Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

earth.org

371–380 of 676 posts

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#371
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind alone won't work without support by gas or other non-renewable sources. Try to find a single scientific study that gives a detailed overview of how the German energy mix is supposed to work and that explains how supply will be matched to demand 24/7 all year round. None exists. The whole "Energiewende" is built on the hope that either our neighbors will produce the necessary base capacity to stabilize…

>Sustainable Energy: Without The Hot Air This book has come up on Hacker News before, and I've read it, and it has a crucial flaw, well, two actually: - It underestimates the efficiency of solar panels by quite a bit, supposing that 10% would be a lofty goal (and arguing on this basis that solar farms are not economically viable). In fact, panels on the market are approaching 20% [1], and 25% seems well within reach.…

The book doesn't actually use british solar numbers for the rest of the world, it even suggests shipping in solar energy derived fuels from other countries to the UK and that even including the extra conversion and shipping/transmission costs would be competitive with nuclear built in the UK, which implies its a no-brainer for those source nations to use it for their own power.

Where it feels a little parochial, is its focus on the UK as if the GDP or population of the UK matters in the context of a global issue like sustainable energy.

It simply doesn't and he has enough facts and figures available even at that time to put that together, but probably fell into the classic british position of assuming they are more important than they really are in a global context.

Anyone outside the UK must read it in the same way people in the UK would read a small island dweller writing "Yes this might work for most of the UK but the Isle of Man would need to import power, which is simply unthinkable, even though it already does, so maybe we should build nuclear there instead to maintain the islands sovereignty".

Or maybe we can discount the needs of half a percent of the population if they run counter to the needs of the other 99.5% and focus on the big picture?

In the end we didn't need to as the wind power, heat pumps, EVs and carbon fees required for the UK overlapped heavily with other nations but this was a clear blindspot which I think you are charitably interpreting as a silly mistake when really it's more akin to arrogance.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#372
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is stuff like people religiously dissmising you when you tell them that nuclear is nearly the safest power source in terms of deaths per TWh [1]. They don't base their opinion regarding safety on data, they base it on the feeling that they get from seeing large disasters and not seeing the countless deaths caused in silence, and they refuse to update their view even in the face of contradicting data. [1] https://o…

The reason people are skittish about nuclear is because when it does fail, it fails catastrophically . The biggest failures in memory are all failures that risked making a multi kilometer area potentially completely uninhabitable for decades. Even if the risk is only 1%, coal is a much less scary prospect.

I understand that, but really you have the option of either going all-in on nuclear and potentially making patches of several km² uninhabitable, or going all-in on fossil fuels and making gigantic regions of the earth uninhabitable due to climate change.

It is a choice between a very local problem or a global one. There is no free lunch.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it takes a lot longer to build a nuclear plant (on the order of 10-20 years) Because of the red tape the mob has strung up. China builds these in two years [1]. France does it in five [2]. [1] https://interestingengineering.com/china-moves-toward-nuclea... [2] https://lemielleux.com/how-long-does-it-take-france-to-build...

That red tape was installed (in North America) post-Five Mile Island however. South Korea is also very capable at building these quickly, though I've heard concerns raised about their safety (grain of salt, I have no opinion myself).

I’m not suggesting we strike all the rules. But they’ve metastasised. Korea and France aren’t insensitive to popular concern.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#374

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

Let's talk Fukushima ?

Issues with Fukushima that could've prevented the disaster were raised by engineers/scientists but were ignored for years by the government/politicians

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's talk Fukushima ?

Issues with Fukushima that could've prevented the disaster were raised by engineers/scientists but were ignored for years by the government/politicians

That's always going to happen though.

The government doesn't always have attention and money to shower on nuclear plants.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind alone won't work without support by gas or other non-renewable sources. Try to find a single scientific study that gives a detailed overview of how the German energy mix is supposed to work and that explains how supply will be matched to demand 24/7 all year round. None exists. The whole "Energiewende" is built on the hope that either our neighbors will produce the necessary base capacity to stabilize…

I read the book before the numbers it cites were decades out of date. And even then, it made a pretty good case for renewables in the parts of the globe where most people live. Once you update it with current figures I'm assuming it can only make a stronger case. So are you just using the old figures and pretending those haven't changed? That's like trying to model the next iPhones specs from first principles with sp…

I'm mostly referring to the section on storage, which is still largely true today. Germany does not have enough mountain areas to build significant hydro storage, and no other storage technology currently comes close to that in terms of efficiency and scale. We could of course produce hydrogen and burn that again but there the round-trip efficiency is only around 20 % in the best case I think (up to 50 % if we could use the waste heat as well), compared to around 80 % for hydro. Hence we would need to over-provision wind & solar energy production by 400 % to use this form of storage, which is highly unlikely as we will have trouble fulfilling our current ambitious goals for wind and solar, which already require a 500-1000 % increase in construction rates over the next decades.

Batteries would be another candidate but again the required amount of energy and the power slew rate are enormous, so storage facilities would be extremely costly and would compete with electric car battery production. I don't have much faith in the idea of storing energy in electric vehicle batteries as most of these cars will be on the road when the energy is needed (7-9 am) and will be mostly plugged in to charge when renewable production is low (during the night). Also I'm not sure if the electricity grid would even allow such a conversion as it's not designed for many small producers arranged in a mesh.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's talk Fukushima ?

Issues with Fukushima that could've prevented the disaster were raised by engineers/scientists but were ignored for years by the government/politicians

...and what lessons can we draw from this?

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#378
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every year coal is still here, instead of nuclear, is 100 years of death. If > building powerplants (of any type) were instant, and solar were one year away, > then we should STILL replace all coal with nuclear TODAY, to minimize harm. (in > a spherical chickens in a vacuum sort of way) But... we all know that it takes a lot longer to build a nuclear plant (on the order of 10-20 years) than it does to build (large)…

> it takes a lot longer to build a nuclear plant (on the order of 10-20 years) Because of the red tape the mob has strung up. China builds these in two years [1]. France does it in five [2]. [1] https://interestingengineering.com/china-moves-toward-nuclea... [2] https://lemielleux.com/how-long-does-it-take-france-to-build...

China does not build nuclear plants in two years. In particular when China starts the clock on building a plant is not same as when the clock is started in the West. In China, there's already concrete and steel in the ground at that point.

Also, the plan described there is an addition to take steam from an ALREADY EXISTING nuclear power plant.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. What part of this entire discussion has anything do to with science? Is anyone actually contesting the science? Is it a discussion about the number of orbitals of uranium atoms? Or is it a discussion on which entities handle the long-term financials obligations, whether we favor or not decentralized grids, whether we favor short term or longer…

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

Thank you for this common sense reply. The truth is Chernobyl can never happen again, and scientists are completely all-knowing when they explain what can and can't happen.

Re: Nuclear turn green as EU parliament approves new taxonomy

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite sure that no one who asks "can chernobyl can happen again?" is actually interested in the response to "can chernobyl happen again _in exactly the same way_"?. This is malicious nitpicking. In the same way that I'm sure the victims of the next Airbus crash will be happy to know that "it didn't crash like the Hindenburg did".

Distinguishing between failure modes isn’t nitpicking when the difference is between the plant being totaled for the purposes of future power generation as opposed to spewing radioactivity over a third of a continent. An Airbus that loses an engine and has to immediately land has objectively failed; however, acting like that’s equivalent to a plane homing into a skyscraper and exploding is not helpful.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN