Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

weplanet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#31

Post by nradov »

pkoiralap wrote: post #16

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.

You should read the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as it addresses several of those issues. Possession of highly enriched uranium isn't necessarily an act of war by itself.

https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destr...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#33

Post by yellowapple »

binaryturtle wrote: post #13

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

Even accounting for the times things have gone “catastrophically wrong”, nuclear is many orders of magnitude safer per unit of energy than every other energy source except solar.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#34

Post by blueflow »

qwe----3 wrote: post #28
blueflow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes, i have been listening to it and its consequences for the last 20 minutes.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#35

Post by robotnikman »

yellowapple wrote: post #14

[flagged]

>and the more strongly I suspect them to be fossil fuel industry plants.

I feel the same way as well. It would make sense for an oil rich country that feels threatened by people not buying oil (or gas) to subvert a movement like greenpeace.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#36

Post by vslira »

blueflow wrote: post #19
kulahan wrote: 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.

I swear I'm not trolling: do you mind asking them about simply dumping it (in leaded concrete barrels etc) in the deep ocean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... makes it seem not such a big deal

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#37

Post by philipkglass »

pkoiralap wrote: post #16

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.

The only way to ensure that a civil uranium enrichment program remains strictly civil is via transparency and monitoring. A country that has mastered uranium enrichment technology for fueling civil power reactors could use the same technology to produce bomb-grade uranium. It actually takes more work to enrich natural uranium into fuel for power reactors than it takes to further enrich power reactor fuel into bomb material:

https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separa...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#39

Post by epistasis »

reenorap wrote: post #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 pric…

Which are the fake costs from regulation?

We have new builds in Europe of the EPR, in France and Finland, and it has had disastrous costs. China has built some too, presumably cheaper, since they keep on building more. What is the regulatory difference there?

I have yet to find any concrete defense of the idea that costs are coming from regulation, rather than the costs of construction in advanced economies.

If regulations are the cost, name them and a solution. Otherwise it seems like we are wasting efforts in optimizing the wrong thing for nuclear.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#40

Post by robotnikman »

yellowapple wrote: post #25
bluefirebrand wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This right here. It's not one or the other, its a diverse combination of all of them that makes for the best results.
Post reply on HN