3 ms·
The question that should be asked is if the faults of the application is severe enough that its worth continuing burning fossil fuels until/if there is a new an
by belorn 5y ago
The question that should be asked is if the faults of the application is severe enough that its worth continuing burning fossil fuels until/if there is a new and better source of energy. That is the counter part when determining a balance between the need for strict regulation and risk assessments. The damage we know we are causing with known technology, or the damage we might cause with new technology.
We have this kind of cost-benefit assessment in other regulations. It is always a trade off between the benefit of having them vs the cost of not allowing it, be it a new food safety restrictions or building codes. A replacement for diesel generators might be worth a slightly higher risk given how much damage those fossil fuel generators do to the environment, and the global commitment to prevent climate change.
- colechristensen 5y agoThat question does not need to be asked. Nuclear power is dangerous and needs to be done with extreme care and extensive regulation. A worst case nuclear disaster can have local and not so local effects which are worse, sooner, and longer lasting than any global warming threat. If you are careful those things don’t happen.
- roughly 5y agoAlternatively, “we asked that question and the answer is ‘yes’.”
- mst 5y agoI suspect that the current state of things is that nuclear is overregulated on a 'consequences to humanity' basis but not necessarily on a 'convincing humanity to let us ever build more nuclear plants' basis.
- adrianN 5y agoNuclear accidents contaminate a few thousand square kilometers for a few hundred years at the very worst. Global warming threatens the stability of the whole ecosphere and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere decrease in timeframes on the order of tens of thousands of years.
- nradov 5y agoIf you're competent and do your job correctly then it's possible to get NRC approval on the first try. Doing it right doesn't have to be slower or more expensive.
- jhgb 5y ago> if the faults of the application is severe enough that its worth continuing burning fossil fuels until/if there is a new and better source of energy You make it sound as if the only two options we had were to build these reactors or to burn fossil fuels. These are not the only two options that you have.
- adrianN 5y agoWe can keep working on these reactors for another ten or fifteen years while we put maximum effort into building PV and wind turbines and electrifying everything. It's easy to have 50% renewables on your grid with essentially no storage at all. The world is very far away from getting 50% if its energy needs from renewables.