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

> We have no idea what the worst-case looks like.

It looks like the Fukushima meltdowns, which with better reactors design would have been manageable.

If you want to get worked up about risks, do the math on meteor and comet impacts. There is a reason that American defense planners are blasé about nuclear reactors and worked up about extraterrestrial impactors. It's only a matter of time before we lose a city to a meteor. That's lose, not temporarily evacuate or have an unfortunate increase in cancer rates.



It looks like the Fukushima meltdowns, which with better reactors design would have been manageable.

Perhaps. An energy shield (like in starwars!) would also make them safe. But we don't have these things. Most reactors are over 20 years old[1] and not going to be replaced with better designs any time soon.

If you want to get worked up about risks, do the math on meteor and comet impacts

We can't do anything about meteors and comets. But we can get rid of nuclear plants.

[1] http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/npp-ww-a...


Newer designs are not used because the environmentalists would rather have political power than electrical power. We have the know-how to design standardized reactors and build them by the hundreds, but not the will.

The meteor problem is even easier to solve. We need to build observation telescopes, lots of them. We then use off-the-shelf rockets to paycheck off-the-shelf nuclear bomb interceptors mounted on almost-off-the-shelf delivery platforms.


Yes, why use simple cheap solar panels that can easily be replaced if we can over engineer everything to the nth degree? Thank you for illuminating the core difficulty of too much centralisation: mounting problems and mounting costs.

Looking at Fukushima, it is not the terrorists and the meteors that frighten me the most. It is the simple combination of the everyday events like earthquakes, with corruption, inefficiency, cost-cutting and the culture of secrecy that fosters and supports it all. These are the real but invisible dangers that you cannot shoot down from your robotic space platforms.


Newer designs are not used because the environmentalists would rather have political power than electrical power.

Wait a minute. Last I checked it was not "environmentalists" running these facilities?

Also, nobody would turn against a design that can be proven safe. The problem is: that design doesn't exist.

The meteor problem is even easier to solve.

Your naivety is somewhat amusing. It seems you are watching too many bad hollywood movies.




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

Search: