• WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fukushima’s too? Can you guarantee that things will be better managed in say… The US?

    Lost us nuclear weapons - the crumbling silo infrastructure is also well documented. I’m sure that the Department of Energy will be able to afford better controls with it’s ~$30bn budget compared with the ~$700bn budget of the Department of Defence. It’s not as though the hundreds of nuclear weapons that have been lost nuclear are more dangerous than nuclear generators or anything.

    Slower to build, more expensive, needs fuel dug out of the ground, potentially continent-destroying… Why?

    • choroalp
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fukushima did not a fundemantel design flaw. Its was literally next to sea. Also renewables can never replace oil if they cant even store excess energy yet lmao

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The plant wasn’t poorly designed, it just wasn’t designed to be where it was and nearly wiped out Tokyo as a consequence? This is an argument in favour of nuclear?

        A lot of renewables don’t need storage - including geothermal, wind, tidal, salt solar, hydro… But photovoltaics with batteries is still a fraction of the cost of nuclear, takes a fraction of the time to build, is far safer, and is orders of magnitude more relisient against demand spikes.

        …so why nuclear?