Hacker News Reader

> (1) When nuclear accidents happen, they suddenly overturn the lives of a LOT of commoners all at once as opposed to slow and creeping and often "statistically determined" impact of other energy tech

Hydroelectric dams have the same issue. I also bet, that if one of those gigawatt lithium battery storage facilities had a fire, it would be a very bad day for people around them.

the dam water would flow away at some point, and in a few years, the area would be fixed up and re-populated.

The fire at the lithium battery station would burn out after a while, and the area repopulated very soon.

The nuclear waste land like Chernobyl is uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.

Does France not exist? Also Japan is already restarting its nuclear reactors because their projected emissions targets are impossible to hit without restarting the plants.

France: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29126898

Japan: in the past they invested in nuclear power, now they don't want it anymore BUT need gridpower and have no other way to obtain it than to (reluctantly) restart some reactors.

Lol that didn't age well. France just announced they're building new reactors to meet their emissions targets.

It is based upon a lie, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169515

Planes are socially and therefore politically non-viable because
(1) When flight accidents happen, they suddenly overturn the lives of a LOT of commoners all at once as opposed to slow and creeping and often "statistically determined" impact of cars

(2) technocrats have consistently failed to demonstrate the ability to create organisations that over the long term prioritize safety and the ability to prevent accidents over all else

Except plane casualties happen to the people actively opting into air travel; an individual choice can mitigate one's exposure to air travel risk. Not so nuclear accidents.

There is no practical risk in both cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Safety

It is absolutely comical you can claim that and cite a paragraph that concludes, “in January 2015, the number of Fukushima evacuees was around 119,000, compared with a peak of around 164,000 in June 2012.[174]”

> evacuees

This is not the same as deaths.

> (maybe with the exception of US Naval Reactors org - but who knows given the secracy)

Then perhaps the US Navy and their US Navy Corps of Engineers need to be tasked with building & maintaining a system of land-based reactors

Or maybe not. It was Navy training that destroyed TMI-2.

Instead of worrying about the loss off coolant, the operators worried about the reactor "going solid", which is slang for "no steam bubble is left in the primary coolant circuit". This made sense on the small Navy reactors they were trained on, but on the large land based ones. Arguably, it never made sense to take a submarine engine and turn it into a power plant.

I said the same a few months ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28219660 ). Maybe if we keep repeating this the idea can gain some traction.

Yes in retrospect this was definitely a missed opportunity to not put Rickover's org in charge of civillian reactors. But then the problwm outside US would persist. However trust is now lost, will be very difficult ro regain

Rickover was in charge of developing Shippingport, the USA's first terrestrial nuclear power plant. After that, it was largely necessary to pass things over to the private sector because of capitalism.