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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#191

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

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…

That is what we did 20 years ago when the renewable industry barely existed.

What has happened since is that the nuclear industry essentially collapsed given the outcome of Virgil C. Summer, Vogtle, Olkiluoto, Flamanville and Hinklkey Point C and can't build new plants while renewables and storage are delivering over 90% of new capacity in the US. Being the cheapest energy source in human history.

We've gone past the "throw stuff at the wall" phase, now we know what sticks and that is renewables and storage.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#192

Post by tick_tock_tick »

nicce wrote: post #149
mixdup wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "design" each instance is different enough that every project has to be managed from the ground up as a new thing, you get certified only on a single plant, operators can't move from plant to plant without recertification, etc Part of that is because they are so…

It isn't that rare in general - if the U.S. opens the secrets of nuclear submarines - we had had mini reactors for decades.

I'd be fine with us just having the USA navy operate them we build them for carriers and subs just double or triple the order and plug em into the grid.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#193

Post by randoomed »

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?

The main reason is a combination of negligence by the owner of the plant and not enough enforcement of standards. The fukushima powerplant was known to have sea wall lower then required and as such was vulnerable to a tsunami (this was known for quite a long time) Combined with backup power in the basement (also against standards)

For an example of what happens to a reactor build according to safety requirements see the onagawa nuclear powerplant

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#194

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mixdup wrote: post #137
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…

A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "design" each instance is different enough that every project has to be managed from the ground up as a new thing, you get certified only on a single plant, operators can't move from plant to plant without recertification, etc Part of that is because they are so…

We’ve been trying to build ”SMR”s since the 1950s and a bunch has been built throughout the decades.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small...

The problem is: who pays for the hundreds of prototypes before the ”process” has worked?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#195

Post by ainiriand »

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.)

What is a bit scary is that we cannot easily deal with the consequence of something really wrong... We have to real with it.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#196

Post by quickthrowman »

xrisk wrote: post #103
yellowapple wrote: post #14

[flagged]

[flagged]

The (authoritarian?) nation of Finland has already solved the problem of what to do with nuclear waste: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...

I watched a very interesting documentary about Onkalo, which happens to be on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayLxB9fV2y4

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#197

Post by i5heu »

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?

There is just no good reason to build nuclear in a world with renewables.

Especially if you consider that most nations cannot produce fuel rods by themselves.

And if you calculate in the risk like “get me a insurance that covers leaks and melt downs” and finance somehow the disassembly of a nuclear plant, nuclear is one of the most costly ways you can get energy.

Plus it is a huge nice target in war times.

There are so so many benefits to decentralized renewables that you intuition is absolutely correct.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#198

Post by hugo1789 »

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.

Imo that's a pretty complicated topic. On one side if you just build LWRs you just don't need very highly enriched uranium or plutonium so posession of those is a red flag. On the other side fast breeder reactors are the ones which are able to produce the least harmful waste. But fast breeders and closed fuel cycles produce and handle plutonium which in turn can be used for bad things.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#199

Post by epistasis »

avidiax wrote: post #166
kachnuv_ocasek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what are the specific regulations you would cut, dude?

I have heard it claimed, at least for US construction, that a nuclear plant under construction has to implement new safety measures even if those measures were adopted after the design approval or construction start date. This means that the design can change multiple times during construction, which both slows construction and exposes the project to even more safety design changes. Ironically, the creaky old plants…

Thank you for being specific! This is no longer the case under modern licensing.

Look at Vogtle and Summer, who were so expensive and disastrous that the Summer build was abandoned with billions of dollars sunk in construction.

Nothing was changed on the regulatory side, and it was licensed under a new regulatory model requested by industry, that let them start construction without everything fully designed yet. There were many super expensive changes during the build, but that was due to EPC, not regulatory stuff.

The NRC has been extremely open to regulatory changes since the 2000s, especially with the "nuclear renaissance" push around 2008. I'm not aware of any suggested regulatory changes that were not adopted.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#200

Post by tencentshill »

ciconia wrote: post #169
mixdup wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "design" each instance is different enough that every project has to be managed from the ground up as a new thing, you get certified only on a single plant, operators can't move from plant to plant without recertification, etc Part of that is because they are so…

Exactly. What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise, where the engineering effort is concentrated in building economies of scale. To me it's clear that nuclear energy's pros largely outweigh the cons, and that it is a perfect complement to solar and wind power generation.

We can't blow up nuclear reactors to learn how they failed like spaceX does with rockets.
Post reply on HN