3 ms·
I'm not sure how you can credibly claim your goal is to minimize "headache and inconvenience" and then suggest replacing large parts of infrastructure as oppose
by HWR_14 4y ago
I'm not sure how you can credibly claim your goal is to minimize "headache and inconvenience" and then suggest replacing large parts of infrastructure as opposed to just adding new building codes for future developments that require no work.
Meanwhile, the obvious consequences for nuclear reactors on shipping vessels will be radioactive debris spreading terrorist attacks.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoLet's just change shipbuilding emissions codes to require future ships to be 0 emissions by 2027. By your logic, that requires no work. Also, you may need to learn more about modern nuclear technology. Shipboard nuclear reactors these days are very safe, and there are plenty of available reactor technologies out there that are impossible to turn into bombs.
- HWR_14 4y agoIf there were already ship engines produced at scale that were the same cost drop in replacements and could be used with zero-extra training by existing personnel, and were just as efficient, safe, etc. then I would of course want future ships to be 0 emissions. Meanwhile, shipboard nuclear reactors have radioactive material. They can be cut open, so the radioactive material can be taken out. It can then be distributed throughout NYC by a terrorist with conventional explosives, killing millions.