[qwebfdzsh]

> I dislike the potential for a meltdown of course no matter how 'unlikely'

Why? A meltdown is really not a big deal at all. If we're fine with burning coal we should be perfectly with a having a meltdown or two every few years (even if we 100% ignored climate change the degree of damage caused by either of those is not that different)

[hylaride]

People think "meltdown" means Chernobyl. For those who don't know, a nuclear meltdown means the fuel inside the reactor overheated, (possibly permanently) damaging the reactor. It's essentially happened at some level three times in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_e...

A meltdown essentially means an expensive remediation.

A Chernobyl style event in the west is extremely unlikely due to reactor design as well as the containment buildings. The closest western equivalent, Fukushima, did have a core meltdown. But the spread of radiation was actually caused by the spent fuel no longer able to be cooled, causing the rods to be exposed to air, which generated hydrogen, that then exploded. While a disaster, it wasn't Chernobyl style where the open reactor pumped out radiation continuously until it could be contained.

[manvillej]

in addition; Chernobyl, three mile island, and fukushima were all early nuclear design. Construction began in 1972, 1968, and 1967.

The first nuclear reactor was built in 1942. We have more than 50 YEARS of technological advancement in nuclear design gained after any one of those reactors.

Modern reactors have made radical improvements. Imagine comparing the safety of a car from the 1960-70s to the safety of a modern car. They are NOT equivalent.