5 ms·

I think, equally as important as investment, is reducing third-party obstructionism. Environmental justice and anti-nuclear activists Continue to thwart these k

I think, equally as important as investment, is reducing third-party obstructionism. Environmental justice and anti-nuclear activists Continue to thwart these kind of projects with frivolous lawsuits.

jacquesm 3y ago
I think the 'frivolous' is in the eye of the beholder, if they really were frivolous they'd be tossed out but they're not.
- beezlewax 3y ago
  That's not how the courts work though is it?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's absolutely how they work if you bring a frivolous lawsuit you will end up with more trouble than you bargained for. There may be fines involved, you may have to pay the party that you sued, you may have to pay their costs for representation and so on. A lawsuit that you lose is fine, one that is frivolous really isn't, in those cases even the attorneys may get sanctioned (by the judge, or, less commonly, by the bar to the point where if they keep it up they may end up being disbarred).
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      The penalty for frivolous lawsuits is usually to pay the legal expenses of your opponent. This is an effective penalty to deter people trying to make money from filing frivolous lawsuits. It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. It will be years before the lawsuit gets to that point, and if you are willing to trade money for a delay, the prospect of having to pay 2x the money for the same delay is hardly a deterrent.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. Again: it is your opinion that these are frivolous lawsuits, and that's fine. But there are probably just as many (or more) people that think that they are not. A frivolous lawsuit is one that does not have merit, has no facts supporting it and usually isn't intended to be won. The lawsuit itself is the goal. These don't qualify as far as I'm concerned. Not even close.
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      For the legal definition of "frivolous", yes. For stuff like asking for additional EPA assessments which change nothing, but add another year and cost $$$, not so much.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        You are assuming that you know the outcome of the assessment then. But that isn't always the case.
        q1w2 3y ago
        If you look at the outcomes of the assessments, they add zero value. They are intentionally designed to waste time and money. As an example, the nuclear storage facility was delayed, and ultimately cancelled, because the geologic analysis had only established the stability of the ground for the next 800,000 years, and the lawsuit demanded that it be extended to several MILLION years into the future. ...and they WON. Absolute INSANITY.
        ajmurmann 3y ago
        No, NEPA only requires you to gather the environmental impact data. There is no obligation to act on it in any way. It commonly gets used to request for more data to be gathered and delay projects further and use this as a bargaining chip or to sink the project entirely by creating costs for the project owner.
    - underseacables 3y ago
      Not Exactly. When it comes to a government action, if an attorney sues under environmental justice laws, and they win, the government pays their legal fees. The lawyers are incentivized to file suit. Very much like the bogus prop 65 industry.
      - Affric 3y ago
        So, the government does something unlawful and then the government pay the legal fees that the citizens have incurred to stop the government from taking unlawful actions? What is the problem exactly? Costs are often awarded in many jurisdictions.
  - 93po 3y ago
    The bar for not getting dismissed is massively low.
1letterunixname 3y ago
Disclaimer: I worked in the nuclear engineering industry in the '90s. Move to Houston next to numerous chemical plants that blow up from time-to-time and let me know how those utopian talking points without regulation works out. The problem isn't NIMBY's or regulations, it's insurance costs.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Fortunately for nuclear, liability is tightly capped by the Price Anderson Act and the DOE will do basically any loan to get new nuclear off the ground.
epistasis 3y ago
Can you name any such obstructions to the last 4 attempted reactors in the US, the only new builds in the last 20 years? Obstructionism is not a problem with nuclear in the US, basic construction competency and diagnostic competency most certainly is though.
- underseacables 3y ago
  Absolutely, but I'd rather just have you read this paper on environmental justice laws in the nuclear industry. It will educate you a bit more. For the nuclear energy industry, environmental justice considerations are relevant to every stage of the life cycle of nuclear energy. https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/nuclear-energy-and-environmental-justice-in-the-biden-era/ https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/nuclear-energy-and-enviro...
  - epistasis 3y ago
    By changing the topic and pointing to an irrelevant article, I take it that the claim about lawsuits is recanted and that no, you don't know of a single lawsuit at all? That article has nothing at all to do with Vogtle or Summer, has zero concrete claims, and is at most speculation about how things might be different in the future, and how some vague approaches might be used to make sure the nuclear industry fits in to some hypothetical and similarly vague push for vague values. I find it very odd how nuclear advocates cannot provide evidence for their claims, and often change the point. Honestly, I find it kind of rude that you claim to be providing one thing but then provide something completely unrelated, and act as if you actually did have evidence for your claims. It's extremely damaging to discussion, why should I trust anything you say from here on out if you are so unreliable? It's a huge problem that I run into with nuclear advocates, creationists, and anti-vaxxers. There's dedication to the causes but no dedication to conversational norms or even the basic standards of honesty.
makotech221 3y ago
[dead]

jacquesm 3y ago

I think the 'frivolous' is in the eye of the beholder, if they really were frivolous they'd be tossed out but they're not.

beezlewax 3y ago
That's not how the courts work though is it?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's absolutely how they work if you bring a frivolous lawsuit you will end up with more trouble than you bargained for. There may be fines involved, you may have to pay the party that you sued, you may have to pay their costs for representation and so on. A lawsuit that you lose is fine, one that is frivolous really isn't, in those cases even the attorneys may get sanctioned (by the judge, or, less commonly, by the bar to the point where if they keep it up they may end up being disbarred).
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    The penalty for frivolous lawsuits is usually to pay the legal expenses of your opponent. This is an effective penalty to deter people trying to make money from filing frivolous lawsuits. It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. It will be years before the lawsuit gets to that point, and if you are willing to trade money for a delay, the prospect of having to pay 2x the money for the same delay is hardly a deterrent.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. Again: it is your opinion that these are frivolous lawsuits, and that's fine. But there are probably just as many (or more) people that think that they are not. A frivolous lawsuit is one that does not have merit, has no facts supporting it and usually isn't intended to be won. The lawsuit itself is the goal. These don't qualify as far as I'm concerned. Not even close.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    For the legal definition of "frivolous", yes. For stuff like asking for additional EPA assessments which change nothing, but add another year and cost $$$, not so much.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      You are assuming that you know the outcome of the assessment then. But that isn't always the case.
      - q1w2 3y ago
        If you look at the outcomes of the assessments, they add zero value. They are intentionally designed to waste time and money. As an example, the nuclear storage facility was delayed, and ultimately cancelled, because the geologic analysis had only established the stability of the ground for the next 800,000 years, and the lawsuit demanded that it be extended to several MILLION years into the future. ...and they WON. Absolute INSANITY.
      - ajmurmann 3y ago
        No, NEPA only requires you to gather the environmental impact data. There is no obligation to act on it in any way. It commonly gets used to request for more data to be gathered and delay projects further and use this as a bargaining chip or to sink the project entirely by creating costs for the project owner.
  - underseacables 3y ago
    Not Exactly. When it comes to a government action, if an attorney sues under environmental justice laws, and they win, the government pays their legal fees. The lawyers are incentivized to file suit. Very much like the bogus prop 65 industry.
    - Affric 3y ago
      So, the government does something unlawful and then the government pay the legal fees that the citizens have incurred to stop the government from taking unlawful actions? What is the problem exactly? Costs are often awarded in many jurisdictions.
- 93po 3y ago
  The bar for not getting dismissed is massively low.

1letterunixname 3y ago

Disclaimer: I worked in the nuclear engineering industry in the '90s. Move to Houston next to numerous chemical plants that blow up from time-to-time and let me know how those utopian talking points without regulation works out. The problem isn't NIMBY's or regulations, it's insurance costs.

epistasis 3y ago
Fortunately for nuclear, liability is tightly capped by the Price Anderson Act and the DOE will do basically any loan to get new nuclear off the ground.

epistasis 3y ago

Can you name any such obstructions to the last 4 attempted reactors in the US, the only new builds in the last 20 years? Obstructionism is not a problem with nuclear in the US, basic construction competency and diagnostic competency most certainly is though.

underseacables 3y ago
Absolutely, but I'd rather just have you read this paper on environmental justice laws in the nuclear industry. It will educate you a bit more. For the nuclear energy industry, environmental justice considerations are relevant to every stage of the life cycle of nuclear energy. https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/nuclear-energy-and-environmental-justice-in-the-biden-era/ https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/nuclear-energy-and-enviro...
- epistasis 3y ago
  By changing the topic and pointing to an irrelevant article, I take it that the claim about lawsuits is recanted and that no, you don't know of a single lawsuit at all? That article has nothing at all to do with Vogtle or Summer, has zero concrete claims, and is at most speculation about how things might be different in the future, and how some vague approaches might be used to make sure the nuclear industry fits in to some hypothetical and similarly vague push for vague values. I find it very odd how nuclear advocates cannot provide evidence for their claims, and often change the point. Honestly, I find it kind of rude that you claim to be providing one thing but then provide something completely unrelated, and act as if you actually did have evidence for your claims. It's extremely damaging to discussion, why should I trust anything you say from here on out if you are so unreliable? It's a huge problem that I run into with nuclear advocates, creationists, and anti-vaxxers. There's dedication to the causes but no dedication to conversational norms or even the basic standards of honesty.

makotech221 3y ago

[dead]