←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: 0.001s | 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 #
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 #
JackSlateur ◴[13 Sep 25 14:12 UTC] No.45232229[source]▶
From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem. The issue is political.

Ibidem for the fuel: yes, you can depends on wild countries; You can also depends on Australia, Canada and India, which seems like not-so-bad countries (in my opinion);

replies(2): >>45232638 #>>45233681 #
natmaka ◴[13 Sep 25 15:01 UTC] No.45232638[source]▶
> From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem

When it comes to nuclear waste repositories real experts official publish: "Internationally, it is understood that there is no reliable scientific basis for predicting the process or likelihood of inadvertent human intrusion."

Source: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/201...

replies(1): >>45232897 #
JackSlateur ◴[13 Sep 25 15:32 UTC] No.45232897[source]▶
I have no idea how this information relates to the parent post;
replies(1): >>45233865 #
natmaka ◴[13 Sep 25 17:41 UTC] No.45233865[source]▶
A problem with nuclear waste is that living being (especially human beings) must not be exposed to it.
replies(1): >>45234438 #
JackSlateur ◴[13 Sep 25 18:58 UTC] No.45234438[source]▶
Yes

Like magma, sulfuric acid, mercurium, lead, basically thousands of stuff

You eat it, you die

replies(1): >>45235870 #
baobabKoodaa ◴[13 Sep 25 22:37 UTC] No.45235870[source]▶
You're being obtuse on purpose and that's not nice. Could you please just respond to the argument in a good faith manner rather than pretend you don't understand the argument?
replies(1): >>45236216 #
JackSlateur ◴[13 Sep 25 23:40 UTC] No.45236216[source]▶
Yes

As I said earlier, I do not understand the relation between the answer and its parent

Yes, toxic waste are toxic, this is not the issue (as far as I know)

The issue is the long life of nuclear waste, which is a solved problem due to fast breeder reactor (half life ~30ky, which is nothing compared to what light water reactors produce); Also, the quantity of waste is drastically reduces;

Why are not mass producing them: political issue;

replies(1): >>45239912 #
1. natmaka ◴[14 Sep 25 14:20 UTC] No.45239912[source]▶
> solved problem due to fast breeder reactor

For this we need an industrial model of breeder reactor. Please name it. There is none.

Many nations (US, France, Germany, Japan...) engulfed huge amounts of money on this quest, during decades.

TLDR: this works on lab reactors cajoled by scientists. It doesn't work industrially.

Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors ("BN"), and they work so well that this nation pauses on this architecture (sodium) and is back to the lab (300MWe) with another architecture (lead) named "BREST".

> the quantity of waste is drastically reduces

Therefore it would not solve the problem (we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it).

replies(1): >>45240376 #
2. JackSlateur ◴[14 Sep 25 15:12 UTC] No.45240376[source]▶
> Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors

Wikipedia disagrees

> we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it).

Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se.

replies(2): >>45243138 #>>45252207 #
3. mastermage ◴[14 Sep 25 20:52 UTC] No.45243138[source]▶
Ethics?
replies(1): >>45251236 #
4. JackSlateur ◴[15 Sep 25 15:55 UTC] No.45251236{3}[source]▶
Knives can kill: should we destroy them ? Height can kill: should we make the earth even ? Rock can kill: should we ban rocks ? Water can kill: should we destroy all waters ?

(yes, this is argumentum ad absurdum; Effort is made to prevent access to the nuclear waste, like all toxic materials)

5. natmaka ◴[15 Sep 25 17:04 UTC] No.45252207[source]▶
> Wikipedia disagrees

? Please quote and source, or name a model of industrial breeder reactor ready-to-be-deployed.

((nuclear waste))

> Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se.

"Wikipedia disagrees": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...