And before teaching lessons to Eastern European countries, remember that the West had 50 years after the WWII to build up the economy and infrastructure. It would be only fair to let Eastern European countries to develop for the same period, without demanding them pay the costs of higher energy prices.
- nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis
- unsafe nuclear energy is the only way for nuclear energy to fend off the climate crisis
- the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis
Until you do that I will prefer the lower risk option.
This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. See also:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987
> - unsafe nuclear energy
It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#/media/Fil...
> - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis
The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change
Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes.
> It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima)
Is it a physical fact of life they are safer (as in, you can't to do anything wrong) or is it our regulations that make them so safe? The regulations you want to remove?
> The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations
Okay, did I say anything else?
Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that.
> or is it our regulations that make them so safe?
Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.
Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment?
> Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.
I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Yet you want to remove even more regulations which would increase dangers. Remember, GP wrote:
> There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades.
Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that. Both are unsafe.
First, they couldn't until now. They might be able to at some point, but do you want to take that risk? We already have a safe solution.
> First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations.
Actually it does show that even Chernobyl's regulations were sufficient to be safer than almost any other energy source today.
> Yet you want to remove even more regulations
Where did I say that?
> Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that
Where did I say that? I would appreciate a quote.
> Both are unsafe.
Compared to what? My link proofs the opposite.
[1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-3903/insights-from-the-thre...