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

Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 252 posts

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#31

Post by emsign »

stefan_ wrote: post #15
vrganj wrote: post #2

This is happening all across Europe right now - Romania, France too. https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/07/13/france-shuts-do... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hungarys-paks-nuclea... We keep having folks here argue that nuclear, not renewables are the path to take to get rid of fossil fuels. I have strong doubts - it feels like that doesn't account for the sad realities of climate change.

This is a technical problem with technical solutions. You can just fix things, you don't need to throw out 30% of your power generation to pay billions for climate change vagueposting.

Electricity costs by nuclear power is heavily subsidized by tax money in France, so the French are paying the higher costs anyway. Just saying. Maybe there's a technical solution involving nuclear but it's really expensive compared to the much cheaper technical solution: renewable energy.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#32

Post by fylo »

emsign wrote: post #18

This is what nuclear power enthusists like to ignore when they talk about nuclear power being a solution to energy and climate change.

Every power source has trade offs, bud. They call solar renewable, but in fact panels have a shelf life, and take valuable finite resources and energy to manufacture. This is what climate change activists like to ignore /s

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#33

Post by mertbio »

emsign wrote: post #18

This is what nuclear power enthusists like to ignore when they talk about nuclear power being a solution to energy and climate change.

They also constantly criticise Germany and its nuclear power plant closures, linking almost every negative news story about the country to this issue. It seems they’re completely unaware of the potential consequences of operating a nuclear power plant.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#35

Post by number6 »

defrost wrote: post #19
comrade1234 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iceland has no nuclear power plants.

Iceland is a small area, small population outlier literally sitting on two plates rubbing up against each other and a relative excess of active volcanism and large lava fields. About 85 percent of the total primary energy supply in Iceland is derived from domestically produced renewable energy sources. Use of abundant hydroelectric and geothermal power has made Iceland the world's largest electricity producer per cap…

Germany also has potential for 85% geothermal energy.

There are some interesting spots here but it's generally enough through the country to do it everywhere.

Munich gets quite a lot of it's energy from geothermal sources

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#36

Post by emsign »

deepsummer wrote: post #23
oblio wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind + storage, geothermal.

Storage of energy in the dimensions required for weeks with almost no wind is an unsolved problem. Right now, we can't store enough to make it through a single night without using fossil fuels. Most countries don't even have the capacity to store the energy for a single hour.

Geothermal and storage is worth investing in, investing in nuclear is not. NPPs are simply too expensive and you won't find investors unless you heavily subsidize it with tax money. Only compnies willing to invest in NPPs are those with virtually free money: the handful of AI big tech giants.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#37

Post by [deleted] »

paganel wrote: post #10
cinntaile wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People arguing for one alternative over the other are usually politically motivated. I feel like you are doing the same. Sometimes nuclear is a good fit, sometimes renewables is a good fit, sometimes fossil fuels are a good fit. Most of the time a mix is the best fit. It depends on what you are optimizing for and what is geographically, (geo)politically and economically possible. All these systems are then built usin…

Everyone is politically motivated on this subject, and that's a good thing, because this is a political decision by default, where the "political" is comprised of is, the voting citizens. We can't let decisions like these be taken by unelected technocrats alone.

[deleted]

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#38

Post by RandomLensman »

deepsummer wrote: post #23
oblio wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind + storage, geothermal.

Storage of energy in the dimensions required for weeks with almost no wind is an unsolved problem. Right now, we can't store enough to make it through a single night without using fossil fuels. Most countries don't even have the capacity to store the energy for a single hour.

As we can store fossil fuels for weeks of demand, we can store the required energy in chemical form, no? Germany has huge natural gas storage, for ezample.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#39

Post by masklinn »

number6 wrote: post #30
comrade1234 wrote: post #8

Here in Switzerland during some heatwaves they have to shut down nuclear plants too because the river water is too warm and adding warm water to it would kill the fish.

And it's not cold enough to cool the reactor

The reactor absolutely is not going to care, it’s the tertiary cooling circuit cooling for the steam turbines, it will have cooked off everything downstream long before it’s an issue.

This is entirely an ecological and safety concern.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#40

Post by gib444 »

paganel wrote: post #10
cinntaile wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People arguing for one alternative over the other are usually politically motivated. I feel like you are doing the same. Sometimes nuclear is a good fit, sometimes renewables is a good fit, sometimes fossil fuels are a good fit. Most of the time a mix is the best fit. It depends on what you are optimizing for and what is geographically, (geo)politically and economically possible. All these systems are then built usin…

Everyone is politically motivated on this subject, and that's a good thing, because this is a political decision by default, where the "political" is comprised of is, the voting citizens. We can't let decisions like these be taken by unelected technocrats alone.

I'm not filled with joy about my chav ("redneck") neighbours weighing in on nuclear vs solar and climate change and national and international energy markets and power distribution...

I don't have a clue either. Don't ask for my vote on how to power a country. Take my taxes and use them to listen to experts

Post reply on HN