7 ms·

Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power. > So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the

Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power. > So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows. Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't even need to argue which is cheaper and we can just let power companies figure it out). > So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? Isn't solar more expensive when you factor in the cost of batteries (which would be required if solar scales up; i.e. a diseconomy of scale)? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

natch 10y ago
The costs of solar are decreasing over time. And solar is more decentralized, so you're not stuck with huge government boondoggles, corruption, and corporate overlords.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Source for corruption in private electricity firms? I don't think it's particularly high. Who are corporate overlords?
  - natch 10y ago
    Ever heard of Enron? Also just google for "nuclear corruption" and you'll get a lot of reading material. For example this article http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-corruption-2012-to-date/ http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-cor... which has links out to sources including the US DOJ about corruption cases in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the US, and more. It's a huge problem. And the key players would like to keep it all hidden, so your being in the dark about it is no surprise. Corporate overlords (can't tell if you are trolling, but I'll answer) is just a shorthand for corporate decision makers who prioritize corporate profits over other considerations like consumer benefit, care of the environment, freedom of consumer choice, fair dealing, etc.
  - natch 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
Retric 10y ago
It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.
- mason240 10y ago
  >there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Fukushima exclusion zone disagrees with you. Sure, if we limited reactors to 'safe' locations that reduces risks, but we still put them in stupid areas such as near fault lines.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        "No modern plant"
        10y ago

natch 10y ago

The costs of solar are decreasing over time. And solar is more decentralized, so you're not stuck with huge government boondoggles, corruption, and corporate overlords.

witty_username 10y ago
Source for corruption in private electricity firms? I don't think it's particularly high. Who are corporate overlords?
- natch 10y ago
  Ever heard of Enron? Also just google for "nuclear corruption" and you'll get a lot of reading material. For example this article http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-corruption-2012-to-date/ http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-policy-forum/nuclear-cor... which has links out to sources including the US DOJ about corruption cases in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the US, and more. It's a huge problem. And the key players would like to keep it all hidden, so your being in the dark about it is no surprise. Corporate overlords (can't tell if you are trolling, but I'll answer) is just a shorthand for corporate decision makers who prioritize corporate profits over other considerations like consumer benefit, care of the environment, freedom of consumer choice, fair dealing, etc.
- natch 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

Retric 10y ago

It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.

mason240 10y ago
>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.
- Retric 10y ago
  Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Fukushima exclusion zone disagrees with you. Sure, if we limited reactors to 'safe' locations that reduces risks, but we still put them in stupid areas such as near fault lines.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        "No modern plant"
        10y ago