Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

401–410 of 567 posts

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

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always windy somewhere. You just need to expand the electrical grid. We are still far from the point where we have enough wind that any of it goes unused. Also what is the cost of storing that energy? It's so much cheaper to generate it might still come out cheaper.

Storing it is extremely expensive, at least with any currently available technology. This is apparent looking at how much energy prices change throughout the day / month based on usage and cost of production, and how predictable those changes are. If storing energy were cost effective you could make a killing buying low and selling high on the national grid.

Storing became cost effective last year: https://ieefa.org/ieefa-grid-scale-battery-costs-have-reache...

>If storing energy were cost effective you could make a killing buying low and selling high on the national grid.

Maybe not a killing but you could make $$$ yes. This is starting to happen.

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

#402
post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show me a source for your claim that it has increased? Here's another graph for the energy mix over time, with coal not changing at all. This time from the government energy agency. See page 5. http://energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/FolderContents.mvc/Downloa...

Unfortunately the Swedish authority wants to look good so their promotional materials show domestic and only pay lip service to imports. If you follow the flow from: https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/ you see that most of those countries primarily generate electricity using Oil, Gas and especially coal. (Latvia, Lithuania and to a lesser extent: Estonia)

Page 12, same document. Import, export and net for the year 2019 to all those countries. This isn't some kind of conspiracy.

Some import from Denmark and Norway. Negligible from Poland, Germany, Lithuania. Net is export to all, which means Swedish clean power is actually displacing dirtier sources, except in Norway which is full on hydro.

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

#403
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-.…

All plastics can be recycled. Does not mean they do. In fact, we have unmitigated leaking dumps here in the US, but since it is not in your backyard you don't care. Not your problem, someone elses problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#:~:text=The%20Han... . I can play the environmentalist on the backs of other people as well. Super easy.

Hanford is nuclear weapons research waste, not from nuclear power. Marie Curie died from radiation but we give x-ray examinations every day.

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

#404
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storing it is extremely expensive, at least with any currently available technology. This is apparent looking at how much energy prices change throughout the day / month based on usage and cost of production, and how predictable those changes are. If storing energy were cost effective you could make a killing buying low and selling high on the national grid.

Storing became cost effective last year: https://ieefa.org/ieefa-grid-scale-battery-costs-have-reache... >If storing energy were cost effective you could make a killing buying low and selling high on the national grid. Maybe not a killing but you could make $$$ yes. This is starting to happen.

You're not understanding that correctly. They are talking about things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve

This giant (world's largest!) and very expensive thing provides short term-relief against grid outages. The batteries last for ~1 hour and it can still only provide electricity for something like 50k homes.

(It's used for more economically useful things, like stabilizing the grid in emergencies.)

The periods between high and low/zero wind are in the order of 200-300 hours (at least where I live).

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

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing a predictable number of people each year is not danger, it's damage. The danger posed by hydro is real, but entirely negligible compared to nuclear. But of course we should replace fossils by renewables and phase them out before nuclear. And if nuclear wouldn't take too long to build building new nuclear plants as a stopgap may actually make sense. Unfortunately, they do.

Fukushima was a triple meltdown after total inundation of 1960s-class reactors. The short and long-term death-toll from radiation was quite literally zero, as reaffirmed by UNSCEAR just last month [1]. I don't think the "boundlessly large nuclear accidents make the technology untenable" argument really holds water given this kind of experience. [1] https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2021/unisous419....

You cannot demonstrate the safety of something by pointing at an example that did not go as terrible as it could have.

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

#406
post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the same article: "Dispatchable generation refers to sources of electricity that can be dispatched on demand at the request of power grid operators, according to market needs. Dispatchable generators can adjust their power output according to an order.[1] Non-dispatchable renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar photovoltaic (PV) power cannot be controlled by operators." https://www.nmppenergy.org/f…

>Dispatchable generation refers to sources of electricity that can be dispatched on demand at the request of power grid operators Precisely. It's not "on demand" if it takes a day to ramp up production and another day to ramp it down. It's on yesterday's demand, which is f***ing useless. This contrasts with gas peaker plants which can scale up in seconds. These are known as "dispatchable". >Nuclear stands out as clea…

On demand doesn't mean instantly. Even gas peaker plants aren't instant, they can take 15 minutes to warm up and connect to the grid.

If the sun is down no amount of calling up a solar farm will increase output, if the wind isn't blowing or if it's blowing too strongly no amount of pleading will increase the output of an off-shore wind farm. This is because they aren't dispatchable. This is not the case with Nuclear.

Nuclear can do load following, they do it in France. How else do you think they balance a grid which has 70% Nuclear? They use reactors with grey rods which can reduce the reactivity in the reactor without distorting the shape of the reaction.

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

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in Hanau and was born in that city one year before that happened (you may also refer to the sources if you don't trust the org publishing the English summary): https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/493-494/ex... Children found funny metal pill or drop-like objects in the forests around the plant and played with it. While there were reports of inspectors and interested civilians being blocked fro…

> Are there breeder designs that do not involve molten, highly reactive metals? There are vehicles that use highly reactive fluid called gasoline. Many people drive them safely because we are smart and designed them to be safe enough to be worth the benefit of travel. There are homes heated by explosive fuel (natural gas). People even cook with it. Sometimes people bring water to a hazardous boiling condition in orde…

> There are vehicles that use highly reactive fluid called gasoline. Many people drive them safely because we are smart and designed them to be safe enough to be worth the benefit of travel. There are homes heated by explosive fuel (natural gas). People even cook with it. Sometimes people bring water to a hazardous boiling condition in order to cook or make tea. > > The utilization of hazardous material in safe ways to benefit humanity is old hat, and wholly appropriate in many cases.

True, still people - including myself - keep burning their hands on the stove or with hot water occasionally. Humans also sometimes accidentally ignite some fuel and die a fiery death (electrostatic discharge at fuel station for example). But accidentally irradiating your and all your 1000 neighbors properties for centuries or until the next top soil replacement is a whole different matter. Before real accidents actually happened it was probably easier to convince people risk was tollerable. Now eating wild boar and some mushrooms in the forrest here is considered a health hazard, cause of high levels of cesium. Boar meat tastes great. It is a damn shame it can't be eaten in many cases. Same for the mushrooms:

https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-w...

Quote: "Wer seine persönliche Belastung verringern möchte, sollte in den höher belasteten Gebieten Deutschlands auf den Genuss selbst erlegten Wildes und selbst gesammelter Pilze verzichten." -> "If you want to reduce your personal stress, you should refrain from enjoying game and mushrooms you have hunted yourself in the more polluted areas of Germany."

To summarize, I believe your argument is not unfounded but still doesn't properly account for the difference in scale (time, affected area and severity) of the worst possible effects if something should go wrong. And we know there always remains some risk.

People evaluate not only using analytic thinking, but also from observation and influenced by emotions. And the last two processes seem to disfavour use of nuclear power.

A reactor based on nuclear fission is going to be a hard sell in any region that has been affected by one or multiple accidents before. I hope we can get fusion to work and somehow find a way to shield it properly without causing too much waste. Or concentrate heavily on renewable energy storage (efficiency is a goal that has to be weighed against other factors and may be improved later).

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

#408
post #47

If you're worried about nuclear waste, why not build small nuclear reactors way out in the desert and encase them in concrete for a couple hundred years once you're done with them?

Germany is notably lacking in both deserts and anything reasonably considered "way out".

We could drill way down. But then geothermal seems like the more sensible option. ;)

We could also go way up. But there is the sun already, why build another?

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

#409
post #201

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…

Terrorists are going to break into a government facility, go a mile deep, retrieve massive concrete cylinders, and transport them back to base. Just to get access to low level nuclear material? If they want to poison people en-masse there are way better options. Uranium is a relatively slow killer. And we test our water supply for it because it's a heavy metal like lead. So any real attempt to poison people with it will get detected pretty promptly.

Groups that have the expertise to covertly retrieve spent fuel could probably just buy guns and shoot up a stadium. And that would cause more damage. The relative risk presented by nuclear waste is trivial.

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

#410

They should invest in thorium research, only then fission would become sustainable at human time scale

I mentioned this in another thread but this simply is not true. Thorium breeder reactors are indeed sustainable, but so are uranium breeder reactors. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26604898

I am obviously talking about the order of magnitude greater abundance of thorium on earth than regular uranium used for fission. In what way do your address the point?
Post reply on HN