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

321–330 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#321

Post by dragonwriter »

google234123 wrote: post #317
mcv wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People, including elites in Putin’s inner circle, perceived as insufficiently loyal to Putin have experienced a rash of widely reported “murder-suicides” of their entire families, and others who have avoided that fate have experienced, other very public, severe adverse consequences.

This, along with Russia’s notoriously pervasive secret police and domestic surveillance may have something to do why even “anonymous” polling of Russia finds fairly small numbers of people willing to say they don't support the regime wholeheartedly, independent of actual sentiment.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#322

Post by thereddaikon »

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…

Many of the claims made by the anti-nuclear ground directly contradict established science.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#323

Post by goodpoint »

lven wrote: post #307
goodpoint wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except it's impossible to safely scale down nuclear to domestic/community/small-town level.

Instead renewables and especially solar as well as batteries and geothermal heat storage scale down very well and can build resilient networks.

After the horrific blackouts that happened in some countries people on HN should be able to grasp this...

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#324

Post by 7952 »

automatic6131 wrote: post #180
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 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? It is technically solved, but politically unsolved. YMMV about how much of a deal breaker this is. >Are old powerplants properly decommissioned and replaced with new ones when the time comes? Not a problem that…

But it isn't a competition between technology. It is a competition between industrial-societal complexes that include supply chains, resources, training, politics and a large number of flawed human beings. Having the best technology isn't enough. The human infrastructure behind is what wins. And in that respect the renewables/battery complex is just more successful. We may well be able to scale up storage to support renewables more quickly than nuclear new build.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#325

Post by mcv »

google234123 wrote: post #317
mcv wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because he controls the media. There have also been very persistent protests against the war. Russians in a position to speak freely often criticise it. That's not true for the majority of Russians, however.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#326

Post by croes »

Aachen wrote: post #261
croes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competitive reactor design sounds like corruption, botched construction and profit over security.

Not sure it gets better when everyone gets paid regardless of performance, also things like corruption.

Remember Boeings competitive 737 max?

Competition is often about price.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#327

Post by tobias3 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #274
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…

Chernobyl can't happen again because the awful design that made that failure possible is long ago abandoned. It's a bit like how the Airbus A380 can't crash like the Hindenburg airship did.

RBMK-1000 is actually still in use in Russia at three locations (they obviously fixed the bug that lead to the disaster, so it won't repeat 1:1...).

That also points at one issue. All the now >50 year old reactors should have been replaced with newer versions at some point. Just think about what kind of electronics there is in those things. This didn't happen anywhere. Not in Germany and not in France.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#328

Post by neuronexmachina »

pydry wrote: post #312
concordDance wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> In the US it's $0.35 billion.

I was curious about this figure, found info here. Also, apparently the Price-Anderson Act which created the liability limit was passed in 1957, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that it no longer makes sense now that nuclear technology has matured: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...

> Over time, the "limit of liability" for a nuclear accident has increased the insurance pool to more than $13 billion. > > Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for $450 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site (not per reactor). This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $450 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $131.056 million per reactor. With 95 reactors currently in the insurance pool, i this secondary tier of funds contains about $12.9 billion. Payouts in excess of 15 percent of these funds require a prioritization plan approved by a federal district court. If the court determines that public liability may exceed the maximum amount of financial protection available from the primary and secondary tiers, each licensee would be assessed a pro rata share of this excess not to exceed 5 percent of the maximum deferred premium ($131.056 million); approximately $6.553 million per reactor. If the second tier is depleted, Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#330

Post by BurningFrog »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #278
BurningFrog wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl can't happen again because the awful design that made that failure possible is long ago abandoned. It's a bit like how the Airbus A380 can't crash like the Hindenburg airship did.

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".

If all you mean by "chernobyl happening again" is "a serious accident could happen", you've moved the goalposts beyond where I think meaningful discussion is possible.

It also means that a "new chernobyl" can happen at any power station, be it hydro, coal, solar, etc.

Post reply on HN