• scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hm… risk of nuclear disaster? Or more expense? Hm… I’ll have to think about this one.

      • Anamana@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Hm… invest into your companies cybersecurity before or after you get hacked?

        Companies don’t care enough about risks if they are not forced to account for them.

      • PlexSheep@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your logic is fallacious: the solution is not to build a nuclear reactor but seek an alternative.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes I understand. It was a cheeky reply. But alternatives are actually limited if you consider all the benefits of nuclear: high energy output, limited land use, no dependence on weather or time of day, no massive subsidy to Chinese manufacturing, no carbon, all resources mineable in the US, waste all physically contained…

          Got alternatives to that?

          • PlexSheep@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The best alternative is probably a diversified system of sustainable energy sources, along with batteries.