Skip to main content

View Diary: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Fukishima (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem here is that nuclear power, (5+ / 0-)

    indeed any power generation, is done for profit. So they have an incentive to cut corners where possible to make money.

    At the level of technology we currently enjoy, nuclear power is the quickest way to meet energy demands while halting greenhouse gas production. Is nuclear power perfect, or a panacea? Of course not-- we still need robust solar, wind, tidal, etc investment. And we always need to find ways to improve nuclear power to make it more efficient, cut down waste, and safer.

    Nuclear waste is bad, and we're trading one kind of pollution (greenhouse gas) for another, but the difference is greenhouse gasses are going to lead to a cascade of upheavals and possibly die-offs in the food chain in the next few years, while nuclear power will end the creation of those gasses and buy time to find a more workable solution. If we want to just see it as an "interim" or "transitional" technology on our way to better tech, fine. But it is one of the cards we can play to stave off immediate, looming problems.

    The internet is ruled by cat people. Dog people are busy playing outside.

    by Canis Aureus on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 05:33:12 AM PDT

    •  we don't charge the externalities (0+ / 0-)

      onto producers.

      When we started taxing freon, the world moved.

      When we started making people handle Hazmat, the
      world moved on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site