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

Even if the truth is ineffective, if the alternative is to lie I will persist with the truth in face of this type of ignorance:

> [0] Nuclear power is never the best option, no matter what criteria is used. It's always more expensive, it always produces more dangerous waste,

Irrelevant; the waste does far less damage than the alternatives.

> and it always poses more risk to the community than numerous competing options.

The death tolls shows clearly that this is false for every solution we have for base loads. When battery/storage technology gets far enough this may change, but as long as a single coal, oil or gas plant is active, reducing nuclear is a far greater risk to the community.

> Whatever lives you thought you might save with a nuclear plant, save billions of dollars and decades of development and just put in some wind or solar farms or natural gas turbines or some combination of those.

Wind or solar farms can not provide baseload without billions in investments in storage. Once we have that infrastructure, sure, then we can consider reducing dependence on nuclear. In the meantime they can not replace nuclear.

Natural gas kills more.




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

Search: