Hacker News Reader

Comment by bargl | Hacker News Reader

I couldn't disagree more.

We have proven that we aren't capable of handling the responsibility that comes with handling coal/gas. And unless you live in a shack in the woods you're a contributor.

Nuclear is the only energy source where we have a 100% plan for the byproduct of energy. While I agree we really need to come up with an alternative. Nuclear may be the only short term stopgap that gets us off of CO2 producing plants in the short term so we can get to a long term.

No nuclear planet has sent our entire planet on a crash course with climate change... Every energy source that powers our lives has a trade off and a byproduct. We all need to admit that, accept it and then make a plan to live in harmony with as much of the earth as we can.

View on HN

All it takes is a decent natural disaster and you have a nuclear catastrophe. With global warming, this risk of an unusual or unplanned/unlikely event for that geographic region increases.

A nuclear catastrophe like the one at Fukushima is really bad, but it's only a factor of 10 worse than the normal operation of a coal plant generating as much electricity as Fukushima did. And that's for the coal plants we have in the West with our "clean coal" scrubbers and so forth. What we consider a disaster in nuclear power is closer to business as usual in coal power.

By all means replace nuclear plants with solar. But only after you've finished replacing all the coal plants.

Devastating natural disaster. Fukishima handled the earthquake fine it was when (i believe) their generators were washed away that the problem started.

I would never advocate for a nuclear power plant on the side of an active volcano. at all.

You put the right technology in the right spot.

Also, I'm really hoping to see thorium get more time in the sun because it doesn't go critical and cause a catastrophe. They melt down but don't explode (from what I've been able to find).

Yes, thorium plus smaller reactors would be nice. A few years ago I saw work being done on reactors the size of a car that are much safer because the fuel is only the size of a tennis ball and much easier to control as well as contain if anything were to go wrong. The issue I see with this approach though is that if there's too many then maintenance and monitoring becomes difficult.

Fearmongers like yourself have got us in this situation. If nuclear had replaced coal in the 80s we wouldn't be living the hottest years on record

I am a realist.

I don't know how somebody who calls themselves a "realist" would advocate for a known, actual, irrevocable damage to the planet over an avoidable, hypothetical one. Global warming caused by emissions is real, and things will only get worse. Society doesn't seem to be on the way of even considering doing the huge path correction needed to avoid the gravest issues.

Nuclear power is still an open question, avoided for decades now due to the false dichotomy of "nuclear or wind/solar" perpetuated by the mainstream

Damage from nuclear power isn't a hypothetical one. You're also acting like there are no other options. There are also additional options that aren't receiving investment needed to allow the technology mature. Coal power plants could also introduce CO2 scrubbers.

> With global warming, this risk of an unusual or unplanned/unlikely event for that geographic region increases.

This isn't true. Global warming, as the name suggests, affects the entire world, as its mechanism is via long term changes to the atmosphere. Also, it's most severe effects won't be in the form of unlikely "events", but gradual increases in sea level and changes in climate which will put cities underwater and make others too hot to live in.

That is incorrect. For instance, air streams are disrupted and change paths and the hotter temperatures increases moisture in the air which leads to more frequent and worse storms.

I don't disagree that global warming won't also affect catastrophic events. But it's my opinion that the most severe effects will be the changes in climate (temperatures, sea level, desertification, etc).

> Nuclear is the only energy source where we have a 100% plan for the byproduct of energy.

What about wind? The only direct byproduct is a bit of turbulence, and if you also include the infrastructure (generator, control systems, building, etc), it's probably less complex to dismantle than nuclear.

It's also extremely unreliable. That's why you need coal/gas to supplement wind.

We currently have no way to recycle the massive towers and blades, mostly made of fiberglass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com