2 ms·

It's not hand-waving. We've got got what, close to a billion fission reactor-hours worth of data? Perhaps more? We know exactly how safe they are. Also: "safet

It's not hand-waving. We've got got what, close to a billion fission reactor-hours worth of data? Perhaps more? We know exactly how safe they are. Also: "safety issues?" Useless to talk about safety issues in a vacuum. Safety issues compared to what? - Fossil fuels, which are literally guaranteed to fry this planet? - Wind, water, solar? Great but not sufficient and/or feasible in all locales. - An imaginary energy source with zero downsides? Let us know once you work out the details. You point to Fukushima, thanks to which a region was rendered uninhabitable. I point to climate change caused by fossil fuel, thanks to which large swathes of the planet will soon be uninhabitable. I know which one I prefer. I'd prefer ten or a hundred Fukushimas in exchange for what's about to happen to our planet in the coming decades.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
socialdemocrat 4y ago
But that safety comes in large parts from strict regulations which have made nuclear power very expensive. Many seem to live in this alternative reality where we can have bit super safe, lightly regulated and cheap nuclear. I am afraid we can only have one of those attributes. And figuring out how to build cheap nuclear in the West is actually a pretty complex thing. The US cannot even figure out why their roads and railroads cost many times that of other countries. If they cannot figure that out, then how are they going to solve a far trickier problem?
- selectodude 4y ago
  > But that safety comes in large parts from strict regulations which have made nuclear power very expensive. Nonsense. The strict regulations are why there have been two nuclear starts in the USA since 1978.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    What you wrote doesn't contradict what he wrote.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  I am afraid we can only have one of those attributes. While I accept that those two things (safe fission power, and cheap fission power) are in obvious tension with each other, your "choose only one" scenario is a false dichotomy. A well-functioning, technologically advanced, and motivated country could easily overcome this. Standardized reactor designs, simplified reactor designs such as the newer molten salt reactor designs, etc. We have the technology to do this safely and cheaper than we're doing it now; we just don't have the will. Also, any talk of cost must include not only the short-term kWh cost, but the long term cost -- ie, the terrible cost of climate change that we'll soon be paying. And figuring out how to build cheap nuclear in the West is actually a pretty complex thing Yeah, no arguments there. The US is no longer capable of tackling long term initiatives like this, because any change will necessarily upset the corporations that effectively own the government. Nothing will change until the ice caps melt and half our coastal cities are flooded, and at that point something might happen but probably not anything good.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

socialdemocrat 4y ago

But that safety comes in large parts from strict regulations which have made nuclear power very expensive. Many seem to live in this alternative reality where we can have bit super safe, lightly regulated and cheap nuclear. I am afraid we can only have one of those attributes. And figuring out how to build cheap nuclear in the West is actually a pretty complex thing. The US cannot even figure out why their roads and railroads cost many times that of other countries. If they cannot figure that out, then how are they going to solve a far trickier problem?

selectodude 4y ago
> But that safety comes in large parts from strict regulations which have made nuclear power very expensive. Nonsense. The strict regulations are why there have been two nuclear starts in the USA since 1978.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  What you wrote doesn't contradict what he wrote.
JohnBooty 4y ago
I am afraid we can only have one of those attributes. While I accept that those two things (safe fission power, and cheap fission power) are in obvious tension with each other, your "choose only one" scenario is a false dichotomy. A well-functioning, technologically advanced, and motivated country could easily overcome this. Standardized reactor designs, simplified reactor designs such as the newer molten salt reactor designs, etc. We have the technology to do this safely and cheaper than we're doing it now; we just don't have the will. Also, any talk of cost must include not only the short-term kWh cost, but the long term cost -- ie, the terrible cost of climate change that we'll soon be paying. And figuring out how to build cheap nuclear in the West is actually a pretty complex thing Yeah, no arguments there. The US is no longer capable of tackling long term initiatives like this, because any change will necessarily upset the corporations that effectively own the government. Nothing will change until the ice caps melt and half our coastal cities are flooded, and at that point something might happen but probably not anything good.