161–166 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Waste was never really a problem and has been definitively solved. You bury it in a deep unmarked hole. [1] Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations? I am, and will continue to be blown away that the world found out how to make rocks so spicy they can power our civil…
> Waste was never really a problem and has been definitively solved. You bury it in a deep unmarked hole. Yeah, too bad it doesn't work in practice.
"As governments only have a limited amount of money to spend on all the services they provide, this means that there are not infinite funds to be spent responding to a nuclear accident; £1 spent on evacuating residents is £1 less that is spent on schools, hospitals and roads." Which is of course completely flawed. Firstly it is in monetary terms, when there is a dynamic amount of money. Pulling the furlough pay rabbi…
If the argument is completely flawed, then that would mean there is an infinite amount of money to spend reducing very small risks. That doesn't seem right. We can't, for example, spend infinite amounts on making cars safer, because they would become unaffordable and more polluting (heavier) very quickly. We would end up with no cars. Ironically, this kind of is the path that nuclear is on: the things are made so saf…
There is. But there isn't an infinite amount of stuff. And since to spend you have to have something to buy the spending stops when the real resource runs out. That's the actual limit - until you use some sort of power dynamics to start moving physical resources from their current uses.
Hence the shortage of PPE at the start of the Covid crisis. All the money in the world; not enough masks to go around. There was "demand", but no "effective demand".
Money is essentially inductively connected to the real economy, not directly connected. As an analogy in electrical terms money is apparent power, and the stuff it buys is real power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems with Nuclear we have always underestimated the risk in the risk/reward nature.
I disagree, in fact, we have more frequently underestimated the reward. RTFA. As the article points out, tens of thousands of people die every year from lung disease directly related to fossil fuel combustion. Furthermore, he argues that more people have died from stress due to being relocated from Fukushima, than would have died if we left most of them in place. It’s the trolley problem writ large.
Have you read how:
TEPCO tried to hide the extent of Fukushima?
USSR tried to hide the extent of Chernobyl?
Russia tried to hide the extent of the latest nuclear sub accident recently?
Interesting how they call out the potential to use the J value to make public policy recommnedations but we’ve yet to really see them. I for one, would love to see some analysis of the value of lockdowns across society, i particular the prioritization of the older and more susceptible healthwise, vs the young and economically vulnerable.
The team already did that. http://jvalue.co.uk/covid-19.php