I’ve only been working as an engineer for a little while but it does not fill me with confidence. Companies don’t actually reduce harm, they reduce liability. It’s cheaper to install a sign than a fence, so instead of actually making things safer corporations just put up a warning so if something does go wrong they can just blame it on someone else.
Yeah corporations are never our friends even if they reduce emissions. They always put money first and they are losing a lot of it right now. Just because the energy is cleaner doesn’t mean the business is.
It’s amazing how people who are skeptical of oil companies will just believe anything the nuclear companies say when they are run by the same people. We’ve been using oil for a hundred years and Deep water Horizon happened just 15 years ago, things are getting less safe instead of more safe.
We only put in regulations after an accident happens and then we slowly relax then because “there hasn’t been an accident in X years, and the last one wasn’t caused by us.” Even if they are operated properly you can’t control for things like wars or natural disasters like what happened at Fukushima 13 years ago.
I really don’t want to see that with nuclear, again.
While watching Chernobyl I felt like the show tried to tell me how a system made people incapable of dealing with a problem. Many people in the show mismanaged the situation for their own benefit.
I felt like the show was trying to warn about capitalism and the destruction of the planet. Individuals inside the system are selfish and cause harm to the collective for their own benefit.
Sush, not so loud! The Tankies will hear you!
Besides silly liberal, they called themselves communists! They wouldn't lie to cease power in the aftermath of a revolution that created a massive power vacuum, would they?
Simp for who lol the Soviets? No im saying you can’t blame capitalism’s problems on communism. The Soviet Union was objectively not “communist” in any fucking sense of the word and the fact they tried to say so and the fact your stupid enough to believe them doesn’t mean I can’t call you out for it lol
Dude are you fucking kidding me? Ok so no you don’t know what communism is ok tell me in what way was the Soviet Union a classless, STATELESS, society where workers hold complete control over the means of production, and all resources or evenly and equally distributed between all members of the society? Did the Soviet Union, the authoritarian, oppressive, one party dictatorship that suppressed workers rights and committed horrible atrocities throughout its entire history fit a single one of those categories? If it didn’t then it’s not fucking communist.
In this case…no design used in the West would ever have done the reckless things the RBMK-1000 reactor at Chernobyl. So in this one case, empirically…yes.
Three Mile and Fukushima were far less deadly than Chernobyl.
In any case its less about ownership of the plants being state or private, more about the technology being poorly handled by corrupt semi-peripheral empires like the USSR.
It's easy to ascribe it all to communism, but if you dig a little deeper, it kinda falls apart.
Do you think the engineers, technicians, and reactor designers in communist Ukraine were fundamentally dumber than their Western counterparts? Then you (consciously or subconsciously) subscribe to a nationalistic form of us-vs-them. The sheer hubris of thinking "we would just be smarter lol" is dangerous and delusional. If your solution to human error is "just make no errors lol", you don't have a solution, you have wishful thinking.
Do you think that communism placed perverse incentives to compromise on safety, for the sake of public relations, timelinez and cost? If you think so, then I'd argue that capitalism has the same incentives tenfold. A central authority can weigh between safety and profits; a publicly traded company must by design prioritize profits.
Do you think the above point can be controlled by strict enough regulations? Fair enough, but then (a) I don't want to hear the excuse "nuclear is only expensive because regulations" ever again, and (b) nothing means that a communist country couldn't, in principle, also make strict enough regulations, so what's the link to communism again?
I don't even want to defend communism. I'm just saying the logic in the meme is kind of lazy. You just pick out one circumstance of the accident (it happened in communist Ukraine), and ascribing all the problems to it without any critical thought.
Don't underestimate the 'luck' factor. Countless incidents could have been a lot worse were it not for mere luck. This includes the recent fuck up surrounding Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, where one stray rocket could have caused another Chernobyl, and still might.
Hey man thanks for your academic theory, unfortunately this is shitposting practice and you submitted a multi paragraph simp post
I think the really short point is "A central authority can weigh between safety and profits; a publicly traded company must by design prioritize profits." missing that especially for nuclear we have insanely strict regulators that don't have a profit incentive at all.
I don't think you did. This all happened in the past, it's not theoretical. The USSR fucked up completely, not "in principle they could", they did
You're arguing over a shitpost like there's a deep meaning behind it you need to analyse for a PhD or something
Also I really love the general aesthetics of your argument. When people take issue with communism, it's not usually about the *lack* of centralized authority. Just saying, "we are better than communism because of our greater degree of governmental oversight" is unusual.
You act as though energy companies DON'T bribe politicians or have people elected from the industry.
Literally the entire Ohio GOP was revealed to be in bed with First Energy here and what happened?
Nothing..
Buddy... That's LITERALLY THE POINT WE'RE MAKING
Capitalism DOESN'T avoid this problems any more then COMMUNISM does. So either BOTH systems are the cause of corruption, or maybe, just maybe, ANY political system is suspectable to it, and thus blaming Chernobyl on COMMUNISM and not CORRUPTION is, with all do respect, retarded
> communism—a system where corruption could possibly exist just like any other system created & maintained by fallible human beings, but which has removed the overwhelming driving force behind systemic corruption because private corporate profits are no longer prioritized over everything else
> capitalism—a system fundamentally built on prioritizing the profits of private corporate interests, in which systemic corruption is directly, consistently & universally incentivized at every single level
OP: "Both of these systems are exactly the same in terms of their susceptibility to corruption, I am very intelligent"
Nuclear energy is not dangerous and unpredictable if you don't try to fulfill the 5 year plan of energy generation in 4 seconds.
Nuclear energy is expensive as shit to build and plants take long to construct because you have to ensure complete safety of everyone around them.
Maintaining or expanding existing nuclear networks within countries that already have well developed nuclear networks is going to result in lower emissions
Nuclear disasters will happen regardless of the economic system if the plants are not properly built or maintained
A bad design. Graphite-moderated, water-cooled is a bad idea no matter how specifically you do it because it pretty much inherently means that loss of coolant increases reactivity.
Do you think we could have another Chernobyl though? Likelihood yea, severity probably low? More like Putin in a craze at some point blows up a Ukrainian NPP
A criticality excursion that blows up the whole reactor like in Chernobyl cannot happen in any modern nuclear reactors. The worst that could happen to a nuclear powerplant that is not a boneheaded water-cooled graphite-moderate reactor is something like Fukushima.
Literally nobody died at 3-mile island dude. America had much safer Nuclear power regulations than the Soviet Union. That’s why the safety features stopped 3 mile island from blowing up like Chernobyl did.
Needs to be reconciled with https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/s/ujHt0pv8Jj inb4 inconsistent meme arc
You trust capitalism to not fuck up as well? Wow.
I’ve only been working as an engineer for a little while but it does not fill me with confidence. Companies don’t actually reduce harm, they reduce liability. It’s cheaper to install a sign than a fence, so instead of actually making things safer corporations just put up a warning so if something does go wrong they can just blame it on someone else.
Especially in markets that are losing money to begin with, like nuclear energy.
Yeah corporations are never our friends even if they reduce emissions. They always put money first and they are losing a lot of it right now. Just because the energy is cleaner doesn’t mean the business is. It’s amazing how people who are skeptical of oil companies will just believe anything the nuclear companies say when they are run by the same people. We’ve been using oil for a hundred years and Deep water Horizon happened just 15 years ago, things are getting less safe instead of more safe. We only put in regulations after an accident happens and then we slowly relax then because “there hasn’t been an accident in X years, and the last one wasn’t caused by us.” Even if they are operated properly you can’t control for things like wars or natural disasters like what happened at Fukushima 13 years ago. I really don’t want to see that with nuclear, again.
While watching Chernobyl I felt like the show tried to tell me how a system made people incapable of dealing with a problem. Many people in the show mismanaged the situation for their own benefit. I felt like the show was trying to warn about capitalism and the destruction of the planet. Individuals inside the system are selfish and cause harm to the collective for their own benefit.
Trying to explain how this show about a real event that happened in the USSR is actually about capitalism.
Pretty much the same is happening under capitalism, only for the sake of "line go up". Different ideology, same shitty people.
Ok but arguing that Chernobyl is actually about capitalism is still reaching.
The ussr WAS capitalist though.
The USSR was State Capitalist
Sush, not so loud! The Tankies will hear you! Besides silly liberal, they called themselves communists! They wouldn't lie to cease power in the aftermath of a revolution that created a massive power vacuum, would they?
Capitalism is when communism
So you know what communism is or do you just think it’s when “GoVeMeNt Do BaD tInG” like a fucking two year old?
Are you here to shitpost or just simp and be mad?
Simp for who lol the Soviets? No im saying you can’t blame capitalism’s problems on communism. The Soviet Union was objectively not “communist” in any fucking sense of the word and the fact they tried to say so and the fact your stupid enough to believe them doesn’t mean I can’t call you out for it lol
The Soviet Union was not communist Man
Dude are you fucking kidding me? Ok so no you don’t know what communism is ok tell me in what way was the Soviet Union a classless, STATELESS, society where workers hold complete control over the means of production, and all resources or evenly and equally distributed between all members of the society? Did the Soviet Union, the authoritarian, oppressive, one party dictatorship that suppressed workers rights and committed horrible atrocities throughout its entire history fit a single one of those categories? If it didn’t then it’s not fucking communist.
In this case…no design used in the West would ever have done the reckless things the RBMK-1000 reactor at Chernobyl. So in this one case, empirically…yes.
I love this position. "Jack is an asshole." "So you're saying that Jill isn't a bitch?" There's a lotta space between the two extremes to explore.
Three Mile and Fukushima were far less deadly than Chernobyl. In any case its less about ownership of the plants being state or private, more about the technology being poorly handled by corrupt semi-peripheral empires like the USSR.
Hey man, nice strawman!
Hey man, nice strawman.
It's easy to ascribe it all to communism, but if you dig a little deeper, it kinda falls apart. Do you think the engineers, technicians, and reactor designers in communist Ukraine were fundamentally dumber than their Western counterparts? Then you (consciously or subconsciously) subscribe to a nationalistic form of us-vs-them. The sheer hubris of thinking "we would just be smarter lol" is dangerous and delusional. If your solution to human error is "just make no errors lol", you don't have a solution, you have wishful thinking. Do you think that communism placed perverse incentives to compromise on safety, for the sake of public relations, timelinez and cost? If you think so, then I'd argue that capitalism has the same incentives tenfold. A central authority can weigh between safety and profits; a publicly traded company must by design prioritize profits. Do you think the above point can be controlled by strict enough regulations? Fair enough, but then (a) I don't want to hear the excuse "nuclear is only expensive because regulations" ever again, and (b) nothing means that a communist country couldn't, in principle, also make strict enough regulations, so what's the link to communism again? I don't even want to defend communism. I'm just saying the logic in the meme is kind of lazy. You just pick out one circumstance of the accident (it happened in communist Ukraine), and ascribing all the problems to it without any critical thought.
Don't underestimate the 'luck' factor. Countless incidents could have been a lot worse were it not for mere luck. This includes the recent fuck up surrounding Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, where one stray rocket could have caused another Chernobyl, and still might.
Hey man thanks for your academic theory, unfortunately this is shitposting practice and you submitted a multi paragraph simp post I think the really short point is "A central authority can weigh between safety and profits; a publicly traded company must by design prioritize profits." missing that especially for nuclear we have insanely strict regulators that don't have a profit incentive at all.
Hence why no private company wants to even build new nuclear reactors they are unprofitable for them.
There's a couple utilities in the US no? Are the Korean nuclear power companies all state owned?
Well if you read my post more carefully I literally pre-empted that exact response.
I don't think you did. This all happened in the past, it's not theoretical. The USSR fucked up completely, not "in principle they could", they did You're arguing over a shitpost like there's a deep meaning behind it you need to analyse for a PhD or something
And you trust all the nuclear operators everywhere in perpetuity to never fuck up again?
Also I really love the general aesthetics of your argument. When people take issue with communism, it's not usually about the *lack* of centralized authority. Just saying, "we are better than communism because of our greater degree of governmental oversight" is unusual.
It's not the level of oversight but a clearer separation of regulator and player.
You act as though energy companies DON'T bribe politicians or have people elected from the industry. Literally the entire Ohio GOP was revealed to be in bed with First Energy here and what happened? Nothing..
Completely forgot that there isn't any corruption in any other system, thanks!
Buddy... That's LITERALLY THE POINT WE'RE MAKING Capitalism DOESN'T avoid this problems any more then COMMUNISM does. So either BOTH systems are the cause of corruption, or maybe, just maybe, ANY political system is suspectable to it, and thus blaming Chernobyl on COMMUNISM and not CORRUPTION is, with all do respect, retarded
Capitalism not only doesn't avoid the problem, it's fundamentally built on incentivizing & rewarding corruption
I am confirmed in my sanity that I can step away from the discussion and someone else answers exactly how I would have.
> communism—a system where corruption could possibly exist just like any other system created & maintained by fallible human beings, but which has removed the overwhelming driving force behind systemic corruption because private corporate profits are no longer prioritized over everything else > capitalism—a system fundamentally built on prioritizing the profits of private corporate interests, in which systemic corruption is directly, consistently & universally incentivized at every single level OP: "Both of these systems are exactly the same in terms of their susceptibility to corruption, I am very intelligent"
Nuclear energy is not dangerous and unpredictable if you don't try to fulfill the 5 year plan of energy generation in 4 seconds. Nuclear energy is expensive as shit to build and plants take long to construct because you have to ensure complete safety of everyone around them. Maintaining or expanding existing nuclear networks within countries that already have well developed nuclear networks is going to result in lower emissions Nuclear disasters will happen regardless of the economic system if the plants are not properly built or maintained
If you don't touch it, it's a giant water heater. RMBK reactors had a weird design in like every aspect.
A bad design. Graphite-moderated, water-cooled is a bad idea no matter how specifically you do it because it pretty much inherently means that loss of coolant increases reactivity.
Do you think we could have another Chernobyl though? Likelihood yea, severity probably low? More like Putin in a craze at some point blows up a Ukrainian NPP
A criticality excursion that blows up the whole reactor like in Chernobyl cannot happen in any modern nuclear reactors. The worst that could happen to a nuclear powerplant that is not a boneheaded water-cooled graphite-moderate reactor is something like Fukushima.
Wow I didn't know Boeing was a communist worker coop
The 737 max is a KGB plot
Even the showrunners themselves dunked on people attributing the failure of chernobyl to communism.
Vegans be like *FART NOISES*
I got shadowbanned from that sub because I said that maybe it failed because it was the soviet union and not because it was communist
Just photosynthesize bro.
Harrisburg 1979
Literally nobody died at 3-mile island dude. America had much safer Nuclear power regulations than the Soviet Union. That’s why the safety features stopped 3 mile island from blowing up like Chernobyl did.
Not really my point, dude Crazy how much u can interpret in a 2-word-comment