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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#631

Post by LinXitoW »

m101 wrote: post #579
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.

This is just utterly and completely wrong. EVEN THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES say it would be stupid to reopen those plants.

And, of course, the idea that "dependence" on Russia is bad, but replacing it with dependence on other states AND with building a bunch of nuclear bombs in my backyard that are PRIME targets to literally take out my entire grid, is laughably bad.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#632

Post by LinXitoW »

m101 wrote: post #575
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 y…

You mean western sources like the USA, that suddenly starts waving it's dick around when the wrong dipshit is elected? The USA that made a nuclear deal with Iran and then scrapped it for no fucking reason?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#633

Post by LinXitoW »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #397
froh wrote: post #317

> Germany, long a symbol of anti-nuclear politics, is beginning to shift. err, no. it's not. industry lobby tries again and again, yes, and party officials parrot that lobbying, yes. but no: there is no Endlager (permanent spent nuclear fuel waste site) in sight, the costs of dismantling used plants are outrageous and if it were not for nimbyism, we'd be essentially self sustaining on wind and solar within a decade.…

State level NIMBYism is what's happening with nuclear. The state decides we won't have that in our back yard in the case of Germany. Fear uncertainty and doubt is the only thing blocking nuclear power. The irony is that the fud has been spread by "environmentalists" and has only managed to keep fossil fuels around for the last 20 years greatly exacerbating our climate change predicament.

Nuclear is more expensive and more geopolitically dangerous than renewables. For a short time, Germany was even leading in PV technology, it could've been our new sector we dominate in. But, as always, greedy investors and corrupt right wing politicians starved out any possibility of positive change.

And I find it horrendously hilarious that you believe the same people that work tirelessly against renewables would actually EVER build nuclear. It's about milking the status quo for cash as long as possible and then fucking off into retirment with that stolen money.

Btw, what's the german energy companies opinion on building nuclear? RWE a big fan? (They aren't!)

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#634

Post by LinXitoW »

preisschild wrote: post #369
a3w wrote: post #161

Clean, mostly. With future? No, it creates primary heat. Wind and solar do not. Water power also does not, but power from damns is not clean if you want an eco-friendly power source. Wind currently also has a bigger environment impact than solar, but is of course a source available more frequently at night [citation needed, just kidding]. And waste we need to dispose of, which no countries has long term experience in…

> No, it creates primary heat. Wind and solar do not Luckily we do need lots of heat. District heating, process heat, thermochemical H2 production, ...

Well, good thing that we have no reason to build these reactors as far away from population centers as possible, right?

We already have enough heat for that, from industries. Distribution is the biggest factor, and in that, distance. It's really cool, but it's stupidly expensive up front. Not to mention, you need to require EVERYONE in the area to buy in and stay in to have any hopes of being worth it in the long run. NIMBYism strikes again.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#635

Post by LinXitoW »

yellowapple wrote: post #33
binaryturtle wrote: post #13

This is clean, until something goes catastrophically wrong. (Which eventually it will. The more reactors, the more chances for it to happen.)

Even accounting for the times things have gone “catastrophically wrong”, nuclear is many orders of magnitude safer per unit of energy than every other energy source except solar. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

These are death rates with the current saturation of plants. If we wanted to cover all of Europe, a much more densely populated area, with nuclear, the deaths (and other negative consequences) would be far greater, no?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#636

Post by tatref »

rootsofallevil wrote: post #624
freetonik wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long build times are often the result of constantly changing regulations. Also it’s interesting that build times in Japan are almost 2 times smaller than in US.

Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be 5+ years late. The exemption being France and maybe China? France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well. I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with so…

In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#637

Post by kolinko »

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.

So far it was either the cheapest or the safest.

Also, solar is now both cheaper and safer.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#638

Post by T-A »

kpmcc wrote: post #585
m101 wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear + gas is the climate friendly solution.

What is climate friendly about natural gas?

A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot.

[1] https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fue...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#639

Post by iamflimflam1 »

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…

I wish more people would think along these lines: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/10/windpowe...

There’s a wind farm being built in your backyard? Demand one of them for free to power your village.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#640

Post by tuetuopay »

tatref wrote: post #636
rootsofallevil wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be 5+ years late. The exemption being France and maybe China? France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well. I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with so…

In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay.
Post reply on HN