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

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#941

Post by Moldoteck »

bmicraft wrote: post #929
simplyluke wrote: post #556

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

Nuclear is too expensive and takes to long. We can't afford to waste the resources that could go into a fully green grid in a couple of years taking decades building a fraction of that capacity as nuclear.

you should check out TWh/y of clean power in Portugal/DK vs UAE and say this again)

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#942

Post by Moldoteck »

boshomi wrote: post #781
simplyluke wrote: post #556

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

Powerprice in Germany today minus 500€/MWh. Nuclear power is economic madness in an environment where we see negative electricity prices practically every day.

Germany has highest avg household prices in EU per eurostat. How convenient of you to focus on this day. Btw, this minus 500eur translates in about 18bn/y in subsidies for EEG. DE already spent on it alone double the price of entire french fleet

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#943

Post by Moldoteck »

Dunedan wrote: post #834
asdefghyk wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when there is wide bad weather for renewables? ( for a range of days from 1 - several) Where would the power needed come from? If, it was to be from some kind of storage, Extra capacity would be needed to allow recharging of the storage

Mind that nuclear power relies on favorable weather as well. It's not uncommon in Europe that nuclear power plants have to shut down, because the rivers they use for cooling become too hot.

Not quite. It's done to save fish. And it's not fixed because France is already maxing exports in the same period

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#944

Post by pydry »

Moldoteck wrote: post #937
pydry wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why people tend to get a bit cheerleadery about nuclear power is because it has some great PR and it resonates with them. It needs the PR because it is so unconscionably expensive. The public needs to be primed to consent to indirect and direct subsidies. The reason China, US, France, it is because it shares a skills base and supply chain with nukes. The reason Sweden, Poland, Iran, etc. build a few plants…

very little supply chain is shared with weapons, dont spread nonsense. If you want weapons it's far cheaper to have just an enrichement facility exactly for that. And nuclear is cheap. Look at lazard estimate for existing fleet. Or open swiss data. Or even german data

Nuclear costs about 5x as much as solar and wind according to Lazard. This doesnt even include catastrophe insurance (taxpayers are on the hook in the event it goes boom and there's an $800 billion fukushima style cleanup fee).

I dont think it was price or global warming that got Poland suddenly interested in 2023. They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away...

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#945

Post by Moldoteck »

frm88 wrote: post #848
julienfr112 wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Germany power prices are so low, why are Germans power bills so high ? Maybe you are cherry picking spot/marginal price and not netting the subsides ?

Taxes and levies make up up to 60% of the energy prices. https://blackout-news.de/en/news/electricity-prices-in-germa...

and why are taxes that high. More specifically why is Germany spending 10x more than france on curtailment and transmission?))

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#946

Post by Moldoteck »

tcfhgj wrote: post #824
julienfr112 wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Germany power prices are so low, why are Germans power bills so high ? Maybe you are cherry picking spot/marginal price and not netting the subsides ?

higher prices means more incentives to be energy efficient

for now its incentive for deindustrialization

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#947

Post by Moldoteck »

fireant wrote: post #746
simplyluke wrote: post #556

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

> Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions I also used to believe that but now I'm not so sure. Nuclear carries massive and unpredictable risks on failure. We can fairly well predict what will happen on catastrophic wind turbine failure, but with nuclear it is much more difficult. And what is arguably worse is that nuclear catastrophic failures are very infreque…

it's not about belief https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-...

docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...

The question is simple, if you are afraid of nuclear, are you willing to erase any more dangerous tech? I'm not even mentioning cars which cause each 2y same nr of fatalities in Germany as Chernobyl is expected during whole lifetime per UN (or even worse if we look at updated uncsear reports)

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#948

Post by Moldoteck »

tcfhgj wrote: post #825
leonidasrup wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burning coal in coal power plants causes more deaths each year in Europe than the total deaths caused by Chernobyl accident (4000-8000). "The health burden of European CPP emission-induced PM2.5, estimated with the Global Exposure Mortality Model, amounts to at least 16 800 (CI95 14 800–18 700) excess deaths per year over the European domain" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349938542_Disease_b... https://www…

I live in Germany and dead wild animals are still burned instead of eaten because of radioactive contamination

ironically if you talk about boars, it's not because of chernobyl but nuclear weapons tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66665646

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#949

Post by Moldoteck »

fireant wrote: post #920
Cwizard wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, when has there been a serious nuclear accident? Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster that killed far more people than the nuclear failure did. Chernobyl was pure communist stupidity. This level of incompetence would never happen in a well functioning country. So that leaves Three Mile island? Meanwhile coal kills millions each year (mostly the old and children). And what are these predictable…

My point is that since we have had so few nuclear incidents, but they have done massive damage, it is very possible that we don't actually know much worse it could get. We have only seen a few points from a distribution that could be much wider than we think. Compared to renewable failures for which we have a pretty good idea.

oh we know. Chernobyl is pretty much the worst case scenario. It's impossible to replicate it in newer plants (fukushima being proof)

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#950

Post by Moldoteck »

pydry wrote: post #944
Moldoteck wrote: post #937

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very little supply chain is shared with weapons, dont spread nonsense. If you want weapons it's far cheaper to have just an enrichement facility exactly for that. And nuclear is cheap. Look at lazard estimate for existing fleet. Or open swiss data. Or even german data

Nuclear costs about 5x as much as solar and wind according to Lazard. This doesnt even include catastrophe insurance (taxpayers are on the hook in the event it goes boom and there's an $800 billion fukushima style cleanup fee). I dont think it was price or global warming that got Poland suddenly interested in 2023. They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away..…

You talk about new projects based on Vogtle costs. You need to look at the Lazard lcoe for existing fleet which didnt have such delays.

Fukushima cleanup could have costed much less. Jp govt wanted it to be expensive.

"They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away..." - again, it's unrelated. If you want weapons you can have some secret enrichemnt facility for that. Much cheaper. Npp without enrichment are pointless anyway for weapons due to parasitic isotopes.

Post reply on HN