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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#801

Post by teamonkey »

gilbetron wrote: post #769
teamonkey wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. The context is a long string of nuclear incidents throughout the Cold War through to the ‘90s. Not just Chernobyl, not just Fukushima, but the string of disasters at Windscale / Sellafield and many others across the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident... https://en.wik…

And yet if you look at the "Fatalities" column, you see a stream of zeroes with a handful of non-zeroes, the worst being Chernobyl at 50 direct fatalities. Rooftop solar accounts for more deaths. Nuke plants are scary when they fail, but the actual threat is way lower than we play it out to be.

Yes, that’s my point. They are scary - memorably so - in a way that very few other forms of power generation are. The closest equivalent I can think of is a major hydroelectric dam breaking.

Also remember that at each major incident, despite the failures that led to it, people fought tirelessly, in several cases sacrificing themselves, to reduce the scope of the disaster. Each of them could have potentially been worse. We are lucky in that the worst case death figures have not been added to the statistics.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#802

Post by natmaka »

scrlk wrote: post #682
mpweiher wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or if you build them there, build them so they can withstand that disaster. There was another similar plant even closer to the epicenter, and it was hit with a (slightly) higher tsunami crest. It survived basically undamaged and even served as shelter for tsunami refugees. Because they had built the tsunami-wall to spec. And didn't partially dismantle it to make access easier like what was done in Fukushima. Oh, and…

> Because they had built the tsunami-wall to spec. If you're referring to the Onagawa plant, one engineer (Yanosuke Hirai) pushed for the height of the wall to be increased beyond the original spec: > A nuclear plant in a neighboring area, meanwhile, had been built to withstand the tsunamis. A solitary civil engineer employed by the Tohoku Electric Power Company knew the story of the massive Jogan tsunami of the year…

The point is not about "someone may not err" but about "someone may err", or more precisely "someone WILL err", coupled with the effects of such mistakes.

Failing to correctly design, build, exploit or maintain a wind turbine or solar panel isn't a big deal. Failing to do so on a nuclear reactor can become a huge and lasting disaster for many.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#803

Post by dijit »

kranke155 wrote: post #797
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.

The reason to be against nuclear energy is quite simple - human error. Unlike flying, we’ve not shown nuclear energy to be sufficiently idiot-proof for many people to be comfortable with it. That and the fact that radiation is invisible, which makes it somehow almost paranormal.

The main problem of course is that coal is killing much more people than any nuclear disaster ever did (per unit of energy delivered).

But because it’s so spread and so normalised and not so bombastic, we don’t even consider it.

The number of lives saved by using nuclear energy is easily in the tens of thousands even with disasters like Chernobyl.

Although of course it has to be stated that the USSR moved to heaven and earth to solve the problem… and if they hadn’t, then the entire continent might be dead today.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#804

Post by ExpertAdvisor01 »

slightwinder wrote: post #731
out_of_protocol wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear produces constant amount of energy (while consumption is not stable), Solar and Wind are highly unstable, with peaks not matching consumption. Adding gas (which is fast to adjust/turn on/turn off) for maneuvers makes whole system cheaper and more stable

Except, most regions don't need constant supply, it's actually even harmful for the grid. German grid for example seems to have become significant better since the last nuclear plants were removed.

What ? They just dumped a lot of money into grid safety after the nuclear exit . Your comment doesn't make any sense.

Because of the nuclear exit they had to build Grid stabilization plants e.g in Marbach.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#805

Post by dijit »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #798
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.

The reason I used to oppose nuclear energy is that its proponents would say nuclear waste isn't a problem, but they would never explain why it isn't a problem. I knew the half-life of uranium was 4 billion years; I didn't see how you could possibly make that safe, and nobody on the pro-nuclear side seemed to have an explanation, so I assumed that no explanation existed. (Turns out the answer is that you can store nuc…

it’s also true that you get better at using (and reusing) what we would consider waste today over time.

The more energy we are able to use, the more inert the waste material becomes, leading to much lower storage timeframes (though still multiple human lifetimes even in the best case).

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#806

Post by pera »

prinny_ wrote: post #779
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 am against nuclear energy because my government is deeply corrupted and give contracts to their friends. They also appoint unqualified people to the highest positions to award them big salaries and the results are catastrophic tragedies with tens of casualties each time. I don’t trust them to operate the railroads, why would I trust them to operate a nuclear facility?

This is the main reason why I am, generally speaking, against nuclear as a universal solution.

A question for pro-nuclear folks: Would you be okay with having a highly corrupt low HDI country building nuclear facilities (conversion and deconversion, enrichment, power plants) next to your borders?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#807

Post by natmaka »

dvtkrlbs wrote: post #726
flohofwoe wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most long lasting ...which also applies to nuclear waste unfortunately, and that answers part of your question - e.g. as irrational as it may be, but at least in Germany nobody wants to have a nuclear waste storage in their backyard (the other part of the answer is Chornobyl - and for the same 'not in my backyard' reason). Also when looking at recent years, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have a few large nucle…

The annoying thing is recycling nuclear waste is kind of a solved problem. I've watched this video a while ago but iirc it is just more expensive to build a reactor that can also recycle its own waste. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc

After decades of R&D and numerous lab and prototypes reactors able to do so (mainly fast breeders)... there is not a single industrial model ready to be deployed.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#808

Post by jandrese »

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…

Why would you turn green space into solar farms when there are hideous and heat island creating parking lots right there?

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#809

Post by natmaka »

spookie wrote: post #767
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…

Yeah have seen them. Down south of EU, in Portugal, they are buying land used for agriculture for these huge solar farms. And it is as sad as it is here. Surely, food is more important no? If they were placed in some deserts like in Spain... maybe they make sense, but these are very arable lands. Wind is yeah... a whole other beast, although I do like what they have done in the Baltic and North seas.

Agrivoltaics (dual use of land for solar energy and agriculture) is gaining ground in many nations. This is heavy industry, the pace is slower than in most sectors (IT...).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#810

Post by JackSlateur »

natmaka wrote: post #791
JackSlateur wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem. The issue is political. Ibidem for the fuel: yes, you can depends on wild countries; You can also depends on Australia, Canada and India, which seems like not-so-bad countries (in my opinion);

> From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem When it comes to nuclear waste repositories real experts official publish: "Internationally, it is understood that there is no reliable scientific basis for predicting the process or likelihood of inadvertent human intrusion." Source: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/201...

I have no idea how this information relates to the parent post;
Post reply on HN