Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#301

Post by pvaldes » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #290

pvaldes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same happened in Spain in 70s, and the ecologists saved several cities and the local economy of thee entire area when an earthquake hit at a few Km of were the smart people wanted to build the nuclear plant. So, some are brainless, other are genius able to predict the future and take the correct decision. Your mileage can vary.

So, the plan was to build a non-seismically protected nuclear power plant in a seismically active area? Do you have a source for that?

This was exactly the idea in 1973 Murcia, Spain, yup. BWR model. Same design as Fukushima plant at 30km of Lorca. Until a couple of dumb guys and a famous actor from the area see what was obvious, pick up some banners and saved the day.

The action payback generously when in 2011 Lorca was hit by an 5.1 earthquake and no central nuclear was here to be hit. None of the tomato companies that sell vegetables to half Europe were destroyed, tourists keep coming as usual, and none of the fishermen were crushed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Lorca_earthquake

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#302

Post by AshamedCaptain » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #277

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "scientific" analysis has claimed "chernobyl can't happen again" ? It would be as ridiculous as someone claiming the new Airbus XXX model can't crash. Even analysis of the type "a chernobyl will happen once every XX years" are more political in nature than scientific, since you are assuming a stable society for decades to come (i.e. no degradation in the skill level of constructors or operators, etc. -- even for…

Here's an article from 2018 describing a commercial implementation of a reactor that cannot melt down. (The technology was decades old at that point.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/24/can-we-ma...

There is a big stretch from a "manufacturer claims my reactor design can't be hacked" to "chernobyl can't happen again", and neither is still a scientific claim.

The problem that I was trying to show is that people try to answer a question "can a chernobyl(-like) event ever happen again?" which one simply _can't answer_. Not in a "science" way, since to answer this question you need to predict the existence (not probability!) of a literal _punctual_ event which depends on a gazillion factors outside your control (i.e. this is not simply computing a MTBF).

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#303

Post by knorker » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #218

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

> There have been 10 plants in the US that have been fully decommissioned According to your link, there are 10 plants that have achieved "DECON status": that is, the spent fuel and machinery have been removed from the site (presumably to some other site). I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out: it's cheating to say you've decommissioned a site, when what you've really done is transport the entire site, including topsoil, to…

No coal plant has ever been decommissioned either, because its radioactive waste, and other waste, is now in the air we all breathe.

Same with solar. Spent solar panels don't go nowhere.

No other plant either.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#304

Post by Krasnol » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

athinggoingon wrote: post #300

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…

Germany's anti-nuclear environmental movement was, in part, funded by Russia. https://www.transparency.org/en/press/germany-state-governme...

This is a conspiracy which doesn't have anything to do with reality or what is written in the article you've linked to.

The article describes a "Foundation" which was created 2021 to keep on building Gazprom 2. It neither has something to do with the decision to get out of nuclear energy (that was 2000) nor does it have anything to do with the Green party or any group which is against nuclear energy in Germany.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#305

Post by xxpor » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

JanSt wrote: post #65

littlecranky67 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet Germany, after two decades and close to a trillion dollar in renewable energies, has one of the most expensive Do you have any sources? Last time I checked, Germany and France weren't that far apart, if you remove taxes out of the costs. The thing is that Germany has a lot of Taxes that have nothing todo with how we generate the electricity. I.e. 90% of the electricity tax (Stromsteuer) goes into the govern…

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“)

Jeez, I know electricity prices in Europe are higher than in the US generally, but a 6.5c per kwh tax would have been a rate of around 66% at the beginning of 2021 when it was 1.20 USD/EUR and the average US residential rate was ~13c/kwh.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#306

Post by BrainVirus » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #145

jpgvm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I concur that, for this kind of near-civilzation-collapse risks, dams are less desirable than wind/solar facilities. But I can't compare the risk posed by a dam and the risk posed by a nuclear fission plant. One is an instant and relatively local disaster, the other is a long term and wide-spread (before containment) pita. However, I suspect that dams are much harder to turn into a catastrophe than nuclear plants. Wh…

>However, I suspect that dams are much harder to turn into a catastrophe than nuclear plants.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-deadliest-dam-failur...

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#307

Post by lven » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #298

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…

Instead of accusing people of being ideological and irrational why don't you address all the issues around nuclear? Political stability VS centralization of power is one. Nuclear power is highly centralized and vulnerable to corruption. And also to war, terrorism and social unrest. If we are to expect extreme climate and social instability in the next 50 years, it's safer to democratize and localize energy production…

New nuclear is decentralizing with micro reactors.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#308

Post by AshamedCaptain » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

knorker wrote: post #292

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite sure that no one who asks "can chernobyl can happen again?" is actually interested in the response to "can chernobyl happen again _in exactly the same way_"?. This is malicious nitpicking. In the same way that I'm sure the victims of the next Airbus crash will be happy to know that "it didn't crash like the Hindenburg did".

Is it not malicious to scream "chernobyl!" willfully deceptively or willfully ignorantly confusing what can and cannot happen? More people die every single year from radiation in coal than have died in the entire history of nuclear power. Replacing all coal with nuclear would save more lives and health than fighting nuclear ever could, even in theory. And delaying coal to nuclear under the banner of "wind and solar m…

To exemplify the difference between science and politics:

- Nuclear is safer than coal: science (true or not, it's not the point)

- We need to go all the way nuclear: politics. There's a million other things to consider, many of them don't even each into the realm of what is falsifiable (e.g international relations, fuel availability, who knows). _Even_ if nuclear was literally the safest method ever, it is literally still politics whether to use nuclear or not; after all, we sacrifice safety for convenience _many_ times, and good luck defining "convenience" in a scientific way.

Another example:

- Vaccines are safe and effective (scientific; true or not is not the point)

- Vaccines are safe enough compared to the risk of catching the disease itself ("social" sciences; caveat emptor)

- We should force everyone to vaccinate (politics). It does not matter if vaccines are safe, or not. It is still a political topic, not scientific. There are things like ethics, social vs individual rights, etc. that are hardly quantifiable much less scientific.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#309

Post by godelski » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

athinggoingon wrote: post #300

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…

Germany's anti-nuclear environmental movement was, in part, funded by Russia. https://www.transparency.org/en/press/germany-state-governme...

In America Green Peace and Sierra Nevada had major donations by gas companies. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra...

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#310

Post by sofixa » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

chicob wrote: post #288

isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not the UK?

Generally British people wouldn't say "heart of Europe". If anything when talking about Europe they mean continental Europe and don't include the British Isles in that.