101
Three Mile Island owner seeks taxpayer backing for Microsoft AI deal
(www.washingtonpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
101 points (97.2% liked)
News
23655 readers
4680 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You say they're right, but you didn't counter any opposition. Great input. You do realize that the anti-nuke movement is largely funded by oil companies, right? If they weren't a good alternative, why would they need to do this? They would just fail regardless. Instead we've passed a ton of laws increasing the cost and time to build a nuclear facility to protect them, and then people like you just repeat that it's too expensive, or that it's unsafe despite being essentially tied in safety with solar, and better than everything else.
Meanwhile you just trot out the usual nonsense about how we would all be living in a glorious nuclear utopia if it wasn't for those pesky oil companies while providing no proof yourself.
The bottom line is that if nuclear could compete on price then we would be building more nuclear but it's just not competitive. If you have any regulations that could be done away with in a safe manner and would make a sizable difference to the cost then cite them.
I never claimed it'd be a utopia. Stop being a jackass.
Nuclear is ~~cheap~~clean and safe:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/
Nuclear waste isn't an issue:
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k?si=o6YA2XthpOg6MwV6
https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=K0Drxo0xxe_Q7gFe
Anti-nuclear groups funded by oil companies:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2016/07/29/cafe-standards-the-next-big-political-battle-over-energy/?
Regulatory burden dramatically effects nuclear profitability:
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/
I can get more receipts if you want. Anything you still don't believe?
Your sources don't mention anything about price, unless I'm missing something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
It was a typo. It was meant to say clean, and it was fixed shortly after posting. The one about regulation does discuss cost.
If you notice on the graph you posted nuclear gets more expensive over time. Why? Everything else gets cheaper over time, until recently where they all increase together. Clearly there's a temporal link increasing the price of nuclear and it isn't just expensive always. What has been happening over time to make it more expensive? We pass laws to force it to be unprofitable. It used to be one of the cheapest, and it still is in many places around the world. The US has purposefully made it expensive at the behest of the oil industry.
Edit: I like that you down voted me for disagreeing but also responding with what you wanted. You're not a very good person are you?
As I said, “If you have any regulations that could be done away with in a safe manner and would make a sizable difference to the cost then cite them.”
If you can’t do that, just say so.
Sea-lioning. Nice. I'm not an expert in the field. I don't know which regulations do what. I don't need to prove that to you. The fact that it costs more and takes longer in the US than any other nation, and also that nuclear accidents are extremely rare and safety is high, proves that we have needless regulations. I don't need to know which ones those are to know that's true. If you somehow can't see that without specific regulations being cited, maybe you need to work on your deduction skills.
Not a fact. Hinckley C in the UK is facing similar cost and time overruns.
You absolutely do if you don’t want anyone capable of rational thought to think you’re full of shit.
"We find that trends in costs have varied significantly in magnitude and in structure by era, country, and experience. In contrast to the rapid cost escalation that characterized nuclear construction in the United States, we find evidence of much milder cost escalation in many countries, including absolute cost declines in some countries and specific eras. Our new findings suggest that there is no inherent cost escalation trend associated with nuclear technology."
As you can see in this chart from the paper, after the Three Mile Island incident, the cost to build a nuclear reactor went up significantly in the US.
Clearly this is due to increased regulations after the anti-nuke movement gained so much influence after Three Mile Island, despite the very minor effects of the event itself.
"When the full cost experience of US nuclear power is shown with construction duration experience, we observe distinctive trends that change after the Three Mile Island accident. As shown in Fig. 3 in blue, reactors that received their operating licenses before the TMI accident experience mild cost escalation. But for reactors that were under construction during Three Mile Island and eventually completed afterwards, shown in red, median costs are 2.8 times higher than pre-TMI costs and median durations are 2.2 times higher than pre-TMI durations. Post-TMI, overnight costs rise with construction duration, even though OCC excludes the costs of interest during construction. This suggests that other duration-related issues such as licensing, regulatory delays, or back-fit requirements are a significant contributor to the rising OCC trend."
Good enough for you?
No, you do not. I can be assured the sun makes things warmer by showing a graph of temperature based on the position of the sun in the sky. I don't need to know precisely what fussion reactions are happening in the sun to know the cause. If you aren't capable of that then that's on you. No one else needs to know the exact cause to see correlations that point towards the cause.
Edit: Based on history you're already responding, but I thought I should include the global trend graph from the paper too. In some other nations it's gotten cheaper over time. The US is by far the worst of making it more expensive over time, despite technology and knowledge advancing.
I recommend going through the study yourself though.
So name one.
As we've established, you can't. You're not a serious person and so I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.
You're like every other nuclear bro I've interacted with; no amount of evidence, logic, or facts will persuade you because you didn't use those to come to your present position. You're a Japanese holdout, still flighting the war long after your side lost.
Oh, but it's regulations, you say. That pesky red tape that I can't cite even once even though it definitely 100% is because that's what my feels tell me.
I expect to see you again in another nuclear discussion saying the same shit you're saying now and you'll probably still be saying it even after the last reactor on earth is decommissioned.
Read the paper. I'm not the unserious one. You will ignore all other information because anti-nuke must be right. You've cited Wikipedia, and that's it. Fuck off dude. You aren't the one in the right here.
Literally every piece of it increases cost. Do you disagree with that statement? If you do, which red tape has ever decreased cost? Do you think there aren't regulations on nuclear? I don't need to cite any specific one because it's obvious they're being created and it's obvious they'd increase cost. Only someone who wants to sea-lion would ask to cite specific regs.
Check out the edit above. I wasn't fast enough for you apparently, but nuclear can decrease over time. The US is the extreme of costs increasing. Why would this happen if knowledge and technology advances if some external force isn't acting upon the price?
I like that you keep asking for evidence, I provide it, you cite Wikipedia, then you ignore all other information and act like others are being ignorant. You want anti-nuke to make sense. It does, if you accept that regulations are increasing price and that's good. It doesn't if you think artificially increasing the price is bad.
You have answered zero questions and have not responded to any information I've provided, yet you act like you're winning this debate. You look like a fool.
Maybe one day you'll come to appreciate the irony on display here but I somehow doubt it.
Last thing and then I'm done with you:
To recap, you asserted that red tape and regulations are preventing nuclear from being competitive.
OK, fair enough. I asked for just a single example of a regulation that could be done away with and that would reduce costs in a meaningful way as it's pretty much your entire argument.
You haven't been able to do this.
You lose, I'm done with you for real now. Have a nice weekend.
I'm not an expert. I posted a scholarly article showing this was the case. You promptly ignored it. You lose. You want proof that you wouldn't accept anyway. I could waste my time citing regulations, and you'd just say that has a purpose, which it does is it required? I'm not wasting my time when you don't accept the premise (until now) that regulations are increasing the costs artificially. This is done by groups with a goal to keep competition out and increase the price of their product. Why would you support that?