Seeing that they need quite a lot of clean water, which is not widely available everywhere during the entire year in big amounts, especially with these droughts due to climate change.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If anyone bothered to include externalities, nuclear is more than competitive. And a ton of the costs are purely regulatory. Sadly, the incompetence of the Soviets ruined nuclear power and likely doomed the planet.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        With Three Mile Island everything that could go wrong did and it still wound up being an overblown non-issue. There have been exactly 0 environmental or health impacts due to Three Mile Island despite it being the worst nuclear disaster in US history.

        Fukushima was built in a stupid location. How about we don’t build nuclear power plants on fault lines in tsunami prone areas. Literally 4 different fault lines converge on Japan, it is not a place anyone should be building nuclear power plants.

      • blargerer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        How much do you know about Three Mile Island? Fukushima was built in a stupid location, so lets not do that again. But Three Mile Island is often way over blown.

        • AmidFuror@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s public perception that is important here. That’s where the impact of Chernobyl is for building new plants. Public perception of the other events furthers doubts about the safety. It’s also easy to have hindsight about Fukushima, but it was built nonetheless.