• Pika@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    22·
    21 hours ago

    I don’t see any company jumping at the rim to implement these though, especially considering the high chance that it will just be overturned next party flip. Stuff like this needs bi-partisanship and transparency otherwise it just gets revoked when the party flips again.

    it’s a waste of money until it’s clear both primary parties agree with the change, the fact it had to be done in silent/under the table says everything about the volatility of this change.

        • MangoCats@feddit.itEnglish
          1·
          58 minutes ago

          The problem with those DoE jobs even back then was that the science and reality of the situation was completely overwhelmed by the politics, the NIMBYs. Director or whatever he was making me the offer to work under him was telling me, in 1990, that construction of new nuclear generation facilities would be restarting “very soon” with the new improved passive safety designs, etc. He’s right: that absolutely should have happened, it’s the only rational way forward - phase out the old plants at the end of their design lifetimes and replace them with new, better, safer tech. Instead, what we got for the next 30+ years was no new construction, and limping the old plants along with rehab service life extensions because that was politically feasible.

          I don’t think 30 years of frustrated screaming into a hurricane of irrational objections would have been a better career path.