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

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

#71

Post by onli » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

pjerem wrote: post #52

foepys wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, we (the French) made a stupid move by closing the Fessenheim power plant although it have passed all the security checks and could have continue to work for one or more decades.

That's not even remotely true. Fessenheim was a huge security risk and would not have passed any security checks in a country not as fanatically pro-nuclear as France.

See https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Pannen-AKW-Fessenheim-geht-vom-N...:

> Fessenheim liegt in einem Erdbebengebiet, das Kraftwerk ist gegen einen Flugzeugabsturz oder Anschlag unzureichend geschützt. Zudem kam es immer wieder zu Pannen.

That says: It was in an seismic active zone, unprotected against plane crashes or terror attacks. There also were a bunch of accidents.

Those old reactor designs weren't safe.

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

#72

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

estaseuropano wrote: post #59

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The op gives clear and sound reasons which you dismiss as illogical without any actual argument. Your answer also misses the obvious point of renewables. I fully agree with the op, no way nuclear is long-term safe and if we poured the trillions that have been poured into nuclear into renewables the world already would be a lot nicer. But renewables are much harder to monopolize so the big players never really wanted…

"But renewables are much harder to monopolize so the big players never really wanted to support them."

Compared to nuclear power? Yeah. Almost by default getting nuclear power up and running requires government intervention and this is where it hurts. There is no privatization money to skim ( unlike renewables ). It is monopolized, but it is monopolized the way government monopolizes things ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly ).

"if we poured the trillions that have been poured into nuclear into renewables the world already would be a lot nicer. "

It is possible ( I was wrong before ), but I would like you to consider the following:

Solar panels require rare earths. They are called rare not for shits and giggles. What do you think will happen when entire Earth starts looking for them. Consider scalability issues and all of a sudden, digging for oil looks better. We have an interesting view of the coming attractions with Tesla ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-25/musk-says... ) and some of the tall tales of him supporting a coup to get the resources he needed.

Similar list of issues run for other renewables with possible exception of geothermal, so I think 'a lot nicer' may be a bit of exaggeration. It is going to sound really cynical, but to me it sounds like pockets where the money reside will change.

That is it. With nuclear -- some of that money will dry up. Hence, partially, the cry out against it.

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

#73

Post by emj » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

08-15 wrote: post #69

emj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It seems like "Three Mile Island accident" is the name that is used in the US. Do not think anyone died.

> Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cleanup cost of about $1 billion

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

#74

Post by blaze33 » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

adt2bt wrote: post #53

GrumpyNl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." With space travel becoming cheaper and cheaper, cant we deposit that on the moon for example?

The general concern there is a rocket malfunction spewing spent fuel rods over a large terrestrial area before it gets the chance to reach the moon.

Yes. Also, given the huge volume of radioactive waste (eg. like 10s of thousands cubic meters just in France) it would require thousands of rocket launches for such an endeavour.

Launch failure rates at best nearing 1%, space don't look like our best option here.

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

#75

Post by 08-15 » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #35

I 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…

> I do believe we should have built more nuclear plants 20 or 30 years ago

Would you like to know why we didn't?

Because climate activists told us 20 years ago that

- [a nuclear power plant] takes 30 years or more to build one

- [a nuclear power plant] usually costs twice as planned

- [nuclear power is] way more expensive than renewables

- renewables can be deployed now

Then we (Germany) wasted 20 years building renewables, and now we are nowhere close to fulfilling our Kyoto commitment, and got the most expensive electricity anywhere in the world. Well done, climate activists!

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

#76

Post by vfclists » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:15 PM UTC

According to this page, the problem of nuclear waste disposal was solved over 20 years ago. It is based on a design where the "waste fuel" is used again by the reactor until it is depleted.

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project - http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm

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

#77

Post by forty » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

derlvative wrote: post #48

johnchristopher wrote: post #35

I 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…

Australia is the country wih the world's largest uranium reserves. They seem to be a more agreeable trading partner than Russia.

From a French point of view, this might have become debatable lately ;)

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

#78

Post by oblak » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

derlvative wrote: post #48

johnchristopher wrote: post #35

I 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…

Australia is the country wih the world's largest uranium reserves. They seem to be a more agreeable trading partner than Russia.

In what way is Australia more agreeable uranium selling partner? I really don't know

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

#79

Post by JJzD » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:24 PM UTC

pensatoio wrote: post #2

Great news. Let’s make it happen. Discussions about “green” energy that don’t involve nuclear are hypocritical at best and ignorant at worst.

The issue is that even if we take care of the waste, nuclear power can't scale in output in less than three days because of safety procedures.

So it will push the real renewable energies off the net, and we'll need gas turbines to handle day to day fluctuations.

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

#80

Post by johnchristopher » Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 8:34 PM UTC

08-15 wrote: post #75

johnchristopher wrote: post #35

I 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…

> I do believe we should have built more nuclear plants 20 or 30 years ago Would you like to know why we didn't? Because climate activists told us 20 years ago that - [a nuclear power plant] takes 30 years or more to build one - [a nuclear power plant] usually costs twice as planned - [nuclear power is] way more expensive than renewables - renewables can be deployed now Then we (Germany) wasted 20 years building rene…

I do wonder why and how green parties were able to get everyone else to retire nuclear plants but then nobody (green, blue, red, etc.) set plans in motion to replace it.