←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 6 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
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 #
AndyPa32 ◴[13 Sep 25 08:01 UTC] No.45230223[source]▶
I disagree with cheapest. If you factor in twenty years build time and nuclear waste disposal, the whole thing is not economically viable.

Then there's a problem with nuclear fuel. The sources are mostly countries you don't want to depend on.

You are of course right with your assessment that nuclear is green, safe and eco-friendly. That's a hard one to swallow for a lot of eco activists.

replies(8): >>45230243 #>>45230248 #>>45230488 #>>45230765 #>>45231116 #>>45232229 #>>45232710 #>>45233448 #
freetonik ◴[13 Sep 25 08:07 UTC] No.45230243[source]▶
Long build times are often the result of constantly changing regulations. Also it’s interesting that build times in Japan are almost 2 times smaller than in US.
replies(1): >>45230554 #
rootsofallevil ◴[13 Sep 25 09:02 UTC] No.45230554[source]▶
Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be 5+ years late.

The exemption being France and maybe China?

France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well.

I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with solar + wind + BESS when it comes online but I could well be wrong

replies(4): >>45230580 #>>45230656 #>>45230790 #>>45231709 #
looofooo0 ◴[13 Sep 25 09:07 UTC] No.45230580[source]▶
South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia.
replies(2): >>45230797 #>>45232612 #
mpweiher ◴[13 Sep 25 09:54 UTC] No.45230797[source]▶
United Arab Emirates.

Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years.

Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years.

Just before we stopped building altogether.

France built 50+ reactors in 15 years.

We know how to build nuclear quickly, reliably and (relatively) cheaply. We also know how to do it slowly, eratically and expensively.

Fortunately the former comes almost but not entirely automatically with building lots of them.

replies(1): >>45232623 #
natmaka ◴[13 Sep 25 14:59 UTC] No.45232623[source]▶
During the past 25 years there were projects aiming at building industrial nuclear reactors. They all ended badly (canceled, way over budget or delay...).
replies(1): >>45233806 #
1. mpweiher ◴[13 Sep 25 17:33 UTC] No.45233806[source]▶
That's completely false.

The Konvois in Germany were extremely successful.

France built 50+ reactors in 15 years from a standing start.

replies(1): >>45233879 #
2. natmaka ◴[13 Sep 25 17:43 UTC] No.45233879[source]▶
I wrote "During the past 25 years"

Please describe any nuclear reactor which was successfully built in France or Germany during the past 25 years.

France: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

replies(1): >>45234774 #
3. mpweiher ◴[13 Sep 25 19:46 UTC] No.45234774[source]▶
Germany didn't build any.

France built hardly any.

And that's the complete answer: we know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply.

Building only very few of different novel designs while slowly (or quickly) losing the industrial base to do so, for example by making it illegal to build more (or at all) is exactly how you don't do it.

replies(1): >>45234833 #
4. ViewTrick1002 ◴[13 Sep 25 19:56 UTC] No.45234833{3}[source]▶
The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles.

Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies.

Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix.

A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!

But nuclear is fast to build, if we ignore all modern western examples!

replies(1): >>45258413 #
5. looofooo0 ◴[16 Sep 25 05:38 UTC] No.45258413{4}[source]▶
Just because in Germany the bill was footed by the consumer and geopolitical dependcies (Russia) does not make its CO2 free electricity cheaper. It also still lacks behind France in CO2 emission.
replies(1): >>45260418 #
6. ViewTrick1002 ◴[16 Sep 25 10:32 UTC] No.45260418{5}[source]▶
This argument is like nuclear power was a waste for France in the 1980s because they weren't done removing all oil from their grid.

As per recent French nuclear construction they are on a path of replacing it with renewables because it is horrifically expensive and they are unable to finance new construction.