Cost, being a major drawback, space being another. And of course while they almost never fail, they do occasionally, and will again. And those failures are utterly catastrophic, and it'd hard to convince a community to welcome a nuclear plant, and if the community doesn't want it then it can't or shouldn't be forced onto them.

They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.

There are also significant environmental concerns, as we really have no good way to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe or efficient manner at this time.

It's likely that nuclear based energy is the future, but you need to discuss the bad with the good here or we are just going to end up at square one again. There are long term ramifications.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Nuke energy! Actually, don't. We need it.

They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.

Practice shows that in land wars instead of big X it is just burden for both sides. I'm talking Putin-Ukraine war.

[–] LordSinguloth@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's a single single war, and not indicative, power supply remains and always has been a high priority target.

Just cause putin and Kiev avoid chernobyl isn't really evidence to the contrary

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

power supply remains and always has been a high priority target.

I'm not denying this. But mostly power distribution instead of power generation was targeted.

load more comments (16 replies)