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

Good grief.

In common usage, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, particularly in Germany where plants often consist of a single reactor. But yeah, that bit of terminological sloppiness is a total game changer...about what exactly?

Pretty much all your claims are, in fact, comically incorrect:

1. nuclear is too expensive.

It is not. It is clearly and obviously cheaper than renewables. See France v. Germany electricity prices.

Taking the most expensive outlier in cost and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Well, if you assume an honest mistake, which admittedly is difficult with that level of wrong. So OK: not comically incorrect, just plain old dishonest.

2. nuclear is unsafe

It is not. It is either among the safest or the safest form of energy production we have.

3. nuclear takes too long

It does not. Average time to build is 7.5 years, consistently. France converted their electricity production to nuclear in 20 years, Germany hasn't managed half of that in 20 years with renewables.

Again, focusing on a few outliers that take a very long time and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Or just dishonest see above.

4. nuclear is on the way out

There is a massive expansion going on. It was on the way out a few years back, but the catastrophe that is the German Energiewende made non-ideologically captured countries realize they need reliable grid-level supply. Russian gas backup isn't it.

But you obviously know better than those countries as to what they are actually doing.

Again, either comically incorrect or dishonest.

5. nuclear waste storage is unsolved

Do tell the countries that have built long-term storage that they haven't. And tell the facilities that are doing the intermediate storage just fine that it isn't working.

This one I wouldn't classify as just plain old incorrect, not comically so, as it is somewhat tricky to navigate through all the misinformation and find out what's going on.



> particularly in Germany where plants often consist of a single reactor

We were arguing about nuclear power in Japan. In 2011 Fukushima had one of the largest plants in the world, with six reactors. Many powerplants in Japan had more than one reactor. But you did not know that?

You also never seemed to have heard of the events at the other reactors, like the four ones in Daini.

Your list reads like that one of a fanboy, it has very little to do with reality.


> We were arguing about nuclear power in Japan.

Incorrect. The article was about UK, this subthread was all about France.

> Your list reads like that one of a fanboy,

It reads like a "fanboy" to you.

"I know you're a pessimist if you think I am an optimist"

Might be time to re-examine your biases and bring them into alignment with reality, because...

> it has very little to do with reality.

Incorrect. Everything in my list is true, and verifiably so. Unlike the vast majority of the stuff you've spouted so far.

If you think that actual reality reads like "a fanboy", then congratulations!

-> You have just discovered why it is logical and rational to be positive about nuclear power <-

You are very welcome!




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

Search: