If other aspects of life were regulated according to ALARA safety standards, we'd never be allowed to leave the house. Staying home is the only sure way to avoid tripping hazards on the sidewalk.
The key word in ALARA is reasonable.. So what is reasonable? To me it is a scheme that passes a cost-benefit test. Coming up with a reasonable definition of reasonable is our problem here.
Under ALARA, the regulator decides what is "reasonable". And if you are only being judged on whether or not a release occurs, anything that might reduce that probability is "reasonable". What's reasonable is to abolish ALARA and replace it with firm requirements set by people who are both accountable, and have a broader responsibility than just preventing NPP releases.
|In Canada there is a new regulatory process being introduced that looks at any release or process that might cause 10 micro Gy/year. That release/process requires a significant review process with the goal of reducing it.
Yeah. Under ALARA, we will be talking nano Gy/year soon. No limit means no limit.
ALARA and subsidies have an interesting synergism. Subsidies appear to make nuke cheaper. This gives room for ALARA to drive costs up further. This creates the need for more subsidies. Not clear where this process stops if ever. But we are seeing it play out in the restart of TMI 1. Alara pushed variable costs from under 1 cent/kWh should-cost to over 3 cents/kWh did-cost Then gas price went down and Constellation closed a fully depreciated plant. Along comes the IRA tax credits, and Microsoft can pay for the non-taxpayer share. Next step will be new regs to insure we need new subsidies.
I don't know about you. but I find it difficult to understand why Microsoft needs my money to diddle in AI. If that's a nuclear success, give me nuclear failure.
If other aspects of life were regulated according to ALARA safety standards, we'd never be allowed to leave the house. Staying home is the only sure way to avoid tripping hazards on the sidewalk.
It is the precautionary principle gone mad (as it usually does).
The key word in ALARA is reasonable.. So what is reasonable? To me it is a scheme that passes a cost-benefit test. Coming up with a reasonable definition of reasonable is our problem here.
Jamie,
Under ALARA, the regulator decides what is "reasonable". And if you are only being judged on whether or not a release occurs, anything that might reduce that probability is "reasonable". What's reasonable is to abolish ALARA and replace it with firm requirements set by people who are both accountable, and have a broader responsibility than just preventing NPP releases.
|In Canada there is a new regulatory process being introduced that looks at any release or process that might cause 10 micro Gy/year. That release/process requires a significant review process with the goal of reducing it.
Yeah. Under ALARA, we will be talking nano Gy/year soon. No limit means no limit.
ALARA and subsidies have an interesting synergism. Subsidies appear to make nuke cheaper. This gives room for ALARA to drive costs up further. This creates the need for more subsidies. Not clear where this process stops if ever. But we are seeing it play out in the restart of TMI 1. Alara pushed variable costs from under 1 cent/kWh should-cost to over 3 cents/kWh did-cost Then gas price went down and Constellation closed a fully depreciated plant. Along comes the IRA tax credits, and Microsoft can pay for the non-taxpayer share. Next step will be new regs to insure we need new subsidies.
I don't know about you. but I find it difficult to understand why Microsoft needs my money to diddle in AI. If that's a nuclear success, give me nuclear failure.