Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

>Getting the NRC to approve them is one thing, getting a city to allow a nuclear power plant of any kind in their back yard is a whole other ball-game.

Some rust belt city that doesn't have the luxury of making decisions in a way other than "strictly by the numbers" in a state that isn't inclined to meddle in local matters will go for it if those numbers make sense.

View on HN

There is a cost to long distance transmission which distorts those numbers, presumably.

Rust Belt cities use electricity, too.

Perhaps even more than expected — aluminum refining uses up a huge percentage (20%?) of total US GWHs produced.

I'm always in awe of how out of touch a lot of SV people are. The Rust Belt has cities. They have people. The rest of the country has people. The San Francisco-San Jose axis and NYC/LA are not the only parts of the country that matter. In Detroit alone, 6 million people live in the surrounding metro area. Cleveland? 2 million. Pittsburgh? 2.5.

Nuclear would be a great way to replace coal and create new jobs as well. And that part of the country is prime for innovation in the energy sector having been dominated by coal for the last century and a half.

Michigan produces ~25% of its power via nuclear. Ohio has 5 nuclear plants including several near Cleveland. Pennsylvania produces the second most nuclear power of any state and ~35% of its total power that way. Illinois has the most nuclear capacity in the country and generates over half its power that way.

The Rust Belt has tons of nuclear penetration already. It's the west coast specifically that is lacking nuclear power. Either because hydro/solar are better options or regulatory reasons, I don't know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com