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

131–140 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#131

Post by mcv »

henearkr wrote: post #127
jpgvm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you (and most people that talk about storage) drastically underestimate the scale of the storage required and just how tight supply is for the resources necessary to build it. For now EVs are going to consume the world's supply of batteries. Leaves you with thermal or potential energy storage like pumped hydro. All of which aren't even fully developed yet or are restricted to specific geography. As of right n…

I hear you, but the real argument against nuclear fission is not the economic one, it's the safety one. The safety during the (peace time) use of nuclear plants has been hugely improved, so I agree that's not anymore the main concern. But nuclear fission facilities are very cumbersome to dismantle, and they are liabilities during and after their commissioning. You can see that in Ukraine for example, Zaporizhia plant…

This is an important point. Nuclear can be very safe in theory. Under the right circumstances, all risks can be accounted for (except long term waste storage, apparently). Problem is, in the hands of profit-seeking companies and aggressive and/or corrupt governments, those circumstances will not be right.

Remember that both Fukushima and Deep Water Horizon were caused by companies cutting costs in the face of warnings of the risks.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#132

Post by ketanip »

I see a lot of opposition to Nuclear Energy in EU and particularly Germany, can anyone tell me why ?

As far as I know, only nuclear has power to stop our reliance on fossil fuels as it can produce a constant supply of power and handle energy demand spikes like no other, and for Europe is more important as Russia can just cut energy supply to Europe and it will cause horrible effects to Europe's economy.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#133

Post by viscountchocula »

mcv wrote: post #122

I think it's good to recognise gas and nuclear as being preferable to coal and oil, but green they are not. I consider them transitional energy sources; we will be stuck with them for a long time while we transition to greener energy, but coal and oil need to be stopped as soon as possible. After the Fukushima disaster, Germany closed its nuclear power plants and replaced them with coal plans; absolutely the worst po…

I get why gas isn't green, but why isn't nuclear?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#134

Post by PoignardAzur »

henearkr wrote: post #127
jpgvm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you (and most people that talk about storage) drastically underestimate the scale of the storage required and just how tight supply is for the resources necessary to build it. For now EVs are going to consume the world's supply of batteries. Leaves you with thermal or potential energy storage like pumped hydro. All of which aren't even fully developed yet or are restricted to specific geography. As of right n…

I hear you, but the real argument against nuclear fission is not the economic one, it's the safety one. The safety during the (peace time) use of nuclear plants has been hugely improved, so I agree that's not anymore the main concern. But nuclear fission facilities are very cumbersome to dismantle, and they are liabilities during and after their commissioning. You can see that in Ukraine for example, Zaporizhia plant…

I assume you mean nuclear fission.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#135

Post by henearkr »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #134
henearkr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you, but the real argument against nuclear fission is not the economic one, it's the safety one. The safety during the (peace time) use of nuclear plants has been hugely improved, so I agree that's not anymore the main concern. But nuclear fission facilities are very cumbersome to dismantle, and they are liabilities during and after their commissioning. You can see that in Ukraine for example, Zaporizhia plant…

I assume you mean nuclear fission.

Big oops!

Yes, thank you!!

I fixed it in the comment.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#136

Post by rdsubhas »

herbst wrote: post #8

Thanks EU for making everything worse for no reason. Can't they just invent their own label. Gas likely is better than Germany still burning tons of coal every day for energy but it's not green. That's just sad really

> "Thanks EU for making everything worse ..."

> "Gas likely is better than ..."

Everything got worse, but likely better? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#137

Post by denton-scratch »

LtWorf wrote: post #52
osuairt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ideological reasons" Can you tell us what those ideological reasons why be? Or are you straight up trying to dismiss their approach as irrational and dogmatic in the eyes of reader by suggesting it is ideological only?

By your answer we can learn that: 1. you're german 2. you hate nuclear for ideological reasons

Go for the man, not the ball.

1. I'm not german

2. I don't hate nuclear

3. I disapprove of nuclear, because its proponents never budget for decommissioning; not for "ideological" reasons.

What are "ideological" reasons anyway, in this context? What ideology are you on about? You could say there's a "green ideology", I suppose, which amounts to preferring policies that don't wreck the environment. But how's that an "ideology"? Is it "ideological" to favour policies that don't result in widespread famine, or global thermonuclear war?

I'd be pro-nuclear, very much so, if plans for new plants included detailed, budgeted explanations of how and when the plant would be fully decommissioned. They never do though.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#138

Post by jpgvm »

henearkr wrote: post #127
jpgvm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you (and most people that talk about storage) drastically underestimate the scale of the storage required and just how tight supply is for the resources necessary to build it. For now EVs are going to consume the world's supply of batteries. Leaves you with thermal or potential energy storage like pumped hydro. All of which aren't even fully developed yet or are restricted to specific geography. As of right n…

I hear you, but the real argument against nuclear fission is not the economic one, it's the safety one. The safety during the (peace time) use of nuclear plants has been hugely improved, so I agree that's not anymore the main concern. But nuclear fission facilities are very cumbersome to dismantle, and they are liabilities during and after their commissioning. You can see that in Ukraine for example, Zaporizhia plant…

Nuclear safety in war time is unproven sure but I would argue that a nuclear power plant is much less dangerous than a hydro dam. Imagine a strike on Three Gorges Dam, at minimum millions would die, without needing to use a nuclear weapon.

Sure it's a tough pile of concrete, but that is exactly what a nuclear power plant is too.

Nuclear fuel is a non-issue if it was profitable to mine it. Australia has vast supplies of very high quality Uranium deposits and a substantial portion of the worlds supply of Thorium so the "West" will have ample supply to fissile material for the next several millennia.

Spent fuel is also really a non-issue. It gets talked about a lot but even if we were to supply 100% of the worlds energy on nuclear (which we never would, solar and hydro are too good for that) we could still store all of it in probably a single facility in a desert in Australia far from where anyone could give a shit about it. Australia is -extremely- large and -extremely- sparsely populated, especially the interior.

I get why people don't like the sound of nuclear but the arguments just don't stack up against the facts, cost really is it's only downside and I'm certain that can be fixed with mass production of reactors and designs that don't need active cooling in failure scenarios.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#139

Post by wizofaus »

pvaldes wrote: post #96
jpgvm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just fear mongering. We have no evidence of nuclear being built in-place of cheaper renewables. Until we do it's just FUD.

> Until we do it's just FUD. And when we will do, it is too late to change our mind Too late, to little and, with bad luck, a very expensive error. Money is a limited resource. The only reason to tag nuclear as green is to grant nuclear access to subsides for green energy.

Who says money is a limited resource? I'd think only key things it can pay for (skilled human labour) are what're limited - you can "print" as much money as you like. We need far more people skilled in and dedicating their time toward developing low carbon energy sources. Given the number of us doing all manner of BS jobs, that doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve (even if it will necessarily take a number of years).

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#140

Post by ricardobayes »

IMTDb wrote: post #82
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nuc…

The message and reality have always been detached in Europe: almost every physics department I know has a nuclear institute. And funding is there, too. The know-how was never lost in my opinion.
Post reply on HN