3 ms·
We need a law that for megaprojects, local governments and/or federal agencies must respond to requests within X days, or be fined an escalating per-day rate. A
by ethbr0 5y ago
We need a law that for megaprojects, local governments and/or federal agencies must respond to requests within X days, or be fined an escalating per-day rate. And if their responses are incomplete, same.
The timeline ballooning as all external parties take their time weighing in and covering their asses, and costs associated with idling construction waiting for same, are getting ridiculous.
Either it's a priority (in which case everyone should treat it as such), or it's not (in which case we should accept we just can't build non-priority projects over a certain scale).
- bduerst 5y agoYou'd never get megaprojects built then, because no-one would reasonably commit to them given the risk that they undergo scope creep and the steepness of that punishment.
- robbedpeter 5y agoYeah, that would simply put more obstacles in place. We need less ass covering and bureaucracy and more action. You don't solve that by creating more risk and the need for more ass covering.
- themitigating 5y agoSometimes a five year delay could be a community that sues over a new reactor, then appeals, appeals, etc. Then if that lawsuit was posted here the title might be "US government tries to rush reactor, threatens small town life".
- dragonwriter 5y ago> We need a law that for megaprojects, local governments and/or federal agencies must respond to requests within X days, or be fined an escalating per-day rate. Other than the fact that the federal government fining the federal government has no actual effect, all that making a high-legal stakes response timeline with impossible to concretely define completeness requirements would do is increase litigation and litigation costs around such projects.
- xyzzyz 5y agoThe fine proceeds would go to applicant, of course.
- AnthonyMouse 5y agoIIRC one of the big problems is that the construction standards a nuclear plant has to meet are the ones in effect when it comes online, not the ones in effect when construction begins, and then costs balloon because the requirements change multiple times in the middle of construction. If the construction requirements of 1980 are sufficient for a plant operating ten years from now that came online in 1980 then the construction requirements of this year should be sufficient for a plant operating ten years from now even if it hasn't come online yet. So the obvious fix for this is to use the requirements as of the day construction begins rather than the day it ends.
- dividedbyzero 5y agoThe Maas river at the Tihange plant in Belgium beat its projected 1000-year maximum by a sizable percentage this year, using up about half of the plant's safety margin. Climate change makes such events harder to predict and if such a thing were to happen during construction, you'd absolutely have to reconsider flooding defenses while you still can, anything else would be irresponsible. This sort of cutting corners to essentially make these plants more profitable is (in part) what gives nuclear such a bad rep. Given that several of our supposedly invulnerable plants had serious incidents, I'd say we're still pretty bad at designing and running these things, and in no position to skimp on safety.
- nickff 5y ago>"Given that several of our supposedly invulnerable plants had serious incidents, I'd say we're still pretty bad at designing and running these things, and in no position to skimp on safety." The plants that have had issues were known to be the oldest and most vulnerable ones.
- tremon 5y agoAlso, re: Tihange: the reactors at Tihange were designed for 40 years of operation, so Tihange 1 should have been shut down in 2015 (and Tihange 2 should be a year from now). If the operator and the Belgian government had adequate planning skills, a replacement reactor (or other power generator) should have been completed by then, and the new reactor could have been built using updated safety margins. Tihange is a good example of the same political inaction that gave us this climate crisis. It has nothing to do with cutting corners, nor about "designing and running these things". It is (political) complacency, not mismanagement of the plant that's the main problem.
- belorn 5y agoIt would be easier to just make a law against continued consumption of energy produced from fossil fuels, with the fines focused on when the government eventually breaks the law in order to prevent blackouts. If you forbid fossil fuels at a point in time (say 2030), the energy market will know ahead when demand will exceed supply. There aren't better incentives avilable if you want the mega projects built on time