3 ms·

> 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

> 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
    Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk: the fact that going for a drive is riskier than staying at home is not a good argument for removing the front door. > Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? It's up to you to give me reasons to think that, because the default position is that a the regulation doesn't seek to require more than is necessary. This is explicitly listed in the legislation creating the NRC: it is tasked with running "A program to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public", meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" (my emphasis).
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk Yes, the opposite of that strawman is also a strawman. Neither one is correct. By my view you're advocating for a strawman of near-infinite safety. > meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" As far as I'm aware, the way the regulation is handled in practice is that you have to be on the bleeding edge of safety innovations at all times. You can't just be much safer than your predecessors and adopt new methods as they become practical, you have to max out safety at tremendous cost. Probably because there's decades and decades of pushing for safety, and it sounds really bad to say "no, the plant should not be safer than this, that's too expensive" even when it's true.

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
  Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk: the fact that going for a drive is riskier than staying at home is not a good argument for removing the front door. > Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? It's up to you to give me reasons to think that, because the default position is that a the regulation doesn't seek to require more than is necessary. This is explicitly listed in the legislation creating the NRC: it is tasked with running "A program to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public", meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" (my emphasis).
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk Yes, the opposite of that strawman is also a strawman. Neither one is correct. By my view you're advocating for a strawman of near-infinite safety. > meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" As far as I'm aware, the way the regulation is handled in practice is that you have to be on the bleeding edge of safety innovations at all times. You can't just be much safer than your predecessors and adopt new methods as they become practical, you have to max out safety at tremendous cost. Probably because there's decades and decades of pushing for safety, and it sounds really bad to say "no, the plant should not be safer than this, that's too expensive" even when it's true.