The longer faux-environmentalists like Greenpeace continue to double-down on boneheaded anti-nuclear stances, the less respect I have for them, and the more strongly I suspect them to be fossil fuel industry plants.
reenorap · 41s ago
We need to drive down the costs of implementing nuclear energy. Most of it are fake costs due to regulation. I understand that regulation is needed but we also need nuclear energy, we have to find a streamlined way to get more plants up and running as soon as possible. I think they should all be government projects so that private companies can't complain that they're losing money and keep have to ratchet up the prices, like PG&E in California. My rates have doubled in a few years to over $0.40/kWh and up over $0.50/kWh after I go up a tier depending on usage.
pkoiralap · 2m ago
Asking because I don't know. How is enrichment governed? Say for instance if a country is only using it for energy vs defense/offense. And are there elements that can be specifically used for energy vs otherwise? Last I remember, having access to enriched uranium was grounds for a country to bomb another one.
tietjens · 28m ago
Article claims Germany is beginning to shift. I wouldn’t count on that. Despite having to import all of their energy aside from renewables, there is a wide-spread suspicion of nuclear here. The CDU made a lot of noise about it while they were in the opposition, but turning those closed plants back on is highly unlikely. Very costly and I’m not certain the expertise can be hired.
kulahan · 15m ago
With AI on the horizon and each server farm using as much energy as a medium-sized city, I have no idea how they hope to meet demand otherwise, unless the plan is just some equivalent to "drill baby drill".
RandomLensman · 12m ago
It would take a long time to build new reactors, so not sure that would help.
Germany could also do more wind, solar, tidal, geothermal (fossil fuels aside).
bluefirebrand · 6m ago
It is going to take a long time and a lot of resources no matter what so maybe we should be building effective longterm solutions like nuclear instead of stopgap solar and batteries
yellowapple · 38s ago
Not even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.
RandomLensman · 2m ago
Why would, e.g., solar and chemical or physical storage be a stopgap? Why spend 20 years of building a fission reactor these days (other than for research, medical, or defense purposes) which also make awful targets in a conflict? Maybe just wait till fusion reactors are there.
toomuchtodo · 5m ago
You limit data center power demand until the AI bubble pops.
Cool, your country fell way behind every other developed nation in this and you've missed out on a huge industry. In the end, your citizens will still use the products, they'll just probably end up having to pay more for the same functionality.
toomuchtodo · 49s ago
Cool, other countries can shoulder the cost of the hand waving grift, I encourage them to. If it turns out they succeed, lift their models.
gsibble · 16m ago
That's a shame.
anthk · 1m ago
Well, compared to carbon, it is.
gsibble · 16m ago
It is. And that's great news!
cramcgrab · 17m ago
The waste is something tho
kulahan · 17m ago
It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-enriched (renewable).
blueflow · 1m ago
> it's easy to store (literally kitty litter)
I showed your comment to someone who is currently writing their PhD on how to store nuclear waste safely. I barely understood half of what they said in the following rant, but they referenced the situation of the Sellafield site several times.
isk517 · 1m ago
Also you are forced to deal with it one way or another, instead of just dumping it in the atmosphere and washing your hands of it.
chrisweekly · 8m ago
Citing sources would be helpful.
binaryturtle · 5m ago
This is clean, until something goes catastrophically wrong.
(Which eventually it will. The more reactors, the more chances for it to happen.)
mgaunard · 46s ago
Meanwhile lignite mines (which Germany are re-opening) actively affect the health of everyone nearby, even when everything goes perfectly alright.
pelagicAustral · 1m ago
I'd say a reactor in inland Europe is far from the craziest place to put one. God forbid someone were to put one in the Pacific ring of fire... oh, wait...
Germany could also do more wind, solar, tidal, geothermal (fossil fuels aside).
Peak Bubble - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45218790 - September 2025
US Data center projects blocked or delayed amid local opposition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44097350 - May 2025
I showed your comment to someone who is currently writing their PhD on how to store nuclear waste safely. I barely understood half of what they said in the following rant, but they referenced the situation of the Sellafield site several times.
(Which eventually it will. The more reactors, the more chances for it to happen.)