Live data from Hacker News

Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

101–110 of 306 posts

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#101
post #10

If Germany's Green Party takes the same line, I think it will be a huge blow to Russia. Also, it's about time.

Where do you think the fuel for the reactors will come from?

Up until 1990 we used to mine Uranium in Germany [1]. There's still an expected 74000t left, we're just currently not interested in mining it.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company)

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#102
post #18

Is this a case of politics, like science, proceeds one funeral at a time? Did the 1970s anti-nuclear people age out of the party leadership and membership so this could get revisited?

I think it's more to do with the fact that the rhetoric around climate change has shifted. Now the official Green Party stance is that it is the most urgent issue of our time and must be combated by any means necessary. Of course, this conflicts with their (former) anti-nuclear stance, and they've been repeatedly criticized for this hypocrisy. I've even heard young environmentalists speculate that the Greens were secretly in bed with the oil companies.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#104
post #10

If Germany's Green Party takes the same line, I think it will be a huge blow to Russia. Also, it's about time.

Where do you think the fuel for the reactors will come from?

Uranium, being so energy dense, is quite practical to ship from anywhere in the world, and there are stable and democratic countries with ample reserves - so please don't use such a lazy argument here.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#105

This is great, and hopefully it will stop the premature shutdown of existing nuclear reactors. But it's pretty tiny climate news overall. Nuclear reactors are aging out and nobody in Western Europe or the US seems to know how to build in a cost competitive way anymore. Deploying 5GW of solar and storage, or 3-4GW of wind, is far easier, faster, and cheaper than trying to build a new reactor, which won't come on line…

There are problems of baseload power that neither solar nor wind reliably solve though. Barring the introduction of a complex system of storage to the electrical grid you don’t just need a certain amount of total power generation you need the distribution of production to match the distribution of consumption. We can generate much of this with solar and wind if we are comfortable with having far less power at night from solar and irregular power generation based on weather conditions from wind. This can work well when these technologies are small portions of the grid but it causes problems when we rely on them for substantial portions of power generation.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#106
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have said, nuclear not is comparable to wind and solar. Nuclear provides base load, something that wind or solar can't do. Here is a graph: https://i.imgur.com/SaC1HR4.jpeg Wind electricity production in x-axis (MWh/h), y-axis is consumption of electricity (MWh/h). Each do is one hour, dot color is a month. There is no correlation. Here is great summary of how Finland can go 100% fossil fuel free electricit…

No generator provides base load, because load is usage, not power. Lots of places in the world satisfy base load with dispatchable power.

Instead of nitpicking terminology, let's talk about the issue directly:

What do you do when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?

There isn't enough batteries on earth to even make a dent in the storage you would need. We don't want to burn any more hydrocarbons. What are our other options? Massive pumped hydro might get us there, but that construction is on a similar time horizon to a new nuclear plant anyway.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#107

The Greens' idiotic anti-nuclear stance has empowered and embolden decades of coal and oil exploration and proliferation. As a Green voter I desperately hope this pattern gets adopted and replicated here in Australia the sooner the better.

It isn't idiotic. While it is partially ideological reasoning behind their rejection, nuclear power is overall a bad deal with current technologies. France might have problems operating theirs because they have a drought and rivers aren't able to cool the plants. Uranium is only available in limited supply additionally to the high costs of nuclear energy this will become a problem in the long term. We only recently h…

There are good solutions to the problems you pose. Most of the problems with fission energy generation is due to PWRs and using fuel pellets instead of liquid fuel. Current technology burns only 3% of the fuel in pellets before having to replace them. MSRs can burn 97% of their fuel. Solid fuel nuclear reactors have byproducts that are radioactive for millions of years. The byproducts of MSRs are radioactive for hundreds of years. MSRs can actually burn the dirty remains of the nuclear fuel tossed aside during the 20th century.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same applies for Germany; our plants that have been shut down can, de facto, not be reactivated. The effort would be too big, and the industry lacks the experts as priorities shifted for obvious reasons. In other news, Germany just started a partnership with Quatar to import Gas, because, you know, we don't want to support abusive regimes :-) Everything just gets more messy and distorted by the day.

There's also coal electricity from Poland and France seems to be nuking up to serve as Europe's reserve battery for when greens aren't producing or a large exporter misbehaves in politics next time.

Often enough, France cannot even power itself, less so export electricity 24/7. And the number of operational reactors is going down, not up. France is only a strong exporter in the times where there is low demand - exporting surplus nuclear energy is of course far better than regulating the reactors down - both from an economic standpoint as well as an ecologic one.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#109
post #4

Wait… someone in the realm of politics changed their mind in a… sane… rational direction? I feel like I could count instances of that in my lifetime on one hand. Everywhere on the political spectrum everyone seems to have been utterly losing their minds for a long time.

Running nuclear power plants isn't a sane thing to do, but let's pretend Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island never happend.

The safe future of nuclear energy production is in molten salt reactors. They are walk-away safe.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#110

If we would pour into nuclear research the kind of money we pour into renewables, nuclear power would become safer and cheaper.

You still have to haul around huge amounts of radioactive materials with whatever technology. That alone is a big factor in the impossible risk calculations. So far there has never been a dirty bomb. What if the pro-nuclear fanboys get their wish and we solve the energy problems of the developing world using nuclear power? What if a modestly developed country gets overrun or overturned? I don't like the odds. Most ri…

Radioactive material in the United States largely doesn't move. It is stored in concrete casks on site that sit there even after decommissioning. You can see with binoculars or satellite photo.

Also, same impossible calculations apply to any power tech. Number of people injured installing rooftop solar or wind, poisoned by graphite mining, trucking accidents, aluminum production, and the like.

Post reply on HN