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

EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 567 posts

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#81

Post by spideymans »

j-pb wrote: post #44
sushisource wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't really see how this is true. Isn't the basic idea to just dig a really deep hole somewhere geologically stable and dump it in? My impression isn't that the problem isn't solvable, but simply that no one has actually made the appropriate investment yet. That sounds like the same catch-22 as the rest of this. We've thrown up our hands and gone "Not worth it" and then our lack of investment in proper storag…

The issue is not finding a place that's geologically stable now. But finding one that's geologically stable in 850.000 years. And to find a place where no post worldwar 5 civilization accidentally diggs is up. And to have a tracking chain where no fuel gets into the wrong hands. Do you know how germany decided on the position of its long term nuclest storage facilities? East germany choose the salt mine closest to th…

>And to find a place where no post worldwar 5 civilization accidentally diggs is up.

This is premised on the idea that some future civilization would dig kilometres deep in some random and remote location and just happen to come across some nuclear waste stored in a space that is no larger than a small house. It's also presumes that future civilizations will have no recollection whatsoever of humanity storing nuclear fuel, and thus take no measures to avoid it.

This seems really unlikely to me. Given that we're faced with the threat of apocalyptic climate change today, it's a risk I'm willing to take.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#82

Post by random_kris »

cbmuser wrote: post #51
chmod775 wrote: post #15

There's a lot of straw men being fought in the comments again. The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Proponents of nuclear power like to pretend the opposition exists merely on the basis of "but what if it goes boom!", so they don't need to face the reality that countries like Germany are sitting on a l…

> The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

Yeah but i can imagine as we scale the hall like that will soon be able to contain only 10 years worth of material. Then 1 year etc...

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#83

Post by random5634 »

fermienrico wrote: post #54
chmod775 wrote: post #15

There's a lot of straw men being fought in the comments again. The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Proponents of nuclear power like to pretend the opposition exists merely on the basis of "but what if it goes boom!", so they don't need to face the reality that countries like Germany are sitting on a l…

Ridiculous Arm-chair Concept: - What if we make a 1 meter wall thick lead / steel container and seal the waste in and leave it? Surely nothing can break it, not even an earthquake. Just make a giant tennis court sized containers and dump stuff in there. We know how to build bridges, surely we can build large containers. Just want to learn, I am sure this is proposed and would love to know why its a stupid idea.

The problem is in part the anti-nuclear folks don't want the problem to be solved. So you can build a skyscraper 100 feet tall in a high earthquake zone, but you can't build a container. The normal approach (france etc) is to recycle and then vitrify the leftovers and store in a container. You get much shorter half lives, much less waste. So even if it comes out the container, it's still "in" something. Of course, you can build a reasonably secure container as well.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#84

Post by cbmuser »

j-pb wrote: post #44
sushisource wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't really see how this is true. Isn't the basic idea to just dig a really deep hole somewhere geologically stable and dump it in? My impression isn't that the problem isn't solvable, but simply that no one has actually made the appropriate investment yet. That sounds like the same catch-22 as the rest of this. We've thrown up our hands and gone "Not worth it" and then our lack of investment in proper storag…

The issue is not finding a place that's geologically stable now. But finding one that's geologically stable in 850.000 years. And to find a place where no post worldwar 5 civilization accidentally diggs is up. And to have a tracking chain where no fuel gets into the wrong hands. Do you know how germany decided on the position of its long term nuclest storage facilities? East germany choose the salt mine closest to th…

> The issue is not finding a place that's geologically stable now. But finding one that's geologically stable in 850.000 years.

Something that takes several hundred thousand years for decay isn't actually dangerous.

Short half-life: High radioactivity.

Long half-life: Low radioactivity.

Furthermore, spent nuclear fuel can be recycled up to 95%:

> https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlMDDhQ9-pE

> https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/news/the-first-serial...

> East germany choose the salt mine closest to the west german border. And in retaliation west germany build theirs right next to it, in the closest saly mine that they had to the east german border.

East Germany never put any spent fuel into their own soil. They sent the spent fuel back to the USSR. Spent fuel is a resource with a market value. The GDR and the USSR didn't just threw that away.

> Nuclear tech is awesome and great, and too dangerous for careless, political, corrupt, humanity to be trusted with.

It's actually pretty safe and has among the lowest numbers of deaths per TWh:

> https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

> So I'd rather spend that money on renewables, where the worst thing that can happen is someone hitting you with a PV cell.

Actually, the worst thing is that it causes Germany to build new gas power plants and stop shutting down coal plants:

> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_geplanter_und_im_Bau_bef...

> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#Nord_Stream_2

> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/Elektrizitae...

> https://www.wa.de/hamm/kraftwerk-westfalen-in-hamm-uentrop-i...

> https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.grosskraftwerk-man...

> https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.energieversorgung-...

> https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-kohleausstieg-...

> https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/ruhrgebiet/datteln-vier-geht...

Compare Germany's and France's emissions in the energy sector:

> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...

> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...

Germany emits SEVEN(!) times as much as the French for producing electricity and heat. The nuclear phase out is causing 1100 premature death every year in Germany and causes additional costs of $12 billion per year:

> https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP304.pdf

And Germany has the highest electricity prices - worldwide:

> https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/

Renewables have actually caused multiple deaths during the Texas blizzard because they couldn't provide enough electricity during the cold.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#85

Post by loeg »

brtkdotse wrote: post #72
jdsully wrote: post #4

Crazy they were able to label natural gas as “sustainable” but nuclear just barely squeaked in.

Natural gas or biogas? Same gas but the first is fossil while the other is made from fermenting sewage and hence renewable

Either? The problem is that combusting it produces CO₂.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#86

Post by tpmx »

lostlogin wrote: post #49
tpmx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe: That cement (which is used to create concrete) is by far mostly going into the huge foundations needed for the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of 150m+ tall wind power plants that only produce power sometimes.

Yes, but compare their CO2 footprints to nuclear. Have you a source that shows Nuclear is better? I hunted around a while back and got a large range of answers, but nuclear seemed consistent worse. Eg see page 29 of this link. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

The error bars make that graph unusable for this purpose.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#87

Post by cbmuser »

makomk wrote: post #79
cbmuser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

The big problem with recycling spent nuclear fuel is that the required reprocessing is much worse in terms of safety than the nuclear power plants themselves. Lots of lovely, toxic, highly radioactive solutions which are practically iching to go prompt critical and ruin everyone's day. I think the only reprocessing program which managed not to be a safety train wreck is France's, and I half-suspect they might have ju…

The French have been doing it for decades already with not a single casualty:

> https://www.orano.group/en/nuclear-expertise/from-exploratio...

It's not that they are doing the recycling in a cookie factory.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#88

Post by loeg »

random_kris wrote: post #82
cbmuser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main issue with nuclear power in Europe has always been the storage of nuclear waste, for which many countries still don't have a long-term solution. Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It's actually the best type of waste that exists. It's extremely dense, is solid and any leakage can easily detected. And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-.…

Yeah but i can imagine as we scale the hall like that will soon be able to contain only 10 years worth of material. Then 1 year etc...

Scale what? France already generates all of its own power requirements and is a net exporter of electricity. They're at 100% scale already.

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#89

Post by enkid »

loeg wrote: post #85
brtkdotse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas or biogas? Same gas but the first is fossil while the other is made from fermenting sewage and hence renewable

Either? The problem is that combusting it produces CO₂.

Methane is going to come out of sewage whether we process it or not, and methane itself is a greenhouse gas. It's not going to come out of the ground without help (in the quantities we are using).

Re: EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

#90

Post by loeg »

chmod775 wrote: post #34
sushisource wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't really see how this is true. Isn't the basic idea to just dig a really deep hole somewhere geologically stable and dump it in? My impression isn't that the problem isn't solvable, but simply that no one has actually made the appropriate investment yet. That sounds like the same catch-22 as the rest of this. We've thrown up our hands and gone "Not worth it" and then our lack of investment in proper storag…

Your assumption is that every country is guaranteed to have access to underground places that are "geologically stable" over the required time-period, aren't aquifers, or at risk letting water in by some other means. The assumption is simply wrong.

You could throw it in the fucking ocean and it would be better than coal plants, and arguably better than natural gas.
Post reply on HN