Hacker News Reader

I'm going to come out and say, not even the last of its kind. Support for nuclear power is directly proportional to real, intellectually motivated support for clean energy (this is not related to the people that make dumb protests). And as that continues, we will see more conventional nuclear reactors being built.

View on HN

Nuclear is catastrophically expensive. Nuclear stagnated not because of those "dumb protests", but because economically it turned out that they made very little sense. Projects always went massively over budget, and then had a lifespan cost multiples idealist notions.

Are they expensive because of overbearing safety requirements? Partly, sure. On the flip side, Fukushima has now cost hundreds and hundreds of billions in direct costs. If nuclear power plants didn't have a civil exemption where governments bore the potential liability of damage (which is almost infinite), they would be unbuildable.

And yet still cheaper than doing nothing. Same is true of half-solutions or pretend solutions. In reality nuclear is more than cheap enough to do the job. If upfront costs is really an issue, then we should subsidize it.

And even with all nuclear disasters included, it is still cheap enough to do the job. If it is uninsurable, then government should insure it. Again, still cheaper than anything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com