Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "The world’s largest offshore wind farm is UNREAL" video.

The thing is both the Fukushima and Chernobyl reactor are based on obsolete design ( both of them are actually around the same age) and the RBMK design was notoriously flawed. Opposing nuclear just based on them is like tryin to ban consumer aviation just because the De Havilland Comet crashed. It is almost impossible for current generation nuclear power plant to suffer a meltdown let alone an explosions. The risk of catastrophic nuclear accident is astronomically low. This is even better with next gen design where such accident is physically (as in it would break the laws of physics if such accidents occurs) impossible . Had we not allow Chernobyl to spooked us into abandoning nuclear, we could have solved most of the Climate Change problems by now.. Even some of the so called "green" movements were horrifically misguide : for example Germany myopic decision to shut down the safer and cleaner nuclear plants for more dangerous, more polluting and more radioactive coal burning plants and importing natural gas from Russia.
5
@itekani Saying it will never be safe is both naïve and misleading at best. Technology moves an and thing that were deathtraps in the past (automobile , trains and aeroplanes) are now very safe. We should judge their future iteration on the obsolete technology of the past. For the records the RBMK design used in Chernobyl was extremely flawed and was the main reason why the incident happened in the first place. No other reactors have the same fatal flaw as the RBMK design. Currently it is physically (as in it would break the laws of physics) for current reactors designs to suffer the same catastrophe as worse, Even in the worse case scenario all that would happen i the reactor bein destroyed rather that suffering a meltdown of explode.
2
@johannbrauer9285 Firstly, that is not rational fear. The risk with currents with reactor in operation are so small that it is more likely that an asteroid strike would destroy a city or a country rather that any nuclear incident of the same scale occurring . people need to remember that Chernobyl is an anomaly . I mean more people have died to airplanes cashes ( and being killed by cows) than all of the nuclear disaster in the world combined (take not that over 99.9% of peacetime nuclear death came from The Chernobyl incident). Secondly, as I said that chance of such catastrophe happening with next generation designs is literally zero. these reactors (molten salts eg) are designed in such a way that even in the worst case scenario all that would happen is the reactors being complete destroyed/unsalvageable rather than them having a meltdown or exploding . My De Havilland Comet comparisons was apt. The aircrafts suffered from huge fatal design flaws (its window) that would eventually doomed the plane . Once the flaw was discovered the design was immediately refitted. The same can be said of nuclear reactors of the past.
2
@stevenjones916 As Johann Brauer said, that isn't really a concern for western design of nuclear reactors. the containment structure of those were designed to withstand aeroplane strikes. If fact they are YouTube video of them testing this by ramming F-4 Phantom at supersonics speed at it w, with the structure suffering no compromising damage,
1
@RWBHere So many thing of are either misleading (Fukushima impact eg) or just plain irrelevant (citing military disasters and experiments etc) to civilians power generation that I wonder if you are even trying to argue in good faith. I suggest you watch some Kyle Gill, Curious Droid or Kurzgesagt , or any science and tech channel on that matter to get educated in the subject.
1