Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why California May Go Nuclear

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#11

Post by ixtli »

searine wrote: post #9

I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology. Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.

The really grim reality is that many environmentalists who correctly point the finger at unaccountable capitalists are themselves doing extreme harm by demonizing the only technology that can really help us in the next 10 years.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#14

Post by siffland »

We need more support for nuclear, especially research for Thorium-based reactors. I am all for green energy, but until that can become a reality worldwide we need something that can generate a lot of electicity with as little waste as possible.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#15

Post by JoeAltmaier »

searine wrote: post #9

I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology. Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.

And more plants could have meant decommissioning dangerous older plants, sooner. Could have saved accidents.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#17

Post by ashleyn »

searine wrote: post #9

I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology. Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were practically PR disasters for the nuclear industry and all within ten years.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#18

Post by option »

ixtli wrote: post #10

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained. But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be…

We absolutely need nuclear energy. 1) Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation (measured in death/per mwatt) 2) Once operational it is always on and will substitute for solar/wind when those are unavailable 3) Energy conservation long term is not an option - quality of life correlates with amount of energy consumed 4) imagine, what if, energy were so cheap that desalination is profitable in CA.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#19

Post by i_am_proteus »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #3

I hope they dont put it in a seismically active area, Fukushima used to be in one.

Diablo Canyon is in an area that's moderately seismically active.

It's easy to see the only lesson from Fukushima the meltdown of the Daichi reactors, but that was due to not being designed for the tsunami (or rather, the combination of earthquake and tsunami). The earthquake protections of other reactors (Fukushima Daini) worked as designed.

Modern reactors are safer than older reactors.

Post reply on HN