Why are large nuclear reactors that could cause a disaster similar to the Chernobyl accident used? Why not, instead, make a series of many many tiny reactors so that if something goes wrong in one, it doesn't cause as much damage and is easier to contain?
Why are large nuclear reactors that could cause a disaster similar to the Chernobyl accident used? Why not, instead...
Nathaniel Campbell
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Daniel Watson
just spreads the threat.why not get off reliance to nuclear and use proven shit like solar,wind and hydro?
we still need nuke but we need to lessen dependence on it.we can spend money on research on other shit,i havent looked at cold fusion in a long time but fuel cells on an industrial scale theres alot of alternatives.
Joseph Reed
>proven shit like solar,wind and hydro
I'm sorry to break it to you but the only thing those are proven to be is inefficient. Nuclear is the "cleanest" way we can reasonably expect to generate power.
Parker Thompson
hydro is good af
Wind would be good if it wasn't for kooks
and solar is a good supplement, not standalone tho
Levi Brooks
there's so many people against wind for NO fucking reason, idk what their problem is
Alexander Thomas
> tiny reactors
> it doesn't cause as much damage and is easier to contain?
when there is a nuke fuckup, it all turns to shit regardless of size. look what happened to the tiny sl1
Nathaniel Hill
So basically you are all saying it's because humans are too stupid to not be trusted to NOT blow themselves up?
//
所以基本上你都稱這是因為人類是太愚蠢不被信任,以不吹自己了?
Nathan Wright
Because chernobyl is a meme that only happened because they stopped half way between being sub critical and china syndrome.
Ryan Rivera
Yes.
Evan Fisher
Reactors like the one at Chernobyl aren't used anymore.