4 ms·

I really hope this was sarcasm. Plutonium is not cheap. Uranium is not cheap. Redundant safety systems are not cheap. Pressure proof concrete vessels are no

I really hope this was sarcasm. Plutonium is not cheap. Uranium is not cheap. Redundant safety systems are not cheap. Pressure proof concrete vessels are not cheap. Industrial grade power turbines, also not cheap. The list goes on and on.

btilly 15y ago
A lot of that expense is redundant safety systems, inspections, etc. Which cost is born because of regulation. Whether regulations like that are a problem or a solution is a source of endless debate depending on your political position. But given recent events in Japan, it is clear that we are headed for more regulation, not less.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  I would hope they'd do most of that stuff in the absence of regulation.
  - shadowfox 15y ago
    Is there a reason to believe they would?
  - JackDanger 15y ago
    Chernobyl proves that that's not a guarantee.
  - btilly 15y ago
    A lot of people would hope that. However all available evidence suggests that people will and do cut corners until they get burned. And companies that refuse to do so will find themselves becoming less profitable than their less scrupulous competitors. The result is public pressure for regulation. Unfortunately economic theory and practice show that once an industry has come under regulation it becomes their priority to get control of that regulation. This process is called "regulatory capture" and inevitably succeeds. Once it has succeeded, the protections erode and the regulatory scheme is used to create barriers to entry for competitors. See the recent financial crisis for an example of this. Depending on your politics you are likely to think that one of these failure modes is a bigger deal than the other.
    - mkr-hn 15y ago
      The choice is often between a shaky regulatory structure and a melee between profit and common good. I usually prefer to take a chance on regulation unless someone comes up with a better option. Sometimes the third option of going to an industry and asking them to do something does work, but not always. I'd always try it first, but it's not always going to work, and the consequences of inaction can be pretty bad.
anamax 15y ago
> Plutonium is not cheap. Uranium is not cheap. Actually, they are, given the amount of energy that they contain. > Redundant safety systems are not cheap. Pressure proof concrete vessels are not cheap. Industrial grade power turbines, also not cheap. The list goes on and on. This line of "thinking" tells us to buy our dump trunks from Tonka, because Tonka's trucks are far less expensive than Caterpillars. (BTW - those items are a small fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant. Add in the rest of what it takes to make power, safely control the plant, AND verify that you're doing so, and you're still at a small fraction of the cost of a plant.) One can't make sensible decisions by looking at costs xor benefits in isolation.

btilly 15y ago

A lot of that expense is redundant safety systems, inspections, etc. Which cost is born because of regulation. Whether regulations like that are a problem or a solution is a source of endless debate depending on your political position. But given recent events in Japan, it is clear that we are headed for more regulation, not less.

mkr-hn 15y ago
I would hope they'd do most of that stuff in the absence of regulation.
- shadowfox 15y ago
  Is there a reason to believe they would?
- JackDanger 15y ago
  Chernobyl proves that that's not a guarantee.
- btilly 15y ago
  A lot of people would hope that. However all available evidence suggests that people will and do cut corners until they get burned. And companies that refuse to do so will find themselves becoming less profitable than their less scrupulous competitors. The result is public pressure for regulation. Unfortunately economic theory and practice show that once an industry has come under regulation it becomes their priority to get control of that regulation. This process is called "regulatory capture" and inevitably succeeds. Once it has succeeded, the protections erode and the regulatory scheme is used to create barriers to entry for competitors. See the recent financial crisis for an example of this. Depending on your politics you are likely to think that one of these failure modes is a bigger deal than the other.
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    The choice is often between a shaky regulatory structure and a melee between profit and common good. I usually prefer to take a chance on regulation unless someone comes up with a better option. Sometimes the third option of going to an industry and asking them to do something does work, but not always. I'd always try it first, but it's not always going to work, and the consequences of inaction can be pretty bad.

anamax 15y ago

> Plutonium is not cheap. Uranium is not cheap. Actually, they are, given the amount of energy that they contain. > Redundant safety systems are not cheap. Pressure proof concrete vessels are not cheap. Industrial grade power turbines, also not cheap. The list goes on and on. This line of "thinking" tells us to buy our dump trunks from Tonka, because Tonka's trucks are far less expensive than Caterpillars. (BTW - those items are a small fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant. Add in the rest of what it takes to make power, safely control the plant, AND verify that you're doing so, and you're still at a small fraction of the cost of a plant.) One can't make sensible decisions by looking at costs xor benefits in isolation.