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

Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

earth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#81

Post by Brometheus »

cm2187 wrote: post #70
ThePhysicist wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind alone won't work without support by gas or other non-renewable sources. Try to find a single scientific study that gives a detailed overview of how the German energy mix is supposed to work and that explains how supply will be matched to demand 24/7 all year round. None exists. The whole "Energiewende" is built on the hope that either our neighbors will produce the necessary base capacity to stabilize…

And somehow the cost of the non renewable energies that are required to deal with the volatility of wind and solar are never factored in the cost.

In 2011 ENERTRAG had a constructed a system to use a windpark to produce hydrogen and burn this in a gas/fuelcell plant. But since a change in the EEG Umlage Gesetz made them pay for their own energy produced by wind, it became unprofitable to do so.

If that sounds idiotic to you, that's because the change in the EEG was created to make exactly this impossible.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#82

Post by IMTDb »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #48
ThePhysicist wrote: post #16

De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…

And yet weirdly, those non-technical people seem to have accidentally stumbled on the solution that the whole world is moving towards, while the highly technical French have forgotten how to build nuclear and even their most ambitious goals include using less nuclear and replacing it with the stuff the ideological German's came up with, because it's better. And it wasn't that long ago that they were threatening to sc…

> the highly technical French have forgotten how to build nuclear

They haven't forgotten, they were fighting a witch-hunt orchestrated by the greens. The same eco-ideologist that ruined Germany have made it impossible to properly invest in the nuclear plants in France and to ensure knowledge and expertise is properly transmitted and developed with the younger generation.

For years the message was "don't invest in nuclear, don't study nuclear, don't build nuclear, don't maintain nuclear". Now the message is "we can't even do nuclear properly", it's a disengenous argument.

What we need is a bit of future perspective: Nuclear is here to stay for the next decades (plural). Nuclear related jobs will be in high demand. Nuclear jobs will be well paying. Nuclear jobs will be safe. Nuclear formation is important, and here is money to ensure it happens. Maintenance of nuclear plants is important, it needs to happen and it will be financed. And that will lead to true expertise and safety.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#83

Post by guerrilla »

Juliate wrote: post #22
osuairt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energy infrastructure. Framing it as some closed minded ideological stance, and that Germany wouldn't be in a position to understand the pros and cons to nuclear technology, just looks to dismiss those that might have actual rationales for running their countries d…

Also, framing it as if Germany policy had not been also ... "influenced" by Russia's long-term strategy would be quite naive.

I think it's a mistake to see that as one sided. Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace while also getting cheap energy has been a goal of plenty of European elites.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#84

Post by Brometheus »

plopilop wrote: post #74
osuairt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just isn't the case. And I am sorry to say but the many countries have made great strides on running their countries on more and more renewable energy sources. In 2018, Scotland generated 98% their energy from wind alone. Denmark 72%, Germany 45%, Uruguay 97%, Norway 93%. It's a whole patchwork of solutions, depending on geography. Nuclear is not this magic bullet, and just means flipping a switch, it has a majo…

The massive issue I have with these sources is their reliability. Scotland can produce 98% from wind because they can sell the excess or buy when in deficit from their neighbours who modulate their coal/gas plants. If all its neighbours switch to similar methods, I don't see how we can have reliability on a wide scale. Usual fluctuations (eg. no photovoltaic by night, more wind in the afternoon) can be planned for, b…

These unusual fluctuations are in fact usual and they can be planned for. https://www.energymeteo.com/products/power_forecasts/wind-so...

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#85

Post by jpgvm »

osuairt wrote: post #20
ThePhysicist wrote: post #16

De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…

The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energy infrastructure. Framing it as some closed minded ideological stance, and that Germany wouldn't be in a position to understand the pros and cons to nuclear technology, just looks to dismiss those that might have actual rationales for running their countries d…

In what ways has nuclear energy failed Germany that don't stem from small scale and lack of investment?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#86

Post by lakomen »

"If reality doesn't fit our narrative, we'll just put our labels on reality and act as if we're the ones who decides what reality is" - aka children putting their hands on their eyes pretending no one sees them now.

Von der Leyen and consorts are so ugly and stupid. The whole EU as an institution has to be teared down and rebuilt. It starts with the Lisboa treaty. When you create a construct on top of old but better constructs you get the results like increase right wing following, corruption and whatnot. It used to be that bad politicians were moved to the EU to have them out of sight of the real governments. Now those failures make laws that change what those governments can and can not do.

It's a trojan horse only sitting on top, the pinnacle of uselessness.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#87

Post by henearkr »

wronglyprepaid wrote: post #76
henearkr wrote: post #60

As I heard today again on the radio, the narrative is "to get energy whatever the weather, we cannot rely only on wind and solar". I'm surprised that they haven't heard of the possibility of energy storage . Both already available storage solutions, and the many other solutions in development, are largely enough to enable wind/solar and other renewable sources to replace fossil fuels, without relying on nuclear.

> I'm surprised that they haven't heard of the possibility of energy storage. Have we not? I think the real issue is that we have capitalist pigscum that are greedy and want to burn the atmosphere if it can give them an extra buck and the EU is beholden to them that is why they made this change.

But they are allowed to hide behind this false narrative because the population is not aware enough, which is why we should speak publicly a lot of the energy storage solutions and projects.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#88

Post by Brometheus »

JanSt wrote: post #40
rasz wrote: post #25

"Gas and Nuclear Turn Green as EU Parliament Approves New Taxonomy" Why TF dont they unbundle obvious German written putin gas part from the Nuclear option and vote separately on those two?? Edit: this is such an obvious German EU blackmail - let us fund putin or you dont get clean Nuclear power plants.

Germany planned to use gas to bridge times with little wind and solar power to be able to turn off nuclear energy. Not smart but true. The new plan is to build even more renewables. and massive storage capacity, a very optimistic undertaking.

The plan is to use the plenty of excess renewable production to generate hydrogen and then burn that in the gas plants. Therefore, all gas plants qualifying as "green" have to be able to burn hydrogen.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#89

Post by ThePhysicist »

bambax wrote: post #66
ThePhysicist wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had colleagues that went through École Polytechnique and the Corps de Mines (usually reserved to the top 2 graduates of a given graduating class of several grandes ecoles) that then went on to work for the government. And I think it's still mandatory to work a certain number of years in the administration after going through some of the grandes écoles, not sure if that was changed (I graduated in 2012 so it was a w…

I know almost nothing about the German political system so I won't discuss that. But the French system has plenty of flaws, two of the biggest being that 1/ énarques aren't technical at all, don't actually know anything except how bureaucracy works, and yet they're in charge of everything 2/ super-selective schools have the side effect of letting people think they're geniuses because they topped a competition while i…

Yeah I'm sure the French system also has its problems, my general impression about the administration (not top level political positions) was that people were more technically competent though. I might be biased though as I mostly know people from a few institutes on the Saclay plateau, so it might just have been an "island of happiness" in a sea of problems.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#90

Post by JanSt »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #75
JanSt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Stromsteuer ist only 5% of the price. It depends on your definition of taxes. The EEG-Umlage alone reached 6.5ct/kwh and directly paid for renewables. It‘s now taken out of the price, so the real price of energy is higher than what is paid by the consumer. The EEG Umlage is now hidden in and paid for by a special fund („Energie- und Klimafonds“)

You're saying that there is a transfer from nuclear to renewables of 6.5 cents/kWh for every kWh nuclear generates, or a net market distortion of 13c/kWh between the two (using the tenuous assumption of roughly equivalent capacities between the two sectors)? That's more than I pay in the US in total per kWh for electricity, generated, distributed, and taxed.

6.5ct is added to the cost of every used kwh (no matter where it comes from) and paid to the producers of renewable energy
Post reply on HN