←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.57s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.45230060[source]
I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
replies(25): >>45230185 #>>45230223 #>>45230479 #>>45230658 #>>45230757 #>>45231144 #>>45231518 #>>45231738 #>>45232518 #>>45232615 #>>45232756 #>>45232757 #>>45232937 #>>45233169 #>>45233513 #>>45233762 #>>45233817 #>>45233825 #>>45234181 #>>45234637 #>>45234828 #>>45235394 #>>45238856 #>>45240108 #>>45243016 #
AndyPa32 ◴[] No.45230223[source]
I disagree with cheapest. If you factor in twenty years build time and nuclear waste disposal, the whole thing is not economically viable.

Then there's a problem with nuclear fuel. The sources are mostly countries you don't want to depend on.

You are of course right with your assessment that nuclear is green, safe and eco-friendly. That's a hard one to swallow for a lot of eco activists.

replies(8): >>45230243 #>>45230248 #>>45230488 #>>45230765 #>>45231116 #>>45232229 #>>45232710 #>>45233448 #
1. retinaros ◴[] No.45230488[source]
sure state funded solar panel that you need to change every 10 year and batteries with rare minerals are cheaper.
replies(2): >>45230593 #>>45233969 #
2. looofooo0 ◴[] No.45230593[source]
Not true, lifetime is longer and there are no rare earth elements in battery cells themself. Rare earth are not really rare btw.
3. zekrioca ◴[] No.45233969[source]
Solar panels can now last as far as 30 years.