←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
pzo ◴[] No.45230765[source]
but comparing to solar / wind there you also have to factor batteries production, battery replacement, wind turbine replacement and recycling (they are not easily recyclable), cleaning solar panels etc.
replies(2): >>45230914 #>>45233664 #
1. zekrioca ◴[] No.45233664[source]
They are easily recyclable. Nuclear isn’t, unless of course you have a 24/7 protected and monitored by 100’s of people storage place to keep all that safe for the next 10000 years. Very ‘cheap’ indeed.