37
Turns out clientism is still bad even when it's the PEOPLE'S clientism (media.piefed.social)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/tankiejerk@piefed.social
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Explanation: While it's sometimes considered that the Chornobyl disaster is proof of the danger of nuclear power - and it is certainly proof of the dangers possible when things do go wrong - it's often understated that the core cause of the disaster was... immense incompetence. It was all incredibly avoidable from start to finish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The best argument i have seen towards this (not my own) is that human incompetence is almost inevitable and nuclear power is to dangerous precisely because of that.

    Personally i believe we can do better but its an understandable perspective.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    People who point out the theoretical risks of nuclear energy are often quick to dismiss the realized harms of fossil fuels. And I don't just mean long term climate effects, but the directly attributable estimated deaths.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 6 months ago

    I think the small number of actual nuclear incidents, and the exceptional circumstances they happened in, shows that nuclear power can be safe - certainly safer than freely spewing fossil fuels into the atmosphere. The real issue, to my eyes, is whether it's economical now.

    Considering the rapid advance of renewables, the idea of building new nuclear power plants probably does not have a large role to play going forward. Nuclear power is expensive to build, get up and running, and then put all the security safeguards up. If memory serves at present it's no longer cheaper than renewables, just cheaper than fossil fuels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    The counter argument to nuclear power is not that "nuclear power" is unsafe.

    It's that "everyone involved with nuclear power, are incompetent, greedy fucks, who sabotage a maybe potentially safe technology for potential monetary gain and because incompetence and greed can't be prevented, nuclear power will stay unsafe, regardless of technological progress."

    It's not that you can't sufficiently engineer the thing itself. You can't engineer the people who run it, ever.

    Cleanup for the first turned off nuclear reactor is going into it's third decade in Germany and won't be done for another 40 years. All tax money. And that's without a disaster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent