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

In France, where nuclear is 80% of the electricity (we really played big the game of "oh but we care about nuclear tech for civilian use only" while irradiating Tahiti for military testings).

I like nuclear myself: it's a military technology so the more we know as a country the more we'll be able to sell around as consultants, it's much cleaner for the atmosphere when it works (but yeah failures are horrifying), there is hope the waste materials will one day be reused, and it can be switched on or off more easily than solar (at night) or wind (at rest).

But I heard it's very very VERY expensive and barely profitable on output gain alone (but VERY profitable as a military lab I suppose to have all those nuclear tech people), it's hard to argue with someone whose children are born disfigured today because of waste leaks that at least in 200 years we won't all be dead due to fossil fuel abuse, and it's hard to convince a younger, less objective part of the population who jump at "not renewable = not good".

If with 1Kg of antimatter we could generate 200 years of Paris light, maybe we don't care if it's renewable. In fact, renewable just means "very very very long lasting" since the sun is dying and the earth is slowing down anyway :D




>it's hard to argue with someone whose children are born disfigured today because of waste leaks

Is that actually happening?


No, it is not.


You're living in the 70s, modern plants cannot be repurposed for military use and also have no physical way to blow up.


Well the French plants are from the 70s.


That does not change the fact that the French plants were built in part for plutonium production, in the 1970s.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: