Live data from Hacker News

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

weplanet.org

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#691
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?

> in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables no?

Yes in theory, the problem is when you try to apply theory to practice: I don’t want to make a disservice to this discussion and as I don’t have the figures at hand anymore but there have been thought experiments around this and one was to hypothetically have two dams that would pump 2 meters of water out of the sea between France and UK and then release it. If my memory serves well this would only cover 1 week of France’s energy consumption.

Okay, appart from the fact that you would require far more space in term of infrastructure for renewables, the most interesting issue with renewable energies for me is that they are not controllable (I don’t know if this is the correct term in English): basically you cannot command WHEN you produce energy, you are dependent on weather (sun/wind) or water current (tidal power).

What that means is that you cannot aling production with supply and you end up in some cases with acute mismatch: for instance in France, the peak of energy consumption is during winter, a time where there is very few sun, while Japans peak is in summer which could be more convenient.

The Rule when dealing with energy production is that you can’t produce less than demand nor more than demand otherwise you end up with a blackout and potential damages.

To mitigate both the rule of energy production and the non controllable aspects of renewable there are strategies. The two most common ones are buying/selling your energy and storing/unloading it. Those work but they do have their own pitfalls. Buying/selling for instance does work for adjustments but not for peaks because usually during peaks your neighbours are also peaking and thus also looking for selling.

Storing/unloading is its whole set of problems making it hard. You will find a lot of documentation on the subject but here is the gist of it: fist of all it is inefficient meaning you need to produce far more energy than you store and are able to unload in the end. Storing in batteries takes a lot (like really a lot) of place and we are talking nation wide production. Storing using a dam (pumped storage power plants) which is quite a nice way of doing it requires to have places to build them, meaning the correct geographical circumstances. In France for instance we already have quite a large dam network and couldn’t really build more (added to the fact that you usually need to flood a valley which gerenally is not well taken by the inhabitants of the place).

So here you are with your whole lot of space used up to produce renewable energy but you are still confronted to the issue of its non controllable nature. Sure you can store/unload a bit, you can buy/sell another bit, but in the end you still have to face the fact that it is not controllable. So how do you solve the issue ?

Here comes your friend, the controllable energy. A solution to your issue, and the one which is basically always applied is to have a mix of energies, meaning adding a controllable one along your non controllable ones to make up for the highs and lows of the latest. And the king of eco-friendly controllable energies is a nuclear power plant, not only because of the ecological factor but also because of the ratio space/energy produced.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#692
post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far it was either the cheapest or the safest. Also, solar is now both cheaper and safer.

but it's not 24/7 and europe even worse in winter and fall. Solar is unrealistic to replace most energy usage [1]. In EU it's just less than 5% usage. In germany less than 6% usage. And wind is not a replacement either (less than 11% energy usage in germany). And just for comparison in france nuclear power plants provides 37% of energy [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

Existing nuclear, fine but new nuclear isn’t going to work, it takes way too long to build. Solar is just plug in and go.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#693
post #593
post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is climate friendly about natural gas?

Is it less climate unfriendly than the alternatives. Every form of energy generation releases CO2. Gas also has the benefit that it doesn't need all sorts of extras to make it dispatachable when needed (which also require CO2). I forgot to say hydro is also great where possible.

> Every form of energy generation releases CO2

…except nuclear, hydro, solar… They are stable once built.

“Natural gas” is a fossil fuel and adds CO2 that was locked away.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#694
post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I referenced long lasting I mean that some nuclear power stations are no forecast to keep going for 120 years. CO2 in the atmosphere is also long lasting, do you have a problem with that type of storage? Spent nuclear fuel is dangerous to stand near for 500 years (without centimetres of concrete), and then dangerous to consume for an further many thousand. It is within our technology to look after the quantities…

See that's the thing, you're trying to argue rationally ;) But the discussion around nuclear energy stopped being rational decades ago. On one side you have the old guard of the environmentalist movement which got started with anti-nuclear protests in the first place and then had their "I told you so" moment in 1986, and on the other side you have that new "nuclear grassroots movement" which tells me that nuclear pow…

> and on the other side you have that new "nuclear grassroots movement" which tells me that nuclear power is akshually completely safe, and even if an incident happens it's not doing any harm and btw those Chornobyl death numbers are completely overblown

You're making it sound like anyone who's not against nuclear, thinks Chernobyl is overblown

I've never heard that sentiment anywhere. (I'm sure you can find examples when looking for it; after all, there's also people who believe vaccines cause bill gates mind control.) Why the strawman argument?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#695
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.

> solar is now both cheaper and safer.

apples and oranges

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has 58 reactors with combined power of 60GW. The audit in 2011 (after Fukushima) estimated their cost at 96B euros and the total investment into the nuclear industry since 1950 including research at 228B euros. And that doesn't include the fact that for all these years electricity prices in Germany were higher than in France which helped to keep renewables afloat. > But renewables are far cheaper than nuclear…

> subsidizing coal power plants in China along the way ~10% of PRC energy is generated from solar now. That's enough to carbon offset every panel they've produced and will produce in perpetuity.

That's unlikely. It takes 2 to 8 years to recover the electricity used to produce a photovoltaics panel, before it can even begin to offset anything.

Given that the majority of these panels was installed very recently, most likely they didn't even offset themselves yet, let alone any of the exports.

That's confirmed by the fact that coal generation in China keeps growing to this day, any of the "offsets" so far are purely imaginary.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#697
post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

So not climate friendly.

With that logic, humans aren't climate friendly and should be transitioned away from

Different shades of grey. We'll always cause pollution as part of being. I don't believe that the person above meant it as a final solution to keep burning fossil fuels

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#698
post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

So not climate friendly.

At that point human life isn't climate friendly... everyone wants to live like the average american with 2 cars and 4 ac units per households, when Asia and Africa come for their fair share, even if they only claim 25% of it, we're fucked, no amount of battery or solar panel will make this consumeristic and "growth forever" mentality sustainable, because by definition it is a boundless quest. Half of the world still live like medieval peasants with less than $7 a day, this is just the beginning

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#699
post #554
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…

> 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.

Really ? They don't mind being one of the top oil exporter in the world though

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously don't know about Norway, but in most developed countries, the number one reason for habitat destruction or disruption is going to be animal agriculture, or highspeed road infrastructure. While I can't prove it, it seems too convenient that people suddenly care about "nature" right after they've fucked it up for so many other reasons.

> the number one reason for habitat destruction or disruption is going to be animal agriculture, or highspeed road infrastructure The surface of both of these things hasn't changed much in the last 30 years.

> The surface of both of these things hasn't changed much in the last 30 years.

Source?

It was also my understanding that large amounts of habitat (e.g. Amazon rainforest) are lost for agriculture in general, and that cows are a particularly large part of that

Road surfaces I don't specifically know in terms of habitat area loss, but they split up habitat areas, and surely we'll have gotten more road surface as we went from ~6 to ~8 billion people on the planet in the last 30 years? How could that have stayed roughly the same?!

Post reply on HN