3 ms·

I'm always shocked by how many anti-nuclear power people are on HN. So many have bought into fearmongering and lies about safety that oil and gas companies are

by 0xTJ 4y ago

I'm always shocked by how many anti-nuclear power people are on HN. So many have bought into fearmongering and lies about safety that oil and gas companies are happy to encourage. It's a non-reweable but quite clean and incredibly safe method of power generation. It produces far less harm to the environment than fossil fuel generation, which should be decommissioned as quickly as possible. Every time a government chooses too replace nuclear generation with fossil fuels out of choice (I'm looking at you, Germany), they're a traitor to their own people, and to all humans. And I'll never understand "green" people who actively protest against nuclear power. Yes, renewable power is better. But most of the power generated comes from fossil fuels, that needs to stop as soon as possible, which isn't happening in the short term via only renewable power. I highly recommend watching this video by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ.

Tepix 4y ago
For me it's the opposite, there's a ton of pro-nuclear people on HN who ignore • our past failures to get long-term storage of nuclear waste right • the cost and time overruns for building nuclear plants in the last several decades • the possible catastrophic failures even in a country like Japan • the long term storage issue and its cost. These serious unsolved issues are being hand-waved away again and again.
- 0xTJ 4y ago
  * Long-term storage plans tend to be pretty solid, but then people remotely near it get rallied to protest it. * Any cases of that are management issues, not nuclear power generation issues. * Making safe nuclear reactors is a well-understood challenge. Even if you do include all incidents that have happened with outdated, flawed reactors, going all the way back, nuclear reactors have cause far less environmental damage and far fewer deaths per power unit than fossil fuels do. Also, this article is about SMRs, which have very different requirements. * Nuclear waste storage is a solved issue, this just repeats the first point.

by 0xTJ 4y ago

Tepix 4y ago

For me it's the opposite, there's a ton of pro-nuclear people on HN who ignore • our past failures to get long-term storage of nuclear waste right • the cost and time overruns for building nuclear plants in the last several decades • the possible catastrophic failures even in a country like Japan • the long term storage issue and its cost. These serious unsolved issues are being hand-waved away again and again.

0xTJ 4y ago
* Long-term storage plans tend to be pretty solid, but then people remotely near it get rallied to protest it. * Any cases of that are management issues, not nuclear power generation issues. * Making safe nuclear reactors is a well-understood challenge. Even if you do include all incidents that have happened with outdated, flawed reactors, going all the way back, nuclear reactors have cause far less environmental damage and far fewer deaths per power unit than fossil fuels do. Also, this article is about SMRs, which have very different requirements. * Nuclear waste storage is a solved issue, this just repeats the first point.