5 ms·

> How is it that we've become so bad at building? Regulation. No matter how you find it (a drag, useful or even life-saving), one thing is certain: it signific

• ceejayoz 3y ago
  Finland is hardly a low-regulation country, especially compared to Idaho.
  • theultdev 3y ago
    It is when it comes to nuclear regulation. The NRC effectively makes nuclear impossible in the US.
    • effie 3y ago
      Commercial nuclear should be very hard, almost impossible. This seems to be the correct conclusion after all the accidents and the reasons for them - incompetent, self-serving management pushing dangerous commands on the personnel (Chernobyl,Three Mile Island) or normalizing bad architecture and security plans (Fukushima). Better expensive energy than another major nuclear accident. Nuclear energy can be done safely as long as it is run by competent nuclear energy physicists/technicians with real authority, so they can and will shut down stupid ideas such as operating outside parameters because economy/boss said so. This seems to rule out commercial organizations. NRC is more benevolent than that, maybe they should actually be even tougher. We should allow only competent states to build and operate nuclear plants, so science and rules take precedence to money and boss boot-licking. This may push nuclear energy into unprofitable territory, depending on the market conditions, infrastructure, water and people resources. Which is fine by me - nuclear energy in some areas is so important for grid stability we should have it even if it is unprofitable.
      • theultdev 3y ago
        Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy and is developed safely in many countries without the strict overregulation that the US has. Pointing to extreme events with outdated designs has nothing to do with this.
        • effie 3y ago
          Extreme events and subsequent changes are why it can be the "safest form of energy". After Chernobyl and Fukushima, regulation did change in those countries as well.
          • nickpp 3y ago
            There must be a name for the fallacy when one is focused on avoiding a single risk while completely ignoring much larger and closer dangers. Nuclear energy has a minuscule list of total casualties throughout history. Casualties per megawatt produced? It's practically zero. At the same time burning hydrocarbons kills every single day through pollution. It kills millions yearly. Burning coal even spews radioactive ash into the air! And above all, climate change is looming as a civilization-ending danger, closer and closer. So which one should we regulate more?!
            • effie 3y ago
              The black swan big disasters have to be taken seriously too. A nuclear accident creates a big and costly disaster suddenly. People don't like sudden big problems but can live with continuously growing ones. Burning hydrocarbons is much more acceptable in that regard. CO2/dust pollution is accepted by society, because it is continuous and dilutes well. Killing millions is socially acceptable when it happens randomly all over the planet. Radioactive pollution due to coal burning is/should be negligible, most is(should be) filtered out in the smokestack scrubbers. I don't like fossil power plants, but they are much easier to build and more acceptable to people than nuclear ones. That's why regulation and security have to be high with nuclear, to make it acceptable to most of society. > civilization-ending danger I don't think climate change is a civilization-ending danger in the coming decades. It already creates political problems, migration. If we keep pumping CO2 then maybe in hundred years.
  • epups 3y ago
    Finland has modern regulation for nuclear energy, and is constantly improving it (https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfinland-to-reform-nuclear-energy-act-9316926 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfinland-to-reform-nucle...). They see it as a strategic option. I'm not sure this is the same for Idaho.
• simbolit 3y ago
  A nuclear power plant is the literal last thing I would want looser regulation on.
  • patmorgan23 3y ago
    I understand the sentiment, but more does not equal better. I think we over regulate nuclear plants/nuclear plant construction/design in the United States. We should absolutely have robust regulatory controls and review in place, but those controls need to serve a purpose and reduce a specific risk(s). Controls for controls sake just add to cost and possibly sub-optimal operations. Case in point, across the US many coal fire power stations are being decommissioned, on the face these would be great candidates to convert to Nuclear power stations. They already have a lot of the expensive infrastructure in place on site (i.e. massive transmission lines, electric substation, probably a reliable water source, etc). Great opportunity to reduce cost and accelerate a project. But because of the way the nuclear regulations are structured, and the fact that coal ash is radioactive it's unlikely a site like this would be to become compliant. We should have tough regulations on the nuclear industry, but they should be smart regulations.
  • nickpp 3y ago
    Don't you think we should regulate more the energy industries with most deaths per produced megawatt?!
    • simbolit 3y ago
      If you are referring to coal, the answer isn't regulation, it's ending burning it completely.
      • effie 3y ago
        The only way to end burning is government action, i.e. regulation.
      • nickpp 3y ago
        I am referring to everything. Even wind has more deaths per unit of electricity produced. Only solar has less.