# Greenhouse Effect: Why Not Technology to the Rescue...?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenhouse-effect-why-not-technology-to-the-rescue/310423>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 29, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenhouse-effect-why-not-technology-to-the-rescue/310423 "2005-06-29T20:57:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenhouse-effect-why-not-technology-to-the-rescue/310423/21 "2005-07-02T13:24:18Z")

</div>

> [@Shalmanese](#):
>
> Another way to make nuclear much more viable is to drastically relax the safety and disposal standards. IMHO, The fear of the nuclear boogyman is so great that regulators have forced plant operators to go far above and beyond any other industry in terms of safety and waste disposal which adds to the cost of nuclear power massively.

You have not proven that these regs are unnecessary. And, in fact, there have been some close calls on serious safety issues (see [here](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5005729/), for example). Even the nuclear industry won’t make the sort of claims that you are making here…They emphasize that regulations must evolve with technology and such but they won’t make the claim that the regulations currently go far beyond what is necessary (see their statement [here](http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=125)).

Also, there has been a study comparing the costs of nuclear energy in France, Japan, and the U.S. and, like I noted before, the issue isn’t that nuclear costs more in the U.S. than these other countries but rather that the fossil fuel alternatives cost less.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenhouse-effect-why-not-technology-to-the-rescue/310423.md?page=1)