Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyzzyz | Hacker News Reader

Same can be said about cities: they are vulnerable to water issues (if a city loses access to water, it’s a major disaster), and military can weaponize them as fortification.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t build cities? No, obviously not, that’s silly: it just means that you have to make sure water is flowing, and that military invasions are hugely destructive.

View on HN

That isn't a good analogy.

Cities have multiple water sources, and it is a very complex system. Not to mention we have special trucks and responses when that happens (at least in the USA).

Nuclear has some problems.

Do cities have redundant water sources though? Not all of NYC's water goes through Hillview Reservoir, but it seems like a pretty serious vulnerability to me. It doesn't seem like a terrible analogy.

But cities are worth the risk, can you say the same about nuclear plants? Most established designs can't operate as peaker plants, or even seasonal plants (eg: covering for solar in the winter when there is less sun and more load for heating). They are expensive because they are mired in political issues and red tape. I don't think it has to be like that, and I wish it weren't. But is fixing nuclear an easier problem to solve than to invest in grid storage and more dynamic pricing?

It is a good question, and I am not sure either.

That's a bizarre argument when the point being made is that solar is an alternative that doesn't have those problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com