3 ms·

> Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Specifically, compared to the other options we actually have available to us now. That is

> Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Specifically, compared to the other options we actually have available to us now. That is the conversation I think we should be having. Then why are you making so many arguments about how we must find ways to make it cheaper? That doesn't seem very committed to the idea of discussing the current cost benefit trade-off.

theptip 4y ago
The technology might make a good cost/benefit trade-off, if we fixed the regulatory framework but not otherwise. Or it might already make a good trade-off in the current regulatory environment. I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here, though they do obviously affect each other. My point is that we need to look at both of these factors, rather than considering the regulatory framework as a given that is set in stone, definitely correct, and something we can't change. In this case it may be easier to change the regulatory environment than to come up with new dramatically-cheaper nuclear technology that complies with the restrictions of the current regulations (though that is happening too with modular reactors).
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  > I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here You're saying the safety standards regulation is not couple to the technology being used? Then what is it regulating if it's not the technology?
  - theptip 4y ago
    Holding the technology constant, you can change the safety requirements.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There is absolutely no appetite for reducing safety standards for nukes, especially considering that renewables pose exactly zero threat, and also cost much less than even the most ... aspirational ... guesses for nukes even with relaxed standards.
avianlyric 4y ago
> Then why are you making so many arguments about how we must find ways to make it cheaper? They don’t appear to be making those arguments at all. Just stating that Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources. It quite reasonable to include a question about “how safe is safe enough” when talking about trade offs. It’s easy to change safety standards, and they’re constantly evolving in all industries, so it’s hardly disingenuous to consider as part of the current cost benefit trade-off. However to insist that Nuclear energy can only be evaluated in strict unchanging state, or to suggest that GP was suggesting such an evaluation, is somewhat disingenuous, and substantially undermines the authenticity of your argument.
- logifail 4y ago
  > Just stating that Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources. Errm, than renewables?
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  > Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources. Ok, but this surely only is an argument that other sources should be regulated harsher (and fossil fuels absolutely should), not that we must make nuclear less safe.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    What makes you think that? With fossil fuels I'd say we need to worry about taxing emissions more than we worry about safety. But sure, let's make them safer. Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? Don't say it's impossible to be too safe. It's very possible. Imagine if speed limits were 15mph everywhere for an easy example. We can build plants that are much safer than any previous ones; why is that not good enough? The regulations shouldn't be "make the whole thing out of the black box material, okay good luck".
    - SiempreViernes 4y ago

theptip 4y ago

The technology might make a good cost/benefit trade-off, if we fixed the regulatory framework but not otherwise. Or it might already make a good trade-off in the current regulatory environment. I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here, though they do obviously affect each other. My point is that we need to look at both of these factors, rather than considering the regulatory framework as a given that is set in stone, definitely correct, and something we can't change. In this case it may be easier to change the regulatory environment than to come up with new dramatically-cheaper nuclear technology that complies with the restrictions of the current regulations (though that is happening too with modular reactors).

SiempreViernes 4y ago
> I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here You're saying the safety standards regulation is not couple to the technology being used? Then what is it regulating if it's not the technology?
- theptip 4y ago
  Holding the technology constant, you can change the safety requirements.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    There is absolutely no appetite for reducing safety standards for nukes, especially considering that renewables pose exactly zero threat, and also cost much less than even the most ... aspirational ... guesses for nukes even with relaxed standards.

avianlyric 4y ago

> Then why are you making so many arguments about how we must find ways to make it cheaper? They don’t appear to be making those arguments at all. Just stating that Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources. It quite reasonable to include a question about “how safe is safe enough” when talking about trade offs. It’s easy to change safety standards, and they’re constantly evolving in all industries, so it’s hardly disingenuous to consider as part of the current cost benefit trade-off. However to insist that Nuclear energy can only be evaluated in strict unchanging state, or to suggest that GP was suggesting such an evaluation, is somewhat disingenuous, and substantially undermines the authenticity of your argument.

logifail 4y ago
> Just stating that Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources. Errm, than renewables?
SiempreViernes 4y ago
> Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources. Ok, but this surely only is an argument that other sources should be regulated harsher (and fossil fuels absolutely should), not that we must make nuclear less safe.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  What makes you think that? With fossil fuels I'd say we need to worry about taxing emissions more than we worry about safety. But sure, let's make them safer. Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? Don't say it's impossible to be too safe. It's very possible. Imagine if speed limits were 15mph everywhere for an easy example. We can build plants that are much safer than any previous ones; why is that not good enough? The regulations shouldn't be "make the whole thing out of the black box material, okay good luck".
  - SiempreViernes 4y ago