Comment by EricE | Hacker News Reader

Comment by EricE | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Nuclear power is very safe - far safer in aggregate impacts to the environment than any other technology. And even more important, it’s predictable - something most other “clean” energy sources are not.

As for “cheaper” - citation needed. Especially for handling base load requirements in reliable and predictable ways. Most of the cost around nuclear power, especially in the United States, is from bloated, ineffectual policy decisions designed to artificially suppress it.

I do agree we should be doing more with the existing “waste” - we should be burning it in better reactor designs instead of burying or storing it. Note I didn’t say newer or modern designs - we have had the technology since the 50’s to burn what we (ridiculously) term “waste” today but it wasn’t pursued for numerous political and ill informed social issues. These designs also coast to a natural stop if their support systems are interrupted, negating the problems of active systems (like cooling) failing leading to problems in most of our currently deployed reactors.

> Nuclear power is very safe

But is it only safe, because lots of time and energy goes into making it safe? If the systems keeping it safe no longer exist — let's say all the security staff are killed by a pandemic, or there's a civil war, or society collapses, is it still safe?

I can put a solar panel on my roof and not have to worry about it destroying my neighbourhood — even in the event of a disaster.

> cheaper

It's well documented now that solar is the cheapest energy source.

That may well be because it's had a lot of investment — maybe if people weren't so afraid of nuclear it would be the cheapest instead — but given that it isn't and we're on the clock...

Using old waste to power nuclear reactors sounds like a good idea — but is it possible in our time frame? If yes, then I'd be on board, but I suspect the answer is that it that it isn't.

A almost 1% failure rate is not safe. Not by a long shot. Would you fly planes that had these failure rates?

Also, it is the potential of catastrophic events that is the issue here.

Look at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant on the central coast in California. This thing sits on a fault line. Without a retrofit, it wouldn't have survived a Fukushima event.

If this thing would have blown up, half a million people would have been directly affected and massive cleanup costs.

That is unacceptable risk and it is economically unjustified to add more risk by building additional plants.

> A almost 1% failure rate is not safe.

Especially when to power the world we might be talking about 100,000 SMRs.

I think OP meant nuclear is only safe because of massive capital expenditure making it safe. A community of almost any size can run a bank of solar panels or wind turbines safely, but a nuclear planet needs an well-trained and expensive staff on standby to monitor and address any issues.

This is exactly what I meant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com