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

201–210 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#201

Post by DennisP »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #159
ch4s3 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US operators pay into a fund for decommissioning. >No nuclear power plant has ever been fully decommissioned. There have been 10 plants in the US that have been fully decommissioned[1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792

"fully decommissioned" by some somewhat unintuitive definitions: > The DOE was required by contract and statute to begin removing spent nuclear fuel and GTCC waste by January 31, 1998. To date, the DOE has not removed any spent fuel or GTCC waste from the CY site, and it is unknown when it will. The current 'plan' is for the companies looking after the waste on the original site to sue the government every few years…

The US government made nuclear plants pay into a fund for long-term waste storage. Last I saw, that fund had accumulated over $40 billion. But since the Yucca Mountain facility was canceled, the government never provided the waste storage they were charging for. It's not surprising if nuclear operators don't want to pay twice.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#202

Post by Georgelemental »

traspler wrote: post #171

I'm always a bit baffled by the amount of pro-nuclear comments on HN and their stance on how everyone who disagrees is just not educated enough. Please educate me: Is the waste problem solved? Are we not still fighting with all the previous attempts of handling it? Is "dig a hole in a salt deposit and keep it there" really good enough for the very, very, very long term? Are old powerplants properly decommissioned and…

> Is "dig a hole in a salt deposit and keep it there" really good enough for the very, very, very long term?

Yes. It's not that dangerous, the whole reason it is waste is that it's no longer radioactive enough to power the plant. (And as plant technology improves, the threshold for "no longer radioactive enough" will get even lower)

> Can we really claim to be able to handle worst case scenarios well (e.g. Fukushima)?

Fukushima led to 1 death from radiation. Nuclear's overall safety record is far better that any alternative

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#203

Post by bloak »

adolph wrote: post #175
nicohvi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas emits radically less CO2 than coal, which is why this is entirely necessary during the transition (Germany is now bruning coal to compensate for the Russian war). Gas emits so little CO2 compared to coal that it actually accounted for ONE THIRD of the drop in U.S. emissions from 2005 - 2016: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-us-carbon-emissions... .

> Gas emits so little CO2 compared to coal At a molecular level this doesn't make sense to me. The fundamental carbon cycle value proposition is to harvest energy released when a carbon atom (re)joins two oxygens. For the same energy, how would methane and coal produce different amounts of CO2? That said, I can see how the oxygen reaction would be less efficient and create more byproducts (i.e. acid rain) using coal…

Coal: C + O2 -> CO2

Gas: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

I don't know off hand exactly how many joules of energy (heat) are produced per mole in each case but it's not surprising that gas gives more joules per mole of CO2: it's a bit like you're burning hydrogen at the same time.

EDIT: It's relevant that O-H bonds are stronger than C-H bonds, presumably.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#204

Post by isbvhodnvemrwvn »

sofixa wrote: post #115
herbst wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do live in the heart of Europe but not in the EU. Best of both worlds I guess.

Europe but not EU can mean anything from Switzerland to Bosnia and Herzegovina to Moldova to Belarus, so it could be good or pretty bad.

My guess would be Serbia, that's the typical attitude towards the EU there (not to mention not-so-subtle pro-Russian stance). The only place which sees the EU in worse light would probably be Belarus or Russia.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#205

Post by jeroenhd »

plutonorm wrote: post #192
jpgvm wrote: post #2

About time. Nuclear is hardly an environmental risk even compared to the "cleaner" fossil fuels like gas. Hopefully this will allow the EU to return to competitive reactors designs instead of leaving China to pull humanities weight on that front. Though tbh I wouldn't be sad if we bought Chinese reactors until we are back up to speed, having Chinese nuclear > no nuclear. Everyone bitching about China stealing IP fina…

Quoted post unavailable.

Gas is accepted if it's a replacement for much worse sources of energy such as coal or very old gas plants.

This law basically classifies anything that's better as a green investment. Relatively, it is, of course.

Activists want the EU to only brand renewables as green investments, but doing so would make replacing coal plants by much cleaner gas plants more expensive. Renewables have different characteristics than coal plants, which can operate at night in a storm during droughts, unlike many real green alternatives.

I think we should aim towards a 100% green energy grid with the necessary battery banks to maintain power during difficult weather. However, it'll take us a while to get there.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#206

Post by Brometheus »

dsq wrote: post #71
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…

Total energy consumption or just electricity? Because electricity is itself only a third of total energy use in, say, Germany. So a third of 45 percent is 15 percent. Good, but doesn't save the day. Also, is that steady throughout the year, or just in the windy months?

It's in the windy month while in the non-windy month solar takes the lead.

Germany is doing Sektorenkopplung, so attempting to switch everything over to electricity.

This is done because electricity is more efficient and we will use less total energy for the same effect. E.g. a heatpump can make available 3-5 times it's consumption of electricity as heat, where a gas stove can only reach 1.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#207

Post by mort96 »

Georgelemental wrote: post #202
traspler wrote: post #171

I'm always a bit baffled by the amount of pro-nuclear comments on HN and their stance on how everyone who disagrees is just not educated enough. Please educate me: Is the waste problem solved? Are we not still fighting with all the previous attempts of handling it? Is "dig a hole in a salt deposit and keep it there" really good enough for the very, very, very long term? Are old powerplants properly decommissioned and…

> Is "dig a hole in a salt deposit and keep it there" really good enough for the very, very, very long term? Yes. It's not that dangerous, the whole reason it is waste is that it's no longer radioactive enough to power the plant. (And as plant technology improves, the threshold for "no longer radioactive enough" will get even lower) > Can we really claim to be able to handle worst case scenarios well (e.g. Fukushima)…

You're not gonna convince many sceptical people by looking only at death counts. How many people had to be relocated? How large of an area is now uninhabitable? How many would have died if our luck had been just a bit worse that day? Is there anything about the technology in all currently operating power plants which completely rules out a worst-case meltdown scenario?

People are mainly afraid of nuclear because the worst-case scenario is so insanely ridiculously bad, not because it maintains a high stable death rate.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#208

Post by inkblotuniverse »

mcv wrote: post #187
viscountchocula wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nuclear waste. Also, nuclear disasters tend to be quite dramatic, leading to birth defects and uninhabitable areas. Nuclear is only green when you only look at CO2. CO2 is the most pressing issue right now, which is why I support nuclear as a transitional energy source on our way to greener energy, but let's not fool ourselves and pretend it's as clean as wind.

It's cleaner. Wind turbines break down, and chemical waste never decays.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#209

Post by kergonath »

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…

> I did my PhD at the French nuclear energy agency

Cheers from Saclay! :)

To be fair, Germans always (in the recent past anyway) cared more about environment issues in general. Recycling, cycling instead of driving, things like that. It was not mainstream in France until fairly recently. But yeah, the lack of understanding of scientific and technical aspects of energy production from a supposed nation of engineers is disturbing.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#210

Post by koheripbal »

plutonorm wrote: post #192
jpgvm wrote: post #2

About time. Nuclear is hardly an environmental risk even compared to the "cleaner" fossil fuels like gas. Hopefully this will allow the EU to return to competitive reactors designs instead of leaving China to pull humanities weight on that front. Though tbh I wouldn't be sad if we bought Chinese reactors until we are back up to speed, having Chinese nuclear > no nuclear. Everyone bitching about China stealing IP fina…

Quoted post unavailable.

It produces one quarter the CO2 compared to oil, so as long as we're burning oil, it makes sense to increase gas usage - especially since it requires almost no additional capital investment.
Post reply on HN