←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 2 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
StopDisinfo910 ◴[12 Sep 25 19:30 UTC] No.45225749[source]▶
If you consider the complexity of running a whole grid out of intermittent sources of energy and the long term vulnerability of the logistic chain required to produce PVs, the long term costs and risks are not so clear cut.

For China which has the mineral it probably doesn’t make sense but for Europe, nuclear is a solid alternative especially when you consider that you can probably significantly extend the life time of the already existing power plants. Even if we ultimately transition to something else, it’s better than coal and gas in the meantime.

replies(1): >>45225931 #
V__ ◴[12 Sep 25 19:45 UTC] No.45225931[source]▶
I am totally in agreement, that nuclear plants shouldn't be shut down before fossil ones.

A decentralized grid sound way more resilient, then one with a few nuclear plants, which often have long unexpected downtimes (see France). I agree with you on the potential logistical dependencies, however that sadly applies to nearly everything right now.

replies(2): >>45225986 #>>45226041 #
1. StopDisinfo910 ◴[12 Sep 25 19:56 UTC] No.45226041[source]▶
The French grid has been extremely resilient with only a minor setback a couple years ago when multiple plants were in maintenance at the same time and that’s despite not significantly investing in it for decades.

Technically, a grid based on nuclear production is also a distributed grid. You have multiple plants and it’s easy to add overcapacity to the grid because nuclear is easy to modulate.

replies(1): >>45226149 #
2. V__ ◴[12 Sep 25 20:06 UTC] No.45226149[source]▶
This year again multiple nuclear plants in France had to reduce their output due to heatwaves and water levels, and ongoing cooling concerns. This is becoming a yearly occurrence. Though, I am not saying you can't have a nuclear grid, or you shouldn't use it at all, it's just that renewables seem to be a much better solution for most cases.