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

Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

earth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#281

Post by hedora »

k__ wrote: post #257
BurningFrog wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again, and that scientists are arrogantly playing god when they explain what can and can't happen

The last time I heard a physicist evaluate nuclear, it didn't look like any notable improvements happened in the last 20 years.

Well, maybe, but most nuclear reactor designs are at least 50 years out of date, and a lot of progress was made between 1970 and 2000.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#282

Post by 988747 »

origin_path wrote: post #161
mcv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an important point. Nuclear can be very safe in theory . Under the right circumstances, all risks can be accounted for (except long term waste storage, apparently). Problem is, in the hands of profit-seeking companies and aggressive and/or corrupt governments, those circumstances will not be right. Remember that both Fukushima and Deep Water Horizon were caused by companies cutting costs in the face of warnin…

Why can't the waste just be ejected into space. SpaceX has made launches a lot cheaper than it once was and once you push it into the solar system it'll never cause problems again.

Putting few tons of radioactive material on top of dozens of tons of highly explosive rocket fuel... what could possibly go wrong?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#283

Post by google234123 »

logifail wrote: post #211
ThePhysicist wrote: post #16

De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…

> In France, top positions in the administration are usually filled by people that are technically excellent and have gone through the system of grandes écoles (ENS, ENA, X, ...), whereas in Germany most people rise through social engineering and party politics and most top positions in the administration are filled by people with law degrees that don't have a clue about technology [..] Would one really claim France…

The French manage to spend less on military than Germany and seem to get about twice the capability.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#284

Post by uwuemu »

breadloaf wrote: post #189
traspler wrote: post #171

I'm always a bit baffled by the amount of pro-nuclear comments on HN and their stance on how everyone who disagrees is just not educated enough. Please educate me: Is the waste problem solved? Are we not still fighting with all the previous attempts of handling it? Is "dig a hole in a salt deposit and keep it there" really good enough for the very, very, very long term? Are old powerplants properly decommissioned and…

I'm always a bit baffled by the amount of pro-renewables comments on HN. Is energy storage solved problem, or are people in northern latitudes going to freeze to death during winter?

"Green" is an extremely politicized term. The nuclear aversion has nothing to do with rational thinking and everything to do with emotions. And since most people have emotions, you can get highly educated people to be "green" extremists. These people don't balance the equation with the suffering of the poor people (which rising energy prices absolutely bring to the table), and secondary effects of green extremism like shrinking economies and inflation is not something on their radar, all that matters is that there is less CO2 being produced (or so they think), everything else is secondary and temporary.

All of that would be fine, there will always be extremists (and to a degree, we need them) and if you seriously believe in the cause, more power to you...

... the real problem is that left wing has adopted this extreme green position as one of its core elements. Now all the left wingers have to adhere to green extremism, otherwise they're not part of the team. In 2022, it is not acceptable for any member of any left leaning party to be climate moderate.

The right wing has abortion and guns, the left wing has green extremism and critical theory. Try to be openly anti-gun or pro-choice on the right wing. Try to be openly climate-moderate or anti-woke on the left wing... see what happens. THAT's the problem. Nuance in politics went completely out of the window in the last decade. It's either extreme A or extreme B. And the other side is not only wrong, it is evil.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#285

Post by denton-scratch »

teakettle42 wrote: post #247
denton-scratch wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear is here to stay for the next decades (plural). That's the problem with nuclear; even if every nuclear power plant on the planet were shut-down today, "nuclear" would still be here to stay for at least a century or two. No nuclear power plant has ever been fully decommissioned. Decommissioning of the first UK nuclear power plants is expected to last another century. That's being paid for by taxpayers. The bu…

> So, step forward, the insurer of last resort: my grandchildren! We’re the grandchildren of the eco-ideologists that spent the last forty years dumping coal and gas pollution into the atmosphere because they were afraid of nuclear power.

My father was born in 1914; they didn't invent nuclear power until he was 40. It wasn't until the early 2000s that there was consensus that coal and gas caused pollution that was a very serious problem, if you set aside the smogs of the early 50s.

My grandparents were from the era of steam-powered mills; I doubt the word "pollution" had been coined before they died. I'm pretty sure the term "ecology" dates from the mid-20th-century, after all my grandparents had died.

So yes: my grandparents left me with a problem; but it's not their fault, because they didn't know. We do know, and my grandchildren would be right to curse me if I left a similar problem for them to solve, knowing what I was doing all along.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#286

Post by dgb23 »

dimitar wrote: post #266
ThePhysicist wrote: post #16

De-nuclearization of other European countries is a long-held goal of the German environmentalist movement and the Green party. It's understandable that France doesn't want to go with that, as they don't want to be forced down the same ruinous path we're currently on here in Germany. And honestly, good for them. It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. I did my PhD at the French nuclear…

Anti-nuclear sentiment (both environmentalist and anti-nuclear weapons) was generously sponsored by the Soviet Union. What a surprise than nowadays the same groups are serving the interests of Russia. The most cynical thing is that the biggest nuclear accident in history was caused by Soviet negligence and incompetence and yet they managed to exploit it politically.

I would love to read more about this. Can you provide sources?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#287

Post by google234123 »

traspler wrote: post #227
automatic6131 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is the waste problem solved? Are we not still fighting with all the previous attempts of handling it? Is "dig a hole in a salt deposit and keep it there" really good enough for the very, very, very long term? It is technically solved, but politically unsolved. YMMV about how much of a deal breaker this is. >Are old powerplants properly decommissioned and replaced with new ones when the time comes? Not a problem that…

How is technically solved? We are talking enormous timelines for which we have to guarantee safe handling of the waste. Every try until now has proven to be inadequate. So we are in the situation where we live with old powerplants that are not up to standard and no way to handle that but we will definitely be in the future? „Can‘t happen“ is always the argument until it does and it‘s a difference if we are talking ab…

There are trillions of tons of uranium under your feet and somehow everything is ok.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#288

Post by chicob »

isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: post #204
sofixa wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe but not EU can mean anything from Switzerland to Bosnia and Herzegovina to Moldova to Belarus, so it could be good or pretty bad.

My guess would be Serbia, that's the typical attitude towards the EU there (not to mention not-so-subtle pro-Russian stance). The only place which sees the EU in worse light would probably be Belarus or Russia.

Why not the UK?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#289

Post by touisteur »

ricardobayes wrote: post #140
IMTDb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the highly technical French have forgotten how to build nuclear They haven't forgotten, they were fighting a witch-hunt orchestrated by the greens. The same eco-ideologist that ruined Germany have made it impossible to properly invest in the nuclear plants in France and to ensure knowledge and expertise is properly transmitted and developed with the younger generation. For years the message was "don't invest in nuc…

The message and reality have always been detached in Europe: almost every physics department I know has a nuclear institute. And funding is there, too. The know-how was never lost in my opinion.

I think the engineering know-how isn't there as much. When you haven't actually built a plant in 30 years and all the experienced building and designer engineers have moved on, you don't actually know how to build one any more. I feel the delays on the new projects are mostly caused by lack of experience, lack of clarity on actual risks, a lot of second system syndrome (we're doing it right this time, say the maintainer of the previous systems...) and also more regulatory oversight (which is IMO a gold thing). Let's see how these plants built with far more oversight age better than the old ones.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#290

Post by hedora »

pvaldes wrote: post #110
throwawayjun21 wrote: post #47

So stupid to hate nuclear energy. you dont need to be a rocket scientist to realize how good deal its. Where i am from a lot of activists hit the road and blocked many nuclear plant from bein built. Brainless activism is destroying democracies around the world

The same happened in Spain in 70s, and the ecologists saved several cities and the local economy of thee entire area when an earthquake hit at a few Km of were the smart people wanted to build the nuclear plant. So, some are brainless, other are genius able to predict the future and take the correct decision. Your mileage can vary.

So, the plan was to build a non-seismically protected nuclear power plant in a seismically active area? Do you have a source for that?
Post reply on HN