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

Not only is the blog post black and white, the comments here are similar.

We have not leveraged yet the potential solar and wind have. They are easy to build easy to understand, make you self sufficient and are now the cheapest option from all.

In parallel there are plenty of countries who have lots of space and uran and could do more nuclear (ignoring the storage issue).

And geothermal is a good option in plenty of countries as well.

But funny enough people still think that nuclear IS THE solution while ignoring that the thorium reactor is still not viable, that we don't have enough uran and that they are highly dependent on water for cooling which becomes a big problem in the summer for plenty of countries.

Let's finally stop talking about our future energy mix and trying to do the best option for were you are.

We need to get a ton of energy changed from high co2 production to the lowest possible very fast.

And btw. Whoever this dude is he is probably not someone who would be able or allowed to build a nuclear reactor so his best option is probably to still be in the solar business.



Nonsense. Uranium is plentiful in Earth's crust. There's enough to last for the foreseeable future. Obviously it's not infinite, but that's not the same as "there's not enough of it".


It's not nonsense.

It's real predictions and a real risk:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

And the idea is that if we would create a ton more reactors that we still would need to solve real issues with uran.

And besides this issue, look at who owns uran and who consumes it.

There should be a huge motivation for the USA to start harvesting much more energy from the sun alone for u depends reasons alone.




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

Search: