3 ms·
However it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics. Who's going to invest a billion dollars to build a new facility when they know that at any st
by LordKano 10y ago
However it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics.
Who's going to invest a billion dollars to build a new facility when they know that at any step along the way, some half-wit celebrity can decide that they want to buy property in the area and they don't want to live near a nuclear power plant, start protests and cause the project to be delayed or scrapped.
Continuing to run an old design is a very big part of how we ended up with the current situation with Fukushima.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoYou keep saying its NIMBY, when it is apparent its shoddy construction, mismanagement, and cutting corners for cost savings.
- _delirium 10y agoSome evidence for the interpretation that construction and cost problems are the root is that even France has been having these problems with recent construction projects. France doesn't have the same NIMBY or regulatory problems as the U.S. with nuclear. It's a national priority, and the legal landscape is different, you can't sue to stop projects the way you can in the U.S., because direct authorizing laws are passed by Parliament, vs. it being up to a patchwork of agency decisions (which can be challenged in court), state regulations, etc. And yet their next-gen reactor project in Flamanville is going badly, with huge cost overruns and manufacturing problems, to the point where the contractor (Areva) is seeking some kind of bailout or state buy-out of its nuclear construction business. This is also somewhat surprising because the previous-gen projects in France are usually seen as an example of a fairly well managed nuclear industry, with construction coming in reasonably close to budgeted cost, and a good safety record.