|
|
|
|
|
by orwin
2074 days ago
|
|
> Lots of whataboutism here. Yes, but im sorry, the discussion is not "nuclear or not nuclear", its nuclear energy or another form of energy > Anyway, the big issue is that it could have been(and still can be) much worse. it’s a scalable disaster with consequences outlasting human generations. If you need heroic efforts and enormous resources to contain something and there’s a possibility of that not succeed then you don’t want it happen and it’s a big deal. No, no civil nuclear incident can't be worst than Chernobyl. Right now or in the future. There is no reactor that is using graphite anymore. Even if we lost suddenly all knowledge.
Fukushima however, why not. But if its not happening in the next 50 years, it won't happen after with Gen3 and Gen3+ designs. You can argue than gen3+ designs have a greater surface of attack and are no better than gen3 and i could reluctantly agree, however i think a core catcher is a must have on new designs. We never know what can happen, what if we suddenly lost all knowledge on how to operate a fission plant? |
|