I think you could have phrased it more constructively, but your question is valid - does it make sense to build nuclear given we may be entering a period of prolonged warfare?
Most fossil fuel facilities are equally vulnerable to destruction, and a blown up coal or natural gas facility would probably pollute to a similar degree.
Modern nuclear facilities are also designed not to pollute in the event of destruction.
Finally, the pollution from the normal operation of a fossil fuel facility would probably kill similar numbers to the pollution of a destroyed nuclear facility.
Finally I would say that war demands a lot of energy - we should be focusing on expedience at the moment.
and a blown up coal or natural gas facility would probably pollute to a similar degree.
Not even close. Radioactive decay can continue for centuries and is difficult to contain. Burnt fossil fuels are burnt and that's it. No need to build a containment or maintain an exclusion zone.
Did you know that coal ashes is also a bit radioactive? Contrary to the fuel of a nuclear power plant which is very radioactive but well contained, these ashes are just spread in the atmosphere during normal operation.
We, at least I, were not thinking about normal operation. This is about events like the shelling of the largest nuclear plant in Europe. There are others which the Kremlin will attempt to take with force as well. I was unable to purchase iodine tablets as they were out of stock already.
I'd be curious to why this isn't an issue as well? I'd be really interested in a cogent description of how this isn't a concern.
Taking out a small reactor from the air or some sort of inside job would be an obvious first target. The excuse would likely be similar to the one used in the current conflict that happened last week - "We just need to take it out to take critical 'infrastructure' offline." I think what makes it less worrisome is that the current aggressor has a lot to lose economically and also wants to occupy the area long term - so they were mostly operating in a safe manner. But if you had a group that had less to lose and had no intent on long term occupation - they could just go the destruction route.
I could also see how it could easily lead to one upsmanship to real nuclear weaponry as it plays out in click heavy media news reporting - "Well they started us down the path by blowing up the nuclear reactor - so we'll need to counter that with some nuclear weapons..."
So the real concern is about escalation in the event of conflict where decisions are made under duress and the public/politicians are not familiar with the details of nuclear energy safety and thus can easily be swayed.
The issue that would concern me is more that once these technologies are developed by private companies, the companies will want to recoup the R&D costs by selling the technology oversees.
At that point, the "small reactor" industry will become entrenched enough to have a lobbying arm - who will make sure the license to export include all short term prospects - including ones in less than savory geopolitical issues.
I just tried to buy iodine tablets in Prague and they were already sold out, with an unknown restock date. [0]
Nuclear power is a very complex issue. However, from a security point of view, putting dirty bomb ingredients around your country is not a genius move in a less than peaceful world.
[0] Pharmacist told me that my best bet at this point was a supplement product made from seaweed. She stressed it was not medical grade. That might be in stock later in the week.
note: but also, we are advised here on HN to not talk about getting downvoted. You get extra downvotes for that.
So, I listened to a conversation between a nuclear engineer and a few other engineers and some soldiers the other night on twitter spaces.
The thing the nuclear engineer kept hammering home is that the biggest risk realistically is damage to the equipment, as in it would suck to lose the reactor but no one's going to get hurt if no one's on site.
The type of shelling that was going on, just fundamentally wasn't the kind to cause a serious event.
Worst case scenario, if Russia is actively trying to cause an incident, is they drop a large bomb on it.
This would still be nothing at all like Chernobyl.
Because of the fundamental differences in design, this would be an event on the scale of Three Mile Island.
They didn't even stop using the other reactor at Three Mile Island.
Honestly the biggest thing, even, is that if the Ukranians were to shut down the reactors, the potential for this immediately drops.
Dropping the control rods immediately 'poisons' the material. It takes weeks to get the reactor back to full power.
*why the downvotes? Security is a fatal flaw with nuclear energy.