MAN9000
1898
34
11
There is no denied significant benefits to nuclear power. But there are two major drawbacks: 1. Nuclear power is always vulnerable to bad actors. 2. Energy companies are almost always bad actors when it comes to clean up.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-fires-artillery-from-nuclear-plant-ukraine-cant-shoot-back-2022-8
roysgto
Use the switchblade drones for precision strikes ! Be them at their own game
sweetfeetpete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal?wprov=sfti1
GyprockGypsy
Yep, you know, because all those people with freak mutations, right? Ain't nobody dying of lung cancer, huh?
RG1980g1mp
From what they have said about this plant being modern there are fail safes that would stop a melt down even if bombed.
AgnosticPaladin
Fukushima didn't have a meltdown. Technically, neither Chernobyl. If the shell of the reactor is blown off, there won't be a meltdown, but..
ps238principal
That's a major concern of mine. I'd hate for nuclear plants to be the responsibility of some outfit like Duke Energy.
Lomish
when Duke Energy Acts up, bring in Duke Nukem
AlwaysUpvotesCatgirls
Like the 11 they already have?
moonshadowkati
Coal pollution kills over a million people per year, we could have a Chernobyl-level meltdown every year and it'd still be safer than coal.
Smidge204
Well shit if coal and nuclear are the only two options...
lurkerthatoccationallywantstocomment
I'm all for safe nuclear power, but radiation sticks around for a long time.
Mohareb
Good thing new nuclear plants is stupidly safe then. Not really a concern there
lurkerthatoccationallywantstocomment
The comment was a Chernobyl could happen every year and not be as deadly as coal is. Context
PrincessLeliana
"there are no significant benefits to nuclear power" tell me youve never looked into nuclear power without telling me you've never looked.
dudehiemer
People still think its the 90's when it comes to nuclear power.
DrewBerg
Not what OP said. Try reading that again.
PrincessLeliana
I did, its a shitty sentence that is easily interpreted a few ways./
DrewBerg
Not really, but ok.
AgnosticPaladin
Let me try to explain/rephrase: nuclear energy is great on paper. But 1. It's vulnerable to stuff like this or other attacks and...
AgnosticPaladin
...2. It's managed either by the state or corporations, leaving it hostage to incompetence and/or greed. And when it fails, it's *very* bad.
AgnosticPaladin
For government incompetence, see Chernobyl. For greed, see Fukushima.
AgnosticPaladin
Note: i am (reluctantly) in favour of it. But it needs a lot of oversight; at this point there's not enough trust of the gov/corporations.