Hacker News Reader

Comment by wojcech | Hacker News Reader

My two main arguments against nuclear: 1. Have we solved the waste problem satisfactorily yet? This includes accounting for war, tectonic movements, water safety and a host of other factors. 2. Are fines and punishment for not building nuclear facilities high enough as to be effective in enforcing regulations?

Iff those two are satisfied, go nuclear. Before, nope.

But even if they are satisfied: nuclear is a stopgap. Solar and wind are solutions. So I emotionally welcome everything which pushes those forward

View on HN

If you want to oppose power plants on the basis of safety, fine, but do not exempt the types currently unchallenged. Coal-fired plants kill more than 13,000 Americans every year [0]. Nuclear plants could kill 0. Their worst accident killed 4,000 [1].

Climate change aside, it's hard for me to see anti-nuclear activism (to the extent that it results in coal plants continuing to operate) as anything other than mass murder.

[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053-600-fossil-f...

[1]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/25/chernoby...

Why do people like you try to outweigh one bad thing for another? Yes, coal plants are bad, too. But how is that an excuse for nuclear plants?

It's like saying: Army A is better than army B, because army B is causing more deaths in this war.

BTW. The Chernobyl and Fukushima desasters are still harming society. These desasters are still in progress.

eh, Coals CO2 might even be spun into carbon tubes one day, still waiting for that feet to hapen to fuel rods

> Coals CO2 might even be spun into carbon tubes one day

Link? I'm also very curious what can be done with after carbon sequestration if you have any links for that…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=kQBlpENiFzo

Thanks!

Because nuclear plants can replace coal plants. Replacing a bad thing with a less bad thing is a good thing.

>how is that an excuse for nuclear plants?

Because if anti-nuclear activists were to back down and let us replace coal with nuclear, tens of thousands of lives would be saved. The death toll might not be 0, but it would almost certainly be lower.

I'd flip this argument around. Have we adequately solved energy storage and base power load problems with renewables yet? That is, can they feasibly serve as a primary power source or do renewables have to be coupled with sources like goal and gas?

If that's the case, sure, go full-tilt renewables. If not, then we have to weigh nuclear waste is a bigger problem than contributing to CO2 levels. I'm inclined to say no -- if only because nuclear waste can be a reasonably localized problem, whereas climate change from CO2 is global.

The main power loads are during daytime. So solar is a pretty good match to that, especially, if you like the US have large desert regions, where weather related changes are unlikely to reduce the solar efficiency a lot. Add to that wind power, which runs around the clock, you have a pretty good cover of the load. Of course you need also storage. That can be batteries on the small scale (also a good way to reuse old electrical car batteries), and hydro on the large scale. Just limiting the Hoover dam to produce electricity as a backup to solar should cover quit a bit of the storage requirements. If the remaining gaps are filled with natural gas, its a good balance. Natural gas produces much less CO2 than coal. And if only 10% of the energy load is done with gas, we should no longer worry about the CO2 too much.

> 1. Have we solved the waste problem satisfactorily yet?

Technically speaking? Yes, for sure. Politically speaking? Hahahahahahahaha no, nowhere close.

Not to mention spent nuclear fuel will soon be "renewable" in the future in terms of being used again to produce more energy where as it was once considered waste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com