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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#611

Post by peterfirefly »

monocularvision wrote: post #219
jsbisviewtiful wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It’s always funny to me to see folks with the “HN leans _________” comments every few days with the blank spot filled in with every single political position one can think of.

Different people react to different topics. Some bring out strident autistic commies, some bring out psycho druggies, some bring out extreme capitalist dreamers (also likely autistic), some bring out furries and trannies (also likely autistic and definitely strident). They rarely all met in a single thread.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#612

Post by LinXitoW »

IMTDb wrote: post #433
phs318u wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the nuclear industry feels confident enough to not need its own special law to protect it from liability in case of accidents, I’ll feel a little more confident in their safety rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

This exists because of a cognitive bias: we tend to focus on direct, attributable harm while overlooking larger, diffuse, and indirect harm. A nuclear plant could operate safely for 50 years, causing no harm, but if it explodes once and kills 10,000 people, there's gonna be a trial. A coal plant could run for the same 50 years without any dramatic accident, yet contribute to 2,000 premature deaths every single year t…

Well, no, that's more down to nuclear fans constantly using the worst possible comparisons, and creating false dichotomies. The better comparison are renewables or natural gas, not an ancient technology literally everybody (outside of it's investors) agrees is bad and should go.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#613

Post by LinXitoW »

MostlyStable wrote: post #493
Kon5ole wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a common mistake, your source does only considers things that have happened, not things that could happen. But we know what could happen, which is why the security standards have to be high for nuclear power.

A Chernobyl level incident every single year would kill fewer people than the annual number of people that die from fossil fuel particulate emissions. We can imagine reasonable numbers of accidents and still be sure that it would be dramatically safer than fossil fuels, even ignoring climate change. And the land rendered uninhabitable would represent less land lost than is expected to be lost from sea level rise, mos…

If you did what nuclear fans did and tried to cover most/all of the load with nuclear, you would necessarily need to build more nuclear power plants, which esp. in Europe would automatically put them closer to population. That would automatically increase the lives lost from catastrophies.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#615

Post by oneshtein »

yongjik wrote: post #164
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?

As a supporter of nuclear, I think most nuclear supporters will be happy if we achieve carbon neutrality by any means. But as other commenters pointed out, renewables are not achieving that in most places. According to Google, a staunchly anti-nuclear Germany has 6.95 tons per capita at 2023. France achieved that at 1986 (!!) and is now at 4.14. It's really a question that should be directed at renewables: "If renewa…

Quote: The winters in Germany are often colder and the country's climate is generally more continental. The south of France enjoys warmer Mediterranean temperatures and milder winters.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#616

Post by LinXitoW »

nicce wrote: post #306
GloriousKoji wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone also served by PG&E I don't think cheaper electricity will help. At peak hours electricity is $0.13/kwh but the delivery charge is $0.50/kwh.

> At peak hours electricity is $0.13/kwh but the delivery charge is $0.50/kwh. Unfortunately, transmission has a natural monopoly risk, unless the government owns without profit requirements. The price peak is when it is just cheaper to make second set of lines next to old one and you can still pay the investment with fewer customers and lower price.

If we had renewables everywhere, wouldn't a lot of that potentially disappear?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#617

Post by retinaros »

m101 wrote: post #561

I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.

[flagged]

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#618

Post by retinaros »

AndyPa32 wrote: post #587
m101 wrote: post #561

I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.

I disagree with cheapest. If you factor in twenty years build time and nuclear waste disposal, the whole thing is not economically viable. Then there's a problem with nuclear fuel. The sources are mostly countries you don't want to depend on. You are of course right with your assessment that nuclear is green, safe and eco-friendly. That's a hard one to swallow for a lot of eco activists.

sure state funded solar panel that you need to change every 10 year and batteries with rare minerals are cheaper.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#619

Post by peterfirefly »

derhuerst wrote: post #405
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.

In case you are in (or IP-geolocated to) the EU: https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/115068-000-A/nuclear-putin-s-d...

We have plenty of uranium in Europe. Australia also has plenty. Lots of countries have plenty, both friendly and not so friendly (that we still buy lots of stuff from anyway). We absolutely don't need Russian uranium. Uranium is also easy to store long-term (years).

There is zero risk of a new stupid energy dependence on Russia.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#620

Post by throwaway2037 »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #96
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?

Can’t speak to other localities, but in the US, every additional project multiplies headaches with red tape, bureaucracy, cronyism, ideologically opposed politicians, sham environmental groups puppeted by incumbents, nearby residents taking issue with the project for whatever reason, etc. getting one project off the ground and landed safely is a monumental effort, let alone multiple.

Someone pointed out in another comment that Iowa, USA has installed an incredible amount of wind turbines in the last 25 years. There is a whole Wiki page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa

Also, Texas has done very similar.

Post reply on HN