Is it because the lack of infrastructure that they can’t deal with it on the offset of a nuclear meltdown? Or that the resources needed to maintain the reactor needs to be efficiently sent?
In: Engineering
* Cheaper to build near population centers (the building materials and workers come from somewhere and you need an awful lot of concrete, steel and advanced equipment that need to be shipped in from somewhere).
* The people working there will need somewhere to live.
* Easier to connect it to the electricity grid and lower losses from power transfer (generally a nuclear powerplant is situated close to a city that isn’t close to alternate means of power generation, like hydro).
* Faster response from first responders like fire departments or law-enforcement. If there is a thing like a fire or if someone tries do stuff like acquire material for a dirty bomb by stealing steal spent fuel rods from the short term storage basin.
Modern nuclear power plants are so safe that there really is no drawback as long as its far enough out from population centers that people don’t hang around in the vicinity (so that security can operate undisturbed).
Latest Answers