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

Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#101

Post by [deleted] »

q1w2 wrote: post #92
linuxhansl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair points. (I hope nobody downvoted you) I somewhat disagree on your general point, though. Pellet reactor (mostly?) solve the spent fuel issue. Also, I believe that due to unreasonable negative opinion we're behind a few decades where we could be in terms of research. And as I said in my earlier comment, it is exactly this lack of public support that had (and has) us running old timer nuclear plants (like Chernoby…

I don't think any of the GP's arguments hold up. > there are the issues of storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts Omega Tau did an in depth analysis of all the storage issues, including the byproducts and how they are managed. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/omegataupodcast/omegatau-3... These are solved problems. > what to do with old fuel rods ...same as above. The quantity here is far far smaller than mos…

[deleted]

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#102

Post by wumpus »

pl-94 wrote: post #8

By the way, with or without nuclear power, the FitFor55 proposal sounds completely unreasonable to me. 1. It projects a 35% increase of energy efficiency in 10 years. You might achieve it in virtual lifes, but not in the real world (ask a cow to burp less!?) 2. It concerns domestic net emissions. Meaning that the policy is incentiving to de-localisation of industry in China (which already explains most of the progres…

> (ask a cow to burp less!?)

Are you aware of research about reducing methane by feeding cows a small amount of seaweed? I'm guessing no.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#103

Post by a9h74j »

orwin wrote: post #84
eithed wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we shouldn't be forgetting about the disposal of solar panels as well - https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-was...

I'm pro-nuclear, but solar panel disposal in rich country is almost solved. 94,7% recyclable, the recycling is taken into account when you buy them (in Europe at least), so its free to get them to the recycling plant for the owner.

And then energy and transportation prices increase by a factor of four, and it turns out not enough money was set aside for solar-farm decomissioning??

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#104

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

cletus wrote: post #34

This seems to be an unpopular opinion on HN but I just don't trust humans to manage fission power in the long term at scale. First, there are the issues of storage and disposal of enrichment byproducts, specifically depleted Uranium Hexaflouride ("DUJF" or UF6). Second, there's what to do with old fuel rods. Proponents argue this is a solved problem and it can be stored for the long term in geologically stable storag…

The stuff could be usable in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_fission_reactor#Energy... a.k.a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#105

Post by rad_gruchalski »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #58
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s see if they still sport these stickers after the coming winter…

Well maybe Germans could just vote to freeze their energy prices, like Berliners voted to freeze their rents. /s

Ha, that’s a good one. Considering the plans of the new gov, this is the new normal in Germany and it will get even more expensive.

I’m looking forward to diesel at €2.10/l, e5 at €2.50/l, heating oil at €110/100l and electricity prices x3. What a time to be alive.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#106

Post by rad_gruchalski »

Ekaros wrote: post #86
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well maybe Germans could just vote to freeze their energy prices, like Berliners voted to freeze their rents. /s

Or buy the power plants and then sell the power for cheap...

They will simply buy electricity from Poland (coal) or France (nuclear) it they need more cheaper.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#107

Post by stefantalpalaru »

llampx wrote: post #10
xvilka wrote: post #6

Given the Germany stupid move to get rid of nuclear (in favor of coal[1], as it turned out), not sure if it will support this decision. And nowadays they are dependent from one country's gas... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-nuclear-power-a...

I still see "Atomkraft? Nein, danke!" stickers here and there and am sad at the ignorance displayed by the people who sport them.

> I still see "Atomkraft? Nein, danke!" stickers here and there and am sad at the ignorance displayed by the people who sport them.

https://www.thelocal.de/20160520/german-nuclear-plant-pumped... :

«the plant used the cover of the Chernobyl – which had released a cloud of radioactive waste over western Europe – to pump their own waste into the atmosphere, believing no one would notice

“It was done intentionally,” Schollmeyer said. “We had problems at the plant and I was present at a few of the meetings.”

The problems related to balls of radioactive fuel getting stuck in the plant's pipework.

“Some clever dick suggested we clean out the pipework by pumping helium through it. He thought that no one would notice because of the Chernobyl cloud.”»

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#Emissio... :

«The emissions from the THTR were initially not noticed. However, an anonymous informant from the workforce of the THTR-300 informed supervisory authorities and environmental associations about a hidden radioactive emission on May 4, 1986.»

«Only when an unusually high concentration of 233Pa was detected in the exhaust air of the THTR-300 from the chimney, which could not come from Chernobyl but only from the thorium of broken fuel elements of the THTR-300, it gradually became clear that there must have been significant radioactive emissions from the THTR-300 into the environment.»

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#108

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

cletus wrote: post #99
opwieurposiu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used fuel from thermal reactors can be processed into fuel for fast reactors. The fast reactor burns up all the transuranium elements so that the waste ends up with only the short lived fission products. These short lived products decay to background in 300 years or so, so the amount of time it needs to be stored is much more manageable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Advantag...

So if we can process nuclear waste in fast reactors like this, why haven't we done so with existing nuclear waste? Scale? Cost? Something else?

Probably because all (usable) waste (the fuel rods) needs to be disassembled (reprocessed) to enable usage somewhere else. With new casings. Which then needs to be disassembled too, after the contents are 'sucked empty'.

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#109

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

q1w2 wrote: post #93
mszyndel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth adding that in EU this is largely German public opinion. And somehow the tail wags the dog.

Angela Merkel was a disaster in this regard. The nation went collectively insane after Fukushima and she cowed to the public to win the next election rather than try to calm the public ignorance. Instead, Germany funded Russia's NordGas II pipeline to replace the nuclear power they turned off with gas. Insane stupidity.

While I concur with the 'disaster', the pipeline thing seems to be more rooted in our former chancellor, a.k.a Gazprom Gerd. Revolving door, and such, you know? :-)

Re: Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green

#110

Post by opwieurposiu »

cletus wrote: post #99
opwieurposiu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used fuel from thermal reactors can be processed into fuel for fast reactors. The fast reactor burns up all the transuranium elements so that the waste ends up with only the short lived fission products. These short lived products decay to background in 300 years or so, so the amount of time it needs to be stored is much more manageable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Advantag...

So if we can process nuclear waste in fast reactors like this, why haven't we done so with existing nuclear waste? Scale? Cost? Something else?

The cost issue: Storing spent fuel is pretty cheap because it is not very voluminous. The USA has produced about 85k tons of spent fuel, which would fit into a single football stadium. This means the cheapest thing to do is just kick the can down the road.

The proliferation issue: Waste burners require processing of spent fuel, which some states believe is a weapons proliferation risk.

The sodium issue: Liquid sodium requires very careful construction of the steam generators and piping to keep it from contacting air or water. This is a sort-of solved problem in that all the sodium cooled reactors have experienced sodium leaks from time to time, but those leaks have been fixed without significant radioactive release. This is an issue that improves with operator experience.

The russians do have one waste burning fast reactor running, the BN-800. If they can do it, so can we. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

Post reply on HN