• utopianfiat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So your issue is actually that there’s a lack of a full commitment to public transmission infrastructure that would allow nuclear power to displace coal, gas, and oil? Sounds like we agree then

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      no? i really dont get where you pulled that from. My issue (among others) is that nuclear takes decades to build, so if we invest in nuclear we’re looking at 10 years at least before we see any kind of return on that investment. and so in the meantime we have to continue using fossil fuels, which is what the fossil fuel companoes want.

      • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only reason it takes longer than a few years is because of arbitrary regulatory barriers we’ve placed - so when we say “we should build more nuclear” part of the manifestation of that will be streamlining regulation to make it faster and cheaper.

        Alternatively, we make coal, oil, and natural gas subject to the same externality-internalizing regulations and taxes and see how things shake out.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Weird that every country in the world others than China put up these same arbitrary regulatory barriers at around the same time. Can you describe what these barriers are and why they are unnecessary?

          • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            One is that nuclear power has to account for and financially compensate its passive radiation emissions. This is unique to nuclear power, even though passive emissions from nuclear plants are less than 10 times lower than radiation emissions from coal power plants. Clearly we don’t care that much about the harmful effects of the radiation emissions, and if we do then coal should be charged for the current and past emissions.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Can you send me a link? Because I’m looking for this regulation and can’t find it? Or at least tell me which country?