←back to thread

425 points nixass | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
standardUser ◴[] No.26675532[source]
I'm a convert. I was anti-nuclear power, now I am pro with a boatload of caveats.

As a person who changed their mind, let me offer this advice to the people commenting here. Don't pretend there aren't legitimate concerns with nuclear power. Accidents did in fact happen and, given enough time and more reactors, will absolutely happen again. That's not a reason not to build more nuclear power, but let's not play make-believe about it. Don't pretend that just because we are better at handling nuclear waste it is a solved problem. It isn't. A hundred-fold increase in nuclear power generation would be a roughly hundred-fold increase in nuclear waste that must be stored away from all life for several hundred years (until we develop technology to resolve the issue, likely long after we're all dead). And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options and, even if we could drive down the cost, it will not solve all our problems. It is, at best, a big part of the solution, not "the" solution.

replies(5): >>26675636 #>>26675662 #>>26676109 #>>26676187 #>>26676196 #
1. syshum ◴[] No.26675662[source]
>>And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options

It is not really though when you factor in ALL of the costs of the main renewables (wind and solar), one of the big problems with both is the fact their output curves normally do not match demand curves every well, meaning when wind and solar are producing power, the demand for that power is at its lowest.

Thus wind and solar can only be a viable replacement for Fossil fuel and nuclear if you add in methods of energy storage, so electricity can be stored when it being produced and then consumed when it is needed.

Once you factor in this storage / demand problem the costs of wind and solar go through the roof