10 ms·

When your supplier is threatening to invade and kill your people, and has critical control over supply of parts of your reactor, and regularly commits acts of n

When your supplier is threatening to invade and kill your people, and has critical control over supply of parts of your reactor, and regularly commits acts of nuclear terrorism such as droning the newly completed sarcophagus around Chornobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_drone_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_... Well, avoiding business deals with that neighbor is the only rational action. Building a Russian nuclear reactor as one of their neighbors is suicidally stupid. At least go to South Korea instead. The US is also finding out that when it threatens its neighbors and allies that it will lose out on crucial industrial deals, such as Canada and Europe moving away from US military contractors.

machomaster 6d ago
There would not be a critical control over the reactor, just the opposite. Finland would control everything and could have even bought fuel elsewhere. Loviisa station is Soviet-built, has been working amazingly well and till this day has been supplied with the fuel from Russia, despite the war and all. Nuclear station being a big target on its own is the only negative, among a pile of positives. That's why: 1. Mini-reactors should be developed 2. No, even nowadays, Putin has not really attacked nuclear stations for real in Ukraine. It's been a big no-no. All the rest of the energy infra - yes, but not nuclear stations. 3. If the real war starts with nuclear stations being bombed, it will not matter who build the station, Finland is going to be completely fucked, considering how much of the energy is nuclear. Taking this argument into a logical conclusion, Finland (or any other country) should not have any nuclear reactors on the chance that they will be attacked. This is a silly level of risk management, a very shallow and blind view.

machomaster 6d ago

There would not be a critical control over the reactor, just the opposite. Finland would control everything and could have even bought fuel elsewhere. Loviisa station is Soviet-built, has been working amazingly well and till this day has been supplied with the fuel from Russia, despite the war and all. Nuclear station being a big target on its own is the only negative, among a pile of positives. That's why: 1. Mini-reactors should be developed 2. No, even nowadays, Putin has not really attacked nuclear stations for real in Ukraine. It's been a big no-no. All the rest of the energy infra - yes, but not nuclear stations. 3. If the real war starts with nuclear stations being bombed, it will not matter who build the station, Finland is going to be completely fucked, considering how much of the energy is nuclear. Taking this argument into a logical conclusion, Finland (or any other country) should not have any nuclear reactors on the chance that they will be attacked. This is a silly level of risk management, a very shallow and blind view.