Live data from Hacker News

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

weplanet.org

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#21

This is clean, until something goes catastrophically wrong. (Which eventually it will. The more reactors, the more chances for it to happen.)

I'd say a reactor in inland Europe is far from the craziest place to put one. God forbid someone were to put one in the Pacific ring of fire... oh, wait...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#22
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You limit data center power demand until the AI bubble pops. Peak Bubble - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45218790 - September 2025 US Data center projects blocked or delayed amid local opposition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44097350 - May 2025

Cool, your country fell way behind every other developed nation in this and you've missed out on a huge industry. In the end, your citizens will still use the products, they'll just probably end up having to pay more for the same functionality.

Other countries can shoulder the cost of the hand waving grift. If it turns out they succeed, lift their models and weights. Eat some potential IP liability for not incurring economic damage ("inefficient capital allocation") chasing magic. Be first, be smarter, or cheat ("you can just do things"). DeepSeek showed a bit of this (model training efficiency), as Apple does slow walking their gen AI. Why incur material economic risk to be first? There will be no moat.

https://hbr.org/2001/10/first-mover-disadvantage

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#23

This is clean, until something goes catastrophically wrong. (Which eventually it will. The more reactors, the more chances for it to happen.)

Meanwhile lignite mines (which Germany are re-opening) actively affect the health of everyone nearby, even when everything goes perfectly alright.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#24
We need to drive down the costs of implementing nuclear energy. Most of it are fake costs due to regulation. I understand that regulation is needed but we also need nuclear energy, we have to find a streamlined way to get more plants up and running as soon as possible. I think they should all be government projects so that private companies can't complain that they're losing money and keep have to ratchet up the prices, like PG&E in California. My rates have doubled in a few years to over $0.40/kWh and up over $0.50/kWh after I go up a tier depending on usage.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take a long time to build new reactors, so not sure that would help. Germany could also do more wind, solar, tidal, geothermal (fossil fuels aside).

It is going to take a long time and a lot of resources no matter what so maybe we should be building effective longterm solutions like nuclear instead of stopgap solar and batteries

Not even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#26

Asking because I don't know. How is enrichment governed? Say for instance if a country is only using it for energy vs defense/offense. And are there elements that can be specifically used for energy vs otherwise? Last I remember, having access to enriched uranium was grounds for a country to bomb another one.

Energy needs like 5% enrichment while weaponizing needs much higher and much more difficult to obtain 85% enrichment

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#27
post #2

Article claims Germany is beginning to shift. I wouldn’t count on that. Despite having to import all of their energy aside from renewables, there is a wide-spread suspicion of nuclear here. The CDU made a lot of noise about it while they were in the opposition, but turning those closed plants back on is highly unlikely. Very costly and I’m not certain the expertise can be hired.

Germany will come around when their Green ship comes aground.

Probably within the next ~5 years. The coal phaseout will happen, but only by replacing it with natural gas. It will result in the last easily achievable reduction in CO2, but it will also increase the already sky-high energy prices in Germany.

After that? There's nothing. There are no credible plans that will result in further CO2 reductions. The noises about "hydrogen" or "power to gas" will quiet rapidly once it becomes clear that they are financially not feasible.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#28
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-enriched (renewable).

> it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) I showed your comment to someone who is currently writing their PhD on how to store nuclear waste safely. I barely understood half of what they said in the following rant, but they referenced the situation of the Sellafield site several times.

You realize people in the 1950s were less careful than now?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#29
post #8
post #2

Article claims Germany is beginning to shift. I wouldn’t count on that. Despite having to import all of their energy aside from renewables, there is a wide-spread suspicion of nuclear here. The CDU made a lot of noise about it while they were in the opposition, but turning those closed plants back on is highly unlikely. Very costly and I’m not certain the expertise can be hired.

With AI on the horizon and each server farm using as much energy as a medium-sized city, I have no idea how they hope to meet demand otherwise, unless the plan is just some equivalent to "drill baby drill".

It’s simple, Germany isn’t going to be participating in the next industrial revolution. It will be the US vs. China. You can already see it happening with their car industry as they struggle to keep up with new technology.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#30
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-enriched (renewable).

Citing sources would be helpful.

Here's one. A great read: https://www.amazon.com/Plentiful-Energy-technology-scientifi...

It's available online also: https://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf

I read it 14 years ago or so, after the Fukushima accident. I don't think the science has changed since then, or since the 90s when this project was shut down. There continue to be so much money in coal, gas, and oil and it's from there I think most of the opposition to nuclear stems from.

Apart from fast reactors, there's also the traditional reactors and storage of spent fuel. Finland's close to opening their process facility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

Post reply on HN