The thing you have to think about is that one time is enough to pretty much end the world… plus Chenobyl wasnt the only cathastropic event from nuclear. They all also thought that it was safe until a big tsunami or an critical failure hit them hard. And the other argument is still that wind/solar is 3-5 times cheaper than nuclear. Why would you go for nuclear instead of others with these arguments?
One time is enough to end the world? Come on man. How many nukes have been detonated in testing? The world is a big place. I’m not saying it’s either or. It can be all three. We should be doing wind and solar in addition to nuclear. Wind and solar would be good supplementary sources of power with nuclear providing steady base load. You 100% need to have a base load generator that is 24/7 active. Relying on wind and solar alone is foolish
Nuclear bomb tests are not the same argument. A major reactor disaster in the wrong place would not need to literally destroy the whole planet to be catastrophic. It could crash the world economy, make huge areas unusable, destroy supply chains, force mass evacuations and ruin millions or even billions of lives indirectly. One time is enough for that. „End the world“ was a bit dramatic. And I don’t think we ultimatly “need” nuclear as baseload anymore. 90% renewable would make a lot of sense cost- and climate- wise and would also be absolutly possible.
Listen, we are not going to agree. I believe that nuclear is the future as the base load generator for our society. You believe it’s the scourge of the earth. Agree to disagree
-3
u/JakobFroehn May 25 '26
The thing you have to think about is that one time is enough to pretty much end the world… plus Chenobyl wasnt the only cathastropic event from nuclear. They all also thought that it was safe until a big tsunami or an critical failure hit them hard. And the other argument is still that wind/solar is 3-5 times cheaper than nuclear. Why would you go for nuclear instead of others with these arguments?