Hacker News Reader

Comment by julienchastang | Hacker News Reader

I actually thought they were talking about the island in the Caribbean since Florida is not mentioned in the article. Anyway, in case you did not know, the reactor in question is in Florida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lucie_Nuclear_Power_Plant

View on HN

Saint Lucia[^1] vs St. Lucie[^2]:

> The name "St. Lucie" is originally derived from the name of a settlement near Jupiter Inlet, which was founded on St. Lucia's Day in 1566. Due to numerous errors, the name later came to be associated with the present-day town of St. Lucie Village, Florida, north of present-day Port St. Lucie. After La Florida and St. Augustine, it is the oldest still-in-use European place name in the United States.

[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucia

[^2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_St._Lucie,_Florida

I came here looking for that information, as I was incredibly surprised to learn of nuclear energy existing in the Caribbean.

It would be a dream to no longer have to rely on fossil fuels, but my native island is at the peak possible cross-section of hurricane, earthquakes, and volcano eruption risks, so I guess we're only missing tsunamis and dry forest fires to complete our bingo for "best place to build nuclear"

"... as I was incredibly surprised to learn of nuclear energy existing in the Caribbean ..."

You may also find it interesting that South Africa had nuclear weapons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...

I knew about it, but your post is the first I've heard that SA no longer had those (I only clicked the link because you used the past tense!). I actually thought that no country had ever withdrawn their nuclear program.

This might be the most amazing and hope-inspiring I've read online this week, so I'm grateful for you sharing that link!

Ukraine also gave up its nuclear weapons, as it regained autonomy with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

My understanding is that they gave up the USSR's weapons (and handed them to Russia), rather than them having built, owned and dismantled the weapons outright through their own nuclear program.

They could have spent substantial effort to make those weapons "theirs" (I've heard people simplify this as "they didn't have the codes but could figure them out") but it would have cost them dearly in international sanctions, versus the assurances and aid they could negotiate by relinquishing them.

That’s true. But Ukraine wasn’t just babysitting weapons made totally elsewhere, either. There was substantial expertise, research and manufacturing built up in Ukraine during the Soviet era.

I think it’s true enough to say they gave up nuclear weapons, even if they didn’t wholly own the nuclear weapons.

I can't be the only one to see that location and think "Holy climate change risk, Batman!"

Despite the appearance, is it uniquely prone to flooding or storm surges?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com