4 ms·

> This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. Okay? You haven't shown that an

by Timon3 3y ago

> This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes. > It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima) Is it a physical fact of life they are safer (as in, you can't to do anything wrong) or is it our regulations that make them so safe? The regulations you want to remove? > The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations Okay, did I say anything else?

fsflover 3y ago
> You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. > or is it our regulations that make them so safe? Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment? > Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model. I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Yet you want to remove even more regulations which would increase dangers. Remember, GP wrote: > There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades. Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that. Both are unsafe.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    > Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment? First, they couldn't until now. They might be able to at some point, but do you want to take that risk? We already have a safe solution. > First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Actually it does show that even Chernobyl's regulations were sufficient to be safer than almost any other energy source today. > Yet you want to remove even more regulations Where did I say that? > Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that Where did I say that? I would appreciate a quote. > Both are unsafe. Compared to what? My link proofs the opposite.

by Timon3 3y ago

fsflover 3y ago

> You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. > or is it our regulations that make them so safe? Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.

Timon3 3y ago
> Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment? > Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model. I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Yet you want to remove even more regulations which would increase dangers. Remember, GP wrote: > There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades. Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that. Both are unsafe.
- fsflover 3y ago
  > Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment? First, they couldn't until now. They might be able to at some point, but do you want to take that risk? We already have a safe solution. > First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Actually it does show that even Chernobyl's regulations were sufficient to be safer than almost any other energy source today. > Yet you want to remove even more regulations Where did I say that? > Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that Where did I say that? I would appreciate a quote. > Both are unsafe. Compared to what? My link proofs the opposite.