Hacker News Reader

As opposed to the crippling health effects of fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are causing harm on a global scale orders of magnitude more than nuclear. And not just physical harm to humans, but ecological and economic harm as well.

Nuclear is by far the lesser of the two evils, providing baseload level amounts of carbon neutral energy with nearly a century lifespan, highly regulated and being far, far safer than any competing energy source.

View on HN

I'm largely supportive of nuclear power, except for one problem: All new plants seem to require large public subsidies, both direct and indirect.

To get Hinkley Point C built, UK taxpayers have to guarantee an electricity price well above market rate, and the taxpayer has to underwrite all the loans, and the taxpayer will be on the hook for any accident cleanup costs above the reactor's $1bn insurance, and the taxpayer will be storing the waste, and guess who'll be paying for the decommissioning? That's right, in all probability it'll be the taxpayer.

In nuclear is the future, we're in for a very expensive future.

Are you under the impression that fossil fuels aren't similarly subsidised?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com