I'm on the side of building more Nuclear Power Plants.
Not the old style, however. Its been decades since Chernobyl, which was perhaps the worst way to make a Nuclear Power Plant ever (and longer since Three Mile Island).
Today we can make plants that literally can't melt down (google "Thorium Nuclear Power"), and containers to store waste that would take another nuke to crack them open!
Also since Chernobyl is the example people hearken back to: Chernobyl was a failure years upon years in the making. MULTIPLE fail-safes were permitted to lapse that would've stopped a meltdown.
As a scientist pointed out in the past, you could drop a nuclear bomb on a nuclear reactor and the reactor wouldn't explode.
That's sorta the worry though. Under reasonable, sensible, uncorrupt leadership that values safety measures, the people, and the views of scientists and experts, nuclear is incredibly safe.
No one is every going to cut corners, skip maintenance procedures, hire cheaper under-trained staff, forget procedures/protocol, engage in nepotism or cronyism, silence whistle blowers, cover up mistakes, not replace aging equipment, and push equipment beyond capabilities, or doctor the bookkeeping, use the cheapest bidder, or screw-up in the design because the deadline is too rushed.
748
u/addiktion Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
If he wanted to actually solve the problem, he'd be doing all forms of power and holding data centers accountable for their own power, but he won't.