Hacker News Reader

Comment by zwnow | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

You're right perhaps we should just emit all the waste directly into the atmosphere like gas or coal plants do

Why don't the anti-underground disposal crowd advocate more for long term dry cask storage where monitoring and maintenance is both cheap and easy?

What ‘cult-like’ love would this be? If you are in a climate emergency it’s worth exploring all energy options and nuclear is one option for helping with baseload. It would be dumb to ignore it.

If it is an emergency why waste money on multiples more expensive nuclear power rather than renewables and storage?

We still need to decarbonize tons of other industries so why waste money on the one we have solved?

Good enough beats imaginary engineer perfect solutions.

Just cut off the general public from power for like 1/6th of the day instead of going for unsafe solutions. Considering the amount of bullshit we power nowadays we can surely live without power for some hours of the day until we find better solutions.

There's nothing inherently unsafe about small nuclear reactors. We've been using them safely since the 50s. You can look it up, you have the entire history of the world at your fingertips. Here's a fun fact: the bloke that was the first commander of a nuclear powered submarine (1954!) went on to be the first commander of a nuclear powered boat. And he got to live till 90+ yo. The tech is safe. The fear-mongering people are boring. It's literally the reason we can't have cool shit.

Whats ur solution to nuclear waste?

What’s your problem with nuclear waste? And what’s your solution to the waste produced by solar/wind?

The waste produced by solar/wind is no different that waste produced by general economic activity. The US produces about 600 million tons of construction and demolition waste each year; solar/wind waste will be small fraction of this.

So, the solar/wind waste bugbear is a red herring, since dealing with it involves solving a problem that would have to be solved in a nuclear-powered economy also.

The opposite is not true of nuclear waste: there is no high activity radioactive waste stream in a non-nuclear economy.

You just store it?

That sounds like a pretty unsafe solution, it'll injure people. What if a member of the general public trips while stumbling around in the dark? Or gets food poisoning from improperly refrigerated food?

As if wind, solar arrays, hydro, transfer stations aren’t?

this pearl clutching is basically why we don't have breeder reactors making use of all this "waste".

> the Ukraine

Careful, your mask is slipping.

It is Ukraine, not The Ukraine. It is a country, not an area.

It's The Ukraine in German and many other gendered languages. In German it's the feminine gender (die) and cannot be avoided when constructing sentences because the article used can completely change the meaning of the sentence.

> It's The Ukraine in German

They did not write in German.

> the article used can completely change the meaning of the sentence.

As it does in English, hence why I'm calling them out for using 1991 Soviet phrasing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233844

I wasn't even alive in 1991, why would I think about 34 year old phrasing?

Thats a good question, that only you can answer.

Didn't know I was being followed by the grammar police.

They show a keen interest in your articles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com