3 ms·
Those other industries are such that accidents can be tolerated and experience with them used to guide the regulation. Nuclear isn't like that: meltdowns have
by pfdietz 1y ago
Those other industries are such that accidents can be tolerated and experience with them used to guide the regulation. Nuclear isn't like that: meltdowns have such large scale impact that they simply cannot be allowed to happen. Financially, this is reflected in the government assuming the accident risk, unlike with (say) chemical plants or airliners. Having assumed the risk, the government in return demands compliance with risk-reducing regulation.
Those proposing to reduce the regulatory burden on nuclear are in fact proposing moving nuclear to this regime where we learn from meltdowns.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> meltdowns have such large scale impact that they simply cannot be allowed to happen The evidence of actual meltdowns doesn’t support this hypothesis. (Also, modern designs don’t melt down.)
- pfdietz 1y agoYou mean, all the meltdowns of commercial power plants that have been shrugged off as inconsequential? Isn't that the empty set? Note that I'm not talking only about objective damage or loss of life. Economic or political fallout is also a real constraint.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> all the meltdowns of commercial power plants that have been shrugged off as inconsequential? Nothing in nuclear is allowed to be shrugged off. > Economic or political fallout is also a real constraint That would be like counting people wrongly blaming solar for Spain’s grid collapse as a cost of solar power.
- pfdietz 1y agoI'm not talking about a few trolls being trolls. I'm talking about the polity as a whole not accepting meltdowns.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> I'm talking about the polity as a whole not accepting meltdowns Sure. Which is why modern designs don't melt down.