2 ms·
Comments with "bullshit" in all caps aren't a very good fit for HN. In the first two paragraphs you insinuate that they deliberately skip wind and solar (when w
by sillysaurus3 9y ago
Comments with "bullshit" in all caps aren't a very good fit for HN. In the first two paragraphs you insinuate that they deliberately skip wind and solar (when wind and solar can't generate the kind of power that nuclear can), that this is a submarine article from the nuclear industry, that you didn't read it, and that nobody else should read it either. These elements combined are toxic to HN's culture of intellectual gratification.
- padseeker 9y agoThey DID skip it for a reason. I'm telling you there is most likely an ulterior motive for this article. There is mention of biomass (which is burning of wood) but no mention of power generated by dams. The history of Solar and Wind are short and has grown astronomically. Maybe you could weasel out of doing any real analysis on it. But what about hydro power? Why is that omitted. And the title says it all; "It goes completely against what most believe, but out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest"