Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

561–567 of 567 posts

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

#561
post #555
post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weird that in the post-9/11 years everyone seemed to talk about how the USA waged wars for oil and how oil is what props up USD, but now two decades later there “must be a deeper reason” why nuclear didn’t get to succeed on its own merits. We are literally ruled by oilmen so this should not be a surprise lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HRG_Group#Early_business_histo...

There is very little electricity generation from oil anywhere. I doubt that oil had or has a huge impact on the electricity energy policy. What had an impact was 'cheap' fracking gas, which is used for electricity production in the US. It has a share of roughly 40%. Coal adds roughly another 20%. That makes around 60% gas + coal in the US for electricity production. For Germany gas + coal has 40% share in electricity…

> There is very little electricity generation from oil anywhere.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of American transportation gets its power from oil. Anything that could disrupt that - like, say, nuclear power making electricity sufficiently ubiquitous and cheap to make electric vehicles practical - is a threat to the oil industry. Further:

> What had an impact was 'cheap' fracking gas

Which (as the name "fracking gas" would suggest) derives specifically from fracking as a means to extract oil from deposits otherwise inaccessible. That is: gas and oil come from more or less the same place, sold by more or less the same people with the same reasons to want to suppress alternative energy sources like nuclear (and solar, and wind, and geothermal).

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

#562
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me irrational but storing small amounts of highly radio active material in many locations is, from my point of view, basically asking for a dirty bomb to happen at some point. It only needs an event like the end of the soviet union to happen in a single country on earth and any terrorist organization would be able to buy enough of it. I acknowledge that this may happen anyways with the current situation but your…

Terrorists are going to break into a government facility, go a mile deep, retrieve massive concrete cylinders, and transport them back to base. Just to get access to low level nuclear material? If they want to poison people en-masse there are way better options. Uranium is a relatively slow killer. And we test our water supply for it because it's a heavy metal like lead. So any real attempt to poison people with it w…

So? The parent suggested to store the waste in place, not a mile deep in some central, well protected mine. And that would be stupid indeed.

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

#563
post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorists are going to break into a government facility, go a mile deep, retrieve massive concrete cylinders, and transport them back to base. Just to get access to low level nuclear material? If they want to poison people en-masse there are way better options. Uranium is a relatively slow killer. And we test our water supply for it because it's a heavy metal like lead. So any real attempt to poison people with it w…

So? The parent suggested to store the waste in place, not a mile deep in some central, well protected mine. And that would be stupid indeed.

Storing waste in place is also hardly any risk. Are terrorists going to retrieve one of these [1], weaponize it, and then deploy it? If they have this capability, then they almost certainly have the capability of shooting up a mall. And the latter would cause more damage. I see effectively zero additional danger presented by nuclear waste in this regard.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File...

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

#564
post #396
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, 200 cubic meters amount to around 80 tonnes of CO2 emissions. That's around 80 MWh worth of coal electricity, which a 2 MW wind turbine running at a 30% CF offsets in around a week. So a complete non-issue.

GP tried to make a point about CO2 emitted by cement which is invalid because wind turbine need a lot more of concrete per MW.

I don't think the numbers for cement use by nuclear include the cement used for the sarcophagus at the end of the lifetime. But they should, if you want to talk about validity.

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

#565
post #564
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP tried to make a point about CO2 emitted by cement which is invalid because wind turbine need a lot more of concrete per MW.

I don't think the numbers for cement use by nuclear include the cement used for the sarcophagus at the end of the lifetime. But they should, if you want to talk about validity.

> I don't think.

They do.

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

#566
post #565
post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the numbers for cement use by nuclear include the cement used for the sarcophagus at the end of the lifetime. But they should, if you want to talk about validity.

> I don't think. They do.

Source? I doubt it.

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

#567
post #566
post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think. They do.

Source? I doubt it.

Instead of doubting, and thinking based belief, maybe you should verify ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...

The wikpedia source give a breakdown of how the CO2 per kwh is calculated for a Sweden nuclear plant, it take everything in account, the building, nuclear fuel processing and storage, and even the electricity distribution to the grid.

Then, no sarcophagus are built at the end of the nplant timelife, they built ont for chernobyl, that all.

Post reply on HN