HN Explorer

Ask HN: Do you now agree that nuclear power plants are a bad idea?

7 points by soheil ↗ HN
Given the events of the past 24 hours I couldn't resist, but to recall the large support on multiple stories here on HN in favor of creating nuclear power plants. The largest nuclear plant almost got destroyed in fighting between the two sides in Ukraine. We are lucky only the administrative building got hit and not the actual radioactive material. It would be no less disastrous than Chernobyl if that did happen. Having more nuclear plants means more likelihood of an irreversible damage to a part of earth.

In effect, we're saying in event of a regional conflict we're ok with having large of parts of earth becoming inhabitable for centuries.

Why are we supporting the creation of nuclear power plants?

9 comments

[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 30.2 ms ] thread
liamwestray
No.

The only dangerous nuclear power here is Russia.

And no, it would not have been no less dangerous than a Chernobyl. This plant does not have the design flaws of Chernobyl.

wanderer_
Other sources of power have the potential environmental dangers during conflict - Remember Kuwait?

I think we should be using nuclear power and then using the resources that would free up in order to get the world to a more stable arrangement.

thesuitonym
>Why are we supporting the creation of nuclear power plants?

Because the alternative is fossil fuels that will render the WHOLE of the earth uninhabitable for millennia. We don't have the technology to migrate 100% to renewable energy at the moment, and fusion is perpetually 10 years away. We need to do something.

jqpabc123
All nuclear power is not created equal.

Yes, some existing designs are dangerous --- but there is no technical reason nuclear power can't be made much, much safer.

As an example, the US military is designing nuclear power units that can be easily and safely shipped and setup by minimally trained personnel in the field. Similar units could be used for local backup power in the US.

http://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2021/0...

ukraineally
For a long time the nimby and environmental folks have lobbied against nuclear power. You can look up their reasoning. Without nuclear, you are effectively arguing for coal or other fossil fuels.

Here in Ontario, canada we have no coal plants. We have some hydroelectric, but mostly nuclear. For every MW of renewables created, we have to build 1:1 parity for fossil fuel as we stopped building nuclear. So if the goal is to get to carbon neutral, we aren't doing it. Not even in the plans to get carbon neutral. Largely due to lack of nuclear. Now some environmentalists are arguing for nuclear power, very confusing.

I dont think we should build any more nuclear fission. The better future option is nuclear fusion. I realize we haven't quite figured that out, but lets build the first one and figure it out.

jbn
what happened was not luck, Putin's force must have targeted this administrative building on purpose. The goal is to scare the opponents and the world at large, and to show determination. IMHO it's not incompetence, it is a strategic move. (to be clear, it is still horrendous)
cinntaile
As with many technologies, if you operate them in a responsible way and you put measures in place to mitigate the risk it's fine. This is no different here.

In this case nuclear has a downside for another reason. It centralizes electricity production, making it relatively easy to deny large parts of the country any electricity access. Which is probably the main goal here.

goodpoint
"You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
moistly
> …almost got destroyed in fighting…

> …only the administrative building got hit

Which is it?