Cost, being a major drawback, space being another. And of course while they almost never fail, they do occasionally, and will again. And those failures are utterly catastrophic, and it'd hard to convince a community to welcome a nuclear plant, and if the community doesn't want it then it can't or shouldn't be forced onto them.

They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.

There are also significant environmental concerns, as we really have no good way to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe or efficient manner at this time.

It's likely that nuclear based energy is the future, but you need to discuss the bad with the good here or we are just going to end up at square one again. There are long term ramifications.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Worth noting that all modern failures have been GE models or ancient Westinghouse models. Modern nuclear reactors built by Westinghouse are virtually immune from meltdown, and Westinghouse is the lead player in new builds. Nuclear safety has come miles since the like of Fukushima, and especially 3 Mile Island. I'd feel perfectly safe living near a new Westinghouse nuclear plant.

[–] DrDominate@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'd rather a nuclear plant as my neighbor rather than a coal or natural gas one.

[–] portalsentinel@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

One has a one in a million chance to kill you. The other has a 100 in 100 chance to cause you severe health issues in the longrun.

[–] spirinolas@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Those health issues while being a problem are in no danger of killing humanity. Wether they affect hundreds, thousands, even millions.

ONE really bad nuclear disaster can make a whole continent uninhabitable.

The risks are on totally different magnitudes.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)