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

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#311

Post by Krasnol » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #239

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…

> It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. What part of this entire discussion has anything do to with science? Is anyone actually contesting the science? Is it a discussion about the number of orbitals of uranium atoms? Or is it a discussion on which entities handle the long-term financials obligations, whether we favor or not decentralized grids, whether we favor short term or longer…

It has nothing to do with science. OP is just parroting a meme circulating in a certain group of people who didn't realise that nuclear is gone and has been replaced by renewables years ago.

It goes with the meme that you glorify France while ignoring it's failures which are quite prominent these days just the same way he ignores the fact that the chancellor for the last 16 years was an actual physicist.

This is the level of debate we currently have again here in Germany.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#312

Post by pydry » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #293

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. What part of this entire discussion has anything do to with science? Is anyone actually contesting the science? Is it a discussion about the number of orbitals of uranium atoms? Or is it a discussion on which entities handle the long-term financials obligations, whether we favor or not decentralized grids, whether we favor short term or longer…

Nuclear power was ended in Germany for political reasons. The public has an incorrect idea of how dangerous nuclear power is and how dangerous nuclear waste is and it was easier for the politicians to go along with it for points than stand it's ground. If you're making policy based on scientifically inaccurate ideas then you aren't respecting the science.

In Germany the maximum insurance liability for nuclear disasters is $2.5 billion. In the US it's $0.35 billion. Fukushima cost $800 billion.

This happened essentially because without a liability cap the entire insurance industry considers nuclear power to be ridiculously risky. So the government, who wanted to protect investors, stepped in.

I feel like a lot of people who dont know this want to educate me about how safe nuclear power truly is.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#313

Post by kergonath » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

yrgulation wrote: post #253

kergonath wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

A shame german carmakers didnt care much.

Indeed. Well, no country is perfect.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#314

Post by pornel » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #195

willcipriano wrote: post #154

You know how I know environmentalists are just dragging their feet on nuclear for ideological reasons? When we talk about a storage facility for nuclear waste, a scenario they insist you prepare for: if human civilization completely collapses to the point that any of the currently spoken languages on earth are no longer able to be read how to we keep the, whatever comes after us, from busting up the concrete and digg…

> if human civilization completely collapses Even if it doesn't, nuclear waste storage is still a very expensive and indefinitely long project (assuming you want to keep adding to it, stop it poisoning the ground water, and stop terrorists getting access to it, etc.) > I've had these people tell me that It's still strawmanning if you pick an actual bad argument that someone told you and don't just come up with the ba…

You know nuclear waste isn't green glowing leaky barrells like in cartoons, right?

It's stored as solid glass. For super-duper cautious extra safety it can be stored below ground water levels. The volume of the high-level waste is relatively tiny (roughly a swimming pool per year per country).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#315

Post by Iwan-Zotow » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

timwaagh wrote: post #262

JanSt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also many institutes (e.g IDW) constantly pumping out papers that conclude nuclear energy has highest costs, highest danger, will leave unsolvable toxic waste problems, renewable energy is extremely cheap, building enough storage is no problem etc. These people are constantly invited to present these „Zukunftsenergien“ as opposed to the old bad nuclear in talk shows. And yet Germany, after two decades and c…

Meanwhile in Russia they are doing heating with water from nuclear powerplants. While price gouging Germany for gas.

"While price gouging Germany for gas" Huh?!? Price is settled somewhere in Netherlands, what Russia has to do with it?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#316

Post by Iwan-Zotow » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

liftm wrote: post #194

petre wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same talk show people now talk about how we have a heat and not a power problem, so we don‘t need the nuclear power. Which is even more ridiculos because heat is the primary product of nuclear reactors. Their thermal rating of a nuclear reactor is about 3x the electrical rating.

Out of curiosity, are there any nuclear reactor cogeneration plants in operation?

Sure

"Russia, Dec 1, 2019 — Unit 1 of the Leningrad 2 nuclear power station in western Russia has been integrated into the heat supply system of the city of Sosnovy Bor"

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#317

Post by google234123 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #185

tut-urut-utut wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demonizing an enemy by personalisation and reduction to one evil dictator is a known propaganda / manipulation technique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy#Personifi... This has always been a standard operation model for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit... So yes, Putin's Russia is used intentionally to introduce the same feeling as Hitler's Germany. That's the way…

It's done mostly out of compassion with the average Russians who have no say in the matter. I think it's important to remind people that it's specifically Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't. Just like we try not to blame the average German for Hitler's mad aggression. As many people have pointed out, comparisons to Hitler's conquests at the start of WW2 are not unjustified; Putin is using much of…

> Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't.

I don't think we have enough data to say this confidently. Putin enjoys a very broad base of support

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#318

Post by Krasnol » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

tb0ne wrote: post #295

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. What part of this entire discussion has anything do to with science? Is anyone actually contesting the science? Is it a discussion about the number of orbitals of uranium atoms? Or is it a discussion on which entities handle the long-term financials obligations, whether we favor or not decentralized grids, whether we favor short term or longer…

It is stuff like people religiously dissmising you when you tell them that nuclear is nearly the safest power source in terms of deaths per TWh [1]. They don't base their opinion regarding safety on data, they base it on the feeling that they get from seeing large disasters and not seeing the countless deaths caused in silence, and they refuse to update their view even in the face of contradicting data. [1] https://o…

Those numbers are based upon flawed and selective numbers making them quite ridiculous for several reasons:

For example: with Fukushima the nuclear bandwagon arguments that those deaths which actually occurred resulted from moving people to a safe area. As if not moving them would have been an option or if the movement would have happened without the accident.

For Chernobyl it's even worse since there the bandwagon arguments with dead firefighters, ignoring all the "fallout" victims which to these days exist and lose years of life. Not even mentioning missing data: https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/groups/anthrotox-...

Besides that it is the same people who say that Germany could have less coal plants with nuclear running. Something which is also not true since the reason for keeping coal so long was not the lack of electrical power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Growth,_Structur...

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#319

Post by yk » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:33 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...

A article reiterating a press release from a company that doesn't have a prototype is not exactly a good source.

And at any rate, the article claims that

> The small size and large surface area-to-volume ratio of NuScale’s reactor core, that sits below ground in a super seismic-resistant heat sink, allows natural processes to cool it indefinitely in the case of complete power blackout.

Of course, the surface that allows efficient cooling here is the same surface that allows neutrons to escape, so my hunch is that it has poor neutron economy. (And of course, heat escaping through it will not turn turbines.)

> 2) refueling of this reactor does not require the nuclear plant to shut down.

That is very nice when you're trying to breed plutonium, the natural uranium fuel assemblies only have to irradiated a few weeks and then you would already need to shut the reactor down. When you can switch during operation, than there's less downtime.

So in total I guess it's a pretty inefficient reactor that's perhaps a nice addition to your weapons program.

Disclaimer: I'm of course one of the anti-nuclear types HN always tells me are only anti-nuclear because we don't understand these things.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#320

Post by neuronexmachina » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #257

BurningFrog wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again, and that scientists are arrogantly playing god when they explain what can and can't happen

The last time I heard a physicist evaluate nuclear, it didn't look like any notable improvements happened in the last 20 years.

Do you have the source where you heard that? Also worth noting that Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island were all built 50-60 years ago.