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

EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 567 posts

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#481

Post by random_kris »

StreamBright wrote: post #272
cbmuser wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That single hall is for the _whole_ country for _decades_. Nuclear is the _only_ technology where the fuel and the waste for decades can be stored on-site. It's just extremely dense. The Russians have a single hall for all their waste plus the waste of other countries such as Bulgaria or Ukraine: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uN0bZBOic&t=105s The US even had a nuclear power plant with full fuel reprocessing on…

Your face when people figure out that burning coal produces 100x amount nuclear waste than an average nuclear power plant. Your face #2 when people realise that this nuclear waste goes to the environment unfiltered. https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-po... https://pubm…

When our energy consumption increases by 10000 times where will.we store the waste? I am not against the nuclear, I am for it but I like to ask hard questions

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#482

Post by random_kris »

loeg wrote: post #88
random_kris wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but i can imagine as we scale the hall like that will soon be able to contain only 10 years worth of material. Then 1 year etc...

Scale what? France already generates all of its own power requirements and is a net exporter of electricity. They're at 100% scale already.

When our energy consumption increases by 10000 times where will.we store the waste? I am not against the nuclear, I am for it but I like to ask hard questions

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#483

Post by random_kris »

dtech wrote: post #207
random_kris wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but i can imagine as we scale the hall like that will soon be able to contain only 10 years worth of material. Then 1 year etc...

If you scale this up you're also having more Area. If that hall contains all the waste from decades of energy for France, I'm sure we can also build 1 in Germany, Italy, and every US state.

When our energy consumption increases by 10000 times where will.we store the waste? I am not against the nuclear, I am for it but I like to ask hard questions

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#484

Post by croes »

loeg wrote: post #463
croes wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the down voters, which company or authority do you trust enough to operate this systems for decades?

The Navy.[0] > By 2003 the U.S. Navy had accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operated more than 80 nuclear-powered ships. They've been sailing nuclear subs since the 1950s without major safety incident. The big carriers supply grid power when they're docked in Hawaii. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy

Yeah, because the military never lies or tries to cover up something. https://apnews.com/article/559da885ca7c3f6252d67e400e92a846

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#485

Post by anoncake »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #441
anoncake wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot demonstrate the safety of something by pointing at an example that did not go as terrible as it could have.

So... so you must always postulate the worst possible scenario, no matter how unlikely, and judge any technology solely by that? Even in the face of 60 years of worldwide operation providing huge swaths of the world's carbon-free energy while injuring only a vanishing fraction of the people injured by the most common alternate sources? I cannot see how this view can be justified. But if you want to take this view, co…

Since the damage caused by severe nuclear accidents is essentially permanent, we cannot recover from them. So in the long run, we cannot afford even an accident per century, and thus, cannot afford nuclear power.

Also building enough nuclear to replace fossils would take too long anyway, it's not even an option.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#486

Post by yellowapple »

lispm wrote: post #283
yellowapple wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has a lot of unwanted side effects So does literally every other power source. Nuclear is, if anything, among the least bad options in this regard. > and it just does not scale to solve the problem. It absolutely does, if we're willing to actually try. Evidently, we'd rather just keep killing ourselves with coal.

> It absolutely does, if we're willing to actually try. We are trying that since 66 years, since the first nuclear power plant. What we have achieved so far is a nuclear industry which is hardly able to keep the status quo of installed power generation, sky high rising costs for building nuclear power plants, extremely long build times, very little technological progress in the last decade, unsolved financial and tec…

> We are trying that since 66 years, since the first nuclear power plant.

Evidently not very hard, as I've seen in my home state of California. Any nuclear development gets constant fierce pushback, and if it does somehow come to life, every last issue with it becomes yet another reason to kill it in the crib.

If we were earnestly trying to achieve energy independence, then Rancho Seco (near where I grew up) would've been done right and still operational, rather than half-assed and doomed to fail.

> If it were commercially viable and scalable, it would thrive by now.

Ah yes, the "two economists walking down the street and there's a dollar bill on the sidewalk" argument. Never heard that one before.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#487

Post by BrandoElFollito »

cbmuser wrote: post #51
chmod775 wrote: post #15

There's a lot of straw men being fought in the comments again. The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Proponents of nuclear power like to pretend the opposition exists merely on the basis of "but what if it goes boom!", so they don't need to face the reality that countries like Germany are sitting on a l…

> The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

I believe heat is a problem though. A manageable one, but it requires more space.

Nuclear energy is still a fantastic, dense source of energy. I would much,much prefer to live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal or similar one.

If there was a way to generate even cleaner power with such efficiency then great. 25 years ago we had that hope for a few weeks with cold fusion.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#488

Post by opo »

p_l wrote: post #424
nickik wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand why nuclear waste needs long terms storage. With Burner reactors you can produce waste that only needs storage for 100s of years, not 1000s. Its easy to store and manage, basically it can just stand in a field, doing nothing for 100 years. The 'waste' is not waste, its material we might want to use in the future and putting it into some 10000 years storage is idiotic.

The reason why you don't see much of fast-neutron "burners" is that NPT is essentially an empty shell, and you have to be lucky to survive putting up so-called plutonium economy - and the "survive" part might be literal. It all goes back to Indian nuclear program, AFAIK, where reprocessing of plutonium from CANDU reactors was used to bootstrap nuclear warhead production. Now that climate crisis pushes for more soluti…

>...AFAIK, where reprocessing of plutonium from CANDU reactors was used to bootstrap nuclear warhead production.

No, India appears to ave gotten plutonium from a small research reactor, not a CANDU reactor (though it was provided by Canada):

>...The test used plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor, and raised concerns that nuclear technology supplied for peaceful purposes could be diverted to weapons purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...

>...CIRUS (Canada India Reactor Utility Services)[1][2][3] was a research reactor at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) in Trombay near Mumbai, India. CIRUS was supplied by Canada in 1954, but used heavy water (deuterium oxide) supplied by the United States. It was the second nuclear reactor to be built in India. It was modeled on the Canadian Chalk River National Research X-perimental (NRX) reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIRUS_reactor

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#489

Post by brtkdotse »

jnurmine wrote: post #380
brtkdotse wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most busses and taxis in Sweden run on it, so there’s that

And the gas comes from biowaste, which is actually nice, because municipalities which have the most effective ways of collecting and processing biowaste can export the resulting biogas to e.g. surrounding municipalities and in this way generate income to run things for everyone. This means waste must be sorted somehow, but this is a rational thing to do anyways. And it pisses me off immensely to see some idiots throw…

Household waste comprised a minuscule percentage of the total substrate. The majority is sewage and food processing refuse.

Source: my wife used to work at a biogas plant

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#490

Post by vidarh »

lispm wrote: post #335
vidarh wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not shutting down plants is an alternative to instead slowing down phasing out coal, like Germany did. And almost all of the alternatives have costly problems too, like causing more deaths for most of them. Large scale solar might be less lethal, but pretty much every other power source causes more short term deaths. I'm not arguing against renewables. I'm arguing that this fear of nuclear costs huge numbers of lives…

> Not shutting down plants is an alternative to instead slowing down phasing out coal, like Germany did. Germany accelerated the development of renewable energy. That was the goal. Nuclear had to go first. Coal is following. The Germany time scale to rebuild its electricity landscape goes over many decades. By investing many many billions into renewables, instead of investing them into nuclear, Germany helped to kick…

By taking out nuclear first instead of coal they killed thousands of people.
Post reply on HN