there are economic reasons (Carbon Tax). What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants, fuel can even be transported on a plane - no gas pipelines to blow up.
back
2 comments
> What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants,
I think you missed some news https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/un-nuclear-watchdogs-safe... While they managed to avoid shooting directly at one of them, shelling the area wasn't uncommon and it's a bit up to luck that there were no mistakes.
you can shell* the nuclear plant directly for a week and you would still not expose the core.
* regular artillery shells, bunker busing is a different story
You can* do that without exposing the core**.
* as long as materials behave as expected, there are no existing cracks, ...
** ignoring secondary problems like vibrations misaligning elements, damage to other materials resulting in controller failures, damage to cooling system, injuries to staff not being able to respond to emergencies, ...
Sure, they should not be affected. They're also designed not to fail, and yet.
> What war in Ukraine has proven is that no one is eager to shot at nuclear plants
I don't see any real 'proof there, especially about everyone not being eager to...
Moreover whenever a weapon is used there is a risk of hitting a non-target.
> Moreover whenever a weapon is used there is a risk of hitting a non-target.
You can load a 747 with explosives and hit AP1000 and would still not destroy it.
Russia could fire 1000+ rockets, drones and cruise missles and it would not cause the next Chernobyl.
Source?