4 ms·

Stop with all the nuclear fear mongering. No industry is perfectly safe. Nuclear has the lowest number of deaths [1] per megawatt produced, other than Solar. It

by nickpp 3y ago

Stop with all the nuclear fear mongering. No industry is perfectly safe. Nuclear has the lowest number of deaths [1] per megawatt produced, other than Solar. It's so expensive because it is ungodly regulated. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

_aavaa_ 3y ago
> Nuclear has the lowest number of deaths [1] per megawatt produced > It's so expensive because it is ungodly regulated. The two are two sides of the same coin. Which regulations do you have proof of being unjustified?
- nickpp 3y ago
  All regulation! The proof is in the ridiculously low rate of deaths per megawatt. When you have such a complex tech made as safe a solar panels but takes decades to build and costs more than going to Mars - it's clear overregulation is the culprit. The solution is simple: deregulate slowly and carefully until you reach the safety of the gas, oil and coal plants dooming our planet (while killing us with pollution) right now.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    I don’t even know where to being. All I’ll say is that, justified or not, the PR apocalypse that will accompany the first incident to occur under this deregulation plant will be the end of the nuclear industry. The current opposition to nuclear will look like a bunch of YIMBYs in comparison.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      I am willing to take that chance. We already had two nuclear “apocalypses”. The result? Less than a few thousand dead and a bunch on lost land. Nothing compared to the millions of deaths carbon pollution causes every year. And how about the climate apocalypse? How about the billion potential deaths from that? Maybe our whole human civilization being in danger? How about the millions dying every year from pollution? We must be brave and try new things. We cannot afford to be conservative and play it safe anymore. Our default on our current path is dire. We need to change course at any cost.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        This is simply not a politically viable option, nor should it be on. I don't know of any non-fringe candiate in any country who is willing to even entertain the idea of "let's deregulate our nuclear power plants. yolo." The rest of this comment might as well be a parody account. Again, trying this seems like the easiest way ensure no nuclear plant will ever get built again.
        nickpp 3y ago
        Oh, I have no illusion politicians can (or even want to) solve this problem they created, even if the solution is staring them in the face. The current reaction to anything new and optimistic is fear and denial. See how news about AI were received, for example. The only hope comes, as always, from technologists. Maybe in states/countries more friendly to innovation and not eager to regulate everything into stagnation.

by nickpp 3y ago

_aavaa_ 3y ago

> Nuclear has the lowest number of deaths [1] per megawatt produced > It's so expensive because it is ungodly regulated. The two are two sides of the same coin. Which regulations do you have proof of being unjustified?

nickpp 3y ago
All regulation! The proof is in the ridiculously low rate of deaths per megawatt. When you have such a complex tech made as safe a solar panels but takes decades to build and costs more than going to Mars - it's clear overregulation is the culprit. The solution is simple: deregulate slowly and carefully until you reach the safety of the gas, oil and coal plants dooming our planet (while killing us with pollution) right now.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  I don’t even know where to being. All I’ll say is that, justified or not, the PR apocalypse that will accompany the first incident to occur under this deregulation plant will be the end of the nuclear industry. The current opposition to nuclear will look like a bunch of YIMBYs in comparison.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    I am willing to take that chance. We already had two nuclear “apocalypses”. The result? Less than a few thousand dead and a bunch on lost land. Nothing compared to the millions of deaths carbon pollution causes every year. And how about the climate apocalypse? How about the billion potential deaths from that? Maybe our whole human civilization being in danger? How about the millions dying every year from pollution? We must be brave and try new things. We cannot afford to be conservative and play it safe anymore. Our default on our current path is dire. We need to change course at any cost.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      This is simply not a politically viable option, nor should it be on. I don't know of any non-fringe candiate in any country who is willing to even entertain the idea of "let's deregulate our nuclear power plants. yolo." The rest of this comment might as well be a parody account. Again, trying this seems like the easiest way ensure no nuclear plant will ever get built again.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        Oh, I have no illusion politicians can (or even want to) solve this problem they created, even if the solution is staring them in the face. The current reaction to anything new and optimistic is fear and denial. See how news about AI were received, for example. The only hope comes, as always, from technologists. Maybe in states/countries more friendly to innovation and not eager to regulate everything into stagnation.