3 ms·

Sure. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. And you should be skeptical of anyone pushing an agenda. I’m pro nukes (best phrasing), but it’s understandable why pe

Sure. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. And you should be skeptical of anyone pushing an agenda. I’m pro nukes (best phrasing), but it’s understandable why people are scared of it. I hope that the costs can come down and we can start doing some small scale experiments to show the reliability and safety. Most people just don’t have experience with the recent tech.

lloeki 4y ago
> I’m pro nukes (best phrasing) On my side I would say I'm "pro" nuke a) by default (because I can't see an alternative as to how we could reasonably achieve stable renewable with current tech on a short enough timescale) and thus b) as a transition technology. I mean, I hate the waste, the impact of a catastrophic event can be terrible, but when taking a step back it feels like peanuts compared to the global scale and very real impact of what's currently happening, and for which we need to hit the brakes, like, yesterday, and continue to do so real hard for a very long time.
LorenPechtel 4y ago
To bring the costs down we need to shoot a few regulators. The problem is that the safety standards are to make them as safe as reasonably possible--this *inherently* means they're going to be too expensive because if they weren't that means it would be feasible to improve the safety. We get huge cost overruns because the safety standards get changed in construction and they have to go back, reevaluate and modify. And because the greens manage to tie things up in court causing delays. Instead, I would like to see (generally, not just in this case) that safety say twice as good as the best alternative is deemed good enough. (And note that solar and wind are not alternatives without a suitable storage system--which doesn't yet exist. The best alternative is natural gas--and it turns out my memory was faulty, natural gas is two orders of magnitude worse and coal is three orders of magnitude worse.)

lloeki 4y ago

> I’m pro nukes (best phrasing) On my side I would say I'm "pro" nuke a) by default (because I can't see an alternative as to how we could reasonably achieve stable renewable with current tech on a short enough timescale) and thus b) as a transition technology. I mean, I hate the waste, the impact of a catastrophic event can be terrible, but when taking a step back it feels like peanuts compared to the global scale and very real impact of what's currently happening, and for which we need to hit the brakes, like, yesterday, and continue to do so real hard for a very long time.

LorenPechtel 4y ago

To bring the costs down we need to shoot a few regulators. The problem is that the safety standards are to make them as safe as reasonably possible--this *inherently* means they're going to be too expensive because if they weren't that means it would be feasible to improve the safety. We get huge cost overruns because the safety standards get changed in construction and they have to go back, reevaluate and modify. And because the greens manage to tie things up in court causing delays. Instead, I would like to see (generally, not just in this case) that safety say twice as good as the best alternative is deemed good enough. (And note that solar and wind are not alternatives without a suitable storage system--which doesn't yet exist. The best alternative is natural gas--and it turns out my memory was faulty, natural gas is two orders of magnitude worse and coal is three orders of magnitude worse.)