Comment on Can somebody please explain why the world hasn't gone nuclear yet?
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 days agoYes 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 3 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 🤷
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 days ago
You’re using ONE example to say the entire industry is full of shoddy work and overruns, when I’ve already described several mechanisms that artificially balloon the costs in the first place. You can continue to pretend you’re correct, but you’re simply not.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
There are endless examples. Just look up recent delays in the reactor under construction in the UK, or the hugely delayed and overly expensive one recently completed in Finland.
There is no artificial balooning, quite the contrary. These contracts always go to the lowest bidder who then proceeds doing shoddy work and later blackmails the government for more money to complete the works.