Live data from Hacker News

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

euronews.com

81–90 of 143 posts

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

#81
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?

The Gobi Molten salt reactor is finished and testing has begun. China thinks that in 2030 commercial thorium reactors will be available.

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

#82
post #74
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From edf:

"Ces déchets sont constitués, principalement, des matières non valorisables récupérées après le traitement du combustible usé. Les matières sont incorporées dans du verre en fusion, lui-même coulé dans un conteneur en acier. Les conteneurs contiennent 400 kg de verre pour 11 kg de déchets. Les conteneurs, en raison de la chaleur qu’ils dégagent, doivent être entreposés pour être refroidis pendant au moins une cinquantaine d’années avant d’être définitivement stockés. Le volume total de ces déchets équivaudra à 6 700 m³ à l'issue de 40 années d’exploitation du parc nucléaire français. Les déchets à vie longue représentent 10 % du volume total des déchets et concentrent 99,9 % de la radioactivité."[0]

So 6300 cubic meter over 40 years of operations. [edit] counting the glass to make them manipulable.

[0] https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/pr...

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

#83
post #79

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.

That's entirely untrue. Nuclear power plant designs used in France (and I think Germany?) participate in load following and can do so between 30-100% capacity at around 5%/min.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Operat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#Pre...

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

#84
post #70
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm pro-nuclear, but solar panel disposal in rich country is almost solved. 94,7% recyclable, the recycling is taken into account when you buy them (in Europe at least), so its free to get them to the recycling plant for the owner.

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

#85
post #65
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

Those fantasies would cost immense amounts of money in the decades it would take to build up your "super experience". The cost and speed of improvement of renewable sources do not justify anything like that.

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

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s see if they still sport these stickers after the coming winter…

Well maybe Germans could just vote to freeze their energy prices, like Berliners voted to freeze their rents. /s

Or buy the power plants and then sell the power for cheap...

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

#87
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…

Fair points. (I hope nobody downvoted you)

I somewhat disagree on your general point, though. Pellet reactor (mostly?) solve the spent fuel issue. Also, I believe that due to unreasonable negative opinion we're behind a few decades where we could be in terms of research.

And as I said in my earlier comment, it is exactly this lack of public support that had (and has) us running old timer nuclear plants (like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and most of the currently operated plants in the US, the EU, and elsewhere).

But I agree 100% that the problems you cite need to solved, and these solutions have to be communicated.

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

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Rare earths aren't rare. Nor are they earths. It's just an old name

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

#89
post #71
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That's not even remotely true.

It is though. For CEA experts at least. And considering what those experts did to the EPR, i'm pretty sure they are not as "pro-edf" or "pro-nuclear" as the Green tell they are.

> Fessenheim was a huge security risk and would not have passed any security checks in a country not as fanatically pro-nuclear as France.

You're dissing CEA engineers and physicists here.

> That says: It was in an seismic active zone

This reason is bullshit. Fessenhein is a PWR reactor, unless you have something like 7 on the Richter scale, the reactor will likely just hold. On a 7, you have leakage risks, and maybe on a nine you'll get a meltdown?

Do you think its likely to get a 7 or more there?

> unprotected against plane crashes or terror attacks.

True, plane crashes are not an issue though, unless you know exactly where the core or the pool is (one is a much much bigger issue than the other obviously). And to engage security mesures you need to either: push a big button, or cut electricity. Once the grid is down, there is no way to make the core explode, and if you take more than 30 minutes to put a bomb on it, it probably won't even meltdown. To reengage the reactor you need knowledge, so a sabotage is still possible.

> There also were a bunch of accidents.

True, and bad ones. Hiring contractors is good for us, earning that much doing pretty much nothing, but ultimately bad for the company, especially when you need to keep competency at a high level. Not the only nuclear plant in France where incompetency reigns from what i heard.

> Those old reactor designs weren't safe.

Untrue, but true for fessenheim. No commercial French reactor active right now are as unsafe as let's say Fukushima, because our Gen2 were that much better (as were the US's). Not as well designed as CANDUC type, but PWR are stable and do have passive protection against a chain reaction or a leak. Also, you can just move the core out and voila, no more nuclear reaction. Anyway. The second wave was improved upon "thanks" to the TMI incident, and even older reactors got better passive risk reduction upgrades and better detection.

But, Fessenheim did had a lot of troubles (and by troubles, i mean incidents from human origin), and while the cuve could probably last another 30 to 40 years, the PWR tech also have big wear and tear effect on surrounding equipements. The CEA accounted for this in their rapport, and precognized a long downtime to put thing in order.

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

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Rare earths aren't rare. Nor are they earths. It's just an old name

I suppose we can play a semantic game, but it does not change the actual result does it? They could be called Albino Chickens for all I care.

Rare earths are rare on the market right now, because China managed to monopolize the market. To make it more amusing, extraction of those materials is not exactly easy on the environment, which makes it less likely that Western countries will allow it in their backyard.

With that out of the way what about my argument is wrong?

Post reply on HN