Hacker News Reader

Comment by sunkenvicar | Hacker News Reader

I skimmed the article and didn’t see a single mention of nuclear.

The article can be safely ignored - nuclear is the only feasible solution regardless of your position on global warming.

View on HN

Sometimes these comments make me think there are nuclear shills being paid to write overly pro nuclear comments. I agree we need way more nuclear, however its costly and very slow to bring online, so it clearly won't decarbonize our economies in the 5 to 10 year time span. Anyone who thinks it's the only solution is just ignorant of the energy industry.

Like seriously, parent commenter, tell me how new build nuclear is doing in the USA. How about South Carolina's massive debacle? You think that is the only feasible path forward?

It's costly and slow because of massive over-regulation and American regulators' retarded approval of new generations of technology. And no, there are no nuclear shills; wind and solar are not feasible nation-wide. They require a massive overhaul of the electric grid and a change in our consumption model of electricity, which no one wants (nor should he have) to do.

> I agree we need way more nuclear, however its costly and very slow to bring online

The other poster is correct that this is a regulatory issue. Other countries can bring nuclear power plants online in under 5 years, where it takes almost 15 in the US IIRC.

There is nothing that will decarbonize our economy in 10 years. Comparing nuclear power to magic isn't useful.

The article also doesn't mention solar, wind, electric cars or any other mechanism for fighting climate change. It's about the benefits, not the mechanism.

I'm not highly educated on this subject but you seem to be (as evidenced by your strong claim). Do you have evidence or resources for which I could education myself on why nuclear is the only feasible solution to any position regarding global warming (including that global warming doesn't exist)?

nuclear is a part of a feasible solution, it's neither the solution, nor the only solution.

It's really hard to build nuclear reactors and train operators fast enough to prevent catastrophe. Renewables are much easier to build and provide immediate benefits. It doesn't take ten years to put up some wind turbines.

I am surprised at the skepticism in this thread from tech people. Dozens of startups recognize the limitless opportunity and inevitability of nuclear power.

We’ve already seen two successful Green New Deals - France in the ‘70s and Sweden in the ‘80s. Both deals were built on a backbone of nuclear power.

We all want clean, limitless energy to grow the economy and protect our environment. If California and Germany had spent $680 BILLION on nuclear instead of “renewables”, they’d already be living in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com