buyers and sellers. But there won't be production guarantees to some level based on anticipated demand.

I know it's unlikely, but the point was that there exists some minimum need of energy, even in the most flexible grid imaginable, some base load necessary.

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

#239

Post by ncallaway »

drran wrote: post #143
seoaeu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically what we already do, and it works fine. But opponents will still pester you about where to put the sealed boxes :P

Put it under your home.

If someone else is paying the cost to excavate, bury, secure, backfill, then sure.

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

#240

Post by fmajid »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #163
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)

Nuclear engineer here. I've spent lots of time fighting against persistent myths about thorium. All the things you mention are characteristics of breeder reactors , not just thorium breeders. Uranium-based breeder reactors can do these things as well. Thorium has only one actual physical advantage, and that is that it can do breeding with slow neutrons rather than fast ones. This is a technicality and has lots of com…

A big advantage is that thorium is a non-proliferating nuclear technology, which may explain why so little effort has been put into it.
Post reply on HN