6 ms·

I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than almost any other type of large scale power plant, including wind and hydro (assuming I was downstream

I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than almost any other type of large scale power plant, including wind and hydro (assuming I was downstream to the hydro). Being afraid of a nuclear plant is like being afraid of flying. In fact, flying is way, way more dangerous. Even if you ONLY consider radiation exposure, a few hours in a plane per year will eclipse the increase in exposure the average person living next to a nuclear plant will receive.

wnevets 4y ago
And what makes it so safe the tech or the government regulations?
- trashtester 4y ago
  The government regulations that were in place in 1970, combined with the tech from that time, makes most western style reactors, even from back then, incredibly safe. More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then.
  - wnevets 4y ago
    > More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then. Does that mean you believe there is too much regulations for nuclear power? That would also mean you would want to see less regulations?
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Yes, and yes. Specifically, I would prefer if all energy types were regulated according to the same principles when it came to risk/harm tolerance, emission rates, etc. If a coal plant is allowed to emit X Bq/GWh, every other plant types should have the same limit. Or even better, if you add all polutants together, one should calculate total expected harm (in terms of X * deaths/GWh + Y * disease/GWh + Z * Global Warming contribution, or something) and either set a ceiling on total harm, or add a tax on each power plant based on total expected harm caused. This wouldn't necessarily mean that the regulations would be written using fewer words, but it would/should lead to an optimal balance between cost of energy and the harm caused. The current system seems to lead to both harm and price levels that are much higher than they need to be.
      - wnevets 4y ago
        I find this absolutely fascinating with in the context of this article and the deregulation that has contributed to this environmental disaster. We keep having to deal the consequences of deregulation/less safety as path to more profit and fact there are people actively who want this for nuclear power is mind-blowing to me.

wnevets 4y ago

And what makes it so safe the tech or the government regulations?

trashtester 4y ago
The government regulations that were in place in 1970, combined with the tech from that time, makes most western style reactors, even from back then, incredibly safe. More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then.
- wnevets 4y ago
  > More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then. Does that mean you believe there is too much regulations for nuclear power? That would also mean you would want to see less regulations?
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Yes, and yes. Specifically, I would prefer if all energy types were regulated according to the same principles when it came to risk/harm tolerance, emission rates, etc. If a coal plant is allowed to emit X Bq/GWh, every other plant types should have the same limit. Or even better, if you add all polutants together, one should calculate total expected harm (in terms of X * deaths/GWh + Y * disease/GWh + Z * Global Warming contribution, or something) and either set a ceiling on total harm, or add a tax on each power plant based on total expected harm caused. This wouldn't necessarily mean that the regulations would be written using fewer words, but it would/should lead to an optimal balance between cost of energy and the harm caused. The current system seems to lead to both harm and price levels that are much higher than they need to be.
    - wnevets 4y ago
      I find this absolutely fascinating with in the context of this article and the deregulation that has contributed to this environmental disaster. We keep having to deal the consequences of deregulation/less safety as path to more profit and fact there are people actively who want this for nuclear power is mind-blowing to me.