←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.254s | 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 #
JackSlateur ◴[] No.45232229[source]
From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem. The issue is political.

Ibidem for the fuel: yes, you can depends on wild countries; You can also depends on Australia, Canada and India, which seems like not-so-bad countries (in my opinion);

replies(2): >>45232638 #>>45233681 #
zekrioca ◴[] No.45233681[source]
Solved problem? Have you ever waited 10000 years to see if the waste really decomposes and the area where it was stored is safe for kids to play?
replies(1): >>45236238 #
1. JackSlateur ◴[] No.45236238[source]
Ergo FBR, no 10000y+ nuclear waste, problem solved

(there is still very low amount of waste that have a long half-life, really not a big deal)