Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tenoke | Hacker News Reader

>I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but I've always thought that was a hugely stupid idea in the first place. Instead of shutting down nuclear power plants, we should have doubled down on them and spent more money on research to make them safer (as I understand it, there's still many unexplored concepts to make nuclear power much safer and reduce nuclear waste) and more efficient.

It's a very common opinion among people who have researched this significantly, but not all that common in the general population, sadly.

View on HN

I make my living off of the splitting of atoms, so the opinions I hear are not reflective of the broader population. It's always interesting to hear what people in the wider-world think. A big part of the perception problem, I think, is that people don't really spend a lot of time to do significant research about how power is made. This is understandable--the power industry is kind of setup to keep the generation side hidden (both physically and figuratively). All most people really need to know is that when they plug it in to the wall, electricity will flow from somewhere and their vacuum (or whatever) will work. I suppose that's something that needs to change.

I also wish it were more practical for interested people to tour operating nuclear power plants. They're amazing feats of engineering and operations--and that's very evident everywhere you look at most plants--but they're not so easy to visit for most people.

> They're amazing feats of engineering and operations [...] but they're not so easy to visit for most people.

Why is that knowledge important for a risk analysis?

Also, renewable power plants of all types (wind, solar, water, etc.) are also amazing feats of engineering. So I don't see this impacting the argument in any particular direction.

>>spent more money on research to make them safer

>It's a very common opinion among people who have researched this significantly

The nuclear industry has spent a lot on PR to convince the public that they're safer but so far criminal liability for accidents is still minimized and the liability cap (i.e. free government insurance for accidents) is still incredibly low.

I'd personally be more convinced of their frequent protestations that they're 100% safe if they lobbied to increase their own liability rather than engaged public relations firms to put a happy face on their industry.

Actions do speak louder than words, don't you think?

Moreover, if you raised the liability then the research into making them safer ought to more or less take care of itself. The greatest incentive for executives is avoiding criminal liability.

Not being able to explain it to the general public like they are three years old is one of the mayor flaws of nuclear.

Renewables aren't explained any differently though; and many people, sadly, don't really care to listen to any explanation; they just have an image in their minds and are happy with that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com