Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm afraid that the "coal is more radioactive" argument isn't going to get the traction that it did in 20 years ago. There are too many caveats and assumptions made in what the level of radioactivity in coal ash means to meaningfully compare it to fissionable radionuclides.

As measured by GHG emissions, nuclear power is certainly better for the climate. Whether or not that equates to "safer for human activity"? The devil is in the details.




> There are too many caveats and assumptions made in what the level of radioactivity in coal ash means to meaningfully compare it to fissionable radionuclides.

If the reactor is passively safe, the amortized level of radioactivity is zero, especially if the waste is "burned" in secondary reactors (such as TWR).


"if" and "amortized" are just different forms for caveats and assumptions. The level of radioactivity amortized over how long? Long enough time scales and the level of radioactivity is 0 for everything in the entire universe.


Way to needlessly misrepresent the argument.

Amortized over the duration where we are typically seeing meltdowns in gen1 reactors. 10-50 years?

> "if"

The article talks about modern designs. It is an aspiration, not an assumption. The central argument is that adopting modern reactor designs eliminates meltdown concerns (in addition to reducing costs as the article suggests). That isn't an assumption, that is a suggestion.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: