undefined | Better HN

0 pointseterm6y ago0 comments

Greenpeace isn't that influential, the reality is that the economics of nuclear never added up.

Also, there really is something off-putting about leaving behind waste that lasts longer than civilisation has.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

omginternets6y ago· 2 in thread

France is a shining counter-example to your claim.

_ph_6y ago

That isn't that clear-cut. France has lots of nuclear power, but most of the power plants are getting quite old and eventually have to be dismantled and replaced. We will see how affordable the nuclear electricity is, after all costs have been paid. I don't think they will be replacing nuclear power plants with new ones, at current costs.

Still, currently electricity is way cheaper and much cleaner than in Germany. I certainly disagree with the amount of coal used in Germany.

omginternets6y ago

That's a very strange way of saying "it brought them cheap, abundant, safe, eco-friendly electricity for nearly 60 years."

Yes, the infrastructure is aging. Yes, it needs to be replaced ... with more nuclear power.

It has a proven track-record. It works well with the existing grid architecture (which avoids massive costs). It's eco-friendly.

The thing that prevents nuclear plants from being built is not nuclear technology, but rather public opinion. Revisionist comments like yours, are doing humanity a disservice.

1 more reply

mc326y ago

Enough to impress college kids and stay at home moms to protest and oppose construction of new plants.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse