Specifically, I would prefer if all energy types were regulated according to the same principles when it came to risk/harm tolerance, emission rates, etc.
If a coal plant is allowed to emit X Bq/GWh, every other plant types should have the same limit.
Or even better, if you add all polutants together, one should calculate total expected harm (in terms of X * deaths/GWh + Y * disease/GWh + Z * Global Warming contribution, or something) and either set a ceiling on total harm, or add a tax on each power plant based on total expected harm caused.
This wouldn't necessarily mean that the regulations would be written using fewer words, but it would/should lead to an optimal balance between cost of energy and the harm caused.
The current system seems to lead to both harm and price levels that are much higher than they need to be.
I find this absolutely fascinating with in the context of this article and the deregulation that has contributed to this environmental disaster. We keep having to deal the consequences of deregulation/less safety as path to more profit and fact there are people actively who want this for nuclear power is mind-blowing to me.
Specifically, I would prefer if all energy types were regulated according to the same principles when it came to risk/harm tolerance, emission rates, etc.
If a coal plant is allowed to emit X Bq/GWh, every other plant types should have the same limit.
Or even better, if you add all polutants together, one should calculate total expected harm (in terms of X * deaths/GWh + Y * disease/GWh + Z * Global Warming contribution, or something) and either set a ceiling on total harm, or add a tax on each power plant based on total expected harm caused.
This wouldn't necessarily mean that the regulations would be written using fewer words, but it would/should lead to an optimal balance between cost of energy and the harm caused.
The current system seems to lead to both harm and price levels that are much higher than they need to be.