4 ms·

To postulate a detachment of the economics of nuclear from public perception very hard to justify in my opinion. Certainly nuclear has been expensive to build

To postulate a detachment of the economics of nuclear from public perception very hard to justify in my opinion. Certainly nuclear has been expensive to build and operate, and the industry is by no means innocent in this. On the other hand, it's extremely regulated, and the bureaucracy built up makes it very expensive, for example, to make a routine change during construction from the blueprints. No other industry is as regulated as nuclear. During operation it's the same way. You can spend many person-months dealing with corrective action procedures that are mandated, etc. Many of these are considered by the industry to not actually affect safety. For instance the NRC finds like 22,000 "green" findings and a few hundred "white" ones per year. The white ones have low safety significance. Yet, the paperwork and follow-up is nearly crippling. That's good right? Because nuclear is dangerous? Wrong. Commercial nuclear over its 60 years of commercial operation has killed as many people as coal (operating as designed) kills every single day. Every time a nuclear plant shuts down, more people die because of increased air pollution. It's not rational. It's regulated so much because people are afraid of it. It's expensive entirely because of fearmongering.

adrianN 8y ago
It could very well be that nuclear is so safe because of all the bureaucracy that is required. Its safety record is not a good argument for abolishing the red tape. The fact is that failure scenarios of nuclear plants are very dangerous.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Are they? Tmi was before the red tape was excessive and Fukushima was a huge meltdown from a massive tsunami. How many people died from the radiation released from both combined? The answer is zero. I'm not saying we go non-regulated. I'm saying the current regs may be too much. I'd argue that climate change is now more of a threat than more carbon-free nuclear plants.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    Isn't Fukishima still leaking into the Pacific? And hasn't the world had to redefine "safe" measures and recommendations for pregnant women and children to abstain from ocean fish because of it? Long term effects could be very bad. I'm actually in favor of more nuclear power in the U.S. mainland. But certain locations are definitely more or less safe than others. I'm also in favor of streamlining a lot of regulation, if those responsible for a human error based disaster (including managers up to the president/ceo of contsruction/management org) potentially being hanged as a result (not shot, not electric, not chemical injection, hanged till dead).

adrianN 8y ago

It could very well be that nuclear is so safe because of all the bureaucracy that is required. Its safety record is not a good argument for abolishing the red tape. The fact is that failure scenarios of nuclear plants are very dangerous.

acidburnNSA 8y ago
Are they? Tmi was before the red tape was excessive and Fukushima was a huge meltdown from a massive tsunami. How many people died from the radiation released from both combined? The answer is zero. I'm not saying we go non-regulated. I'm saying the current regs may be too much. I'd argue that climate change is now more of a threat than more carbon-free nuclear plants.
- tracker1 8y ago
  Isn't Fukishima still leaking into the Pacific? And hasn't the world had to redefine "safe" measures and recommendations for pregnant women and children to abstain from ocean fish because of it? Long term effects could be very bad. I'm actually in favor of more nuclear power in the U.S. mainland. But certain locations are definitely more or less safe than others. I'm also in favor of streamlining a lot of regulation, if those responsible for a human error based disaster (including managers up to the president/ceo of contsruction/management org) potentially being hanged as a result (not shot, not electric, not chemical injection, hanged till dead).