Hacker News Reader

Comment by drannex | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear is the only way to reduce our carbon emissions in both the short term and long term, and the best way to produce energy per unit than any other energy source.

When you remove nuclear from existing supply, you increase your dependence on fossil fuels. Renewables are not able to produce enough energy to cover the absense of nuclear, perhaps in the future, but not with our current engineering.

View on HN

> Nuclear is the only way to reduce our carbon emissions in both the short term and long term,

This is clearly untrue, to the point of being deliberate misinformation.

I am pro-Nuclear as the next guy, both from environmental and job creation perspective.

But renewable can reduce emissions and has been proven to do so.

I wasn't arguing to the contrary, my second statement was tied to my first.

Reducing or eliminating nuclear has the negative effect of increasing emissions and reliance on fossil fuels to fill the immediate and long term void that would be left.

Renewables do a wonderful job, but they can not, at this point, take on the share that Nuclear has to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels should nuclear be elimated.

As said, perhaps in the future. But not at this moment.

Is it now? I heard renewable is barely 5-10% of what would be needed to replace fossil. Nuclear would surpass fossil easily (nothing to say about cost or safety here, just output).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com