Most active commenters
  • V__(3)
  • otikik(3)
  • mulmen(3)

←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 19 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 1.227s | source | bottom
Show context
yellowapple ◴[12 Sep 25 18:51 UTC] No.45225313[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(12): >>45225401 #>>45225408 #>>45225486 #>>45225487 #>>45225540 #>>45225582 #>>45225601 #>>45225657 #>>45225689 #>>45225714 #>>45227579 #>>45228776 #
V__ ◴[12 Sep 25 19:15 UTC] No.45225582[source]▶
I agree that the fears are overblown, but at the same time the hype for nuclear is just weird. It's more complex, more expensive, less adjustable and more risky. Even the new hip small modular reactors are many years away.

The LCOE (Levelized Cost of Electricity) for solar with battery is already better than current solutions, and dropping. Wind and battery closely following. There is no way that nuclear technology will be able to compete on price in the foreseeable future.

replies(6): >>45225618 #>>45225651 #>>45225662 #>>45225749 #>>45226158 #>>45226373 #
1. oceanplexian ◴[12 Sep 25 19:18 UTC] No.45225618[source]▶
How is the hype for a limitless clean energy source, something that could benefit every aspect of humanity more than any other invention in human history considered “weird”?
replies(3): >>45225658 #>>45225666 #>>45225865 #
2. V__ ◴[12 Sep 25 19:22 UTC] No.45225658[source]▶
Because this limitless clean energy source is too expensive, even though it had 60+ years time. I hope the day fusion energy finally has its big breakthrough isn't too far away, but conventional nuclear won't solve our problems.
replies(2): >>45225944 #>>45226732 #
3. delusional ◴[12 Sep 25 19:22 UTC] No.45225666[source]▶
> limitless clean energy source

Like the guy you're responding to, I'm not a nuclear hater. We also have other "limitless clean energy sources" however, wind and solar.

How is nuclear going to benefit humanity in ways electrical energy hasn't already? We haven't been energy constrained in the past 10-20 years. It really doesn't seem like additional energy production is going to make that much of a difference.

replies(2): >>45225720 #>>45227582 #
4. otikik ◴[12 Sep 25 19:27 UTC] No.45225720[source]▶
“Limitless” in that context means “it still happens in a cloudy week with no wind”
replies(2): >>45225783 #>>45225960 #
5. delusional ◴[12 Sep 25 19:33 UTC] No.45225783{3}[source]▶
I'd like to see a prior for that use of that word, otherwise you're just making stuff up. Please use words to say things.
replies(1): >>45248263 #
6. stonemetal12 ◴[12 Sep 25 19:40 UTC] No.45225865[source]▶
For something that is supposed to be clean it sure keeps making places unhabitable.
7. mulmen ◴[12 Sep 25 19:46 UTC] No.45225944[source]▶
Wind and solar are literally fusion power with extra steps.

Running our own fusion reactors would be great but waste is not limited to fission designs. All nuclear generation has radioactive waste, it’s unavoidable.

Grid scale storage with renewables can absolutely meet our needs.

replies(2): >>45226389 #>>45226395 #
8. mulmen ◴[12 Sep 25 19:47 UTC] No.45225960{3}[source]▶
That is what storage and long distance transmission are for. It’s very hard to take these tired arguments seriously.
replies(2): >>45226405 #>>45248279 #
9. pfdietz ◴[12 Sep 25 20:29 UTC] No.45226389{3}[source]▶
> Wind and solar are literally fusion power with extra steps.

This observation seems entirely useless and pointless. What implication are you saying we should draw from this?

10. mpweiher ◴[12 Sep 25 20:29 UTC] No.45226395{3}[source]▶
> extra steps.

Those extra steps are crucial, as they massively dilute the output and make it weather/daylight and seasonally dependent.

Intermittent renewables produce at least an order of magnitude more waste than nuclear reactors, be they fusion or fission.

replies(2): >>45227559 #>>45227743 #
11. mpweiher ◴[12 Sep 25 20:30 UTC] No.45226405{4}[source]▶
Both of these are not feasible solutions for industrial economies.
12. xienze ◴[12 Sep 25 21:01 UTC] No.45226732[source]▶
> Because this limitless clean energy source is too expensive

I’m laughing in $0.11/kWh nuclear energy while Germany’s “cheaper” green energy is uh... quite a bit more expensive.

replies(1): >>45227140 #
13. V__ ◴[12 Sep 25 21:45 UTC] No.45227140{3}[source]▶
Retail or production price, where are you based?
replies(1): >>45227313 #
14. xienze ◴[12 Sep 25 22:06 UTC] No.45227313{4}[source]▶
In the US, the price I’m metered at.
15. mulmen ◴[12 Sep 25 22:35 UTC] No.45227559{4}[source]▶
How are you defining waste here?

Nuclear reactors can’t adjust production rapidly and require peaker plants. I don’t have to squint to see how this is also solved by grid scale storage.

16. throwawayffffas ◴[12 Sep 25 22:38 UTC] No.45227582[source]▶
There are hard limits on wind and solar.
17. g-b-r ◴[12 Sep 25 23:03 UTC] No.45227743{4}[source]▶
> Those extra steps are crucial, as they massively dilute the output and make it weather/daylight and seasonally dependent

and leave the waste on a far away star

18. otikik ◴[15 Sep 25 10:58 UTC] No.45248263{4}[source]▶
Ok
19. otikik ◴[15 Sep 25 11:01 UTC] No.45248279{4}[source]▶
With our current rate of storage and spending, storage would last hours at most.

Long distance transmission on the scale where we would not get short of power is a project as big, if not bigger, than nuclear reactors.