bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,567
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Yeah, when you have one technology that's orders of magnitude safer than another, and a cost disparity as a consequence, the smart move is to regulate the "dangerous but cheap" option, rather than removing regulations on the "safe but expensive" option.
Require every way of making grid scale power to be equally safe, and set the bar at a consistent level that is somewhere toward the safer side of the current average. If some technologies <cough>coal<cough> then can't get up to standard without becoming uncompetitive due to the cost, then tough shit.
Review every twenty years, using the new average level of safety from the last decade.
Slap on a tax on pollution (of all kinds) that's equal to the cost of cleanup using currently available tech, and review that at similar intervals. Oh, and mandate that the revenue from that tax be spent actually cleaning up the mess.
Just throwing out the rulebook is a stupid way to proceed, and would only appeal to utter simpletons (and to the GOP, but I repeat myself...)
Require every way of making grid scale power to be equally safe, and set the bar at a consistent level that is somewhere toward the safer side of the current average. If some technologies <cough>coal<cough> then can't get up to standard without becoming uncompetitive due to the cost, then tough shit.
Review every twenty years, using the new average level of safety from the last decade.
Slap on a tax on pollution (of all kinds) that's equal to the cost of cleanup using currently available tech, and review that at similar intervals. Oh, and mandate that the revenue from that tax be spent actually cleaning up the mess.
Just throwing out the rulebook is a stupid way to proceed, and would only appeal to utter simpletons (and to the GOP, but I repeat myself...)