Hacker News Reader

Comment by smallmancontrov | Hacker News Reader

In the US we get 20% of our power from nuclear, we have for 40 years, and most of those plants were built before we invented safety. How much risk for 100%? <5x. Probably much less, because we learn.

View on HN

I'm not sure what you mean by, "invented safety," but the NCR keeps a close watch on old plants as well as the new ones.

Some levels of safety must be designed in, and those designs have the attractive property that they do not necessarily rely on continued organizational competence. Not that that's a bad thing. The more layers of defense the merrier, of course.

Some designs are resistant to one failure, reactor runaways; but the larger and more expensive problem is keeping radioactivated coolant and parts out of our waterways and waste/recycling streams.

If only the overall amount of waste were small, the transport secure, and we had geological formations in which to bury the stuff that by their very dissolvable-but-not-dissolved existence proved that water left only by evaporation!

Ah well. I'm just glad that renewables are finally moving forward. Better late than never.

> Better late than never.

Most likely too late as we kept burning fossil fuels too long and we are now facing the danger of civilization-ending climate change. All thanks to doomer propaganda like whatshisface's.

Amazing how powerful fear is - to manipulate and keep people down.

I come to the conclusion that the results will most likely be "civilisation supressing" worst case. It won't be fun but we won't end up in caves or extinct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com