Hacker News Reader

Comment by deevolution | Hacker News Reader

The natural disaster was responsible for killing people, not the nuclear meltdown... maybe if we had been consistently building nuclear since the 60s we wouldn't be in this global warming catastrophe? Obviously speculation, but I'm curious what our global CO2 levels would be if all the major industrialized nations transitioned to 100% nuclear Over the last 60 years. Anyone happen to have some charts?

View on HN

The majority of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere today comes from power generation IIRC. A lot also comes from transportation, but less than power generation.

If what you say took place, along with the solar and wind power advances that happened, we'd at least be looking at a lot longer warming runway than we are today.

The plant couldn’t deal with an electricity outage for 24h.

An outage that was caused by something that, through a rare confluence of events, also destroyed their outage-backup-plan. The plant could have easily dealt with most power outages.

Not to say there isn't a lesson to be learned, obviously, but to say the plant couldn't deal with an outage is ingenuous at minimum.

Battery backup was good for 8h. Seems pretty risky to me, there are many scenarios thinkable where a power outage for more than 8h could occur.

For example some natural disaster, which across ubiquitously deployed nuclear would occur every day somewhere on earth.

>there are many scenarios thinkable where a power outage for more than 8h could occur.

Sure, and they thought of them, which is why they had generators as well as batteries.

> but to say the plant couldn't deal with an outage is ingenuous at minimum.

Did you mean "disingenuous"? "Ingenuous" means lacking in guile or craftiness. "Disingenuous" means having the intent to deceive, and is used much more often.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com