I don't have enough time to lay out my own distillation of the above
information right now. However, I do want to put something on the
table challenging the anti-nuke mindset affecting our ability to
tackle AGW. IMO, a low EROEI renewable energy pathway will end up in
failure, due to its unaffordability in mitigating AGW when so many
other issues compete for funding, and when a much cheaper option
exists. That is not detract from RE's worth as a
projection/extension of fossil/nuclear fuels which are used to produce
the infrastructure.
----- Original Message -----
From: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
To:
Cc:
Sent:Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:48:51 -0700
Subject:Re: [Phys-L] climate change continues apace
On 06/08/2015 11:15 PM, lucanus@iinet.net.au wrote:
nuclear, which is knobbled out of the
competition by costly over-regulation,
Nice sentence! In just a few words, it equates
a) regulation
b) with over-regulation
c) with costly over-regulation
d) with gangsterism.
I would point out that in the real world, regulation is
multidimensional. It is possible for something to be
over-regulated in one direction and simultaneously
under-regulated in another.
Also: Not all regulation is costly. In particular it
seems likely that better regulation at Fukushima would
have /saved/ well over 100 billion dollars. Furthermore,
that cost was not borne by the free market, but was largely
socialized, via the virtual bankruptcy and nationalization
of TEPCO ... and via uncompensated losses to innocent
individuals. So once again, corruption leads to
privatization of profits and socialization of losses.
Remind me, what were we saying about the invisible hand?
Better regulation is not the same as more regulation,
and also not the same as less regulation. Integrity,
judgment, and skill are required.