3 ms·
As long as we don't get complacent and half-ass things I have no problem with nuclear power. As if that will ever stop happening. On a less snarky level: in a
by kafkaesq 11y ago
As long as we don't get complacent and half-ass things I have no problem with nuclear power.
As if that will ever stop happening.
On a less snarky level: in a complex system (like basically any large-scale power generation scheme) we can't separate the underlying technology from the petty failings and foibles of the luckless human beings (quite often largely or entirely non-technical) saddled with the awful responsibility of having to manage it. And most especially not their time-tested propensity to sweep things under the rug and cover one's ass at the first sign of trouble (or even undue complication).
That's why we need to choose technologies which are resilient to human failure - not, implicitly, reliant and utterly dependent on human perfection to keep them from tipping over.
- tajen 11y agoHave we ever trid asking a private insurance for a coverage? We often have the problem that the state tries to play the insurance role, whereas if every damage were to be paid for by an insurance, they'd "gide us" through respecting the procedures. Like we personally press charges and bankrupt you for life if you don't shut down the plant for every indicator that goes mildly not-green on this panel. Then we'd know the real cost of insuring for nuclear. Our problem is that the state is trying to make the nuclear investment itself.
- josho 11y agoI think the reason we don't have private insurance is the worst case risk is too significant for a single enterprise to absorb. Which is why the state is involved. Your point remains valid, I just wish our governments were better at avoiding regulatory capture so we could trust them to do their job at this.