• Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    my biggest reservation with nuclear power is not day-to-day maintenance (which granted, can still be fucked up), but is warfare. In the event of warfare, core meltdowns and containment-breaches could be caused by air strikes and artillery fire, right?

    • iwishthiswasicq [none/use name]
      hexagon
      ·
      2 years ago

      they have emergency shutdown systems and are housed in lead lined sturdy facilities to my knowledge

      the only reason Chernobyl happened was bc they disabled the normal safety stuff and the emergency shutdown was a flawed system that actually increased criticality for a split second before cooling down

    • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Nuclear power plants are, by necessity, basically just giant bunkers with a reactor buried somewhere within. In a war the only reason to attack one would be typical shock-and-awe tactics to take down electrical grids, in which case it'd be easier to just blow up the substations connected to the plant instead. The only way you'd kick off a Chernobyl would be if you very intentionally decided to do so with some pretty serious ordinance, at which point you'd be the insane motherfucker who just poisoned half a continent for no good reason which might just be overt enough to convince even Americans to toss a few molotovs through your window on general principle.

    • Mardoniush [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Modern reactors are designed to take direct hits by an airbus 380 and keep functioning as normal.