Uranium3006

the earthquake didn't even damage the plant, they thought of that. the tsunami knocked out the power lines and bad generator placement led to loss of power for cooling. build reactors to passively cool themselves (which should just be a mandatory safety feature on new reactors tbh, it's not a big ask and improves safety a lot) and fukushima type accidents become impossible. that plant was so old that the original operating license was going to expire a week after the quake and the only guy who died had a heart attack. fukushima-sized death tolls happen in the rooftop solar installation industry every year, totally unreported.

yeah you can do throium, and there are some compelling reasons to, but uranium is fine enough. anti-nuke isn't about actual technical enlargements. the anti nukes hate nuclear fusion too

indeed. also chernobyl and fukushima aren't comparable, really. I'd support a law that all new power reactors need to have passive cooling relying on the laws of physics, not relying on external power, but that's not a high bar and many designs already have it. remember that most currently operating reactors were built all at once in the mid 20th century and even then their safety record has been great. we can do better with new construction

the most dangerous part of nuclear power is not using enough nuclear power

that is a big problem anti-nukes have, don't they?

of course I'm blaming the real problem: relentless attack by the fossil fuel industry

high speed rail and subways have the same problem. it's not inherently expensive, rich people sue and sue until it's too expensive

Those are not at all cheap and are subsidized by enrichment for weapons purposes.

they aren't, and the whole anti nuclear power movement is just people who don't understand science not being able to tell the difference between a bomb and a power plant. I mean science education wasn't that great in midcentury america but today we can easily know better

indeed. just order like 100 SMRs and all the problems go away. problem is the psychos would rather build gas plants and fund dictators

you mean the part where it generated a shit ton of carbon free reliable power while killing fewer people per watt-hour what any other method? with outdated 60's technology too? yeah sure sounds like a failure

indeed. when you kill nuclear, the reality is natural gas and sometimes coal is the real replacement

right, but when it lands at lead it's no longer radioactive waste, which is the part everyone's scared of. chemical waste doesn't just go away like that.