←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 5 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[13 Sep 25 07:25 UTC] No.45230060[source]▶
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.
replies(25): >>45230185 #>>45230223 #>>45230479 #>>45230658 #>>45230757 #>>45231144 #>>45231518 #>>45231738 #>>45232518 #>>45232615 #>>45232756 #>>45232757 #>>45232937 #>>45233169 #>>45233513 #>>45233762 #>>45233817 #>>45233825 #>>45234181 #>>45234637 #>>45234828 #>>45235394 #>>45238856 #>>45240108 #>>45243016 #
prinny_ ◴[13 Sep 25 14:49 UTC] No.45232518[source]▶
I am against nuclear energy because my government is deeply corrupted and give contracts to their friends. They also appoint unqualified people to the highest positions to award them big salaries and the results are catastrophic tragedies with tens of casualties each time. I don’t trust them to operate the railroads, why would I trust them to operate a nuclear facility?
replies(4): >>45232844 #>>45233512 #>>45233812 #>>45233887 #
1. pera ◴[13 Sep 25 15:25 UTC] No.45232844[source]▶
This is the main reason why I am, generally speaking, against nuclear as a universal solution.

A question for pro-nuclear folks: Would you be okay with having a highly corrupt low HDI country building nuclear facilities (conversion and deconversion, enrichment, power plants) next to your borders?

replies(3): >>45233171 #>>45233209 #>>45233370 #
2. adastra22 ◴[13 Sep 25 16:04 UTC] No.45233171[source]▶
They are more likely to cause more damage, just less visibly, in building substandard fossil fuel plants.
3. rpdillon ◴[13 Sep 25 16:10 UTC] No.45233209[source]▶
Absolutely. Just stop using LWR as the blueprint.
4. District5524 ◴[13 Sep 25 16:36 UTC] No.45233370[source]▶
This is similar to the reasoning of Austria vehemently opposing nuclear reactors to be built in neighbouring countries, even if downstream on the Danube, even if 200 km from their border.

The latest decision (although on the surface, not on an environmental issue like the article is about, but on state aid measures - but actually not the real reason for Austria's opposition): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62...

So, I believe, yes, low HDI countries with high corruption do have the right to build nuclear facilities. This is not like a combination of low HDI and high corruption index awarded by some international organization has the approval rights to such questions of sovereignity. There is a whole range of special regulation regarding who can build nuclear stations and under what conditions, with a special agency to ensure the safe use (IAEA) - that should be the only criteria for letting nations build nuclear stations, not corruption, HDI or how rich the countries are.

replies(1): >>45237746 #
5. lxxxvi ◴[14 Sep 25 05:48 UTC] No.45237746[source]▶
Slovenia has been running a reactor for a good long while without any problems and it's extremely safe. So from our POV, it's much more likely that Austria would prefer everyone around them to import Austrian energy instead of producing their own.

Also, Austria makes no sense. It opposes a new reactor in Slo being built but that means that the current one will just keep getting its life extended. Clearly it's not about safety.