The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it's weakest link in terms of safety.

Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn't seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it's weakest link in terms of safety.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/646230.stm

Unless you are in Britain, where they manage to have a costly regulatory environment and poor safety outcomes because THE PEOPLE TASKED WITH KEEPING US SAFE JUST STRAIGHT UP FALSIFY RECORDS.