mierdabird

Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors ... nah can't consider things have changed since then.

Things have indeed changed, now construction regulations are far tighter. This is good because the risk of a Chernobyl event is far lower, but at the price of extreme cost overruns and project delays

Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily

So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

Somehow Dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.

I think you're forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild....a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations

It's a pipe dream at the scale we need it

I'm not sure if you're getting paid to say this or just incredibly stupid but either way it's pathetic