• areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    People don’t put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn’t happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It’s safer than some renewables even, and that’s not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It’s also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy’s primary problem isn’t safety but rather cost. It’s biggest strength is reliability and availability. You can build a nuclear plant basically anywhere where there is water.

    • whome@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Depends on where you live, Germany that gets the beating for phasing out nuclear, is so densely populated that these remote areas hardly exist!

    • Batbro@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I know nuclear is super safe but we have actual examples of accidents happening and making cities unlivable, you can’t deny that.

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can’t build reactors in high population density areas.