It should be labelled both as "green" and as "renewable" as well - it's just as renewable as e.g. solar (a.k.a. "sky nuclear").
If we are nit picking, we can look at entropy and conclude no fuel is renewable :)
Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
31–40 of 143 posts
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the right attitude. Even if you don't want to use nuclear power, it obviously warrants serious attention.
Using words like "ignorant" and "hypocritical" shows an attitude problem.
we should aggregate all problematic words into a controlled list to identify problematic people with problematic attitudes to solve certain problems
- end sarcasm
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#33By the way, with or without nuclear power, the FitFor55 proposal sounds completely unreasonable to me. 1. It projects a 35% increase of energy efficiency in 10 years. You might achieve it in virtual lifes, but not in the real world (ask a cow to burp less!?) 2. It concerns domestic net emissions. Meaning that the policy is incentiving to de-localisation of industry in China (which already explains most of the progres…
> It concerns domestic net emissions. Meaning that the policy is incentiving to de-localisation of industry in China
This is simply not true.
The EU is trying to adress this with a mechanism called CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism). It's complicated and not sure how well it'll work out, but claiming that this is not adressed is wrong.
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#34This seems to be an unpopular opinion on HN but I just don't trust humans to manage fission power in the long term at scale.
First, there are the issues of storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts, specifically depleted Uranium Hexaflouride ("DUJF" or UF6).
Second, there's what to do with old fuel rods. Proponents argue this is a solved problem and it can be stored for the long term in geologically stable storage facilities. This is just one political change away from becoming a huge problem.
Neither really scales up to 100x or even 10x current fission energy production.
Third, there's long-term maintenance of a plant. Arguments about the relative safety of fission point to deaths caused by coal. Coal is really the worst fossil fuel. LNG is better. But regardless of the numbers, the failure modes are just much, much worse for nuclear. 35 years later, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone still stands at 1000 square miles. Parts of this zone will likely remain uninhabitable for centuries.
I just don't trust governments or corporations for the long term inspection, maintenance and management of fission power plants in the long term.
Lastly, the politics are against fission. This seems unlikely to change anytime soon.
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#35I read that letter in the newspaper this morning and I had a few questions about the claims being made:
- They claim nuclear could create a million of jobs in Europe. What kind of jobs ? Is that job creation or job swapping ?
- Switching to nuclear power guarantees energy independence. But where is the uranium we need ? How can we guarantee delivery ?
The argument I hear against building new nuclear plants is that it's basically too late:
- it takes 30 years or more to build one
- it usually costs twice as planned
- it's way more expensive than renewables
- renewables can be deployed now
I do believe we should have built more nuclear plants 20 or 30 years ago but we were drunk on cheap oil and gas.
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the right attitude. Even if you don't want to use nuclear power, it obviously warrants serious attention.
I saw a photo of an entire hillside covered with solar panels and it was being touted as some green energy achievement. But then I realized that those solar panels have smothered the habitat and that the actual energy output of that solar panel array is very low compared to its footprint - not to mention all the resources that went into producing all those panels. It seems obvious to me that the best possible solutio…
You're a bit off the mark with your perception of solar, although you do come to the right conclusion. Solar panels can interact well with the local environment[1] and their production resources are sufficiently low as to still be a genuinely clean source of energy[2]. Also, when comparing production costs, consider that nuclear plants don't build themselves and use a _lot_ of concrete, which has a major carbon cost.
But your conclusion is right: nuclear is by far the best power option we have right now.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/bees-and-solar-panel...
[2] "Researchers found that it takes just 1 to 4 years for solar panels to “even out” or “pay back” their energy debt. When you consider the fact that panels are designed to last 20 to 25 years, on average, you can see why that’s an impressive rating." Includes link to source study, https://www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manu...
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#37This seems to be an unpopular opinion on HN but I just don't trust humans to manage fission power in the long term at scale. First, there are the issues of storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts, specifically depleted Uranium Hexaflouride ("DUJF" or UF6). Second, there's what to do with old fuel rods. Proponents argue this is a solved problem and it can be stored for the long term in geologically stable storag…
It may not be popular, because it is just not very logical or pragmatic. Setting aside the vagaries of politics, as those will eventually change the same way pendulum swings, the simple reality is that we simply won't be able to dig around for coal, gas and oil for that much longer. Something has got to give.
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#38I hope in long term it reduces our dependency on fossil fuel for electricity production.
Uranium is a fossil fuel.
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#39I read that letter in the newspaper this morning and I had a few questions about the claims being made: - They claim nuclear could create a million of jobs in Europe. What kind of jobs ? Is that job creation or job swapping ? - Switching to nuclear power guarantees energy independence. But where is the uranium we need ? How can we guarantee delivery ? The argument I hear against building new nuclear plants is that it…
There are plenty of old abandoned uranium mines in portugal.
They were abandoned because the price of uranium is so cheap it's not economical to mine it, but that can change if the economics of the situation change (ie, it suddenly becomes impossible to Import)
Regardless the point is moot. The amount of uranium required isn't that huge.
Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green
#40Understandable given France has invested heavily into such power generation due to policy many decades ago to be energy self sufficient. That has seen France build up a nice collection of skilled workers across the board from building such power stations thru to management. You can read up some background here: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... I'd imagine having the green label will mak…
5 or 10 years ago I watched a documentary about France's nuclear workers (I live in Belgium).
One guy said they had lost a lot of their know how when building nuclear plants abroad and were spread too thin now to manage all the plants.
He also said that privatization of small contractors to conduct routine maintenance had led to tighter schedules and an increase in small accidents. He wasn't confident the nuclear park was safe enough.
Most signatures are from Eastern Europe. It'd be great for France's finances to build nuclear plants in western Europe, the west has a strong anti nuclear stance at the moment.