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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#741

Post by nicce »

LinXitoW wrote: post #616
nicce wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It depends how much competition there would be if for-profit company owns them.

If there is just one source nearby, isn’t that another monopoly risk? The price starts to balance with high distance tranmission cost monopoly vs monopoly of nearby energy source.

If we find many small renewable sources that are cheap to build, maybe that balances it out.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#742

Post by hereme888 »

weberer wrote: post #740
hereme888 wrote: post #701

Why would a court decide this vs. an actual team of scientists?

Did you even read the article? >The European Court of Justice has now fully dismissed Austria’s lawsuit.

I read the title, and you indirectly answered my question.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#743

Post by mentalgear »

France, heavily invested in nuclear, now has to shut down their reactors each summer as, due to climate change, the cooling water from rivers cant be used any more to cool the reactors. So much about being future proof. And let's not even get into the argument why no private company ever financed a nuclear reactor, but only build them with huge subsidies from states. Hint: it is because they are completely uneconomically. (and dont come with the argument of experimental small scale reactors, they are all just experimental and none proven)

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#744

Post by moogly »

hereme888 wrote: post #704
LinXitoW wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is that a joke? You are conflating US meddling in international politics vs. protecting themselves and the world from Nuclear catastrophe by not fighting the likes of Iran, who openly admits wanting to nuke other countries, namely Israel (and by extension radiate Gaza, Jordan, Egypt, the nearby oceans, etc, as well) and the US. Iran who hid their nuclear enrichment facilities underground, which were known to enrich U…

If I lived within range of the No. 1 rogue aggressor state (Israel), I'd also want some nuclear weapons.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#745

Post by makeitdouble »

tiberius_p wrote: post #646
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 remember the anti-nuclear fever went viral in 2011 after the Fukushima nuclear accident caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. I think the correct lesson to be learned from that experience is not to built nuclear power plants in places where they can be damaged by natural disasters...and not to call for all nuclear power plants around the world to be shut down.

> in places where they can be damaged by natural disasters.

And places where they can be damaged by human actions as well.

That leaves so many places to build reactors, right ?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#746

Post by tomatocracy »

Luker88 wrote: post #559

I am not sure people understand the implications of this. First, it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas. Second, lots of nations have incentives for "clean" energy. And now magically, all those incentives apply to nuclear and gas. It's a money grab from nuclear and gas manufacturers. It's not that the courts were involved for nothing. Still, we should use more nuclear. If only it was less expensive to build...

The article doesn't really explain what the lawsuit was over. It's about rules for private sector investment fund reporting. What the court ruled on is whether nuclear (and gas) can be classified as "sustainable investments" under the "EU taxonomy" rules[0].

This may mean that more private investment capital will end up in nuclear power, although my guess is that the impact of the EU taxonomy in driving investment decisions on this type of thing is likely quite small (I suspect the few funds which are out there which have hard requirements around EU taxonomy likely wouldn't invest in nuclear anyway).

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_taxonomy_for_sustainable_ac...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#747

Post by justsomehnguy »

oneshtein wrote: post #603
m101 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is expensive because of the regulatory burdens associated with making it unreasonably safe. By unreasonably safe I mean that harms predicted by radiation models are unscientific, and death rate expectations are far lower than alternative power generation technologies. Nuclear fuel storage is relatively straightforward, and volumes have potential to be reduced 30x through recycling.

Nuclear power plants require international laws and international cooperation for insurance, because one serious incident, such as Chornobyl, can wipe a continent. In Ukraine, profits from all nuclear plants will cover damages, caused by Chornobyl, in 1000-5000 years IF nothing more will happen to Chornobyl or other an other nuclear power plant in those years, which is unlikely.

> can wipe a continent

Sorry, but no.

Chernobyl exclusion zone is less than a single area of the Agent Orange usage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chernobyl_radiation_map_1...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial-herbicide-spray-mi...

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#748

Post by keepamovin »

And the EU are correct. Stop crying about it. Nuclear is the future of human energy on Earth.

No other source provides energy as dense safe and reliable.

Hacker news people believe it’s not the cheapest. But with accounting for environmental and human impact and freeing from unnecessary restrictive regulations it can and will be.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#749

Post by wolvesechoes »

luckystarr wrote: post #738
xkbarkar wrote: post #732

You know what, let’s turn popular city parks to windmill and solarparks. NY central park for example. Copenhagen has a few beloved open green places we could clean out and replace with solarcells, so does Berlin. Im unscientifically guessing support for nc energy would rise very quickly and wed have a whole bunch of them within a decade. Source, I live near a windmill, they are loud as f*k. I drive by solaparks nearl…

Newer wind turbines don't have a gearbox and are almost completely silent. When standing next to one, the loudest components are the electrical inverters/transformers.

Wings are loud

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#750

Post by wolvesechoes »

mentalgear wrote: post #743

France, heavily invested in nuclear, now has to shut down their reactors each summer as, due to climate change, the cooling water from rivers cant be used any more to cool the reactors. So much about being future proof. And let's not even get into the argument why no private company ever financed a nuclear reactor, but only build them with huge subsidies from states. Hint: it is because they are completely uneconomic…

> the cooling water from rivers cant be used any more to cool the reactors. So much about being future proof.

There are more reactor types than water-cooled reactors, and modern energy plants should use cooling towers even if some water reservoir is available, nuclear or not.

> it is because they are completely uneconomically

This is why private sector cannot provide infrastructure. State is not a company.

Post reply on HN