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

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

weplanet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#571

Post by mpweiher »

tcfhgj wrote: post #548
mpweiher wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This turns out not to be the case, and all these supposedly "externalized" costs are actually included in the price of electricity produced by nuclear reactors. For example in Switzerland, all of that still allows full production costs of 4,34 Rappen (with a profit).

In France they aren't, Germany neither

Wrong on both counts.

The only wrinkle is that when the German government made electricity production from nuclear power illegal, it had to take over some of those responsibilities, for obvious reasons.

It also took over the money that had been saved up thus far, which is almost certainly more than needed to cover the costs. Well unless those costs are driven up to infinity with ever more creative mechanisms by politicians.

But that's a political problem.

Finland just built a site for around €1 billion.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#572

Post by m101 »

aussiegreenie wrote: post #412

Nuclear power is clean but VERY EXPENSIVE. Dispatble solar and wind are about 1/5 the price of new nuclear.

It is expensive because we choose to make it expensive. It is regulation pushing safety levels far beyond other industries, and far beyond science (radiation is far less harmful than regulatory models suggest)

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#573

Post by peterfirefly »

virtue3 wrote: post #445
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear inherently need a lot more effort refining fuel as you can’t just dig a shovel full of ore and burn it. Even after refining you can’t just dump fuel in, you need fuel assemblies. It's true that a pound of nuclear fuel costs more than a pound of coal. But it also has a million times more energy content, which is why fuel is only 15-20% of the operating costs compared to >60% for coal. And that's for legacy n…

The problem with nuclear mistakes is they aren't a few decades. They can be measured in centuries. So yeah. Regulation. Don't build a damn LWR on a fault line (Fukushima) 3mile Island - don't have so many damn errors printing out that everything is ignore Chernobyl - we all know I think. It's still being worked on to contain it fully. Goiânia accident (brazil) - caesium-137 - Time magazine has identified the accident…

> Don't build a damn LWR on a fault line (Fukushima)

Don't put the emergency diesel generators in the basement where they are certain to be flooded if the tsunami wall is too low. Also, don't build too low tsunami walls.

> So yeah. Oil has bad disasters. Nuclear has EPIC disasters.

No. Hydropower has.

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

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#575

Post by m101 »

khalic wrote: post #420

Funny how all the nuclear chills forget the plethora of issues that come with that tech. - who has access to nuclear power? - what happens to nuclear reactors during war? - where does the Uranium come from? - how long does it take to build a reactor? - how many long term solutions have been developed in the more than 60 years of this technology’s existence? Not saying nuclear doesn’t have a place, but let’s not be bl…

You suggest people forget that without considering that perhaps you don't know:

- We killed nuclear power in countries that can be trusted so that is not relevant.

- Nuclear accidents are not as harmful as people imagine.

- We have plenty of access to uranium resources in the west.

- the time to build a reactor is often in large parts regulatory burdens. France built out 10% of its electricity generation needs in a year, for a number of years. That is what is possible.

- Part of the reason there is no innovation in this sector is because regulation has strangled it. There are many innovative ideas in nuclear.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#577

Post by m101 »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #410
rallyforthesun wrote: post #269

I read a lot of comments talking about „getting down the operational costs“ but i am missing someone talking about the costs of depositing the nuclear waste until it has no more risks. Am i missing something?!

Yes the cost of depositing nuclear waste is trivial, it takes a small number of large concrete structures underground in well picked locations. The US produces about 1250 cubic meters of waste per year. For comparison the empire state building has a floor area of 208000 square meters, assuming a 3 meter floor height you could fit about 500 years worth of spent fuel inside it.

Yes. This. Nuclear waste storage is extremely cheap.

Also, we only "use" 3% of the fuel in current nuclear power station designs so we could just reprocess the fuel and vastly reduce the volume of waste too.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#578

Post by mpweiher »

locallost wrote: post #542
mpweiher wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power uses around 1/10th the resources of intermittent renewables per kWh of electricity produced. So if nuclear isn't clean, renewables are downright filthy.

Citation needed. I will save you the trouble because I already know where your numbers come from: the Quadrennial Technology Review by the US Department of Energy from around 10 years ago. These numbers have been thoroughly debunked [1]. They are simply wrong, likely out of laziness more than malice. But the people that spread this around do it out of malice to dupe people and influence opinions. You've been duped. […

> I already know where your numbers come from: the Quadrennial Technology Review by the US Department of Energy from around 10 years ago.

That turns out not to be the case.

Even if it were the case: an official study by the DOE was "thoroughly debunked", in your esteemed opinion, because some random Australian twitter user claims to have talked to a friend.

Right.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#579

Post by m101 »

roody15 wrote: post #354

The EU may have a geopolitical interest in taking another look at nuclear. The dependance on Russian natural gas and expensive imported US natural gas is not good for their economic outlook long term. Honestly I am surprised Germany has not fired back up a couple of its plants considering its difficulties with Industrial output and competing in a world market.

The cheapest form of energy is firing up a recently closed nuclear power plant. What they are doing is beyond reason.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#580

Post by yread »

zvrba wrote: post #554
jama211 wrote: post #84

I’m totally fine with nuclear honestly, but I feel like I don’t understand something. No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts that explain why we couldn’t just make a whole load more renewable energy generators instead. Sure, it might cost more, but in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables no?

Nuclear has the highest energy density (kWh produced per km2). "Renewables" need much larger areas to produce equivalent power. This means that habitats for many species are negatively affected or destroyed. This is an ongoing debate in Norway where local people are strongly against wind turbines because they want to preserve the nature as it is. EDIT: Relevant poster in the picture. I once was approached by Greenpea…

While that's strictly true, there are a lot of people who wouldnt mind living across the fence from a solar farm. Not so many want to live next to a nuclear power plant. Irrationaly perhaps but still.
Post reply on HN