+22 22 0
Published 2 years ago by ubthejudge with 5 Comments
Sidebar
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • AdelleChattre (edited 2 years ago)
    +8

    Yes, because the problem with inevitable nuclear catastrophes these days is that they're too few and too expensive to get rolling.

  • 902102213 (edited 2 years ago)
    +5

    EVERY step of the nuclear fuel cycle is an opportunity for effectively permanent radioactive contamination. From mining, milling, enrichment, transportation, to reactor use and decommissioning to spent fuel storage. Making more and smaller reactors will not change ANY of those risks. There are much safer and cleaner ways to generate electricity than this failed, too expensive, and inherently unsafe technology. The people and economic reality have already passed judgement on nuclear energy. But it figures Koch's NPR pushes it anyway.

    • AdelleChattre
      +9

      Guaranteed opportunities. If the cost of maintaining nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands and millions of years wasn't 'socialized' to the government, there's no way there would be a TEPCO. Let alone a thousand boutique TEPCOs. Odd, isn't it, when profits go one way and the responsibility for radiological contamination goes somewhere, anywhere else?

      • 902102213
        +5

        You have nailed crony capitalism right on the head. Private profits and public liabilities is the universal business plan..

Here are some other snaps you may like...