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

So nuclear is cheaper if one takes the numbers from the industry for cost, while ignoring the problem of spend fuel. And ignoring the actual main cost of nuclear power, which empirically is the property damage in Pripyat and Fukushima.



>Pripyat

The USSR was horrendous at building things in a safe manner. Go look at their track record building submarines vs. the US. Someone making a shitty version of something and it being bad is not a good argument against making a proper version of it.

>Fukushima

I've spent a fair amount of words talking about Fukushima elsewhere in here, so I'll keep this short:

A 4 decade old plant that was being decommissioned was hit by a 9.0 earthquake and massive tsunami, among the worst in modern history, and still could have been fine if it had better design choices (Higher seawall, backup generators not being stored underground) or if the condensers had been serviced in the past decades rather than being left sitting there to break down since the plant's opening. The issues with Fukushima were not hard ones to solve - they were a matter of negligence, and that is an argument for making sure we aren't negligent, not not doing something in the first place.


Thing is, catastrophic failure occurs if safety assumptions fail. There is nothing in your argument that improves my opinion of the current safety assumptions.




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

Search: