5 ms·
> While for 40 years California may have opposed nuclear power, it might be time for people to figure out how to make it work. Let me know when you figure out
by redis_mlc 6y ago
> While for 40 years California may have opposed nuclear power, it might be time for people to figure out how to make it work.
Let me know when you figure out how to make the operator pay the insurance, cleanup and decommissioning costs. HN nuclear fanbois keep evading this question.
It will take the entire nation of Japan to clean up Fukushima.
- icodestuff 6y agoThe NRC already requires that.
- redis_mlc 6y agoNo, it doesn't, and I wish the HN gaslighting would stop: - Operaring certificates keep getting extended, which pushes decommissioning into the future - there are US laws that distort the insurance market, passing the risk on to tax payers over $13 billion: https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/ https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-... Fukushima's cleanup estimate is already at $750 billion plus army resources, and estimates keep climbing. - US companies can create shell companies that isolate nuclear "divisions" financially.
- orwin 6y ago> It will take the entire nation of Japan to clean up Fukushima. Citation needed. Why don't people understand that the GIEC and UNSCEAR are essentially the same, except that the GIEC have one of their group focused on making politic statements (not the group i like the most, obviously). But if you trust the GIEC documentation and agregation, why not trust UNSCEAR's? I mean, you don't get to cherry pick science. If you're not a climate/radionuclear scientist, you should either distrust both UNSCEAR or GIEC, or trust both. Not GIEC Group3, they mostly heed scientific advice hopefully, but they are different.