Hacker News Reader

Comment by neglesaks | Hacker News Reader

This is already happening; Ørsted cancelled its two US Eastern seaboard windfarms in the US, saying that the cost of WE power needs to rise considerably for WE to become feasible again.

As for "nuclear being effectively dead"; the story you yourself posted in this thread says this:

quote: "By contrast, Russia, which now dominates the international market for new reactors, has 53 under construction, planned, or proposed within its own borders and another 50 in 19 countries. China is constructing, planning, or proposing to build 220 new domestic reactors, and 20 of its models are being built or are under consideration in 12 other countries."

And thats not even considering the agreement on tripling nuclear capacity before 2050, adopted by 20 nations at the COP28.

Can we stop with the ultra partisan claims, please?

View on HN

Offshore wind is at the extreme of renewables. It may or may not make sense, but it's not needed to kill nuclear.

I will add that with natural gas still facing no CO2 tax in the US the impressive thing is how much renewable energy is still being installed. The environment is oppressive for anything but gas; it's absolutely lethal for nuclear, to the extent nuclear can count it as a victory if existing plants can remain operating.

I reject the argument that being against nuclear energy is "partisan". I suggest instead that new construction nuclear is just bad when examined objectively. Nuclear partisans (and there the epithet is warranted) do not exert quality control on their "arguments".

>I reject the argument that being against nuclear energy is "partisan".

I'm specifically referring to your extreme rhetoric in this thread. Despite your continued claims, nuclear is experiencing a renaissance these years, and I see that it's purposeless to argue the point further with you, so I'll let you observe the developments yourself in the coming 10 years as they will speak for themselves. End.

I feel the rhetoric is warranted, given the quality of pro-nuclear arguments. I wish you'd be as offended by that as you are by mere tone.

I believe that offshore wind formed a key part of the vision for the United Kingdom's net zero transition. They wanted to use the learning curve to become the "Saudi Arabia of wind power", manufacture hydrogen etc.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54285497

Quote from where?

Could you please indicate sources?

BTW: you count a lot of "proposed" reactors. Proposing is easy, building is harder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com