3 ms·

I'm frustrated by this argument. Yes, nuclear power gets unfairly maligned across several axes. Yes, fossil fuel is even more of a disaster. But what we have no

by kibwen 3y ago

I'm frustrated by this argument. Yes, nuclear power gets unfairly maligned across several axes. Yes, fossil fuel is even more of a disaster. But what we have now is a situation where nuclear power has all of its negative externalities properly priced in, whereas fossil fuel doesn't, and yet we have people arguing to remove the forces that properly price in the externalities of nuclear rather than doing the right thing, which is properly pricing in the externalities of fossil fuels. This is counterproductive. Look around at our modern world and see everything enshittifying around us in the relentless pursuit of profit; now imagine that applied to nuclear power. What a nightmare.

MaKey 3y ago
Thanks for putting your frustration into words so succinctly. I feel exactly the same!
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
We have a slew of safety regulations that apply to, for example, chemical plants that handle substances every bit as dangerous as anything in a nuclear reactor. They basically work. They increase the operating cost a little bit. But they're not purposely designed to make the operation prohibitively expensive, so they don't. Pricing externalities is a cost/benefit calculation, because overhead and inefficiency are externalized harms too. If you can prevent a 1 in 100 chance of a million dollar loss for $100 then you do it. If you have the "opportunity" to prevent a 1 in 10,000 chance of a million dollar loss for $10,000, you don't, because the expected cost of preventing the loss is more than it is to incur it. Unless you're trying to destroy something, and then you insist on it.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
Do we price in the externalities? My impression is that nuclear waste isnt dealt with hardly at all, especially in the US. https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites shows what seem like a dozen sites where negative externalities aren't at all priced in, where the government has had to cope. The US hasn't a single viable plan for nuclear waste, as far as I can tell. And what of other nations? Setting this image out there that nuclear power is great & easy, even though so few have actually figured it out; that seems like a danger.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites shows what seem like a dozen sites Virtually all of these are nuclear weapons sites, not civilian power sites. A quick skim shows that the contamination in many of them has to do with producing plutonium, which current power reactors do not even use. > And what of other nations? Like France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France France has been producing the majority of its electricity from nuclear power for going on 40 years.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  "Nuclear waste" is only a problem because we don't build new reactor designs that use the "waste" of existing reactors as fuel. One of the best arguments for building new reactors is to get rid of it so nobody has to try to store it for thousands of years like a chump.

by kibwen 3y ago

MaKey 3y ago

Thanks for putting your frustration into words so succinctly. I feel exactly the same!

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

We have a slew of safety regulations that apply to, for example, chemical plants that handle substances every bit as dangerous as anything in a nuclear reactor. They basically work. They increase the operating cost a little bit. But they're not purposely designed to make the operation prohibitively expensive, so they don't. Pricing externalities is a cost/benefit calculation, because overhead and inefficiency are externalized harms too. If you can prevent a 1 in 100 chance of a million dollar loss for $100 then you do it. If you have the "opportunity" to prevent a 1 in 10,000 chance of a million dollar loss for $10,000, you don't, because the expected cost of preventing the loss is more than it is to incur it. Unless you're trying to destroy something, and then you insist on it.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

Do we price in the externalities? My impression is that nuclear waste isnt dealt with hardly at all, especially in the US. https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites shows what seem like a dozen sites where negative externalities aren't at all priced in, where the government has had to cope. The US hasn't a single viable plan for nuclear waste, as far as I can tell. And what of other nations? Setting this image out there that nuclear power is great & easy, even though so few have actually figured it out; that seems like a danger.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites shows what seem like a dozen sites Virtually all of these are nuclear weapons sites, not civilian power sites. A quick skim shows that the contamination in many of them has to do with producing plutonium, which current power reactors do not even use. > And what of other nations? Like France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France France has been producing the majority of its electricity from nuclear power for going on 40 years.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
"Nuclear waste" is only a problem because we don't build new reactor designs that use the "waste" of existing reactors as fuel. One of the best arguments for building new reactors is to get rid of it so nobody has to try to store it for thousands of years like a chump.