• Deiv
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why should they not be allowed? Nuclear power plants are great options and will mean less demand on worse energy providing sources

    • topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because safety and profits aren’t going in the same direction. They would cut corner for reduce the costs. Which is how you end with a nuclear accident. And then it would be to the tax payer to kick the bill.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        SMRs are pretty safe. That’s not the issue. It’s that they’re thinking about using a whole fucking nuclear reactor to train AI to sell you shit.

      • SineSwiper@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Microsoft is big enough that government would force them to pay up. There is just too much public pressure for that kind of disaster to get waved away.

        Also, there are nuclear options that are far safer than water-based reactors. WCRs are literally the worst possible design for a nuclear reactor, and we were stupid enough to choose that over dry material reactors in the 60s.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Microsoft is big enough that government would force them to pay up.

          Lmao

          Just like they made the banks pay up? Like how they make oil companies pay up?

          Right now it’s commonplace for oil rigs and nuclear plants to be decommissioned on the taxpayer, sometimes entirely funded by them even, rather than by the company.