• danielbln@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, “It’s not as bad as a nuclear disaster” isn’t exactly going to console them much.

      At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It’s not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, just like a windmill running and a nuclear power plant running have very different effects on the power grid. Hence why comparing them directly is often such a nonsense act.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean it’s not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

      Nuclear power isn’t 100% safe or risk-free, but it’s hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

        Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

        It’s really not that complicated.

        • abraxas@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

        • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Both sound terrible.

          I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.

        • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

            You mean under ground from where it was dug out?