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

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#511

Post by oezi » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #414

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Isn't your choice of telling them false based purely on political agenda? Same happens on other side of the camp, both believe their science is actual science.

Well no, we have plenty of data that shows in reality, nuclear is the safest (lowest deaths per TWh generated [1]), among the lowest-carbon intensity (lower than solar, higher than wind) [2] and with seawater extraction has the potential of being renewable. Waste disposal is a solved problem: you put the spicy rocks back where they came from. So-called environmentalists are advocating removing this capacity without a…

Still nuclear is finished everywhere (or on the way out except in China) and won't come back from the grave. It is like asking for cars from the 70ties to return.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#512

Post by cma » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #412

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Isn't your choice of telling them false based purely on political agenda? Same happens on other side of the camp, both believe their science is actual science.

It kind of depends on what you consider a fact. I support nuclear scientifically. I don’t think it has a chance politically. Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem. Politically, expect to spend billions upon billions and then have things like Yucca Mountain canned after lots of construction. Both are true and which ones you consider lead to very different conclusions.

Translating the numbers:

Billions upon billions per capita is three-dollar bills upon three-dollar bills.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#513

Post by aaaaaaaaaaab » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

Why are Germans so stubbornly against nuclear power? Is it because of losing WWII? Is it because of the Holocaust? I don't get it.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#514

Post by wolverine876 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

cassepipe wrote: post #502

Seems like everybody is jumping on the "environmentalists that don't like nuclear power do it for ideological reasons and are paid by the oil lobby" resentment bandwagon. While I think it is a fair point and while I do think it's a stupid mistake to close nuclear plants, there are also issues that I rarely see addressed probably because they drown under all the rest : 1. Nuclear plants are very expensive and some pro…

We still don't need nuclear. We have many other solutions, including reduction of power consumption, cap-and-trade carbon credits, and much more.

What's happened is that, bizarrely, people have completely conceded to the reactionaries. People have given in, and now give the reactionaries free reign, making it a fait accompli that none of those solutions will happen. If you quit trying and let the reactionaries off the hook, then nuclear is (arguably) what's left.

The anti-nuclear power position of the 1980s didn't take into account - and shouldn't have taken into account - that the American conservatives and the fossil fuel industry would prevent any action on climate change for decades, even denying climate change was happening, then falling back to 'it's not caused by humans', and now to 'there's nothing we can do'.

> Seems like everybody is jumping on the "environmentalists that don't like nuclear power do it for ideological reasons and are paid by the oil lobby" resentment bandwagon.

Again, everyone has completely capitulated to the reactionaries, like people in Vichy France. They are jumping on the reactionary bandwagon. The reactionaries are exceptionally aggressive (an obvious, unimaginative tactic) and people feel powerless against them, so like people bullied on the playground, they find a safe position: Join the bullies and attack their targets.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#515

Post by oezi » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #457

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fell into the same trap. You linked 2 studies. Other side could link 2 studies with very different conclusion. We should understand it is fundamentally a political issue, and both side shouldn't hide behind 2 links to support them.

I didn't fall into the trap. Objective reality isn't political. The total number of people killed in nuclear accidents divided by TWh generated is pretty objective.

Unfortunately despite the track record nuclear won't make a revival. The planning cycles for new plants are just too long. Renewables will yet again half in price by the time you could just build another nuclear plant. That's why really nobody is trying anymore.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#516

Post by wolverine876 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

throw827474737 wrote: post #486

MattGaiser wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of depends on what you consider a fact. I support nuclear scientifically. I don’t think it has a chance politically. Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem. Politically, expect to spend billions upon billions and then have things like Yucca Mountain canned after lots of construction. Both are true and which ones you consider lead to very different conclusions.

Flying is scientifically a well understood and safe thing. Still its the FAA that makes the rules, and engineering that needs to produce robust and reliable systems, and still planes fall out of the sky sometimes.. Scientifically we already proofed that fusion works, which would be the solution for a lot... So what does "scientifically...much solavable problem" in practice really mean? Worlds apart..

> Scientifically we already proofed that fusion works, which would be the solution for a lot...

There is no evidence that fusion is a solution to any energy problems. The central problem of fusion power is that reactions consume more energy than they produce.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#517

Post by arcticbull » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

throw827474737 wrote: post #488

arcticbull wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, we have plenty of data that shows in reality, nuclear is the safest (lowest deaths per TWh generated [1]), among the lowest-carbon intensity (lower than solar, higher than wind) [2] and with seawater extraction has the potential of being renewable. Waste disposal is a solved problem: you put the spicy rocks back where they came from. So-called environmentalists are advocating removing this capacity without a…

Besides this being studies for which other studiest exist the same, we also learned in the pandemic that "deaths" cannot be the sole metric (however you want to interpret that). And seawater extraction is as renewable as CO2-scrubbing the atmosphere would allow us to go on with burnign coal - both would equally not scale to needs with current technology, so what?

Why wouldn't seawater extraction scale? There's 4 billion tons of uranium in the sea (a 60,000 year supply at current usage levels), and 100 trillion tons of uranium below that from which it's replenished as it is extracted.

[1] https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#518

Post by oezi » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

MR4D wrote: post #509

oezi wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment gets it entirely backwards. France is currently in a terrible spot with their monoculture of nuclear because the hot temperatures have caused shutdowns of many reactors, many old plants are offline because of security concerns and the French operator of the nuclear plants is close to bankruptcy and needs to be pulled back into government ownership because renewables can be so much cheaper today. What Ger…

I wonder how much of your comments/predictions will be true after this coming winter.

I am not looking forward to my gas bill indeed. Still hard to forsee that nuclear could come to the rescue in any way. Even in France they have scaled back eletric heating and will face hard times when cold weather strikes.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#519

Post by wolverine876 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #414

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Isn't your choice of telling them false based purely on political agenda? Same happens on other side of the camp, both believe their science is actual science.

Well no, we have plenty of data that shows in reality, nuclear is the safest (lowest deaths per TWh generated [1]), among the lowest-carbon intensity (lower than solar, higher than wind) [2] and with seawater extraction has the potential of being renewable. Waste disposal is a solved problem: you put the spicy rocks back where they came from. So-called environmentalists are advocating removing this capacity without a…

> environmentalists are advocating removing this capacity without accounting for the fact its replacement will be coal, oil and gas.

Could you identify any broadly accepted environmental analysis that says this? It's easy to make accusaiont

> Waste disposal is a solved problem: you put the spicy rocks back where they came from.

The waste rocks are not at all like the ones removed from the ground, in critical ways (radioactivity). Who says anything about putting them back in the original mines? Why would the original mines happen to be suitable for nuclear waste storage?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#520

Post by MattGaiser » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 10:58 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #512

MattGaiser wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of depends on what you consider a fact. I support nuclear scientifically. I don’t think it has a chance politically. Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem. Politically, expect to spend billions upon billions and then have things like Yucca Mountain canned after lots of construction. Both are true and which ones you consider lead to very different conclusions.

Translating the numbers: Billions upon billions per capita is three-dollar bills upon three-dollar bills.

It would be one thing if billions and billions lead to success, but we are nowhere near a politically acceptable solution for nuclear waste.