4 ms·

That argument is completely moot though since there's absolutely no viable infrastructure you can make in countries which is ran by terrorists. It's not only an

That argument is completely moot though since there's absolutely no viable infrastructure you can make in countries which is ran by terrorists. It's not only an issue with nuclear but absolutely everything, you can't build dams, maintain a petrol or a gas infrastructure, water, bridges... Nothing will work, not even the wires for the grid itself.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
You can build plenty of infrastructure in countries that are currently NOT run by terrorists but may be some time in the next fifty years. The point being that a large fraction of the earth just isn't stable enough to rely on fifty to a hundred years of total peace, stability and reliability. Which is the prerequisite for all the safety assumptions around nuclear power. Dams are actually less dangerous, because the potential area of damage is more limited, whereas a dirty bomb may be used quite some distance away and radioactive fallout also isn't that localized. Also most "conventional" infrastructure just degrades and becomes useless when not properly maintained. Can't say that about nuclear infrastructure (besides power plants you need mines, processing and research facilities and waste storage). And even with things like river dams people do ask questions about political stability and who gets the short end of the stick when the dam breaks, intentionally or unintentionally. Just because you don't like an argument doesn't make it "moot". I think I'm not alone in not being comfortable with new nuclear projects going up in eastern Europe... The political situations are relatively stable apart from Ukraine, but I wouldn't bet my life on it staying that way for the next fifty years. Don't even ask about Africa or most of Asia....
- realusername 4y ago
  Dams have the most catastrophic failure of all the energy supplies, millions of people can lose their home instantly and tens of thousands will die, a dam breaking is one of the worst things which can happen to a country. It's hard to take this comment seriously after that...
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    You aren't taking anything seriously. Good riddance.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

You can build plenty of infrastructure in countries that are currently NOT run by terrorists but may be some time in the next fifty years. The point being that a large fraction of the earth just isn't stable enough to rely on fifty to a hundred years of total peace, stability and reliability. Which is the prerequisite for all the safety assumptions around nuclear power. Dams are actually less dangerous, because the potential area of damage is more limited, whereas a dirty bomb may be used quite some distance away and radioactive fallout also isn't that localized. Also most "conventional" infrastructure just degrades and becomes useless when not properly maintained. Can't say that about nuclear infrastructure (besides power plants you need mines, processing and research facilities and waste storage). And even with things like river dams people do ask questions about political stability and who gets the short end of the stick when the dam breaks, intentionally or unintentionally. Just because you don't like an argument doesn't make it "moot". I think I'm not alone in not being comfortable with new nuclear projects going up in eastern Europe... The political situations are relatively stable apart from Ukraine, but I wouldn't bet my life on it staying that way for the next fifty years. Don't even ask about Africa or most of Asia....

realusername 4y ago
Dams have the most catastrophic failure of all the energy supplies, millions of people can lose their home instantly and tens of thousands will die, a dam breaking is one of the worst things which can happen to a country. It's hard to take this comment seriously after that...
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  You aren't taking anything seriously. Good riddance.