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

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#121

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

RandomLensman wrote: post #9

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".

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).

I'm not sure how tidal and geothermal fare in Germany

It seems that some geothermal works have caused mini-earthquakes and soil shifts in Germany and the Netherlands

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#122

Post by acidburnNSA » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:34 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.

Ok, well by this definition, all human development activity is unclean. This is a perfectly valid point of view but is pretty distinct from the modern definition of clean.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#123

Post by IAmBroom » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:34 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.

Are you saying it's less clean than mining for the materials that make up solar panels and wind turbines?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#124

Post by StopDisinfo910 » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:35 PM UTC

tietjens wrote: 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 has stopped actively trying to sabotage France on nuclear energy at every occasion in the EU. That’s a start.

Give you hope that at some point, they might even move on the brain dead competition policies in the energy market and we might end up with a sensible energy policy.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#125

Post by happosai » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:35 PM UTC

reenorap wrote: post #70

epistasis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regul…

It takes 15 years to build a nuclear power plant. It shouldn't take this long at all and it's strictly because of regulations. If we cut down the time it takes to build a plant the cost plummets.

Nuclear regulations are no worse than aviation regulation. Yet planes manage to be cost competitive.

Cutting regulations isn't necessary the win people think. If safety regulations are cut, it risks accidents in future.

Nuclear needs to move from bespoke builds to serial production.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#126

Post by medlazik » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:35 PM UTC

alexey-salmin wrote: post #112

medlazik wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Who talked about those? Not the fucking point. Nuclear isn't clean.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#127

Post by reenorap » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:35 PM UTC

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #55

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…

You should look more closely at your PG&E bill. There are some hidden CA taxes in there. Also PG&E was forced to divest most of their generation assets, so I believe that much of the grid power down there is not under PG&E's control Edit: Finally, any Western US utility needs to bear the cost of wildfire liability. Whether that is a state-owned utility or private, the cost is still there.

PG&E is in no way a victim here. Their CEO is being paid $50M a year, and our rates got increased 6 times last year. Nevada the next state over, the prices are 20% of California's.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#128

Post by fsflover » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

oceanplexian wrote: post #66

kulahan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They can’t even use the products as a result of their obsession with government regulation. For example, Apple released a universal translator, literally right out of Star Trek, but the EU won’t be getting it either.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45215548

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45217477

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#129

Post by bluGill » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

oceanplexian wrote: post #29

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".

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.

Germany doesn't need to participate in the next. They need to participate in something though. They are too small to do everything alone. Even the US depends on a lot of other countries to make things work.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#130

Post by IAmBroom » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

nilslindemann wrote: post #87

exabrial wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are incorrect fortunately. Western designs are safe, most Soviet-era ones are/were not. It's unfortunate that nuclear power still has this stigma, as it's like saying "all cars are unsafe" while comparing the crash test ratings of a modern sedan to a 1960's chevy bel aire.

Then why did Fukushima happen?

Old, bad design - from the 1960s, in fact.