Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> you can never reach 100% renewables. So you need a backup, which is either gas or coal.

Why isn't nuclear the backup? "90% renewable, 10% nuclear" sounds politically-viable; it's still "moving away from nuclear."



No, a power source as insanely dangerous as nuclear is fortunately not politically viable at all here in the long term.


Nuclear is safer than any other power source we have.


All other power sources, except maybe hydro, are almost perfectly safe. They're a lot more damaging to people's health and the environment, yes, but that is a different thing from danger.

I wrote "in the long term" for a reason, by the way. I'd prefer to get rid of coal before nuclear despite the danger.




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

Search: