Hacker News Reader

Seems a tad unfair to cost in complete lifecycle analysis for nuclear but not its competitors. And the assertion that it can't compete "in any way" with renewables seems to omit some salient advantages - it has the potential to provide constant, basically unlimited power with virtually no land use and no ecological disruption of any kind.

View on HN

Virtually no land use, despite nobody wanting to live besides a nuclear reactor? My argument was that renewables can provide the same unlimited power (and the "constant" part can be done via batteries or other means, given sufficient investment. No other energy source comes even close to nuclear when it comes to "hidden" lifecycle costs. Alone the fact that a nuclear plant is not insurable shows, that nuclear depends on enormous public subsidies and will never be commercially viable on itself.

Interesting that I am getting downvoted without anyone providing any arguments or facts against my narrative.

> despite nobody wanting to live besides a nuclear reactor

I certainly wouldn't say this is true. I live 13 miles from Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Not only is its proximity a non-issue for the vast amount of us in San Luis Obispo county, the economic vitality it injects into our economy (high paying jobs, taxes, etc.) helps make our area very desirable to live in. For reference Diablo gives us $22 million in local property taxes annually, of which about $8 million per year is allocated to the school district. It's going to be tough when it shuts down in 2024/2025.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com