Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Most people would consider nuclear waste to be polluting

Then 'most people' don't know what pollution means. Nuclear 'waste' is a controlled output of a process that can and is controlled to not effect the environment in any way.

In terms of nuclear arguing what 'most people' believe is utterly pointless because 'most people' don't understand even the basics of nuclear physics.

> and nothing is perfect, sometimes you get a Fukushima

Nothing is perfect. But somehow people don't point to all the deaths that happen on solar installations and so on.

The fact is that nuclear is the safest form of energy.




People are somewhat irrational in nature and fear rare, but spectacular events more than the mundane. This is the number one problem with nuclear that I see it: no other power source has had anything on the scale of Chernobyl. The only thing that I think offhand could come close as far as potential deaths is a hydro dam collapse.

The reality is, we are all human, the world loves to throw unexpected surprises at us (such as the tsunami that helped cause Fukushima). So a Level 7 event is always a small probability. Even if it is much less of a probability than fossil electricity accidents and the issues from pollution overall are worse for fossil fuel, it's a hard sell because of the ways humans are wired.

It also doesn't help that the technology is mysterious to a lot of people as you mention. "Flammable material burns, makes energy" is somewhat intuitive to most people. Nuclear is not intuitive at all. Just think at how Hollywood tends to depict nuclear in the popular lore. :)

At any rate, my personal reason I think nuclear will never gain much traction in this modern world is that one of those "potential surprises" is terrorism. Nuclear plants are an acknowledged target. So at the very least, you have to add costs to safeguard the structure and really beef up the security around the plant these days. IMHO this would make any big central nuclear power solution quite a bit much less attractive.


> People are somewhat irrational in nature and fear rare, but spectacular events more than the mundane. This is the number one problem with nuclear that I see it: no other power source has had anything on the scale of Chernobyl. The only thing that I think offhand could come close as far as potential deaths is a hydro dam collapse.

You don't need to think of the potential. We have already had power generation accidents far worse then Chernobyl. The Banqiao and Shimantan Dam collapse in China killed 170,000 people, and destroyed the homes of 11 million more.

And if you want to rank energy safety by KWH generated, you can look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

We've also had a pipeline explosion that killed a thousand people, we have five Chernobyls every year thanks to the poor safety record of coal mining... The list goes on.


That’s a very selective response, but ok, I can do that too.

In terms of nuclear arguing what 'most people' believe is utterly pointless because 'most people' don't understand even the basics of nuclear physics.

It’s The point, because it’s their representatives that have stopped all progress in the space for decades. We’re not getting our nuclear power unless they change their minds en masse, period.


I agree with that.

But that's the original point why I wrote my main comment in this thread. The solution is there but the media and the liberal elites rather spend their time promoting solar and batteries.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: