EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green • Hacker News Board

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#391

Post by locallost » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

funklute wrote: post #375

locallost wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you're enjoying the increase in air temperature from 30 degrees in the summer, to 2 degrees today. The temperature for today was projected to be -3 two weeks ago, so we have a relative increase there. Is that how you think relative vs absolute works?

Again, *by context* this is precisely how you would *not* interpret "increase" here. You've basically taken my point and turned it to mean the exact opposite, so that you can give a smart-ass reply while avoiding the actual question I'm asking. Well done.

I have tried having a normal discussion, which is not something I can say for you. To see this, it's enough to check what was initially posted:

"...Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide."

It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it. I posted an explicit response to this wrong post because I have seen it many times (and unfortunately I am repeating myself here). A lot of pro nuclear people are shaking their heads in dismay because the CO2 numbers in Germany are going up. They are not! I have literally had this very same discussion three weeks ago somewhere else with another person that does not check data.

How you then managed to spin it into a comparison to a fictional parallel universe where the plants are still on and concluded that a decrease is actually an increase I don't know. But it's enough for me for today.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#392

Post by arcticbull » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

otherme123 wrote: post #246

rsj_hn wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breeder reactors can create more fuel, but even without these, there is a substantial amount of uranium that this is a non-issue. By the same token, solar is also non-renewable since it requires real resources mined from the earth which are in finite supply and solar panels are not 100% recyclable (and especially not the batteries required to make solar reliable). In this sense, nothing is renewable -- even hydro wil…

Anyway, nuclear is never included in the "renewable" bucket, because the fuel has to be harvested and doesn't renew on a human timescale. Nuclear is green, because its net emissions are almost zero. OTOH burning wood is renewable, but not green, and also not sustainable. So nothing inherently good about being renewable. It's pointless to have a practical classification to then come with "technically..." and some weir…

> Anyway, nuclear is never included in the "renewable" bucket, because the fuel has to be harvested and doesn't renew on a human timescale.

You can make the case that it does - if you count uranium in seawater. Theres enough dissolved there now to fuel all the reactors on earth for 60,000 years. Geological processes continually replenish the dissolved uranium.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#393

Post by arcticbull » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #228

arcticbull wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losses on the big high-voltage wires average about 2% in the US. Losses on lower-voltage distribution wires average 4% on top of that - so about 6% in total. [1] Lithium Ion batteries charge near 100% efficiency. [2] In terms of storage (specifically self-discharge), Lithium Ion batteries lose 5% in 24 hours, then 1-2% per month thereafter - but can be as low as 0.35% per month. [3, 4] [1] http://insideenergy.org/201…

> Lithium Ion batteries charge near 100% efficiency The power electronics to charge the battery also have losses. Although they are getting really good, my guess would be something better than 95% efficiency in the battery charger. There are some really great improvements in power transistors recently though, so this number will still have some room for improvement.

Thank you for calling that out. I was going to say something about that, and budget say 10% to switching regulators. With car-scale charging systems I just didn't have enough data to ballpark efficiency.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#394

Post by ben_w » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

pyrale wrote: post #353

ben_w wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the wrong units in two different ways at once. KW = power, kWh = energy = integrated power over time Batteries are reusable. I see claims varying from 2,000, to more than 10,000 times. That reduces the battery cost to between €0.0525 and €0.0105 / kWh.

Batteries have both kW (speed of charge/discharge) and kWh properties. For instance, Lazard's LCOS studies [1] list both values. It's not illogical to compare a battery with the production it's supposed to replace. [1]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Indeed, but mixing units means it isn’t a comparison.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#395

Post by drran » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

heartbeats wrote: post #180

GekkePrutser wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you include the deaths that nuclear waste will cause during the tens of thousands of years it remains radioactive it wouldn't be so positive. But of course we can't look into the future. But we do know safe storage for such durations is not yet figured out. It's externalising the problem to the future. Just like CO2, but on a much longer timeframe. Still not very ethical though IMO.

Who are all of these people who will be hurt by it? There's nothing interesting (e.g. terrorism, bombs) you can do with nuclear waste, and it's not especially poisonous. If you just loaded it up in barrels and dropped it at the bottom of the ocean, what's the worst that could happen? Sure, some fish would die, but where are the millions of deaths?

> There's nothing interesting (e.g. terrorism, bombs) you can do with nuclear waste, and it's not especially poisonous.

LOL. Nuclear materials, including waste, are extremely dangerous in evil hands. It regularly kills people by accident or due to negligence. Chornobyl was an accident. Just imagine what a team of motivated people with evil intent can do with a nuclear station or nuclear waste. Last attempt to use nuclear waste in war was in 2015: Russia-backed terrorist planed to use radioactive waste (Kyshtym) to throw a dirty bomb at Kyiv.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#396

Post by scrollaway » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #377

scrollaway wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misinformation in both paragraphs. The “bad grade” takes a lot into account and between all the exceptions it is primarily aimed at new constructions. As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re smoking. We’re Europe’s largest exporter of electricity, thanks to our nuclear power.

> We’re Europe’s largest exporter of electricity, thanks to our nuclear power. In 2020, it was Germany who was the largest electricity exporter on the planet [0], must be thanks to our nuclear power? [0] https://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country...

This is by value. Please use some relevant stats.

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-balanc...

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/world-electricity-...

Additionally: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-fuels

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#397

Post by drran » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

csee wrote: post #302

drran wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, nuclear is very green. Just look at Chornobyl: it's very green with lots of wild life. But gas?

Gas kills 40x more people than nuclear, notwithstanding climate change impact. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Nuclear make inhabitant 400x more land than gas.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#398

Post by afarrell » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #356

HatchedLake721 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call this real-life decisions. If someone has better ideas how to progress and unite 27 countries with different levels of transition challenges and different views on nuclear and other sources, please submit them. Otherwise, being pedantic and negative about non-perfect solutions while not taking into account the complexity of getting a consensus with 27 members is not helpful to anyone.

It is even less helpful to tout a half-measure as a solution. Gas buys us at most a decade if done perfectly.

If you are unwilling to walk halfway to your destination, you can never arrive.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#399

Post by funklute » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

locallost wrote: post #391

funklute wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, *by context* this is precisely how you would *not* interpret "increase" here. You've basically taken my point and turned it to mean the exact opposite, so that you can give a smart-ass reply while avoiding the actual question I'm asking. Well done.

I have tried having a normal discussion, which is not something I can say for you. To see this, it's enough to check what was initially posted: "...Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide." It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it. I posted an explici…

> I have tried having a normal discussion, which is not something I can say for you.

You have not at any point tried to answer my original question. At every point you deflect to a straw man.

> It says clearly "decommissioning nuclear, YET producing MORE carbon dioxide". It's not true, and there's no other way around it.

As I have quite clearly explained to you, this can refer either to absolute or relative changes. It doesn't take a lot of goodwill to decide that they probably meant relative changes, and then from there on you can address issues (such as pros/cons of nuclear) that actually matter, instead of splitting hairs and argue about language.

> A lot of pro nuclear people are shaking their heads in dismay because the CO2 numbers in Germany are going up. They are not!

They presumably are, relative to what they could have been, no? That seems a perfectly good reason to be upset, even if you don't agree with nuclear as the best option. If you immediately lambast people for not using language the way you think it should be used, you are inevitably going to lose a lot of credibility. Goodwill is necessary for a constructive debate, and you're not really showing that here.

> How you then managed to spin it into a comparison to a fictional parallel universe where the plants are still on and concluded that a decrease is actually an increase I don't know.

If you're having trouble understanding the concept of a relative change, perhaps this is not the best discussion to be involved in. Far too often I see people comment loudly and denounce their opponents as idiots, when it is in fact themselves that don't fully understand the nuances and complexities.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#400

Post by pydry » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #381

pydry wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If grid scale batteries ever become a viable thing and cheaper than nuclear then that’s just great Ok. So, what if that already happened? >In the meantime however The meantime is past. Arguably it lasted until latest 2020 which was the last time grid scale batteries were expensive. 2014 was the last time solar or wind were expensive. Meanwhile, if you tried to commission a new nuclear plant now it wouldnt be running…

If that already happened then that's great. It's the first I'm hearing about it but I don't work in the sector so that's fair. Nevertheless nuclear energy is a steady and reliable source of large amounts of energy, just like coal and oil. By having a few of those, the grid operator can greatly decrease their need for grid-scale batteries, thus enabling more grids to deploy them faster, paving the way for more solar/w…

>This is not a competition between renewables and nuclear. They aren't enemies.

They kind of are. They are competing for limited investment and they are not complementary.

Nuclear power is not a "battery". It's an extraordinarily expensive way to produce a fixed amount of power whether it's needed or not.

You trade ~20% extra reliability for 3x the cost.

>I'm highly skeptical that it is possible or even desirable to build out all the capacity we need in just solar/wind/hydro in the short amount of time we have

Nothing can do it in the short amount of time that we have to save us from 2C.

Diverting limited resources to nuclear won't speed the transition up though, it'll slow it down.