Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
What I said is that human operators might be removed perhaps in a situation of "war or civilizations collapsing".
What makes you say those would happen? Again, consider the likelihood of this happening.
Would you say that the benefit of not having any plants for an extremely unlikely event is worth sacrificing the benefits of nuclear that will without a doubt help us?
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pmSay you had a invading army that was known to be killing on sight, everyone might run away.
Everyone in the area is gone anyway, and even if the invading army settles down in the area, I'm sure they wouldn't want to be near a nuclear plant without people who have the ability to manage it.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pmOr a super virus outbreak that was killing everyone.
That only happens in movies and video games (Plague Inc. is a pretty good game though).
Medicine and disease management has come a pretty long way ever since the Europeans killed 90% of American Indians with their diseases (most of which came from animals, which we all agree shouldn't be domesticating any more of (obstensibly)).
I know not every disease is like it, but to put it into a bit more perspective, think about how quickly we were able to combat AIDS. It was a huge epidemic back in the 80s, which wasn't really that long ago. And while we have created medicines and treatments for it, of course, the best medicine is preventative (i.e. safe sex, no sharing needles). Now it's nowhere near as big of a problem as it was, and even if you have AIDS today, if you live in a country with decent healthcare, you're very unlikely to die from it.
At this point, is it even worth trying to cure AIDS? It's like Heart Disease; Is it more cost-effective to create a cure for it, or just figure out how to educate people to not keep stuffing their pieholes with sludge? Or, better yet, advocate for veganism?
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pmOr, ironically, a nuclear war.
Unlikely. All superpowers know that nothing good will come of nuclear war. I'm sure Kim Jong Il had this in mind when it came to his successor.
Not to mention, any nuclear proponents want the uranium in the weapons to be repurposed for energy purposes.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pmOr the government collapsed.
Why would it happen though?
Most people want government.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pmOr a targeted attack on the nuclear power plant by an opponent designed to cause disaster by removing the human errors.
Sorry, but that just sounds ridiculous. That's probably the closest thing you can do to nuclear war without any nuclear weapons, and we already discussed how that isn't going to happen.
Why would a country take a reactor from an enemy country? A country that needs nuclear power can make its own.
Even if this were to happen, there are laws to make sure Nuclear plants aren't blown up if they are attacked by terrorists.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pmOr some other total chaos situation.
Like? These are all just hypotheticals, with no real reason to think they'll happen.
If any of these happen, would there even be people in the area to be affected by it? Your hypotheticals seem to hint that the areas would be devoid of life. Nuclear Energy would be the solution to help ensure this all wouldn't happen I should mention.
And as I've mentioned, the countries where these would be most likely to happen don't even have Nuclear Plants anyway.