Nuclear is a strategic drone target first and foremost. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.

▲

00N8 3 days ago | parent [-]

Not really - for either system, the transformer substations are the part that's vulnerable to drones. Any munition capable of breaching the outer containment structure of a nuclear power plant (let alone impacting the core, dozens to hundreds of meters further inside) is closer to a bunker buster than a drone.

What I'd really like to see though is heavy subsidies for synthetic e-fuel plants running a carbon negative process during off peak hours. That would work with both solar & nuclear.

▲

actionfromafar 3 days ago | parent [-]

Ok, nuclear is a strategic missile target. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.

▲

adrian_b 3 days ago | parent [-]

Nuclear could be more distributed too.

The obstacles for small nuclear reactors have not been technical, but the fear that they may be more easily misused.

There are good arguments against nuclear, but not being more distributed is not one of them.

	▲	actionfromafar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No I am not against that. I'm just against any medium-to-large to large nuclear reactor built in within striking distance of a credible foe. Which is to say, at this point in time, all of them. But if we start producing Fallout style reactors everywhere, sure, why not.