3 ms·
> nuke power is the safest power we've come up with (among power sources that actually have produced a significant fraction of the power we use) This is crucia
by jedsmith 16y ago
> nuke power is the safest power we've come up with (among power sources that actually have produced a significant fraction of the power we use)
This is crucial, and is why blanket statements like "nuclear power is safe" are dangerous. There is an absolutely essential qualifier required on the end of any assertion about nuclear safety, and I'm glad to see that you put it in parentheses here. Nuclear power is the best...at scale. It's completely rational to recognize that for what it is.
I will be the first to praise the virtues of renewable energy. Solar, wind, tidal, and so on are all far better implementations to solve the problem of producing electricity. All of them, however, have a crippling fault that prevents them from reaching the potential of economics and supply that nuclear can. Importantly, that doesn't doom them -- that just means more investment and thinking is required before they can reach their potential.
Hell, renewable energy is the energy sector's Python 3. We'll get there someday, you can use it now, and it's a fabulous nirvana of harmony. Today, however, it's just a little rough around the edges, and a challenge to work with because the full support of the ecosystem isn't there. So, for now, we advise Python 2: let's split some atoms.
Watching HN's reaction to Fukushima has aggravated me at times, and made me cheer at others; it's naïveté to exclaim that nuclear power is completely safe, but a roughly equal helping of naïveté to claim that there are superior alternatives at this moment.
(Edited for brevity.)
- veidr 16y agoYes, "at scale" is succinct and accurate, I will adopt that term too.
- gnosis 16y ago"Scientific American, a most conservative scientific publication, in a cover story on October 26, 2009 -- unveiled its 'A Plan for a Sustainable Future.' It declared in its 'Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables" that, 'wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels.' The British magazine New Scientist, in a special October 11-17, 2009, issue on safe, clean, renewable energy technologies -- titled 'Our Brighter Future' -- presented a United Nations report declaring that 'renewable energy that can already be harnessed economically would supply the world's electricity needs.'" From: "Renewables Are More Than Ready" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-grossman/renewables-are-more-than-_b_842160.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-grossman/renewables-are-m...
- Natsu 16y ago"Water" sounds like it would include such things as the Banqiao dam. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Banqiao_Dam I'm also not sure that I would take a couple of magazine articles as proof that we can manage all of those at scale. Don't misunderstand, though. I would be very glad to be proven wrong by someone actually implementing these at scale. It's easy to say "economically" after all and another thing to do it. After all, if power companies can save money doing this, they will.
- bricestacey 16y agoThe description of Scientific American is misleading. Sure, it's technically a "scientific publication," but it's actually a magazine aimed at the layman that you can find at checkout counters and airports -- not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that one would typically be associated with that term. To put it in a better perspective, using Scientific American as a source for making decisions on the future of energy would be like using reprinted Associated Press articles to make decisions on US involvement in Libya.
- wisty 16y agoThe python 2 code I write might be in use in 20 years time. But I doubt it. Nuclear reactors built today will still be in use in 60 years time. By which stage, they will be white elephants compared to newer energy sources (I hope).