Live data from Hacker News

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

weplanet.org

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#981
post #317

> Germany, long a symbol of anti-nuclear politics, is beginning to shift. err, no. it's not. industry lobby tries again and again, yes, and party officials parrot that lobbying, yes. but no: there is no Endlager (permanent spent nuclear fuel waste site) in sight, the costs of dismantling used plants are outrageous and if it were not for nimbyism, we'd be essentially self sustaining on wind and solar within a decade.…

> err, no. it's not. industry lobby tries again and again, yes, and party officials parrot that lobbying, yes. Is the lobby trying? Last I checked the head of RWE himself said that going back to nuclear in Germany was infeasible. It seems to be conservative politicians who had been keen on it before winning the election and before the industry pointed out that it's a bad idea actually.

RWE is not the oil or coal lobby. they pay for coal and gas. never would they ever finance a nuclear power plant. to them .02€/kWh (wind/solar) is _super_ sexy/profitable.

the fossil fuel lobby is in Texas, Middle East, Russia,and likewise uranium. add Siemens and their nuclear shares in other companies, for the plants.

RWE does not manufacture plants or dig coal.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#982
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 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…

Coal kills far more people than nuclear yet you never read about it. I think partly because any nuclear catastrophes are visible and concentrated to a single area.

Coal smoke kills over a much wider area and this impacts that 'newsworthiness' of this fear to spread. It's a class data vs feelings issue and yet again peoples feelings trump the data and undermines what experts familiar with both the danger and the data say.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#983

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one tries to quantify the value of those deaths, using the "statistical value of a human life" (somewhere around $12M/death), one finds in the case of both wind/solar and nuclear, using those numbers, the value of those lives contributes negligibly to the cost of energy. This is unlike with coal. This means that in choosing between solar/wind and nuclear, one cannot use the deaths/TWh to choose between them unless…

Aye, but with the amount of coal plants still running, I think the choice is between solar+nuclear or solar+coal I don't think anyone is arguing nuclear instead of solar. It's both. We need both.

No, I don't think we need both. In particular, building new nuclear plants would be worse than just putting all that money into renewables + storage. The latter displaces fossil fuels more quickly and more cheaply.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#984

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or acknowledge the true cost of $10 billion to build a reactor. Look at recent implementations. Finland was complaining that they had to deal with the mafia. The plant cost €11 billion, original proposal: €3 billion. Yikes. This particular plant is a terrible example. It was the first of its kind, so it was bound to be more difficult than as part of a series. For example, there were issues with contractors that wou…

It is not like nth of a kind Hinkley Point C, EPR reactor number 5 and 6, at $32.5B per reactor is going any better? Also do note that no one knows the true cost of Olkiluoto 3. The $11B figure is from a settlement many years before it was completed as interest and construction costs kept accumulating.

It is probably infuriating to many that costs are that significant and that important. France should be the model for nuclear, but mismanaged EDF which now has €54.3 billion debt and is years behind in maintenance. (2022 debt was €64.5 billion). And the public and politicians pitch a fit if the PM proposes a balanced budget with cuts. Nuclear doesn't make the cut when there are multiple competing interests of nitwits.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#985

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different energy product. And it doesn't preclude renewable energy from being deployed alongside. This pitting of renewables vs nuclear is not helpful for renewables or nuclear. They both work well together.

They don’t actually. Renewables on the grid make nukes uneconomical.

No actually they don't. Not sure which market your talking about but I can assure you that re-investing in nuclear power is the right choice for long term energy capability for humans.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#986

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Victim, no. Being over regulated doesn't necessarily hurt a company if all their competitors are subject to the same regulations. It's consumers who pay the price. 5x the price, apparently, if Nevada is any indication.

It is under regulation that is the problem here. PG&E has caused multiple huge disasters through negligence that have caused deaths and billions in damages that they pass on to rate payers. And this is after they redirected funds for maintenance directly to executive compensation. The regulators should have thrown the hammer down on PG&E then, but after the disaster happens the money has to come from somewhere. Even…

I see. So Nevada and the 46 other states with electricity cheaper than California[1] all have stricter regulation than California then? That's why their electricity is so much cheaper?

[1]: https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#987
post #965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about deaths. That's the thing. People can get sick, the environment gets polluted. A whole town got pulled out of their flats and was never allowed back. The area will remain closed for generations. Counting deaths does not do the actual damage justice.

A whole town got pulled out of their flats and was never allowed back How does that measure against a whole planet being pulled out of thermal equilibrium, and the projected displacement of 1 billion people?

> was

vs.

> projected

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#988

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about deaths. That's the thing. People can get sick, the environment gets polluted. A whole town got pulled out of their flats and was never allowed back. The area will remain closed for generations. Counting deaths does not do the actual damage justice.

How many towns were closed in order to strip mine coal? And no, that's not just a thing of the past but still happening today. How many people's health was impacted from coal and coal burning exhaust, which btw. also includes radioactive particles.

Defending nuclear by saying coal is worse is kinda weird and comes across as "motivated reasoning". Nobody worth listening to wants more coal.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#989
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have yet to find any concrete defense of the idea that costs are coming from regulation, rather than the costs of construction in advanced economies. One of the main drivers of excessive costs of construction in advanced economies are from excessive regulations, so it's really one in the same. Nuclear is obviously more regulated than other industries, and it routinely faces more frequent, longer delays and higher…

> The lack of regulatory clarity Oddly enough, that sounds like a request for more regulation. And I have heard many people say that if the regulators had made sure that if approval had gone beyond mere safety, into constructibility and other areas, that Vogtle would have been closer to the initial budget, and that Summer might have completed. Thank you for the link, and I will read it in detail later, but at a high…

I'd say it's a call for more appropriate regulation. Regulations are not a bad thing, they can be a great enabler when used well. Well defined thresholds beyond which your ass is covered are necessary for any complex project to proceed. Obviously anyone building a nuclear powerplant better budget enough to make it a safe one.

The issue is when the goal posts are ill defined or just straight up moved. Things need to be overbuilt to satisfy demands the regulators may not even have, and still you might get caught up on something that you didn't think could possibly be an issue. There is excessive conservatism because you have at least some track record of regulator decisions, even if it's an imperfect indicator of their future requirements.

Overzealous but well defined regulations, like you need 3 backup diesel generators, obviously add cost, but this can be easily priced in at the beginning of the project. Typically, the more regulations you have, the more likely some of them will be vague, so keeping the number of regulations manageable is often a good thing, but is not strictly necessary. Where you really run into problems is when there is an unreasonable fear which draws strong support for "something" to be done, but there really isn't an appropriate action to take given the severity of the risk and the cost of eliminating it - that's how you wind up with bullshit like ALARA.

And safety regulations are just one facet. Environmental regulations, particularly NEPA requirements, are a major driver of construction costs for big projects and especially nuclear plants. If nuclear plants were primarily facing only the same issues as general construction, you'd expect the labor productivity to be similar to comparable scale projects. The fact that labor productivity is an order of magnitude lower indicates something specific to nuclear plants is lowering labor productivity. While many potential things could be causing that reduction in labor productivity, it's hard to think of any that don't stem from or are made substantially worse by the regulatory environment.

Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

#990

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's cleaner than coal and oil. If you upgrade a coal plant to a gas plant, that's a step forward against climate change. Yes, we'd be much better off with wind farms, solar plants, and nuclear reactors, but a step forward is a step forward. Countries like Poland, running mostly on coal, would get cleaner air and contribute less to global warming if they were to upgrade their power plants to anything non-coal. Replac…

Clever use of the adjective “cleaner”. Try replacing it with “less dirty, but still pollutant and toxic” to see an alternative, correct version of what you have written.

You can put absolutist restrictions on things like that but every time you enter a cost-benefit calculus with such restrictions already in place you're going to end up with more cost and less benefit
Post reply on HN