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

However rooftop solar reduces the need for a grid and grid maintenance. Are the deaths due to grid building and maintenance accounted for in these figures? It looks to be based on just production, not production plus distribution.



And solar increases the need for storage. There are certainly all kinds of indirect effects that might skew those numbers, and so it's very much possible solar does better. That isn't really the point - the point is that nuclear is a whole lot safer than many widespread alternatives.

While some would like nuclear to replace solar as well, I think most of those of us who see nuclear as unnecessarily maligned are more frustrated by how e.g. coal and fossil fuels remain in the mix despite the massive number of deaths they cause. E.g. the German decision to shut down nuclear plants and as a consequence needing to run coal plants longer will likely cause more deaths than all nuclear plants combined through the history of nuclear power.


Sure. I too am annoyed by the shut down of nuclear power plants. Any marginal ultra-long-term safety gain of not generating new waste is more than offset by the already sunk costs of the nuclear power plant. And the bad effects of coal burning.


Also, spent nuclear fuel is very easy to safely dispose of, we just don't want to because:

A. It's useful and can be reprocessed into useful fuel once that's allowed and we can do it cheaply.

B. The media and public would throw a fit if people started dumping (glassed) nuclear waste on the ocean floor. Because the media and public are completely innumerate and cannot do things like multiplication required to calculate the less than 0.1% radioactivity increase the ocean would experience.


> German decision to shut down nuclear plants and as a consequence needing to run coal plants longer will likely cause more deaths than all nuclear plants combined through the history of nuclear power

That's a funny way of spelling cancelling tens to hundreds of gigawatts of renewable investment which was to replace those nuclear reactors and the fossil fuels and replacing them with gas.


If they'd come through on that, before shutting down the nuclear plants, you'd have a point. Without shutting down the nuclear power plants a lot of that money wouldn't have been needed in the first place. But it didn't happen, and so it's perfectly reasonable to blame them for either or both of those decisions. Fact remains that in retaining the coal power they've caused a huge number of unnecessary deaths.


The people that made the decision to cancel the planmed renewables are not pro renewables.

Your bad propaganda is completely incoherent.


My "bad propaganda" does not rely on the intent of any of the people who did this cancellations. All it relies on is the fact that the shut down of nuclear ensured a reliance on coal that has killed and will kill a huge number of people.

If you're trying to make a point, you're failing.


Still incoherently blaming the cancellation of wind and solar on the installatin of wind and solar. It's like having your junkie housemate steal the money you were going to spend on a LEV after you sold your car and spend it on drugs, then blaming the LEV.


I've done no such thing. If you're unable to understand my comments maybe don't comment on them.


[flagged]


Your paranoid conspiracy theory thinking isn't contributing to the conversation.




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

Search: