<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>mseebach</author><text>First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small amount of risk everywhere else - driving, living in hurricane country, even flying isn&amp;#x27;t perfectly safe) regulatory regime, costs would surely come back down.&lt;p&gt;Second, funny how costs suddenly matter when it&amp;#x27;s about nuclear. Barely a month goes by without some new unimaginable mind numbing (wholly impractical) &amp;#x27;solution&amp;#x27; to climate change that we&amp;#x27;re being implored to consider, because it&amp;#x27;s about saving the planet for our children. Nuclear is a perfectly practical, &lt;i&gt;much&lt;/i&gt; cheaper (if still very expensive), 80% solution to climate change that we can actually start implementing today, but somehow it&amp;#x27;s not on the table. Somehow it doesn&amp;#x27;t seem all that plausible that cost is really the issue.&lt;p&gt;In short, climate change is the biggest issue facing the world (except nuclear and fracking). I&amp;#x27;m very excited that the NYT is being practical here.</text><parent_chain><item><author>afterburner</author><text>Don&amp;#x27;t even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It&amp;#x27;s not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial construction.&lt;p&gt;People like to feel superior to others by citing fear as the reason nuclear is being avoided, but the real reason anyone should oppose it is straight up costs, without even any disasters factored in. Any other choice with the current and next-3-decades technology is just pissing money away, when it could be spent continuing renewables&amp;#x27; rapid decline in cost.</text></item><item><author>niels_olson</author><text>My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll even allow for the high, high likelihood that more people will die installing roof-top solar than will ever die in the lifetime of all nuclear reactors combined. The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn&amp;#x27;t worth it. The lost of faith in technology, the loss of trust in science. The mass hysteria just isn&amp;#x27;t worth it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/to-slow-global-warming-we-need-nuclear-power.html</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>admiun</author><text>I agree. Nuclear fission power seems to be associated with a negative learning curve [1][2]. This means that as the newly installed capacity goes up, price per unit actually increases. As solar is already becoming competitive and is experiencing a positive learning curve (costs going down rapidly as production expands) it would be pretty silly to invest in nuclear at this point.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;thinkprogress.org&amp;#x2F;does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve-b389ef2de998#.p915rpshi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;thinkprogress.org&amp;#x2F;does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Experience_curve_effects&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Experience_curve_effects&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>afterburner</author><text>Don&amp;#x27;t even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It&amp;#x27;s not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial construction.&lt;p&gt;People like to feel superior to others by citing fear as the reason nuclear is being avoided, but the real reason anyone should oppose it is straight up costs, without even any disasters factored in. Any other choice with the current and next-3-decades technology is just pissing money away, when it could be spent continuing renewables&amp;#x27; rapid decline in cost.</text></item><item><author>niels_olson</author><text>My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll even allow for the high, high likelihood that more people will die installing roof-top solar than will ever die in the lifetime of all nuclear reactors combined. The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn&amp;#x27;t worth it. The lost of faith in technology, the loss of trust in science. The mass hysteria just isn&amp;#x27;t worth it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/to-slow-global-warming-we-need-nuclear-power.html</url></story>