• Binzy_Boi@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Nuclear’s always a fun idea until someone decides to commit an act of domestic terrorism. Or until some freaks decide to target the nuclear facilities of their enemies.

    • Eq0@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s why nuclear facilities security is so stringent and fail safes are everywhere

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Every country using nuclear power has incidents with covered-up leaks or near-core-melt incidents in reactors, if you dig a bit deeper. I’m swiss and know of multiple of them* in Swiss, France and Germany. Imagine how it looks in a absolutistic 3rd-world country.
        Btw, the one in Ucraine was forcefully taken over by Russia (with international diplomatic pressure caused only by them firing on the outer walls) and power cut.

        About fail safes; historic statistic mean is every 25 years somewhere all of them not working and causing large swaths of land being uninhabitable for centuries. Human error always gets underestimated there.

        * like, secretly using low-grade steel for the reactor walls to cut cost, fissures not being reported, or the one, where Leibstadt had to be cooled by firefighters (not being told anything (i know one of them)) due to cooling canal congestion after heavy rain.

        Edit: Or were you sarcastic and i failed to notice?

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Nuclear facilities are very very tight on security. Domestic terrorism is a terrible reason to not build them.

      And if you are a part of a war? With or without the Nuclear plant you are going to have massive problems.

      Weird excuses to not build them if you ask me.

      • Binzy_Boi@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 days ago

        Do I want the results of the war being that my hometown needs to be rebuilt from the ground up?

        Or do I want to have that be the case, except we gotta wait 5000 years for the radiation to be at a level where we can do that safely?

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          A nuclear plant is not a nuclear bomb. And 5000 years is outta your ass.

          And, the most important thing - military targets are usually protected worse than nuclear stations and big industrial plants. A nuclear station doesn’t move anywhere, it just sits on one place armored so well that it’ll likely survive the town being nuked (pun intended).

          There are pollution dangers and complex logistics of rare and expensive materials. And the stations themselves are very expensive. But the danger of a nuclear station giving out a nuclear explosion is nonexistent.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          You have a higher chance of being struck by a falling wind turbine blade than you do of being victim of a failure due to a bombed nuclear power plant.

          You gave an example of the Zaporizhzhia plant being bombed in Ukraine, wheres the explosion or nuclear fallout? And thats a plant from the 80s.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      We’ve had at least two of these in the recent past: that Ukrainian power plant that was under attack, and also Iran’s nuclear facilities getting bombed.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Nuclear is also freaking expensive. You need a lot of safety measures to run a nuclear power plant relatively safely, and disposing of spent fuel material and the building itself when it’s decommissioned is really expensive, too. On top of that, the nuclear material that power plants use isn’t cheap, either, and there aren’t that many countries that actually have them in mineable quantities. And one of the major exporters is Russia.

    • FriskyDingo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      This

      People act like there isn’t a rather large contingent of our society that doesn’t openly invite “end times” or want to create as much pain and suffering as possible for poor black and brown ppl who you know these plants will be built around.

      There is substantial reason to advocate for nuclear, but to handwave the concerns of organized sabatoge in the times we’re living in does not help.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        There’s plenty of shit that disporportionately comes down on minorities, but nuclear power plant building sites?

        Please, please, I’m literally begging you: Please point me to a place where a nuclear plant has been constructed somewhere that displaced anyone.

        Only restriction is it can’t be people who were displaced by nuclear disaster, like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

        Bonus points if it displaced minorities. Even more if there was an alternative build site available but they chose to be bastards.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      3 days ago

      Hasn’t ever been an attack against nuclear power station, I can’t think of one