Hacker News Reader

Comment by ElViajero | Hacker News Reader

> “Proposed U.S. Army Mobile Nuclear Reactors: Costs and Risks Outweigh Benefits,” authored by Alan Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.

It seems that more than "controversy" there are reports against it.

View on HN

>“The Army’s mobile reactor program, which was never requested by the Pentagon but rather by nuclear industry cheerleaders in Congress, is precisely how disasters happen,” he said in the report, which was released in April.

It’s interesting how nuclear gets an alliance between green groups and fossil fuel interests. It always makes me wonder how much criticism is in good faith. Nuclear can wipe out natural gas and coal and perhaps even oil with the rise of cheap storage. Fossil fuel interests have an economic interest in defeating nuclear with fear and regulatory red tape.

Debating it is difficult, its a really nuanced topic. It's way too easy for it to devolve into a "you're with us or you're against us" type of argument.

And of course, like you said, deeply entrenched industry leaders have their own interests to protect.

The article isn't meant to be for or against nuclear energy, but rather the pros and cons of deploying a miniature plant

How is that more than a controversy? There are reports that nuclear power is beneficial as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com