moral_luck t1_j7jvweg wrote

Great! so we're on the same page! Very few people who currently advocate for nuclear thinks it's the end all of electrical generation.

I think it's pretty clear to most people that we should be harnessing the huge fusion reactor in the middle of our solar system for the future use. Currently our issue is energy storage, i.e. batteries. Those will also have externalized costs.

Storage is obviously a long term issue. We have built a seed vault so it's not entirely outside our capability to handle.

But long story short, nuclear is a better option than coal ESPECIALLY when considering externalized costs.


moral_luck t1_j7jv00i wrote

You're asking airplanes vs cars here. And we know the answer to that, airplanes are vastly safer.

To answer your question directly. It depends. Basically what would the frequency of occurrence be and what are the alternatives?

With the information we have, yes, it is worth the risk. Why?

Nuclear is a better alternative in terms of externalized economic and health costs than what it would replace (it won't replace solar, wind or hyrdo).

Do you think we should continue to mine and burn coal while we transition to an entirely solar/hydro future? You really think coal is better than nuclear? Or do you think natural gas is better than either of them?

I am assuming you realize that an entirely solar/hyrdo/geothermal/wind electrical grid is not currently feasible. I am also assuming you also realize that is what we will and need to transition into completely in a few generations.

So the real question is, what is best gap filler for the next 50 to 100 years?


moral_luck t1_j7jsali wrote

I never said they weren't. I said they are nearly irrelevant when calculating the TRUE socialized cost.

Even if we could sue a coal company from co2 emissions because our crops died from a heat wave, we couldn't. Even if there are no indemnities. It would be hard to prove that that specific plant contributed to that specific heat wave. But it's still a socialized cost, indemnity or not.

You learned a big word and think it's a conversation. You're such a big boy!


moral_luck t1_j7jrnv0 wrote

You have no fucking clue, do you? You are completely clueless. You read an article about indemnities in the nuclear industry, and now you have no idea how to explain it at all. You can't actually understand what you read. And you surely wouldn't be able to explain it or connect it to a conversation about socialized costs.

You've proved all this.


moral_luck t1_j7jqn6g wrote

You've made it very clear you have no idea what indemnities actually are. Or how they work.

You've also made it clear you don't understand that indemnities are not connected to the total socialized cost. How much did "x" corporation contribute to the polluted water of Flint, MI?

Sure, they have indemnities. Even if we legally could and wanted to, we still can't calculate the total cost. We know the total costs is insane, but don't know how many years of lost productive labor was lost due to health issues. Nor can we assign a specific amount of to each corporation, even if indemnities allowed it.

But you're not a lawyer. You just pretend to be one on the internet.

Why don't you explain it to me in your own words? Surely you can ELI5.


moral_luck t1_j7jnkkq wrote

So if you have specific knowledge of an industry insider, why would you assume that everyone would have access to that same knowledge?

Does that also give you knowledge of indemnities in the coal industry? How about plastic? Are you aware of the concept of externalized cost (basically interchangeable with socialized costs)?

Externalized costs exist in all forms of industry. Even groceries. Are you suggesting that only those things specifically mentioned in an indemnity is the entire social cost of a thing? And nuclear is the worst alternative, in terms of externalized costs, per MWh among electrical generation methods?