Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway122kk | Hacker News Reader

Greenpeace and the environmental movement have a lot to answer for,

thanks to their knee jerk reaction to nuclear one of the technologies (note that I say "one of", there is a range of choices, not an either/or black/white choice, as is so often case on internet discussions nowadays)

we ended up with more coal/oil power plants contributing towards climate change

nuclear could have been the bridging technology buying us decades to build up real renewables (and/or fusion) and provide base load, but no cant have that, ideology trumps pragmatism

View on HN

We are where we are now. Turn your effort towards the future -- how do we get to where we want to go from where we are today.

The same attitude applies in engineering -- post-mortems aren't about assigning blame, they are about understanding the current state and how you'll address or mitigate any failures so they don't happen again.

If you want to be backwards looking, at least focus on what the lesson is and how you will turn that lesson into concrete actions that prevent the same failure case in the future.

In the future, there are 450 nuclear power plants that will need to replaced as they are retired.

There are about 100 nuclear plants in the United States generating 20% of the power.

Unfortunately, pragmatism like yours sounds unconvincing compared to the more passionate positions of somebody against nuclear fission power. It doesn't mix well with an expensive project with a long development time that risks being cancelled in a temporary shift of public opinion.

Greenpeace is a farce for sure, but surely some blame lies with big oil's lobbying efforts?

Are you saying these are two different things?

Touché.

Greenpeace isn't that influential, the reality is that the economics of nuclear never added up.

Also, there really is something off-putting about leaving behind waste that lasts longer than civilisation has.

Enough to impress college kids and stay at home moms to protest and oppose construction of new plants.

France is a shining counter-example to your claim.

That isn't that clear-cut. France has lots of nuclear power, but most of the power plants are getting quite old and eventually have to be dismantled and replaced. We will see how affordable the nuclear electricity is, after all costs have been paid. I don't think they will be replacing nuclear power plants with new ones, at current costs.

Still, currently electricity is way cheaper and much cleaner than in Germany. I certainly disagree with the amount of coal used in Germany.

That's a very strange way of saying "it brought them cheap, abundant, safe, eco-friendly electricity for nearly 60 years."

Yes, the infrastructure is aging. Yes, it needs to be replaced ... with more nuclear power.

It has a proven track-record. It works well with the existing grid architecture (which avoids massive costs). It's eco-friendly.

The thing that prevents nuclear plants from being built is not nuclear technology, but rather public opinion. Revisionist comments like yours, are doing humanity a disservice.

Please claim that nuclear is cheap only after all bills have been paid. Dismantling a reactor can cost a billion or more, the radioactive waste needs to be stored for millenia.

And France will show, that you can't just replace nuclear reactors. They are certainly trying, but modern reactors are increadibly espensive. So they are currently building... one.

> Greenpeace and the environmental movement have a lot to answer for

Gut instinct is that they were sponsored by shell corporations / charities to go after nuclear et. al. and leave other vested interests alone.

I've heard rumors that their budget dropped precipitously after the fall of the Berlin Wall...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com