We should have been building more nuclear. We’re not going to upgrade civilization with windmills and putting on sweaters. Think of how much power we’ll need for millions of robots?

▲

linkregister 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unit economics for renewables coupled with storage are excellent. I agree we should reform nuclear regulation to allow new nuclear plants to pencil out. I disagree that we should discount the value of renewables.

▲

vasco 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Solar and wind take up a bunch of space and generate a bunch of waste after the panels are decommissioned, plus the wind generators are ruining every single landscape we have. With 5 nuclear stations per country you could cleanup so much of Europe.

▲

leonidasrup 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The environmental damage caused by "clean" power sources is done mostly in countries which are far from Europe, so it's not much discussed in Europe.

Like:

Copper. "As the world shifts to wind energy and electric cars, demand for the conductive metal has increased. But mining copper brings its own environmental hazards"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin...

Impacts of lithium mining on water stressed regions in Chile

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/01/c...

Impacts of rare earth refining in China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth...

silicon tetrachloride from solar production

https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=831

Europe should not outsource it's ecological impact to developing countries.

▲

dawnerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

And the person you replied to probably doesn’t realize spent nuclear fuel has really no where to go other than long term storage.

	▲	constantius 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They probably are aware of nuclear waste and of the modalities of dealing with it, and still believe that not investing into nuclear is shooting yourself in the foot. FYI, a typical 1GW nuclear plant produces 30 tons, or 10m3, of high-level waste. Germany uses ~500TWh of electricity per year. So Germany could replace all their electricity generation with 60 nuclear plants and would need to find space for 1800 tons or 5km3 of waste per year. For comparison, German landfills can accommodate 70M metric tons per year. France, a country famous for its investment into nuclear, is not covered in nuclear waste, and does not seem to have any issue disposing of it safely. Nuclear has its disadvantages, but painting the many people who advocate for it on HN as delusional or ignorant is not very respectful.

▲

OKRainbowKid 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see how expensive energy helps us "upgrade civilization".

▲

rayiner 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Its only expensive because its been regulated to death. In terms of potential energy output in a given area its tops.

	▲	nibbleyou 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Unregulated nuclear energy is only going to show us how unsafe it is.
	▲	vrganj 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's been regulated "to death" because it's responsible for some of the worst man-made catastrophes of all time and has made large swaths of land uninhabitable for ~forever. Move fast and break things this is not.

▲

lionkor 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unlimited energy for 200 years is a good step, no?

	▲	TheOtherHobbes 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's hardly unlimited. And not if plants can't get cooling water because of drought. https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/25/france-takes-nuclear-rea...