Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Krasnol | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Krasnol

> Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe

Who said that?

What are you talking about? How is a solar panel even on the same safety-shelf with nuclear material??

What are you talking about??

> A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011.

Which is again related to the Astroturf tactic of playing nuclear vs. coal and is not related to today's calculations where it is renewables vs. nuclear.

Would you please stop derailing the discussion with this?

Nuclear peaked in the 90 and is being overtaken by renewables in certain countries as well as probably worldwide this year: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...

It is actually renewables which lead to coal being removed from the mix. Not nuclear:

https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

View on HN

> Who said [that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe]?

Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that.

Empirically. Completely independent of whether you understand how.

And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year, 2025 was another record production year, the number of states adopting nuclear power is rising, the number of reactors is rising, the number of builds is rising, the rate of the increase in number of builds is rising.

Empirically.

And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels. Which is why almost all industrialized nations are doing nuclear AND renewables.

Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive.

In the real world they are complementary. Here's the Finnish environment minister:

"If we consider the [consumption] growth figures, the question isn't whether it's wind or nuclear power. We need both," Mykkänen said at a press conference on Tuesday morning.

He added that Finland's newest nuclear reactor, Olkiluoto 3, enabled the expansion of the country's wind power infrastructure. Nuclear power, he said, is needed to counterbalance output fluctuations of wind turbines.

https://yle.fi/a/74-20136905

> Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that.

Why don't you link to "the data" then?

> And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year,

I just gave you a source which proves my statement and shows that yours is a lie. Just like everything else you added to it.

> And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels.

Weird how they can't but already do. Must be some kind of magic eh?

> Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive.

Nope. This is a lie also :)

Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary. This is a fact and happens today.

> Here's the Finnish environment minister:

Why not add the French environment minister also? You can add as many ministers as you want, the world doesn't care. The money goes into renewables and they're the future.

Here is the source again: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

Good grief.

Your source shows exactly that what I said is the truth, and that you are lying.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...

The highest number for nuclear electricity production are 2024 and 2025, with 2025 being slightly higher than 2024.

      1965 25.539724
      1966 34.43329
      1967 41.006016
      1968 52.113163
      1969 61.783413
      1970 78.87466
      1971 109.70418
      1972 152.17516
      1973 203.90158
      1974 266.6001
      1975 369.8482
      1976 432.67142
      1977 538.5478
      1978 625.7944
      1979 650.8599
      1980 711.9242
      1981 840.75073
      1982 912.17755
      1983 1033.8127
      1984 1254.5685
      1985 1488.9216
      1986 1594.7357
      1987 1734.7332
      1988 1891.2493
      1989 1945.0106
      1990 2000.596
      1991 2096.3098
      1992 2112.223
      1993 2184.9646
      1994 2225.9788
      1995 2322.5298
      1996 2406.615
      1997 2390.0642
      1998 2431.1948
      1999 2523.7056
      2000 2540.46
      2001 2613.17
      2002 2654.78
      2003 2601.05
      2004 2719.41
      2005 2726.97
      2006 2761.59
      2007 2703.49
      2008 2694.72
      2009 2656.76
      2010 2725.91
      2011 2610.34
      2012 2432.22
      2013 2448.52
      2014 2498.73
      2015 2532.93
      2016 2571.05
      2017 2594.23
      2018 2658.7
      2019 2754.08
      2020 2648.33
      2021 2762.44
      2022 2639.64
      2023 2697.74
      2024 2777.11
      2025 2811.57

Well presumably you are not aware that you are spreading falsehoods, so it's not technically a lie. Though it's so egregious that it might just be.

> Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary.

Haven't heard that joke in a long time. Good one!

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

> Haven't heard that joke in a long time. Good one!

It's not a joke.

It's reality.

Yes, it's a joke. Maybe not an intentional one, but a joke nevertheless.

It has nothing to do with reality.

Why are you lying?

One of us is lying.

It ain't me.

As one example of many see previous post on nuclear production records.

I live in Germany.

What I wrote is and has been an actual topic of real world politics here.

There is nothing speculative or questionable about it.

Nuclear reactors are not flexible. To keep them in any way financially sane, you have to keep them running as long as possible. Even when the energy they produce is much much more expensive then the one from renewables. This is why they block the grid an renewables had to be turned off.

it happened before we turned off the crap.

So you are lying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com