• einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sure, on paper those are incredibly safe compared to older models. However, our current economic system has no incentive to keep these reactors in a top-notch state. Instead, companies in order to maximize profit will reduce maintenance to the bare minimum of what’s necessary to pass whatever laughable security standards are imposed on them.

    That is, if there are going to be frequent and thorough inspections at all. I.e. it is well-known here in Germany that due to tax evasion roughly 20 billion Euros are missing from the federal budget. I do not believe this is going to change anytime soon, and neither do I believe it will be much different if we build new reactors.

    • arrow74@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      All I hear is a lot of bad logic. The worst nuclear incidents took place over 30 years ago. The closest we’ve seen to those in more recent times required a tsunami to hit the reactor and even then there wasn’t all that much damage.

      Modern style plants are incredibly safe.

      Of course today solar and wind work and are cheaper. But these unfounded fears about nuclear have held us back

      And yes there is a risk a very small risk. Fossil fuels have and continue to kill more people by every possible measure, but this was preferable to nuclear. Why? The answer is simple it’s preferable to have a poor person crushed or end their life choking to death due to the lung damage then it is to have a miniscule risk that you may face the repercussions of your consumption. Dying for your electricity is for poor people