"and extra especially nuclear, in addition to making power lines difficult to build, are to blame"
I used to think nuclear reactors are just hard to build in general, because the costs when something goes wrong are very, very high. So what unnecessary regulation is there with nuclear reactors that you think should be deleted?
This is a much larger discussion, but the single most obvious one is getting rid of the Linear No Dose Threshold. There are an abundance of sources on why this concept is flawed and how it impacts nuclear regulation. It's not the only issue by far, but it's probably the single easiest to address.
In other words, allow higher exposure to ratiation?
Does not sound too great and obvious to me to be honest and it seems debated in the scientific community.
So irrational fear of radiation is surely a thing and maybe the models as to when real danger starts can be updated, but I would not call that question obvious when the experts debate it and I ain't one.
Nuclear Safety is extremely risk averse and the mortar in the bricks are incumbents for whom the strict regulations protect. Anecdotally, it is a very paranoid industry, for better or worse.
Allowing higher radiation dose does sound bad, but I would urge you to delve into the Linear No-Threshold Model. We have the lion's share of a century of cancer and health data and the results are somewhat counterintuitive.
So like I said, maybe the Linear No Threshold Model is wrong(I will have a look into the video as well). But it was presented here as something obviously flawed to get rid of .. while a short dive into it, showed it is still debated among the experts. Sp that approach from some people also does seem ideological motivated and not fact based to me, not just the anti nuclear crowd.
Sorry to double reply, I forgot to mention what is likely the source of this interest. Recently, Kyle Hill produced this 30 minute video explaining why we may want to re-examine the LNT dose model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc
This is why they are so risk averse, there indeed are incredible dangers and if varies per place.
Operators, manufacturers and service have spent a long time making what we have very reliable in what are now pretty old designs. If a new pump manufacturer appeared in the scene, everyone making decisions needs to assess the reliability vs a well-known quantity of reliability.
This is what I mean when I say risk averse, and the mortar in the bricks are the suppliers and services. The record doesn’t show worse and worse throughout time, everyone in a nuclear safety related industry knows what to expect and what is expected of their production. Changing even this linear no-threshold model would incur a LOT of engineering, process development/improvement and risk analysis, which none of them want to do.
If you’re the one that screws up, it can be a nasty stain.
if your best argument is just "Google it" I'm gonna go ahead and assume you don't know what you're talking about and are just making an appeal to authority
I used to think nuclear reactors are just hard to build in general, because the costs when something goes wrong are very, very high. So what unnecessary regulation is there with nuclear reactors that you think should be deleted?