EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy • Hacker News Board

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#111

Post by mpweiher » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:31 PM UTC

alexey-salmin wrote: post #92

V__ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the fears are overblown, but at the same time the hype for nuclear is just weird. It's more complex, more expensive, less adjustable and more risky. Even the new hip small modular reactors are many years away. The LCOE (Levelized Cost of Electricity) for solar with battery is already better than current solutions, and dropping. Wind and battery closely following. There is no way that nuclear technology w…

That's only true because both solar panels and batteries are produced in China off cheap coal power. LCOE is not a fundamental metric. EROI is and it's pretty bad for photovoltaics.

And even then it's not actually true.

First, solar and wind are massively subsidized pretty much everywhere they are deployed, in addition to the indirect subsidies they get from China subsidizing production (and internal deployments).

Second, and more importantly, LCOE is not the full cost, as you rightly point out. It leaves out system costs, and these are huge for intermittent renewables, and not constant. They rise disproportionately as the percentage of intern mitten renewables in a particular grid rises towards 100%.

Third, and related, in most countries where renewables are deployed, intermittent renewables not just do not have to carry the burden of their intermittency, they are actually allowed to pass these burdens and costs onto their reliable competitors. Which is even more insane than not accounting for intermittency.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#112

Post by alexey-salmin » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:32 PM UTC

medlazik wrote: post #94

acidburnNSA wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Modern in situ uranium mining is one of the lowest impact mining of resources we have. It's not perfectly clean, but it's pretty darn good.

>What do you mean? I mean it's not clean >one of the lowest impact mining of resources we have Not the point. It's not clean, it shouldn't be called clean end of the story.

Do you think rare earth minerals for batteries and photovoltaics grow on trees?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#113

Post by mpweiher » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:32 PM UTC

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #88

V__ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the fears are overblown, but at the same time the hype for nuclear is just weird. It's more complex, more expensive, less adjustable and more risky. Even the new hip small modular reactors are many years away. The LCOE (Levelized Cost of Electricity) for solar with battery is already better than current solutions, and dropping. Wind and battery closely following. There is no way that nuclear technology w…

Solar and battery have had immense investment to bring down that LCOE. Where can we get if we invest similarly in nuclear. lol at wind though. that's not real.

And even then it's not competitive. And LCOE is only a small part of the cost with intermittent renewables.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#114

Post by ryao » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:32 PM UTC

medlazik wrote: post #45

Uranium mining isn't clean at all. Between Greenpeace (full of business school hacks) and lobby pressured EU courts, there's a middle ground.

Why mine uranium? Only about 4% of nuclear fuel is actually used before the fuel rods need replacement, which makes uranium highly recyclable. Given all of the “spent” fuel rods in storage, mining operations for additional uranium are unnecessary. We have enough uranium to supply our energy needs for millennia, provided we are willing to begin a recycling program.

Interestingly, the 4% actual “waste” is also quite valuable for industrial, scientific and medical purposes too. Radiation treatments for cancer, X-ray machines, etcetera all can use isotopes from it. This is not mentioning smoke detectors, betavoltaics and the numerous other useful things that can be made out of them. Deep space missions by NASA rely on betavoltaic power sources. Currently, there is a shortage, which has resulted in various missions being cancelled. Our failure to recycle “spent” nuclear fuel rods is a wasted opportunity.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#115

Post by acidburnNSA » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:32 PM UTC

sollewitt wrote: post #43

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.)

Pebble-bed reactors are incapable of catastrophic failure, and molten-salt reactors have negative feedback loops with increasing pressure. Nuclear doesn't have to mean the same designs that were used in the 60s.

Both those design types were operational in the 1960s in the US but have been shut down due to lack of performance and industrial interest. New interest has started today, but let's not claim the new ones are some kind of new improved tech that evolved out of our workhorse water cooled/moderated plants.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#116

Post by blueflow » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

vslira wrote: post #36

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.

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

  So about the containers for radioactive waste: to use Germany as an example, there are mutliple(!) issues with the simple containers used in the interim storage site Asse, where they simply corroded and started leaking radioactive material. So "normal" containers just don't cut it. To effectively seal and shield so-called "High-level radioactive waste" (which is basically the used fuel rods from a nuclear power plant) the CASTOR containers are used. Those reduce the radiation to some extent - but still not enough for a human to be able to stand next to them without issue. And that is not taking into account that the fuel rods are HOT. As in thermally. (This is btw how you generate heat in a nuclear power plant - you just use the heat from the fuel rods to boil water.)
  To sum up: you have insanely thick steel (or copper) containers which are super hot. And big. And made from metal, which enjoys corroding in salt water.

  And like in Tschornobyl, used fuel rods can kill you with their radiation in a couple of minutes if you just stand close enough. Diluting something like this would obviously reduce the immediate danger, but then secondary radiation effects kick in which basically means an increase in cancer rate. So if you throw something like this in the sea, you would probably kill any sea life around (not to mention you would also boil the water probably) it and give cancer to the rest. And since the radioactive particles are now in the fish, which humans tend to eat a lot of, now pretty much all humans have it too.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#117

Post by mpweiher » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

alexey-salmin wrote: post #107

jama211 wrote: post #84

I’m totally fine with nuclear honestly, but I feel like I don’t understand something. No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts that explain why we couldn’t just make a whole load more renewable energy generators instead. Sure, it might cost more, but in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables no?

If Germany invested all their renewable money into nuclear, they would be carbon-neutral today. Not by 2050 but today. Instead the CO2 per capita in Germany is 2x the one in France. And France had built their reactors in the 70s for a modest price. The "whole load more renewable energy" idea is peak wishful thinking and it's incredible people still buy it today.

And the CO₂ difference for electricity production, so the only part of the energy system where nuclear vs. intermittent renewable is currently applicable, is not 2:1. It is 10:1.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#118

Post by delusional » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

otikik wrote: post #104

delusional wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limitless clean energy source Like the guy you're responding to, I'm not a nuclear hater. We also have other "limitless clean energy sources" however, wind and solar. How is nuclear going to benefit humanity in ways electrical energy hasn't already? We haven't been energy constrained in the past 10-20 years. It really doesn't seem like additional energy production is going to make that much of a difference.

“Limitless” in that context means “it still happens in a cloudy week with no wind”

I'd like to see a prior for that use of that word, otherwise you're just making stuff up. Please use words to say things.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#119

Post by Eric_WVGG » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

jama211 wrote: post #84

I’m totally fine with nuclear honestly, but I feel like I don’t understand something. No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts that explain why we couldn’t just make a whole load more renewable energy generators instead. Sure, it might cost more, but in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables no?

(just based on a little googling, don't shoot me if I'm wrong)

1 nuclear plant: 8 billion kilowatt hours/year

1 avg. wind turbine: 6 million kwh/yr, so 1300 turbines to match one nuke. It's obviously silly to bring up the Simpsons, but picturing 1300 turbines surrounding Springfield would be a funny visual gag.

Difficult to get numbers for solar plants because they vary wildly in size, but they seem to be commonly measured in tens of thousands, so napkin math suggest ~800,000 solar plants to match one nuclear plant.

Solar is awesome for reinforcing the grid and consumers; wind is neat but those turbines are only good for like twenty years. Nothing beats a nuke.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#120

Post by edbaskerville » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #42

kulahan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

There's a new kind of "drill baby drill" which we should be embracing: geothermal energy. There's a lot of advancements in that space and it is a perfect base load generation source.

Yeah, advanced geothermal is very interesting. They're taking fracking techniques and using them to get to hot rocks, which opens up geothermal to a much, much wider set of locations. Interested parties say it could provide everything we need beyond wind/solar, and seems much simpler than building out nuclear plants.

Check out:

https://www.volts.wtf/p/catching-up-with-enhanced-geothermal