3 ms·
Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if nuclear e
by nstart 7y ago
Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if nuclear ever became mainstream. I'd expect multiple bidders to show up, some corrupt under the table deal happens, politicians takes a massive cut for themselves, project runs under budget, over time, and the infrastructure built gets dumped onto an area close to areas with higher rates of poverty, and what's built constantly has leaks or contamination of the environment around it due to structural errors.
That said, my confirmation bias never led me to consider how the situation could play out similarly for any other form of energy. So thanks for articulating those facts so clearly.
- arcticbull 7y agoNobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency, which cuts both ways. That means very little nuclear gets built, and what does get built is super safe -- and very expensive.
- nstart 7y ago> Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency Ummm... I wish it were that straightforward but I can't be confident of that. Power doesn't balance out as much as we'd like it to. There are a lot of elected officials who are ok with doing as bad to their constituency and they get away with it fine. And by get away that might mean they don't get another term but they take their money and go live a life of leisure. No jail time, nothing of major consequence. And usually they'll keep playing the political corruption game using the connections built up. (Eg: bringing in "preferred investors" for a "commission") Reality around political power is ugly af :(