4 ms·

Nuclear costs a fortune under the regulatory regime it's operated with to date. We genuinely don't know how much less it would cost to have nuclear power on an

Nuclear costs a fortune under the regulatory regime it's operated with to date. We genuinely don't know how much less it would cost to have nuclear power on an equal-safety-to-coal-power basis, because it's not been tried.

otherme123 3y ago
Why would you equal-to-coal today? You need to equal wind, solar or at least gas safety. Lately I'm reading a lot about lowering nuclear safety to improve costs. Imagine cars makers asking to get rid of ABS, airbags, safety belts... to make cheaper cars. Any sane person would raise a brow when hearing that, any industry should aim to be as safe as possible, not to cut costs on safety and assume some preventable deaths with a happy smile. It's also a lie: in this report https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/nuclear-costs-in-context https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/nuclear-costs-i... , in the page 5 you can see that regulatory costs are minimal (and the source should be nuclear friendly enough) after adapting for the Fukushima "lesson".
- roenxi 3y ago
  > Imagine cars makers asking to get rid of ABS, airbags, safety belts... But cars with all those safety features are still much more risky then nuclear plants. Cars can kill you. Practically speaking nuclear plants cannot. They force people to move. If you are going to complain about preventable deaths, what is your plan to make cars safe? We haven't done all we can do. If we bought the speed limits down to walking pace and banned reversing we'd save a huge number of lives (including small toddlers, it remains a tear jerker every time someone reverses over their own toddler). Why are you accepting high risks from cars but raising an eyebrow at nuclear plants? It isn't rational. You know people, right now, who will be killed by cars. Why isn't something being done [0]? > in the page 5 you can see that regulatory costs are minimal Nuclear is the only technology that gets more expensive the more is built. And I'll give you a hint. That anomaly is 100% caused by the regulatory framework. The report is obviously misjudging something. They're probably doing something like assuming only things that the regulators explicitly ask for count as regulatory costs. We should see a learning effect in the nuclear industry where technology gets cheaper over time. [0] That was rhetorical. The answer is because it'd be damn silly and the costs would far outweight the benefits. Everyone can see that because the costs are obvious and felt personally. It is unfortunate the the costs of lacking energy are going to be felt before people accept that there aren't alternatives to building new powerplants.
- jenadine 3y ago
  > Why would you equal-to-coal today? You need to equal wind, solar or at least gas safety. Some countries are closing nuclear plants and ramping up coal. (Look at Germany)
  - luesterklemme 3y ago
    Nice point except coal was not ramped up. You can argue that it was not ramped down and could have been phased out more quickly but you also have to look at the political discussion at the time of deciding to put a stop on nuclear.

otherme123 3y ago

Why would you equal-to-coal today? You need to equal wind, solar or at least gas safety. Lately I'm reading a lot about lowering nuclear safety to improve costs. Imagine cars makers asking to get rid of ABS, airbags, safety belts... to make cheaper cars. Any sane person would raise a brow when hearing that, any industry should aim to be as safe as possible, not to cut costs on safety and assume some preventable deaths with a happy smile. It's also a lie: in this report https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/nuclear-costs-in-context https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/nuclear-costs-i... , in the page 5 you can see that regulatory costs are minimal (and the source should be nuclear friendly enough) after adapting for the Fukushima "lesson".

roenxi 3y ago
> Imagine cars makers asking to get rid of ABS, airbags, safety belts... But cars with all those safety features are still much more risky then nuclear plants. Cars can kill you. Practically speaking nuclear plants cannot. They force people to move. If you are going to complain about preventable deaths, what is your plan to make cars safe? We haven't done all we can do. If we bought the speed limits down to walking pace and banned reversing we'd save a huge number of lives (including small toddlers, it remains a tear jerker every time someone reverses over their own toddler). Why are you accepting high risks from cars but raising an eyebrow at nuclear plants? It isn't rational. You know people, right now, who will be killed by cars. Why isn't something being done [0]? > in the page 5 you can see that regulatory costs are minimal Nuclear is the only technology that gets more expensive the more is built. And I'll give you a hint. That anomaly is 100% caused by the regulatory framework. The report is obviously misjudging something. They're probably doing something like assuming only things that the regulators explicitly ask for count as regulatory costs. We should see a learning effect in the nuclear industry where technology gets cheaper over time. [0] That was rhetorical. The answer is because it'd be damn silly and the costs would far outweight the benefits. Everyone can see that because the costs are obvious and felt personally. It is unfortunate the the costs of lacking energy are going to be felt before people accept that there aren't alternatives to building new powerplants.
jenadine 3y ago
> Why would you equal-to-coal today? You need to equal wind, solar or at least gas safety. Some countries are closing nuclear plants and ramping up coal. (Look at Germany)
- luesterklemme 3y ago
  Nice point except coal was not ramped up. You can argue that it was not ramped down and could have been phased out more quickly but you also have to look at the political discussion at the time of deciding to put a stop on nuclear.