Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajsnigrutin | Hacker News Reader

We could still go nuclear, which gives power 24/7 no matter if it's windy, sunny, cloudy or raining.

But nope...

Nuclear is great for steady state power demand, but isn't a good match for peaky power demands, like air conditioning demand during heat waves.

You can use the excess power (during low loads at night) to generate hydrogen fuel, pump water uphill to use hydro during the day, etc.

If you've got a way of storing power, why would you use expensive nuclear power rather than cheap renewable power?

Tell that to France who has repeatedly had to shutdown nuclear stations because the rivers were too warm to cool the plant.

Never thought about that, interesting. Can you share a source?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-redu...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...

Sheesh. It really is now or never... and by that I mean the yesterday before yesterday.

Again, political realities don’t allow for nuclear in the US. The best that could get accomplished is that we start regulating how much pollution you spit out like in the above referenced “Good Neighbor” plan because all but the craziest libertarian types at least begrudgingly acknowledge that you shouldn’t be able to throw trash on someone else’s lawn

I mean.... daily blackouts vs nuclear... which kind of a politician would you want to be?

Yes, some people are stupid, a lot of "the greens" included here, but choosing unreliable and unstable power sources while demanding more power use (ban on ICE cars, ban on burning stuff for heat and cooking, etc.), is well.. stupid too.

> I mean.... daily blackouts vs nuclear... which kind of a politician would you want to be?

Apparently you’re missing some context since nearly every politician is risking daily blackouts vs ramping up nuclear production.

Do you think that every single one is mistaking what will go over well with the people or that there is maybe a political issue that changes the calculus that you are either undervaluing or have missed entirely?

Edit: I didn’t even engage with your question correctly. That’s a false dichotomy. The politicians are banking that moving us towards renewables with its associated risks is a better path forward than moving us towards nuclear with its associated risks. Moving to a new energy paradigm like nuclear also could come with the risk of “daily blackouts” as whatever that migration would look like plays out. It’s not a “risky” choice vs a “risk-free” choice

Reply on news.ycombinator.com