5 ms·

> So which regulations are superfluous and expensive? There's much talk of overregulation from nuclear proponents, but I've yet to hear of specific examples. Sp

> So which regulations are superfluous and expensive? There's much talk of overregulation from nuclear proponents, but I've yet to hear of specific examples. Specifically, I want examples of laws that are expensive to comply with but clearly unnecessary. for instance: In CA Diablo Canyon is catching flak over the effect its cooling water has on the local sealife (gmafb) which is at least part of the official reason it is intending to shutdown.

dale_glass 4y ago
That seems like a perfectly reasonable concern, though. Now you might argue that power production is going to unavoidably kill something, and we have to make a choice about what's the lesser evil -- do we poison everything with coal, overheat fish with nuclear power plant cooling, smash birds with wind turbines, or set them on fire with a solar heliostat? We might well decide that it comes out in favor of nuclear there, but if we're minimizing harm then harm has to be measured, accounted for, and limited, and therefore regulating this particular thing makes perfect sense.
- natmaka 4y ago
  Other problems may be that letting the reactor run during a hot summer may really let water reach temperature very dangerous for most wildlife, and also that during a drought the sheer amount of water not only complicates this but also may forbid to run the reactor at full charge, or maybe even at all (financially hitting the company).
- trashtester 4y ago
  > That seems like a perfectly reasonable concern, though. I agree. But should we hold wind power to the same standards? Hundreds of thousands of birds are killed by wind power per year, in the US alone: https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/conservation/new-study-estimates-573000-birds-died-at-wind-farms-last-year/ https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/conservation/new-stud... Did anyone compare the environmental damage done by Nuclear per GWh to winder per GWh?
- thereisnospork 4y ago
  >We might well decide that it comes out in favor of nuclear there, but if we're minimizing harm then harm has to be measured, accounted for, and limited, and therefore regulating this particular thing makes perfect sense. The problem is that this argument holds for every 'this particular thing'. How does it affect the patterns of migratory birds? Cicada cycles? Invasive species? Are historical buildings going to be destroyed? Trees cut down? Was there a native american settlement on the site that we just have to study? That any one of these petty concerns can be brought to litigation by an activist party to stand in the way of 9% of California's total energy demand is absurd and self-defeatist. People wonder why we can't build anything anymore[0] and then demand we bike-shed every petty item to death in the courts. [0]At reasonable costs/timelines. I'm still waiting for my high speed rail. Or housing that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

dale_glass 4y ago

That seems like a perfectly reasonable concern, though. Now you might argue that power production is going to unavoidably kill something, and we have to make a choice about what's the lesser evil -- do we poison everything with coal, overheat fish with nuclear power plant cooling, smash birds with wind turbines, or set them on fire with a solar heliostat? We might well decide that it comes out in favor of nuclear there, but if we're minimizing harm then harm has to be measured, accounted for, and limited, and therefore regulating this particular thing makes perfect sense.

natmaka 4y ago
Other problems may be that letting the reactor run during a hot summer may really let water reach temperature very dangerous for most wildlife, and also that during a drought the sheer amount of water not only complicates this but also may forbid to run the reactor at full charge, or maybe even at all (financially hitting the company).
trashtester 4y ago
> That seems like a perfectly reasonable concern, though. I agree. But should we hold wind power to the same standards? Hundreds of thousands of birds are killed by wind power per year, in the US alone: https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/conservation/new-study-estimates-573000-birds-died-at-wind-farms-last-year/ https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/conservation/new-stud... Did anyone compare the environmental damage done by Nuclear per GWh to winder per GWh?
thereisnospork 4y ago
>We might well decide that it comes out in favor of nuclear there, but if we're minimizing harm then harm has to be measured, accounted for, and limited, and therefore regulating this particular thing makes perfect sense. The problem is that this argument holds for every 'this particular thing'. How does it affect the patterns of migratory birds? Cicada cycles? Invasive species? Are historical buildings going to be destroyed? Trees cut down? Was there a native american settlement on the site that we just have to study? That any one of these petty concerns can be brought to litigation by an activist party to stand in the way of 9% of California's total energy demand is absurd and self-defeatist. People wonder why we can't build anything anymore[0] and then demand we bike-shed every petty item to death in the courts. [0]At reasonable costs/timelines. I'm still waiting for my high speed rail. Or housing that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.