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

451–460 of 567 posts

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

#451

Post by torresmo »

Haemm0r wrote: post #20
dijit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. It's like they succeeded and then many decades later flight MH17 happened and the world collectively lost its mind and declared air travel as inherently unsafe and condemned all research into it as dangerous. The issue though, is that energy production is mostly quiet unless there's a problem, but people do see personal benefit in air travel. Add to that: Coal is a silent killer, it's not obviou…

The comparison of a happening with basically no longterm consequences to future generations like MH17 to nuclear fallout / necessary waste treatment is quite lame imho. Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all. Just do the math if you need decades to dismantle and decontaminate an old nuclear power plant alone.

> Nuclear energy without subsidies is not sustainable at all.

FYI, oil & gas industry receives a lot of subsidies (just google it). On top of that, nuclear is extremely regulated compared to oil & gas. For instance, we have to capture and store nuclear waste. That's not the case for oil & gas CO2 waste.

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

#452

Post by Klinky »

whatever1 wrote: post #440
coryrc wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And as expected, 0% of that has been recycled. Yet the parent comment makes the case that nuclear waste is not a problem (or maybe they think it is a trivial one?). In any case, current facts do not align with the narrative that nuclear waste management is a solved (technically & economically) problem.

Actually some of the hazardous waste at Hanford is from the PUREX "recycling" process to extract Plutonium for weapons research. A lot of people just don't want to admit that nuclear is very dirty, and while we're potentially able to better capture its waste compared to other waste producing energy sources, our track record with nuclear material in general is very poor.

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

#454

Post by Klinky »

coryrc wrote: post #403
whatever1 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hanford is a great example of what happens when you don't manage or plan for nuclear waste properly.

Also x-ray technicians stand behind a shield, because x-rays are still dangerous.

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

#455

Post by hetspookjee »

0df8dkdf wrote: post #450

Just wonder can we just send the nuclear wast to the sun, wouldn't that be a good way to get ride of them?

No, for the reason that the waste is extremely heavy and more importantly, if the rocket blows ups, you now have a huge problem with radioactive waste spread on a high altitude.

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

#456

Post by godelski »

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?

"Not recyclable" in the literal sense. You have lower yields when you reform plastics and there's always contaminants which are difficult (read "we don't know how to") remove. This is a complicated technical challenge. In fact, the recent John Oliver episode was on this topic[0]. There's kinda this weird conspiracy about this, which is more about shifting responsibility.

Though the more honest answer is closer to "mostly not recyclable, a bit not economically viable". But that also depends what we mean by "economically viable". If we're using it in the typical sense of "slightly more expensive for producers" then a small percentage increase. But if we're talking about "if producers had infinite resources" then well still no, but we'd be able to recycle a bit more (we're still not talking much more). I'm assuming the former because the latter is an absurd position.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E

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

#457

Post by r00fus »

torresmo wrote: post #453

I see a lot of fair concerns about nuclear waste. Here's a crazy thought: Can we just send it to space? With all recent developments in space technology, I'd expect it to be extremely safe and reliable in the next decades.

What happens when, through mistake or sabotage, that space bound vessel explodes in the atmosphere?

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

#458

Post by Ericson2314 »

godelski wrote: post #282
brtkdotse wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, it depend where the carbon forming the CO2 comes from. Carbon extracted from sewage is already in the carbon cycle giving a net 0 carbon when burned. Extracting and burning fossile carbon ADDS carbon to the cycle, hence the problem

Or we could extract it and not burn it, making it "carbon negative". Though your comment has a problem. It isn't carbon that is the problem, it is carbon in the air. If we did 100% CO2 extraction from coal fire plants they wouldn't be a real climate issue (overly simplified). Similarly we can't consider sewage as a carbon 0 cycle because eating turns a solid carbon source (food) into a gas. Carbon is fine, carbon in…

Yes, thank for this! Not burning are net 0 biofuels is equivalently the cheapest carbon capture we can do.

It's very good to analyze specific flows, but at the end of day, greenhouse gases (appropriately weighted) in the air are a fungible liability, and taking some specific process and sanctifying it's net greenhouse gas emissions in isolation is silly.

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

#459

Post by godelski »

XorNot wrote: post #444
roenxi wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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.

Even more likely because you're going to need to powderize the nuclear material. Which is super dangerous. (weighted dosage is higher for internal exposure since it is closer to organs and less "shielding") Radioactive dust is something you really do not want to be messing around with, even if the radioactivity is comparatively low.

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

#460

Post by freeflight »

cbmuser wrote: post #51
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…

> 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-.…

> And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled:

That number is not actually supported by your source, as a matter of fact, your source points out that the US it not recycling any of the fuel at all.

> Oh, but Germany has a storage for highly toxic chemicals in Herfa-Neurode with already over 3 million tons of waste

Sorry, but I don't see the argument there? Just because there's already toxic waste, does not mean that more toxic waste wouldn't change anything. Or are you suggesting the nuclear waste should just be thrown into Herfa-Neurode with all the chemical waste?

> Compared to that, Germany has only 11,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. An amount that fits into a single hall.

Germany also has quite a high population density, it doesn't have the luxury of large swats of unpopulated land where it could build it's "nuclear waste storage hall", and that's assuming that "just store it in a hall" is actually a good way to store it.

If it really was as simple as that, then why did Finland spend billions on building their Onkala deep geological repository? Which is the only installation of that kind on the whole planet. Not even in the US a proper storage location has been found yet, as Yucca Mountain was not deemed suitable.

The best answer anybody can currently give to that is "Just store it on site", which isn't a solution, it's the temporary band-aid for a rather permanent problem that's not actually solved.

You can't just hand-wave that away by claiming it ain't a problem and allegedly never was.

Post reply on HN