Hacker News Reader

Maybe they should work on a nuclear plant that can be turned on and off quickly then.

The basic nuclear value proposition is [negligible fuel -> enough energy to power a country]. We should be exploring the options, vigorously. There will be less pollution than the alternatives where [large amounts of stuff -> enough energy to power part of a country].

View on HN

Nuclear power plants can load follow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant#Nuc...

This idea that they can't is a weird meme in internet forums. The reason they don't is primarily economic, not technical.

The whole reason why nuclear energy is not because it technically is inferior, but, rather, the NIMBY mentality of nuclear energy at large. Many people see the consequences of mishandled nuclear energy and immediately see this as a eventual reality for all nuclear plants.

We suck at risk assessment. We fret about radiation whilst fossil fuelled power plants have been releasing radionuclides and particles in the open air for about a century.

Coal based irradiation is slow and wide. It does not have the potential to render a concentrated area semi-permanently uninhabitable. There is nothing irrational about watching a relatable peer's life investment crash to a value of zero and deciding you want none of that kind of risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com