There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-1 points

All of them, on both sides of the “green spectrum” are either insane or ignoring reality.

Closing existing nuclear power plants is wasteful if they are still safe to run.

Creating new fission based power plants is useless because they will not be ready in time to make a bit of difference, separate from the fact that increasing surface water temperatures will render most of these units unusable/inefficient in the next decade or so.

Renewables+storage will be safer and at a much lower cost.

None of this will help save the “planet”. Reduction of (the growth of) carbon emissions is insufficient to cool the planet down in any way shape or form to a degree that helps in time to prevent disaster/extinction.

Increasing earths albedo is the only method currently achievable to get from +2W/m² forcing to -2W in time to save at least something of our current habitat but those sort of literally world saving options is drowned out by a discussion about how big energy can wring more subsidies from the public coffers by promising that Nuclear will save the day and having “Green” proponents make the argument for them. Don’t be fooled. Stop wasting public money on big, slow and ultimately wasteful projects just so energy companies can keep themselves alive.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Renewable + storage on the scale we need is not cheaper. And nuclear wont’ be too late. Or we’re already too late even for renewable at this point.

There is exactly one study that says nuclear is too costly, and it’s very much propaganda because it ignores most of history of building nuclear power plant and it discards some important sources about the subject because they’re deemed not objective enough, which is quite hilarious to read.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Horizon for going into production of a NPP is at least a decade, more likely two. By that time storage techniques and renewable prduction will be able to cope handsomely and at a lower price, so yes, too late. And yes we are much too late in reducing carbon output (output is still growing) and capturing greenhouse gasses is miles away from being relevant to cooling the planet.

Influx reduction is our best bet and it will have to happen quickly or this planet is going to be hard to live on.

Nuclear is not the future or even the present.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The mean time to build a nuclear power plant is 7 years. France was able to build 60 reactors in 30 years, some of which in 5 years. That’s something that was done, that history proves we can do it, and we can probably do even better.

Meanwhile there isn’t enough lithium production in the world to do the same for renewables.

Propaganda is only propaganda. When ecofasfists will start to actually fight for the climate rather than for their fantasies, everyone will win.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Hacker News

!hackernews@derp.foo

Create post

This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.

Rules
  1. Keep it legal
  2. Keep it civil and SFW
  3. Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators