Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?

[martybegan]

Why nationalize it? Just let power companies do what they do best. Plus having the regulator and the regulate-ee being the same thing is always a recipe for disaster.

I can't really disagree with any of that. And if we really really want it, we even just give them some money to help them do it. Subsidize it. Totally fine by me. I would pay an extra $100 a year for that. Wouldn't you?

If you got rid of the the attempted ban style regulations you wouldn't have to.

 

[Blues Man]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?

Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.

www.cnet.com

That is the correct motorcycle. We're not doing it because a nuclear power plant's safety systems worked perfectly (Three Mile Island) and scared everyone.

And because the idiot politicians thought that shitty Jane Fonda movie about a nuclear accident was a documentary

That was really Jack Lemon?

The China Syndrome (1979) ⭐ 7.4 | Drama, Thriller

2h 2m | PG

www.imdb.com

 

[Blues Man]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?

Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.

www.cnet.com

Nuclear waste is neither clean nor safe.
Think Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.
Think Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.
Think Kyshtym Nuclear Disaster.
Think Three-Mile Island Nuclear Accident.
Think Windscale Nuclear Accident.
Also, just because we've stored the waste, doesn't eliminate the danger it can present.
All that is needed is an earthquake, a tsunami, or simple human error to cause another disaster and death.

All except Chernobyl which was a one off design the rest are light water reactors.

3 mile island was nothing but a scare and nothing really happened

Fukishima just high lights the problems with obsolete light water reactors and it was also caused by poor placement of the reactor itself

there are reactor designs that don't need to be near large bodies of water, don't need to run at high pressure, are self limiting therefore can't melt down and that can use the nuclear waste from the old light water reactors as fuel.

We already have enough nuclear waste to power the country for a century

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you got rid of the the attempted ban style regulations you wouldn't have to.

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about here. Please be more specific.

 

[martybegan]

If you got rid of the the attempted ban style regulations you wouldn't have to.

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about here. Please be more specific.

I think you do. There are two types of regulations and thus regulators. The first type is designed to control various aspects of a task or industry with regards to safety and performance in light of its impacts in operation as well as impacts from possible malfunctions. The people involved and interested in this type of regulation want the task or industry to continue, and perform safely and effectively.

The 2nd type is to make regulations designed to make said task or industry either completely impossible to perform, or to make it cost ineffective to perform. The people involved in this type of regulation despise the task or industry in question, and want it to go away.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you got rid of the the attempted ban style regulations you wouldn't have to.

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about here. Please be more specific.

I think you do. There are two types of regulations and thus regulators. The first type is designed to control various aspects of a task or industry with regards to safety and performance in light of its impacts in operation as well as impacts from possible malfunctions. The people involved and interested in this type of regulation want the task or industry to continue, and perform safely and effectively.

The 2nd type is to make regulations designed to make said task or industry either completely impossible to perform, or to make it cost ineffective to perform. The people involved in this type of regulation despise the task or industry in question, and want it to go away.

And those 2 regulations are.....?

That would help us decide if they are good or bad.

 

[martybegan]

If you got rid of the the attempted ban style regulations you wouldn't have to.

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about here. Please be more specific.

I think you do. There are two types of regulations and thus regulators. The first type is designed to control various aspects of a task or industry with regards to safety and performance in light of its impacts in operation as well as impacts from possible malfunctions. The people involved and interested in this type of regulation want the task or industry to continue, and perform safely and effectively.

The 2nd type is to make regulations designed to make said task or industry either completely impossible to perform, or to make it cost ineffective to perform. The people involved in this type of regulation despise the task or industry in question, and want it to go away.

And those 2 regulations are.....?

That would help us decide if they are good or bad.

It's a lot of regulations that fall into the categories. If the regulation makes something too expensive to do economically, it's usually a type 2 that's designed not to regulate, but to shadow ban.

 

[Indeependent]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?

Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.

www.cnet.com

That is the correct motorcycle. We're not doing it because a nuclear power plant's safety systems worked perfectly (Three Mile Island) and scared everyone.

And because the idiot politicians thought that shitty Jane Fonda movie about a nuclear accident was a documentary

That was really Jack Lemon?

The China Syndrome (1979) ⭐ 7.4 | Drama, Thriller

2h 2m | PG

www.imdb.com

I was being rather sarcastic

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you got rid of the the attempted ban style regulations you wouldn't have to.

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about here. Please be more specific.

I think you do. There are two types of regulations and thus regulators. The first type is designed to control various aspects of a task or industry with regards to safety and performance in light of its impacts in operation as well as impacts from possible malfunctions. The people involved and interested in this type of regulation want the task or industry to continue, and perform safely and effectively.

The 2nd type is to make regulations designed to make said task or industry either completely impossible to perform, or to make it cost ineffective to perform. The people involved in this type of regulation despise the task or industry in question, and want it to go away.

And those 2 regulations are.....?

That would help us decide if they are good or bad.

It's a lot of regulations that fall into the categories. If the regulation makes something too expensive to do economically, it's usually a type 2 that's designed not to regulate, but to shadow ban.

Okay, but i guess i don't have any specifics and so do not know what to think of that. I know the federal government recently had a hard time paying companies to build nuke plants.