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

661–670 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#661

Post by mcv »

tut-urut-utut wrote: post #578
dTal wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have a point if any of the other people you mention had maintained unchallenged political power for 2 decades by the expedient of murdering their political rivals.

I am just pointing out that if you use these terms, it frames the whole country in a negative sense. Would Bush's USA, Clinton's USA, Nixon's USA, Obama's USA or POTUS X' USA work better? Because each one of the US presidents except Trump and Biden (give him some more time) is directly or indirectly responsible for more killing around the world than Putin would ever be. Hundreds of thousands (in case of some presiden…

It emphasises the negative effect Putin has on the country. And he does. He's plunging the country and the world into an unnecessary war just to feed his pride, and he does so in a clear break from his predecessor. Putin's Russia is significantly different from Yeltsin's Russia that it's worth pointing out the difference, especially since that difference is all him.

And while you could certainly argue that for example Bush plunged his country into an unnecessary war to feed his pride, you're arguing that he's not that much of a break from his predecessors. And the American people as a whole definitely carry more of that responsibility. That's still a reason to call out Putin specifically, instead of the country as a whole.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#662

Post by pydry »

Manuel_D wrote: post #468
pydry wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Fukushima cost $800 billion Note, this is a figure cited by opposition politicians. Nowhere near this much money has actually been spent. The estimate from the government is a bit under $200 billion, and that includes not just cleanup but also resettling people and continued monitoring of the reactor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#:... .

High end figures are 1 trillion. Those are pushing it a bit.

It's nowhere near as low as 200 billion.

Either way while the industry refuses to fully pay for its own risks or acknowledge that it does so its claims of safety via public relations channels are sounding more than a little disingenuous.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#663

Post by ranguna »

croes wrote: post #654
ranguna wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about the EU here. Sure there will always be corruption, but I'd say it's gonna be better than US & Boeing, albeit probably a bit slower in progress.

McKinsey also works in the EU. Siemens also, and they have a long history of corruption. So I doubt that it is any better in the EU, just less known. Like Greece and Germany. The greece know there is corruption therefore their place in the corruption index, the germans ignore/don't know of corruption hence the better position in the index. And still who paid the corrupt politicians in Greece? companies like Siemens.…

As I said, corruption will always exists, but still EU water is not as polluted with forever chemicals as the US is, and that's just one example.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#664

Post by pydry »

Manuel_D wrote: post #659
hnaccount_rng wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you exceeded the liability cap by a factor of 100, rather than 400... I'm sure there is a person for which a 99% vs a 99.75% payment by the state makes a difference. But ...

By comparison, what are the costs inflicted by climate change?

By comparison why dont solar, wind and pumped storage warrant such extreme and lavish taxpayer funded subsidies?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#665

Post by pydry »

q1w2 wrote: post #410
pydry wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is a world of difference between a modern Gen III+ reactor, and the 1960s design of Fukushima and Chernobyl. It's like comparing the dangers of doctors using 12th century blood-letting and leeches vs getting an MRI.

There is a world of difference between a cheap PR offensive that tries to convince the public that nuclear power is now safe and stepping up to shoulder the liability and costs if it is not.

So far the industry does a lot of the former and zero of the latter. Hell, the op eds about safety routinely coming from nuclear lobbies dont even acknowledge that taxpayers are 99+% on the hook if they fuck up.

Makes me feel even more safe that theyre now lobbying mainly to extend the life of old nuclear plants. What could go wrong?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#666

Post by knorker »

credit_guy wrote: post #622
knorker wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> More people die every single year from radiation in coal than have died in the entire history of nuclear power. I’m as pro-nuclear as they come, but this is simply not true. No people die from radiation from coal.

A quick Googling gives this quote:

When coal is burned, all the uranium daughters accumulated by disintegration—radium, radon, polonium—are also released. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation evaluates the radiation exposure to the population from this source.2 Per gigawattyear (GWe-yr) of electrical energy produced by coal, using the current mix of technology throughout the world, the population exposure is estimated to be about 0.8 lethal cancers per plant-year distributed over the affected population. Table 7.2 summarizes these data. With 400 GWe of coal-fired power plants in the world, this amounts to some 320 deaths per year

https://rlg.fas.org/mwmt-p233.pdf

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#667

Post by JanSt »

Iwan-Zotow wrote: post #623
JanSt wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They send very little gas (much less than agreed upon) through NS1 to send a message and try to force-open NS2, which leads to very high spot prices

What is has to do with "price gouging"? How this "message" of yours reach Netherlands? Whatever is coming, price is defined in Netherlands, look for Dutch TTF futures. It is like price of oil - Brent futures minus some discount > which leads to very high spot prices Russian gas itself is not traded on spot place(s). It is long term contract, but price follow dutch futures. How this "price gouging" is done, could you…

Less supply, higher supply volatility = higher prices, this is market 101.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#668

Post by Iwan-Zotow »

JanSt wrote: post #667
Iwan-Zotow wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is has to do with "price gouging"? How this "message" of yours reach Netherlands? Whatever is coming, price is defined in Netherlands, look for Dutch TTF futures. It is like price of oil - Brent futures minus some discount > which leads to very high spot prices Russian gas itself is not traded on spot place(s). It is long term contract, but price follow dutch futures. How this "price gouging" is done, could you…

Less supply, higher supply volatility = higher prices, this is market 101.

There is no supply of gas from Gazprom to the Dutch FFT. None whatsoever. Never was. Never will be.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#669

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

oezi wrote: post #515
arcticbull wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is that still true for mass produced SMRs ('small' modular reactors)? That don't rely on special forges, of which we don't have much? Isn't that the promise of all those startups from the sector? Regardless of exact model and technology? True production lines like in shipyards, maybe more airplane-/carfactory like? Instead of almost 'artisanal' 'one-offs', like it is now, even though they have common design elements?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#670

Post by Manuel_D »

pydry wrote: post #664
Manuel_D wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By comparison, what are the costs inflicted by climate change?

By comparison why dont solar, wind and pumped storage warrant such extreme and lavish taxpayer funded subsidies?

Nuclear receives a fraction of the subsidies that renewables do: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Ene...

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United...

And remember, "renewable" energy is really natural gas supplemented by wind and solar. There's no plan for a 100% renewable grid until some massive breakthrough in energy storage happens.

Post reply on HN