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

671–676 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#671

Post by Brometheus »

JanSt wrote: post #276
Brometheus wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter when the energy is basically thrown away right now and therefore free. It's called Einspeisemanagement (EisMan or EinsMan). At the moment: Windy & sunny day? Just throw the energy away! Future: Windy & sunny day? Store the energy for a rainy day!

Yeah it‘s not that easy is it? Enthusiasm and optimism is good but Germany is currently like a train speeding to a wall and people shout: „go faster! We will build breaks easily!“ Russia just took off another big break. And still people don‘t change. This is an emergency situation and people just keep going on the same path. Would be funny if it wouldn‘t be so terrible.

Using renewables to create hydrogen and use that, this plan has been calculated trough again and again and again by Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaft (German Institute of Economy) and others and deemed very viable.

So I take the science over some random dude on the internet ranting about people not changing or something any day.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#672

Post by einpoklum »

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…

The only "ruinous" aspect is that Germany did not prepare on the side of renewable installed capacity (and perhaps storage, although I'm not sure.)

Nuclear is:

* Something like 3x more costly (levelized cost etc.) relative to solar and wind.

* Dangerous I: Yes, still dangerous for the foreseeable future. There are still significant risks, especially with nuclear waste storage, but to some extent with active plants. I'm not an expert on this, but see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident... with some examples from recent years.

* Dangerous II: Considering the state of infrastructure generally in some world states (e.g. the US) and profit motives, I do not believe the private nuclear industry can be trusted to deliver sufficient levels of safety.

* Dangerous III: Earthquakes, bombardment, and partisan/terrorist attacks are threats even to plants and storage facilities which are otherwise safe. And these occur with relative frequency; just think of the Zhaporizye (sp) plants a couple of months ago.

* Has greenhouse gas emission costs via mining of Uranium and such. Caveat: Not sure how much this compares to wind/solar/geothermal on one hand and coal/carbon-rich gas on the other hand/

* Is promoted to a great extent as a counterpart to nuclear arms programs. For nuclear weapons, you need fissile material, and you produce that in a nuclear reactor. Which then also produces heat, which you convert to power. Not all nuclear plants need to be like that, but again, no trust that these will go away.

Now, I am certainly no expert on the matter, so - convince me otherwise if you can.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#673

Post by credit_guy »

knorker wrote: post #666
credit_guy wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 worl…

This estimate uses the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model [1], which is unsupported by science. The organization you mentioned, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation no longer uses this model.

The relevant wikipedia quote is

  One of the organizations for establishing recommendations on radiation protection guidelines internationally, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) that previously supported the LNT model, no longer supports the model for very low radiation doses.
The actual UNSCEAR paper is [2]. The relevant quote is on page 33:

  Projections of the absolute number of cancer cases in a population have less and less information value and can be increasingly misleading at lower and lower doses. As a matter of general practice, the Committee does not use the risks inferred from studies of populations following radiation exposure at moderate and high doses to project absolute numbers of radiation-induced cancers following exposure at low and very low doses.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

[2] https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2012/UNSCEAR_2012_...

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#674

Post by dieortin »

arcticbull wrote: post #496
dieortin wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when deaths caused by nuclear energy are incredibly hard to quantify.

Are they though? Do you have some quantification of that difficulty? Any studies? Any citations to back up your thesis?

When someone is exposed to radiation and dies of cancer many years later it’s impossible to know whether he’s a victim of radiation or just unlucky. As simple as that.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#675

Post by JanSt »

Brometheus wrote: post #671
JanSt wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it‘s not that easy is it? Enthusiasm and optimism is good but Germany is currently like a train speeding to a wall and people shout: „go faster! We will build breaks easily!“ Russia just took off another big break. And still people don‘t change. This is an emergency situation and people just keep going on the same path. Would be funny if it wouldn‘t be so terrible.

Using renewables to create hydrogen and use that, this plan has been calculated trough again and again and again by Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaft (German Institute of Economy) and others and deemed very viable. So I take the science over some random dude on the internet ranting about people not changing or something any day.

The DIW, although they boast a fancy name, is registered as a lobby organization and they are.

They (Kemfert) also calculated in 2020 that - even if Russia cuts gas transfer to 0 - Europe does not need anymore LNG terminals, because we have enough and planning should be stopped.

What happened? The planning was stopped. Now we need to quickly order and build at least 2 LNG terminals in Germany and are in the midst of an energy crisis (yes, including power).

If they are not able to calculate something that easy, you should not trust them with way more complex calculations. Especially because they are a lobby org.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#676

Post by selimthegrim »

api wrote: post #213
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…

I heard someone call Germany the "California of Europe" for this reason. It's simultaneously full of high-tech and engineers yet paradoxically also full of alternative-medicine quackery and anti-science viewpoints on things like nuclear power. AFAIK there's a weird through-line here where California new age and 70s "new left" ideology has some of its roots in the same early 20th century romanticism that was and I'm s…

The Dead Kennedys arguably beat you to this realization.
Post reply on HN