Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ja6gz29 wrote

[deleted]

−44

SuspiciousStable9649 t1_ja6jlmg wrote

I know your sarcastic, but I think nuclear will have a place as messy as it is. We will trade radiation for CO2 and methane and be glad for it (unfortunately).

3

DIBE25 t1_ja6qxtw wrote

tldr and you can even not read the rest: safety before returns on investment is better than no return on investment because lack of safety

and to have more stable and safer nukes those paying for it just need to accept the fact that having a plant meeting or exceeding safety requirements is better than a plant being on maintenance half the time

also the radiation of a nuclear plant is lower than that of a coal plant due to the uranium in the coal's ashes - iirc

so if the reactor vessel isn't completely crap along with the other meters of concrete and whatnot there shouldn't be any concerns with radiation

I won't touch proper waste disposal since that's fairly.. you dig a hole far away in a special kind of rock and fill holes in the hole with the sticks and the sticks are in dry ceramic and multiple metal layers and all that is covered in concrete

man I'm tired sorry if this makes no sense

6

CletusDSpuckler t1_ja6nfb9 wrote

We had high hopes for an unlimited supply of quality sarcasm, but as you can see, it hasn't panned out.

2

wart365 t1_ja6p6hd wrote

It is, and this includes replacing last-gen plants with newer ones.

2

False_Profit_ t1_ja7f9lu wrote

Yeah, when you don't build them on the ocean and fill it with government yes men.

1