[ktgkdodfm]

>As we've seen with Russia targeting them in Ukraine, nuclear plants are the least thing you want around during a war.

I don't recall any nuclear incidents as a result of the war in ukraine? Attacking the power infrastructure in general is bad, but hardly relevant to the type of generation

[gpm]

Nuclear incidents, not really. There has been some mild spread of radioactive material near Chernobyl.

However there has been strategic use of them against Ukraine. Russia attacked and captured Zaporizhzhia and then used it as a base of operations on the front line that Ukraine couldn't attack back, because Ukraine is much less willing to risk a nuclear incident on their own territory than Russia is. Nuclear reactors strategically favour the invading army, because they care less about being careful.

It's also really not valid to say "the really bad thing didn't happen this time, so it's fine". Avoiding any meltdowns ever means even "that looked vaguely close to something bad happening" is something that must be avoided, and there have been several times in this war where it's looked more than vaguely close.

[collinmcnulty]

There has been a great deal of concern over the Russian takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_Russian_invasion...

[ktgkdodfm]

I can believe there are lots of concerns, but have any disasters actually materialized as a result? At least according to the wiki article posted I can't spot one. If we're using war on Ukraine as an example of why not, I'd expect there to be some incidents to prove the point. Right now it doesen't seem like there are any real issues to having relied on nuclear.