Hacker News Reader

Comment by njarboe | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear power can (technically) easily replace all fossil fuel power. It is a political problem, not a resource issue. It would take a decade of serious dedication and leaving behind a "safety first" culture, but no major technical advances are needed. On the political front, I hope one of the many groups working on small nuclear can come up with a different name for their nuclear fission reactors and make it stick. That would be more than half the battle to get the world off of fossil fuels.

View on HN

Why bother with the inherently troublesome for timelines on the order of thousands of years when we're already getting solar panels 25%+ efficient and prices low enough to beat coal? It doesn't even require a terribly huge amount of area according to Elon Musk [1].

The Fukushima Daichi crisis is _still_ happening, and I think there's enough known by now about the risks associated with nuclear fission power that it's essentially off the table. [2]

[1] https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZIGHv3khE

Agreed, however nuclear power from thorium seems like a really promising technology that is much safer than uranium and it seems like only China is pursuing it seriously.

Nuclear power is actually safer (joules generated per deaths caused) than fossil fuel power generation. That's with old fashioned reactors, and if you include deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution the issue of safety is far from arguable.

I guess you don't have very accurate figures on the deaths caused by existing nuclear waste in the future either.

Nuclear waste gets safer over time, so the risk diminishes.

Coal is a problem today.

That's obviously unprovable rhetoric, why are you spewing it?

We have no reliably accurate data on deaths and illnesses caused by the nuclear power industry. From the mining to the waste disposal, and the plant operation - they all have very significant mishaps putting cancer-causing radioactive materials into the environment where it circulates for generations. There is no way you can honestly make such a statement because we have no way of knowing how many of the people dead from e.g. thyroid cancer are the result of nuclear energy related activities.

Nuclear power plants do not emit radiation inser normal operation. Coal power plants do.

Also: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-te...

Coal is not _the_ alternative.

I strongly encourage you to watch [1]. Nuclear is such a disaster it's mind-boggling that anyone would still argue in favor of it today over the alternatives.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZIGHv3khE

In particular, the idea we have a safety-first culture is still a fair way off.

If motor vehicles were held to the safety standards of nuclear power, we would all be riding bicycles.

Deaths per joule doesn't account for the safety issues if nuclear power were more widespread. The deaths caused by weapon proliferation and the long-term ecological impact of more nuclear accidents doesn't scale linearly. We can handle an accident every decade or so. But if nuclear power replaces fossil fuels, we're looking at closer to one every year. It's unknown what the long-term consequences of that are.

> Nuclear power can (technically) easily replace all fossil fuel power.

It can replace fossil fuel power for electricity. Not all fossil fuel power.

> It would take a decade of serious dedication and leaving behind a "safety first" culture, but no major technical advances are needed.

Strangely enough, it's the clean energy lobby, not the fossil fuel lobby that is the biggest hurdle to nuclear energy. It's so strange to hear the solar, wind, etc advocates claiming they want to save the environment railing against nuclear power.

"Can easily replace" - you can easily become the president of the US, it is political problem, etc... It is better to rephrase it difeerently: "At the moment we cannot replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy, and we do not know if we ever will be able. Due to different economical and political problems." This would be more honest and would not conceal a valid pint of the author.

Technically, humans could stop bickering and fighting as well as keep nuclear waste out of the water table.

Thank you! Maybe the best 1-line comment I've ever seen on here.

Just a 'political problem'?! That means, what—the only thing stopping it is all the millions of people who think it's a bad idea? Not sure what you mean 'not a resource issue'. 'We have the technology' I guess.

Am just genuinely wondering what you mean, "it's a political problem". Sorry, I'm no expert. An explanation would be helpful, thanks downvoters or others.

the only thing stopping it is all the millions of people who think it's a bad idea

Yes, basically.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com