Comment on Can somebody please explain why the world hasn't gone nuclear yet?
poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 days agoIts the current reality in both the US and Europe. And looking at the various serious construction defects that are surfacing in French reactors that were build at a time when the government waived much of the red tape, these extra precautions save a lot of costs over the life time of the reactor.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 days ago
No you’re just ignorantly wrong. New plants, even ones built around the same time as Chornobyl, are LITERALLY INCAPABLE of breaking in the same ways. This entire discussion is filled with ignorant people speaking confidantly.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
No one talked about Chernobyl like disasters, please don’t argue silly strawmans.
A large part of the French plants had to be recently shut down for very expensive repairs, because their containments developed serious cracks due to shoddy construction.
I am not generally against nuclear reactors, and the ones already running should be kept online for the time being, but building new ones is complete economic nonsense and way better alternatives exist.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Yes it has been mentioned multiple times across the entire discussion. Besides, most people imagine containment breach when they think of nuclear disaster anyways, so it is absolutely not hyperbole to point out that it literally cannot happen.
Your attitude is similar to the fools who freaked out when they heard Fukushima was releasing yons of “contaminated” water in to the ocean. Water that is less radioactive than many natural places around the planet. Water you could swim in every day of your life and still live just fine.
The fear mongering is absolutely real and the ignorance about newer technology is staggering.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
Again you are arguing a strawman. I am talking about costly repairs and cost / time overruns when constructing them. Nuclear reactors are just not making any economic sense 🤷