Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfortuny | Hacker News Reader

Oh, no, it started in the seventies, around that.

It is a mixture of "look what happens if we let everybody have nuclear power: now Pakistan and India have it, and there is a great chance of a nuclear conflict" (simplifying). And at the same time the ecologists, saying "NO to nuclear power" (I remember this in my childhood in Spain, it was huge).

Fuckushima has turned it into what seems a non-negotiable idea at any costs.

But notice that some weeks ago the European Commission decided to push for calling nuclear "green" (I agree with this) but also liquified gas (!!).

View on HN

LNG is green(er), compared to coal.

People want to not freeze in winter. They're going to try to heat with something. If they don't burn coal, and they don't heat with nuclear- or renewable-created electricity, then what's left? LNG in a power plant or NG in their home is greener than the alternative.

You want to go still greener? Great. But this winter, people still want to be warm, and if your answer is "create more renewable energy in five years", that's not going to cut it.

"You want to go still greener? Great. But this winter, people still want to be warm, and if your answer is "create more renewable energy in five years", that's not going to cut it. "

It looks like you are fighting straw men. No one here pledged for abolishment of gas or coal as of today. It is a general discussion of where we are heading.

So yes, how could we still be warm in 5 years. 10. 20.

Oh and the general question of whether our choices today will lead too much warmth in general.

Electrolyze the massive overproduction in the summer into gas, store it for the winter.

One possible solution, even though you need really massive overproduction in summer, due to the big losses in transformation.

I never said I was against using it. Just calling it “green” (no ‘er’) is simply false, misleading and against what they have been calling it for years.

I am all for nuclear and greener energy.

I am totally against doublespeak.

Yes, it was pretty big. I remember the slogan as "Nuclear power? No thanks!" in the UK.

So how did France end up being a giant producer of nuclear energy?

The UK, Germany and the Netherlands had respectively oil, coal and gas reserves. France only had uranium reserves in Africa.

Also, de Gaul figured out quickly that without nukes, France would cease to count geopolitically. To build nukes you need a nuclear industry.

> To build nukes you need a nuclear industry.

The corollary being, if you want to reduce the chance of nuclear war, you should phase out civilian nuclear power.

At the very least, we should limit nuclear energy to only countries that are declared nuclear weapon states. If necessary, the ban could apply to only building new nuclear power plants after some agreed date (e.g. 2045), to give some time to improve battery and other energy storage technologies.

Also, the nuclear weapon states should commit to using 10% of their installed capacity on atmospheric carbon capture, as a tax on the privilege of operating that dangerous technology. This would effectively be a carbon dividend for countries that had to forego using nuclear energy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com