Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by Andrew_nenakhov on Thursday June 16, 2022 @11:07AM (#31766915)

I can hardly call nuclear energy to be a 'global failure'. True, 'green' groups had some success with scaremongering people to be afraid of nuclear energy, but it is generating 10% of energy globally (projected to rise to 15% by 2030 [1] ), with much higher shares in developed countries. If anything, the Fukushima effect has finally weared out, and we'll see new plants constructed which were halted because of that scaremongering.

[1]: https://www.world-energy.org/article/16596.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by pfdietz on Thursday June 16, 2022 @12:55PM (#31768317)

Well, it obviously is a global failure. It exists in places where people can be forced to pay for it. There is not a single competitive energy market where merchant nuclear reactors have been built to compete in that market. That's because it's just too expensive. Sure, reactors have been built to exploit monopolies, and where political considerations trump economic ones. That's nothing to be proud of.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by Andrew_nenakhov on Thursday June 16, 2022 @07:56PM (#31772439)

Just because you repeat it again and again, and use the word "obvious", nuclear power does not become a 'global failure'. I fail to see any arguments in your posts, just NUCLEAR BAD slogans.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by ncmncm on Friday June 17, 2022 @02:14AM (#31774635)

See, this is why nobody trusts nuke advocates.

[ Parent | on HN ]