Hacker News Reader

Comment by beders | Hacker News Reader

There's no argument for the safety of nuclear to be had. With an unacceptable failure rate for existing plants, very costly new "safe" designs and lower and lower cost for reneweables, nuclear is quickly becoming obsolete.

It shocks me that so many (loud) proponents of nuclear power plants are still around - especially on HN. I wish you all would have lived in Europe at the time of Chernobyl.

View on HN

Yet all data available on long term safety of energy production contradicts vehemently your point of view. Nuclear is by far safer than everything else, even when we include Chernobyl. Look at stats.

How many people do solar panels kill per year?

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...

"Electricity produced from natural gas has the lowest risk of the 11 technologies (five conventional, six non-conventional) It is a factor of about two lower than the next highest, nuclear power Third is a non-conventional system, ocean thermal, which can convert the temperature differences of ocean layers into electricity. Most other non-conventional systems have far higher risk. However, the highest of all are coal and oil, with risk about 400 times that of natural gas."

> How can unconventional technologies like wind or solar thermal (the "power tower" concept)have substantial public risk? The answer is simple. The production of the metals needed in many unconventional technologies requires that coal is burned

I get the feeling that this study from the 70s doesn't have all the facts that are relevant today.

You are right about that, since nuclear is even safer now than it was in the 70s.

1% is not a point of view. It is a fact.

1% of what?

I lived in Europe around the time of Chernobyl. To be precise, 301.59 mi (485.37 km) from it, in Chisinau (Kishinev), Moldova.

I think the three coal-powered thermal plants within the city limits of Chisinau did (and are still doing) way more damage than Chernobyl ever did.

'Ever did' - probably not. To you personally, yes, the coal plant would be more damaging.

No one is advocating for coal here. It's terrible.

"No one is advocating for coal here. It's terrible."

That is exactly what is happening. Japan is building new coal plants to make up for the lost capacity from nuclear.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trend...

Yes, coal is worse, no, a 1% failure rate is NOT acceptable. That is just a simple fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com