[CarelessExpert]

Unfortunately you're more likely to just find confirmation bias here. The HN community (and the tech community in general) is predominantly pro-nuclear.

Personally, I think this article raises great points. If we could rewrite history and have built a thriving nuclear power industry 20 years ago, we'd probably be in much better shape now, at least with respect to climate change

But that's not what happened. Given the current state of the industry we can't afford to spend decades trying to right the technical and regulatory wrongs of the past now that renewables are becoming truly viable.

[GuB-42]

> Personally, I think this article raises great points. If we could rewrite history and have built a thriving nuclear power industry 20 years ago, we'd probably be in much better shape now, at least with respect to climate change

France did that. It is not perfect but I would call it a success. France CO2 emissions are low [1], electricity is affordable, and suffered no major accident. France is even able to recycle nuclear fuel, and is generally among the world leaders of everything nuclear.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?s...

[samatman]

People advocating for a reasonable position which they hold isn't confirmation bias. Reading a recitation of arguments you've already encountered shouldn't adjust your priors, that's for new information.

[aksss]

At the 60-comment mark, I count 28 comments that are advocating nuclear or poking holes in assumptions about renewables. I’d say the debate is pretty equally represented in quantity if not quality.

[wernercd]

> Truly viable

When you ignore the glaring problems with renewables? Sure... but why pay attention to rare earth minerals needed, massive problems creating massive amounts of PV panels, recycling issues, etc

We can't afford to let the burgeoning "savior" of our world continue on it's destructive path because the Religion of Renewables won't admit to the fact that it's Priests are doing bad things with children...

To many aspects and conversations turn into religious debates. PC? SJWs? Climate Change? Anti-Nuclear/Pro-Renewable? (or vice versa on all of them) all turn into religious debates with people who refuse to look at both sides of very complex issues.

[ruph123]

> recycling issues

You gotta love the whataboutism of the nuclear folks ranting about recycling issues of current renewable energy tech when nuclear leaves behind toxic material that has to be kept in a safe place for a long time surviving changes in government, potential revolutions, terrorist attacks, incompetence, greed, etc.

[sofixa]

When the main arguments against nuclear power are around cost, it's entirely reasonable to point out costs and inconveniences around alternative power generation sources, which for renewables are mostly around land use, rare and bad to mine materials used in construction, pollution around them and potential recycling, and the lack of stability. All those bring costs up, and some are outright ignored when arguing nuclear is too expensive.

[bigfudge]

The difference is, most of these costs _are_ factored in to renewable costs because there are few subsidies (at least at grid level). In contrast, there is a huge implicit subsidy to nuclear by punting the issue of nuclear waste storage to future generations. I just don't understand why we're still talking about this when nuclear storage costs, even when included, are laughably optimistic. None of the long term storage plans made since the 1960s have panned out. Everything is still in temporary swimming pools until the music stops and someone has to pick up the bill.

[sofixa]

> The difference is, most of these costs _are_ factored in to renewable costs because there are few subsidies (at least at grid level

It will depend on location, but across the EU there are massive subsidies. Furthermore, recycling costs aren't included and are just starting to come to light with the decomissioning of the first generation of solar and wind generation platforms. Their limited useful life,bserious recycling costs and related pollution, and all of those on the energy storage required to actually make them useful for bade load are rarely a part of the discourse.

> I just don't understand why we're still talking about this when nuclear storage costs, even when included, are laughably optimistic

How so? Most of the problems around long term storage are political. The temporary swimming pools are still good enough for decades or even centuries to come, while projects on underground permanent storage are advancing ( most notably Finland iirc).

[CarelessExpert]

You know, you have some valid points. Unfortunately, due to your demeaning and dismissive tone, I don't feel there's any point in engaging with you further.