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

441–450 of 567 posts

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

#441

Post by acidburnNSA »

anoncake wrote: post #405
acidburnNSA wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So... so you must always postulate the worst possible scenario, no matter how unlikely, and judge any technology solely by that? Even in the face of 60 years of worldwide operation providing huge swaths of the world's carbon-free energy while injuring only a vanishing fraction of the people injured by the most common alternate sources?

I cannot see how this view can be justified.

But if you want to take this view, consider this hypothetical worst case. Imagine we push forward with wind, solar, and batteries, but human rights issues related to manufacturing with slave labor, corruption, mineral shortages, grid instabilities, and land usage issues that emerge once these technologies reach world-scale cause enough trouble that we just keep on operating large amounts of fracked fossil gas to the point that climate change hits the bad predicted scenarios and all the bad events of climate change happen anyway. Isn't that hypothesized worst case just as valid as this worse-than-Chernobyl nuclear accident you're holding above our heads?

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

#442

Post by Klinky »

pyrale wrote: post #416
Klinky wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, it flows from the channel into the North Sea.

The Hague is closer to the Irish sea, and currents at that location tend to push to the atlantic rather than into the North sea.

Scientific studies show its pollution reaches the North Sea. Simple current maps show current flows through the channel into the North Sea. However, thank you for highlighting it also pollutes the Irish Sea, channel and Atlantic.

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

#443

Post by Dma54rhs »

Chris2048 wrote: post #432
loeg wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with trees-as-carbon capture is: 1. They are only a net store of carbon while they're alive. 2. Because of that, you need to dedicate land to carbon-capture forest, indefinitely. 3. Burning fossil fuels for energy releases more and more carbon into the atmosphere. Like, you get N tons of carbon captured out of a given land area. It's constant per area. So you would need to continually grow the amount of f…

> They are only a net store of carbon while they're alive. Is wood not a carbon store?

When or a tree dies, or burns, during the decomposition process it releases the carbon back to atmosphere. Maybe you could bury them somewhere where decomposition it's slower or more difficult but hard to imagine doing it at scale.

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

#444

Post by XorNot »

roenxi wrote: post #411
csunbird wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorists are not known to be the most logical people, to be honest. They are going to try anything that can generate terror in large scale and a dirty bomb is a very, very terrorizing thing to general population. General population thinks anything with radiation is panic worthy, even though there isn't that big of a deal.

... so you aren't arguing the premise there (ie, that dirty bombs are inefficient for terrorists). So your argument is distressingly close to "terrorists would be ineffective if they did [this], so we should ban it to stop them making mistakes". I doubt you believe that, I'm just drawing your attention to the fact you have to attack the premise to get anywhere on this issue. godelski is arguing that terrorists who ca…

Terrorists who try to make dirty bombs are incredibly likely to kill themselves when handling the material. A dirty bomb in general is ineffective, but sitting around next to highly radioactive material will put you down from your GI tract dying within 1 to 2 days.

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

#445

Post by asdf333 »

godelski wrote: post #125
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-.…

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…

asking people to store something for a very long time is very hard. Take the nuclear waste from the US atom bomb tests in the pacific. They capped the thing w/ tons of concrete but sea level rise and cracks are making it inevitable its going to cause a mess. And thats literally less than a century ago. The half life of these things is tens of thousands of years.

I think you underestimate how 'temporary' many seemingly strong structures are and how high the temptations to cut costs are. Its very easy to be like "welll...this'll probably hold. I'm sure of it."

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

#446

Post by andbberger »

cinntaile wrote: post #428
andbberger wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is. You are spreading misinformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

Spreading misinformation... That's a bit harsh. It's not even in use yet. Thanks for the example though.

Not really. Climate change is an existential problem that nuclear energy is one of few legitimately promising solutions to, so I don't think it's a stretch to compare the vapid and uninformed anti-nuclear arguments that pop up in every HN thread to anti-maskers: harmful rhetoric with no scientific basis.

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

#447

Post by XorNot »

chrisseaton wrote: post #372
rpastuszak wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Natural” as opposed to? :)

Natural as in naturally occurring. Coal is formed and burns in nature with no interaction from humans. Plutonium does not occur naturally in detectable quantities. It only does so through human action.

Asbestos forms naturally too.

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

#448

Post by amluto »

Chris2048 wrote: post #429
godelski wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most plastics aren't actually recyclable, which is why they aren't recycled. But we say that we can because it shifts the burden. Companies like Coke have been saying that they'll have 50% recycled material in the next 20 years for the last 60. ~~Fusion~~Full recycled product chain is only 20 years away! Also, 17% of France's energy comes from recycled nuclear (70% from nuclear)[0] [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/i…

Is this literally "not recyclable" or, not economically recyclable?

I presume one could, with present technology, incinerate a stream of mixed plastics, collect the CO2, and turn it back into hydrocarbons. I’m not sure this counts as recycling.

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

#449

Post by chrisseaton »

XorNot wrote: post #447
chrisseaton wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural as in naturally occurring. Coal is formed and burns in nature with no interaction from humans. Plutonium does not occur naturally in detectable quantities. It only does so through human action.

Asbestos forms naturally too.

Not sure what you’re trying to say? Asbestos is a natural mineral - not sure where you think that fits into this or how it’s relevant, sorry. We aren’t just listing all things that are naturally occurring!
Post reply on HN