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

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 451 posts

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#411

Post by belorn »

holoduke wrote: post #340
belorn wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar + a few hours of capacity are economical viable to run on a day and night cycle. Each day they charge up, and each day they discharge, with a market price that goes up and down in a similar pattern. This is possible for the southern part of EU, but more so in the southern parts of that (Egypt and below). Further north and solar get displaced by wind as the primary source of energy, and wind do not have a day cy…

Not true. We have 10kw solar panels with 64x ,280ah LIFO batteries. Even in the winter we manage for 90% using only solar/battery power. We have a detached family house in the Netherlands using slightly above average. Our monthly bill is about 20 euros max. I build the entire setup myself for about 10k euros.

I know a person who built a house worth 600k euros for less than 100k euros.

Would you sell your setup for 10k euros, or is the value of your setup possible worth more than the cost of doing it yourself. 10k to be free of the electric company for all future seems like a very good deal if purchasable at that price, and if offered I think there would be quite a few homes willing to take you up on it.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#412

Post by Swenrekcah »

pydry wrote: post #400
Swenrekcah wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that already happened then that's great. It's the first I'm hearing about it but I don't work in the sector so that's fair. Nevertheless nuclear energy is a steady and reliable source of large amounts of energy, just like coal and oil. By having a few of those, the grid operator can greatly decrease their need for grid-scale batteries, thus enabling more grids to deploy them faster, paving the way for more solar/w…

>This is not a competition between renewables and nuclear. They aren't enemies. They kind of are. They are competing for limited investment and they are not complementary. Nuclear power is not a "battery". It's an extraordinarily expensive way to produce a fixed amount of power whether it's needed or not. You trade ~20% extra reliability for 3x the cost. >I'm highly skeptical that it is possible or even desirable to…

I guess we just disagree then. I think we have plenty of resources to do both.

Government might better focus on clamping down on frivolous waste of resources such as cryptos (both waste of hardware, energy and most valuably talent).

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#413

Post by iso1210 »

sfifs wrote: post #408
iso1210 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many millions of square kilometres of Japan are uninhabitable due to nuclear energy?

Japan's habitable area according to [1] is about 125k sq Km. Fukushima official Exclusion Zone is about 370 sq km [2] - so that's 0.3% which is quite a significant loss in itself. However given the events, there's a lot of migration out of the surrounding towns and villages outside the exclusion zone due to fear of radiation amd a very marked population decline in the region. Young families don't want to risk raising…

It's planned to reopen in 2030, although parts are open now I believe. Personally I think a better solution would be a nature reserve.

If I were choosing somewhere to live, I'd be more worried about the risk of another tsunami which killed 20,000 people than low level background radiation, same with Earthquakes in California, or Tornados in the middle of the US, or Hurricaines in the South East of the US.

Many places in the exclusion zone are about as radioactive as Cornwall, and people pay a premium to live there. There are far more radioactive cities in the world.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#414

Post by kergonath »

iso1210 wrote: post #380
xigoi wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear can be built anywhere and can provide power at any time. What renewable has these properties?

Nuclear can't seem to be built anywhen, it seems to take decades and cost an order of magnitude more per kWh than offshore wind. It can't be built anywhere either, given the local protests (personally I'd rather have a nuclear plant than a coal plant a few miles away, but for some reason people don't like that idea)

> it seems to take decades

This seems to be pure incompetence on our collective part. The Chinese do it on time without much trouble. If you take the EPRs, all the delays are supply chain and contractors issues, and a moving regulatory target. Nothing about that is specific to nuclear.

> cost an order of magnitude more per kWh than offshore wind.

Not quite, but a bit more. I don’t have the data offhand, but EDF Energy’s offshore wind farms have a similar cost per kWh compared to Hinckley C. Also, in an all-intermittent grid, you need to add the cost of storage, which is far from negligible. The true advantage of wind is that you can scale the project in a much finer way (you can’t build half a nuclear reactor).

> It can't be built anywhere either, given the local protests

This is a problem in all cases. People are not thrilled about wind turbines or solar farms in their backyards either.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#415

Post by yholio »

user_7832 wrote: post #41
yholio wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035. It's a handout to the dying hydrogen industry of which EU was a huge supporter of. The electric revolution killed any chances of hydrogen powered cars, and the new hype in the industry is using excess renewable electricity to store in hydrogen batteries, which would then supply process heat or residential heating with zero emissions. This is all a bunch of crap…

I'm curious on why you're pessimistic on hydrogen. I agree that cars are likely not the best use of fuel cells (heavy vehicles are able to utilize H2's strengths much more), but in a future based on renewables hydrogen allows you to store energy in a very dense way. Lithium batteries are acceptably heavy/expensive at small scales, but how do you think will supply vary to meet demand in the medium-long term without a…

Firstly, the energy density of hydrogen is a lie. Yes, the fuel itself has the highest know energy content per mass, but it's nearly useless as a gas.

To reach any useful volume density you need a high pressure COPV tank that weights an other of magnitude more than the fuel it contains. To generate electricity you need a bulky fuel cell with low efficiency, which in turn requires a very beefy cooling system, larger than the one used on an ICE vehicle since the fuel cell is so much sensitive to overheating.

If you add it all up, you get something that's comparable with a battery in terms of energy density, but with half the round trip efficiency, expensive and dangerous refueling, larger upfront costs and lower lifetime.

It's no surprise then that the range record for a hydrogen car is actually lower than the corresponding BEV car.

The only genuine advantage of fuel cells is faster refill, but with advances in battery chemistry and ubiquity of charging spots, this becomes less of an issue.

As for the mineral scarcity issue, fuel cells have it much worse, each requiring a small fortune in platinum or other rare minerals. The lithium content for batteries is dropping and a somewhat lower performance sodium ion chemistry is available, with practically limitless supply.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#416

Post by diordiderot »

afarrell wrote: post #401
diordiderot wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is counter productive to keeping the earth habitable. This "considered middle ground" ideology is more dangerous than denial. Like MLK said about "white moderates".

MLK’s problem with white moderates was not being a middle ground, it was that they urged delay and inaction. > I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; w…

I have been gravely disappointed with the climate moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the planets great stumbling block in his stride toward salvation is not the Oil Industry or the Coal Barrons, but the political pragmatist, who is more devoted to "order" than to climate justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action(Roadblocks etc)"; who arrogently believes he can set the timetable for preventing ecosystem collapse; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the wildlife to wait for "better economic conditions." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

The middle ground between inaction and violence (blowing up a pipelines & boardrooms) is not classifying gaseous hydrocarbons a form of "green energy.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#417

Post by retinaros »

scrollaway wrote: post #283
retinaros wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

before shouting misinformation you might want to inform yourself first paragraph I never said having gas was exclusive of getting a bad grade. however gas is now considered a bad energy and will reduce your grade. and it is one of the key factors. when your investment is six digits or more and a stupid law destroy it you know it. and no it is not for new constructions. in paris a huge chunk of the old apartments have…

> when your investment is six digits or more and a stupid law destroy it you know it. Rule #1: Investing does not guarantee you will get back more than you put in. Your capital is at risk. Honestly, you’re complaining that you’ll lose a bit of money because you have to modernise “your investment” due to the fact that we’re in a GLOBAL FUCKING CLIMATE CRISIS. Think about how privileged and out of touch that is.

well if you knew markets better you d know that my investment will be fine,ill just sell it to someone else which will remove the apartment from the renters market. now multiply this by 2million appartments and see the impact. rent will go up.

the cost to renovate an apartment will take decades of emissions to pay off. knowing also that three years ago EU was giving money,for switching to gas heated houses, maybe in three years they will find out that electric cars need harvesting of rare minerals from literal slaves in china or congo and that emissions of a new electric vehicle will never pay off compared to buying second hand. you can be woke and think there is a climate crisis - which is true- but it doesnt mean everything the,government see as green is… just look at macron after four years he decided that nuclear was ok. obama was praised for pushing gas.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#418

Post by freeflight »

scrollaway wrote: post #396
freeflight wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’re Europe’s largest exporter of electricity, thanks to our nuclear power. In 2020, it was Germany who was the largest electricity exporter on the planet [0], must be thanks to our nuclear power? [0] https://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country...

This is by value. Please use some relevant stats. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-balanc... https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/world-electricity-... Additionally: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-fuels

> We’re Europe’s largest exporter of electricity, thanks to our nuclear power.

None of your relevant stats actually show that, France only shows up in total production, and there it ranks lower than Germany.

It's also a bit odd to now move the goalpost to fossil fuels, when your original point was about electricity exports, and how France can allegedly only export so much due to nuclear power.

But over the years France has been constantly trading places with Germany for top electricity exporter on the planet due to Germany's huge renewable sector.

A renewable sector that has the advantage of not having massive long-term costs associated with it, most of which are not covered to this day [0];

> France, which operates Europe’s largest fleet of nuclear plants, is heavily underfunded. It has earmarked assets only worth 23 billion euros, less than a third of 74.1 billion euros in expected costs.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-nuclear-idUKKCN0VP...

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#419

Post by heartbeats »

drran wrote: post #395
heartbeats wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are all of these people who will be hurt by it? There's nothing interesting (e.g. terrorism, bombs) you can do with nuclear waste, and it's not especially poisonous. If you just loaded it up in barrels and dropped it at the bottom of the ocean, what's the worst that could happen? Sure, some fish would die, but where are the millions of deaths?

> There's nothing interesting (e.g. terrorism, bombs) you can do with nuclear waste, and it's not especially poisonous. LOL. Nuclear materials, including waste, are extremely dangerous in evil hands. It regularly kills people by accident or due to negligence. Chornobyl was an accident. Just imagine what a team of motivated people with evil intent can do with a nuclear station or nuclear waste. Last attempt to use nuc…

Nuclear materials yes, waste no. Chernobyl was an active reactor, for example.

There's an inverse relationship here with the half-life. The most dangerous waste is stuff that burns up in a few decades, the type that lasts for millions will emit very little radiation per unit time.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#420

Post by heartbeats »

diordiderot wrote: post #416
afarrell wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLK’s problem with white moderates was not being a middle ground, it was that they urged delay and inaction. > I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; w…

I have been gravely disappointed with the climate moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the planets great stumbling block in his stride toward salvation is not the Oil Industry or the Coal Barrons, but the political pragmatist, who is more devoted to "order" than to climate justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of just…

That's a misrepresentation of what they did. They said it was OK if it replaced certain stuff temporarily, not that you could just keep on building gas plants for ever and ever.

The recent attention that "the environment" has been getting is a direct result of this, and you mustn't confuse it for a general interest in green politics.

Frankly, I really do not care about "the environment". I care about people, and they obviously have a need for the environment. But the reason we have to take climate action is that it would be unpleasant for people's lives if we did not, not because it would hurt the trees.

If you suggest to reduce people into poverty so that they do not suffer extreme weather, is this really an improvement? Or are some people to be reduced into poverty, so that some other people do not suffer extreme weather?

If the trade-off is that I do not have a job, a place to live, heating, electricity, etc, but the weather is normal, I think I would prefer to have wildfires and flooding but otherwise a normal life. Most people would sooner live in California or Florida or Australia than Belarus or Moldova, no?

(That's not to say all action on climate policy looks like this. But when you have people talking about "degrowth" or blowing up oil pipelines, that very much seems to be the ethos. Lebanon had to make an unplanned transition away from oil on short notice. Should we strive to be like them?)

Post reply on HN