Because it’s a dangerous technology where profit over security can have severe consequences.

Not to mention the new risks now that drone wars are a thing. All those Chemical plants are already valuable target, no need to additional nuclear ones.

▲

gruez 16 hours ago | parent [-]

>Because it’s a dangerous technology where profit over security can have severe consequences.

Yeah it's far better to have power plants kill a steady stream of people, but in a banal way that's hard to attribute, like coal power plants causing lung cancer.

▲

JKCalhoun 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, but hydroelectric works pretty well. There's a reason they recycle aluminum, etc. (power-hungry industries—crypto-mining, ha ha) along the Columbia River, etc.

So build your data centers there. No reason to choose the least evil.

▲

applied_heat 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hydro electric as a resource is probably mostly exploited - are there a lot of big hydro projects left to build? If there are they must be difficult or expensive or they would have already been built.

	▲	throwaway173738 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In the Cascades they’re deconstructing dams as the benefits were oversold while the maintenance costs and environmental impacts were underestimated.

▲

Sabinus 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The Green movement in Australia was started over the successful blocking of a hydroelectric dam. Rivers are usually highly ecologically significant.

▲

Cthulhu_ 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which is why coal power plants are being shuttered everywhere in favor of gas and renewables (and I suppose nuclear, sometimes).

▲

2ndorderthought 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not nuclear or coal. There is wind, solar, etc.

▲

croes 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because the only options are coal or nuclear?

Wind and solar with storage is far better than nuclear.