<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>glogla</author><text>&amp;gt; Nuclear energy is the analogy of tech debt that can never be paid back, ever.&lt;p&gt;The reason why the &amp;quot;waste&amp;quot; is dangerous is that there&amp;#x27;s a lot of energy in it - energy that can still be extracted at a later date. It might very easily be very valuable in the future.&lt;p&gt;Germany is really sad case, where they stopped using nuclear and replaced it with &amp;quot;clean coal&amp;quot;. Terrible thing for the planet.&lt;p&gt;The Greens talk about nuclear waste and Fukushima, and meanwhile German green-washed coal plants and cheating diesel engines put crazy things in the air.</text><parent_chain><item><author>purerandomness</author><text>&amp;quot;properly sequestered&amp;quot; is the key word. There is no such thing.&lt;p&gt;Here in Germany, we still have not found where to put nuclear waste long-term, and there is no solution in sight.&lt;p&gt;Even if one day we find one, how do we communicate the potential dangers of nuclear waste to a civilization that is supposed to understand what we&amp;#x27;re communicating in 30000, 50000 years? With a fancy unicode symbol, like U+2622?&lt;p&gt;We have no idea what people 3000 years ago were trying to tell us with their fancy symbols.&lt;p&gt;Nuclear energy is the analogy of tech debt that can never be paid back, ever.</text></item><item><author>OnACoffeeBreak</author><text>Could you explain how properly sequestered nuclear waste is not less harmful to the planet as carbon in the atmosphere?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m my current view, nuclear waste can be sequestered and stored effecting only a tiny fraction of the planet while greenhouse gases effect the whole planet.</text></item><item><author>forgotmysn</author><text>i agree that nuclear can help reduce carbon emissions, but that doesn&amp;#x27;t mean that nuclear waste is less harmful to the planet than carbon emissions are. nuclear isn&amp;#x27;t any more sustainable than coal or fossil fuels.</text></item><item><author>anonu</author><text>Great video. I am glad that we are still making serious strides in nuclear energy research. Nuclear is the way to reduce carbon emissions in a substantially significant to turn back adverse climate change.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nuclear lighthouses built by the Soviets in the Arctic [video]</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclear-lighthouses-built-by-the-soviets-in-the-arctic</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>p_l</author><text>With advanced reprocessing as well as waste-burning containers, the question is about communicating it for ~200 years, not 50000 years. And it would also increase our efficiency in using the fuel to boot.</text><parent_chain><item><author>purerandomness</author><text>&amp;quot;properly sequestered&amp;quot; is the key word. There is no such thing.&lt;p&gt;Here in Germany, we still have not found where to put nuclear waste long-term, and there is no solution in sight.&lt;p&gt;Even if one day we find one, how do we communicate the potential dangers of nuclear waste to a civilization that is supposed to understand what we&amp;#x27;re communicating in 30000, 50000 years? With a fancy unicode symbol, like U+2622?&lt;p&gt;We have no idea what people 3000 years ago were trying to tell us with their fancy symbols.&lt;p&gt;Nuclear energy is the analogy of tech debt that can never be paid back, ever.</text></item><item><author>OnACoffeeBreak</author><text>Could you explain how properly sequestered nuclear waste is not less harmful to the planet as carbon in the atmosphere?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m my current view, nuclear waste can be sequestered and stored effecting only a tiny fraction of the planet while greenhouse gases effect the whole planet.</text></item><item><author>forgotmysn</author><text>i agree that nuclear can help reduce carbon emissions, but that doesn&amp;#x27;t mean that nuclear waste is less harmful to the planet than carbon emissions are. nuclear isn&amp;#x27;t any more sustainable than coal or fossil fuels.</text></item><item><author>anonu</author><text>Great video. I am glad that we are still making serious strides in nuclear energy research. Nuclear is the way to reduce carbon emissions in a substantially significant to turn back adverse climate change.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nuclear lighthouses built by the Soviets in the Arctic [video]</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclear-lighthouses-built-by-the-soviets-in-the-arctic</url></story>