3 ms·

So if we just do something politically unacceptable and probably morally unacceptable then nuclear will be viable? And of course you could apply the same thing

by 7952 2y ago

So if we just do something politically unacceptable and probably morally unacceptable then nuclear will be viable? And of course you could apply the same thing to other sources of energy and they will equally get cheaper. Wind turbines in beauty spots. Remove the air quality equipment from fossil fuel plants. Dam evey river.

fsflover 2y ago
It's the other way around. We should apply equal regulations to coal making nuclear more competing.
kergonath 2y ago
> So if we just do something politically unacceptable and probably morally unacceptable then nuclear will be viable? I think you missed the point. Coal-fired plants leak radiation significantly. If this is not morally unacceptable in one case, why would it be in another? They did not say that nuclear should have a free pass, just that the regulations should be consistent. > And of course you could apply the same thing to other sources of energy and they will equally get cheaper. Different technologies have different downsides and advantages. The parent was talking about 2 technologies having inconsistent expectations for the same metric. Personally, I do not want wind turbines everywhere or a nuclear plant in a city centre, but I think that both technologies (plus solar and hydro) need to be developed, because both have much smaller ecological and human costs than the alternative. > Dam evey river. That is counter-productive as there are diminishing returns, and not every river is worth daming.
- 7952 2y ago
  But it is not morally acceptable for coal to release radiation either. It was politically acceptable for a while but less so now. It is right to hold new plants to a higher standard. And as I have been reminded repeatedly in these kind of threads it is perfectly possible to build reactors that have negligible radiation release. The real question is if humans really can tweak the tradeoffs like this. Can you really change a design to be less safe on a controllable way. Also, as you say different technologies have different advantages and downsides. That does mean different regulation.

by 7952 2y ago

fsflover 2y ago

It's the other way around. We should apply equal regulations to coal making nuclear more competing.

kergonath 2y ago

> So if we just do something politically unacceptable and probably morally unacceptable then nuclear will be viable? I think you missed the point. Coal-fired plants leak radiation significantly. If this is not morally unacceptable in one case, why would it be in another? They did not say that nuclear should have a free pass, just that the regulations should be consistent. > And of course you could apply the same thing to other sources of energy and they will equally get cheaper. Different technologies have different downsides and advantages. The parent was talking about 2 technologies having inconsistent expectations for the same metric. Personally, I do not want wind turbines everywhere or a nuclear plant in a city centre, but I think that both technologies (plus solar and hydro) need to be developed, because both have much smaller ecological and human costs than the alternative. > Dam evey river. That is counter-productive as there are diminishing returns, and not every river is worth daming.

7952 2y ago
But it is not morally acceptable for coal to release radiation either. It was politically acceptable for a while but less so now. It is right to hold new plants to a higher standard. And as I have been reminded repeatedly in these kind of threads it is perfectly possible to build reactors that have negligible radiation release. The real question is if humans really can tweak the tradeoffs like this. Can you really change a design to be less safe on a controllable way. Also, as you say different technologies have different advantages and downsides. That does mean different regulation.