←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 3 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tietjens ◴[12 Sep 25 18:25 UTC] No.45225051[source]▶
Article claims Germany is beginning to shift. I wouldn’t count on that. Despite having to import all of their energy aside from renewables, there is a wide-spread suspicion of nuclear here. The CDU made a lot of noise about it while they were in the opposition, but turning those closed plants back on is highly unlikely. Very costly and I’m not certain the expertise can be hired.
replies(8): >>45225144 #>>45225191 #>>45225195 #>>45225379 #>>45225803 #>>45226461 #>>45230120 #>>45230528 #
kulahan ◴[12 Sep 25 18:39 UTC] No.45225195[source]▶
With AI on the horizon and each server farm using as much energy as a medium-sized city, I have no idea how they hope to meet demand otherwise, unless the plan is just some equivalent to "drill baby drill".
replies(9): >>45225225 #>>45225295 #>>45225392 #>>45225446 #>>45225578 #>>45225620 #>>45226064 #>>45226140 #>>45226490 #
RandomLensman ◴[12 Sep 25 18:42 UTC] No.45225225[source]▶
It would take a long time to build new reactors, so not sure that would help.

Germany could also do more wind, solar, tidal, geothermal (fossil fuels aside).

replies(2): >>45225283 #>>45225794 #
bluefirebrand ◴[12 Sep 25 18:48 UTC] No.45225283[source]▶
It is going to take a long time and a lot of resources no matter what so maybe we should be building effective longterm solutions like nuclear instead of stopgap solar and batteries
replies(2): >>45225317 #>>45225350 #
yellowapple ◴[12 Sep 25 18:54 UTC] No.45225350[source]▶
Not even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.
replies(3): >>45225432 #>>45226466 #>>45233579 #
1. fundatus ◴[12 Sep 25 20:36 UTC] No.45226466[source]▶
Base load is a concept of the past, grids around the world are being redesigned to be flexible to reap zero-production-costs renewable energy. Nuclear (which is impossible to run economically as a flexible asset) simply does not fit into that new world anymore.
replies(2): >>45228892 #>>45241951 #
2. kulahan ◴[13 Sep 25 02:42 UTC] No.45228892[source]▶
Damn, so we’re left with nothing, because nuclear is by far the most viable moving forward.
3. yellowapple ◴[14 Sep 25 18:07 UTC] No.45241951[source]▶
It'd be way easier to build a few nuclear plants than it would be to build an equivalent constant energy source from solar+wind and batteries. The nuclear plants would also consume far less land area.