Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#61

Post by cletus »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #55
cletus wrote: post #34

This 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…

Bill Gates new nuclear power plant design is being built in Wyoming. These things are small and cheap. “ The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system's power output to 500 MW during peak power demand. TerraPower said last year that the plants would cost about $1 billion.” https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/utility-small-nuclea...

I, for one, welcome newer and better reactor designs.

This doesn't solve the significant issues of fuel enrichment and waste storage and disposal however and we need a much better story for those before fission power has any kind of future (IMHO).

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#62

Post by pjerem »

jacquesm wrote: post #38
firstSpeaker wrote: post #18

I hope in long term it reduces our dependency on fossil fuel for electricity production.

Uranium is a fossil fuel.

From Wikipedia > A fossil fuel is a fuel formed by natural processes, such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, containing organic molecules originating in ancient photosynthesis[1] A fossil fuel is a fuel formed by natural processes, such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, containing organic molecules originating in ancient photosynthesis that release energy in combustion.[2] that release energy in combustion.

So, by this definition, Uranium is not a fossil fuel.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#63

Post by cletus »

Apocryphon wrote: post #43
cletus wrote: post #34

This 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…

Doesn’t thorium address some of these issues?

Thorium is complicated. I'd suggest [1] [2] as a good primer on this issue.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IqcRl849R0

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQelfQAH54

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#64

Post by estaseuropano »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #12
account4mypc wrote: post #5

Earlier 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…

Solar seems like a best fit for existing buildings, like Musk's solar roofs/windows. For wide spaces there can be other options, like wind, which has a much lower footprint. But even a well placed solar farm does not need to smother wildlife, e.g. you leave space in between, plant lower bushes, etc.

As regards efficiency, solar is nowadays not bad, there's a reason it is the cheapest energy in many countries, especially during the summer months.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#65

Post by Ekaros »

Krasnol wrote: post #60
Ekaros wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think construction timeframes all due to complex political process and lack of proper experience. With enough political will and accepting more reactors in numbers I believe in 10 years, we could get plants up and running in 5 year timeframe.

> I think construction timeframes all due to complex political process and lack of proper experience. Are you aware that Hinkley Point is build by the EDF a French company...they sure don't lack proper experience but the project is still all OP listed. Fission is no solution for the crisis.

How many of those type of reactors have they build in past 10 years? Unless they are building at least 1 a year I don't consider it overall proper experience. And realistically we should aim to much higher numbers, as at that point most problems would already have solutions and quality would be substantially higher with skilled workers.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#66

Post by estaseuropano »

Ekaros wrote: post #54
BitwiseFool wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then I consider that I live in cold climate with long and dark winters. I wonder where is the truly grid scale energy storage to go over winter... Okay, currently it is Norway and it kinda works, but that really doesn't look too good just now...

Well Norway should probably not do solar (except marginal, e.g. instead of traditional roof tiles solar roofs instead). But Norway had plenty of hydro and thermal options, even wind should work well in the more southern areas.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#67

Post by vntok »

foepys wrote: post #15
xvilka wrote: post #6

Given the Germany stupid move to get rid of nuclear (in favor of coal[1], as it turned out), not sure if it will support this decision. And nowadays they are dependent from one country's gas... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-nuclear-power-a...

France imports a lot of gas generated power from Germany over the course of the year. Without Germany's readily available gas turbines, France wouldn't be able to stabilize their net. Same the other way around where Germany relies on France's almost always available nuclear power.

> Without Germany's readily available gas turbines, France wouldn't be able to stabilize their net

Nonsense. Nuclear energy could power much more in France, it's only for political reasons that the grid managers do not ramp up nuclear production to meet demand, thus having to import electricity at times. The nuclear-powered baseline could be much higher without issues others than political (% of renewable energy in the mix)

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#68

Post by anotherboffin »

jacquesm wrote: post #38
firstSpeaker wrote: post #18

I hope in long term it reduces our dependency on fossil fuel for electricity production.

Uranium is a fossil fuel.

Despite the many shared traits with some fossil fuels: extraction by mining, finite amounts, subject to geopolitics… uranium is a chemical element and not a fossil fuel, especially the “fossil” part.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#69

Post by 08-15 »

emj wrote: post #19
egberts1 wrote: post #4

A good start, given that nth generation nuclear power plant is nearly meltdown proof.

There is a Swedish sketch about probability and Nuclear power, it's written by a master of the form so the translation will not live up to the original. Still I do believe it reflects what experience tells us about "nearly bulletproof" in regards to fission. http://wootest.net/likelihood.html

I didn't completely get it, but it sure sounds scary. Probably because I don't know what happened at Harrisburg. Did people die there?

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#70

Post by eithed »

coldpie wrote: post #36
BitwiseFool wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I think we shouldn't be forgetting about the disposal of solar panels as well - https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-was...
Post reply on HN