5 ms·

From what I've heard (through two or three levels of separation), the regulatory agency on Nuclear power is stiflingly draconian. Getting any kind of new techno

From what I've heard (through two or three levels of separation), the regulatory agency on Nuclear power is stiflingly draconian. Getting any kind of new technology implemented is prohibitively difficult and expensive, which just adds to the list of disincentives in venturing into nuclear power.

godelski 9y ago
Average time from final designs to shovel in the ground is about 10 years. So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. I do agree there should be TIGHT regulations, but there certainly is a limit. Also, it has a lack of subsidies, compared to the other sectors.
- Animats 9y ago
  There's a huge subsidy in that the Federal Government subsidizes the disaster insurance.
  - godelski 9y ago
    Owners of plants are responsible for the first $12b. 3 mile cleanup was well under this. So I'm going to have to disagree. But I'll give a caveat, it is a sample size of 1. A major accident would cost much more, but they are extremely unlikely.
- Mz 9y ago
  So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. Cutting edge tech tends to be unproven and unreliable tech. When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong, worrying about having the latest tech is the wrong priority.
  - godelski 9y ago
    Who said anything about cutting edge? I don't care what you're building, but 10-20 years between when you start to design and have a finished product is too much time. They have a lot of research reactors, but honestly, the only way you're going to get bigger and safer reactors is if you scale up those research reactors. There is literally no other way. And we WANT to improve safety. Don't we? I'm not saying to use cutting edge. I'm saying use what has been proven at smaller scale and is well tested. Not two generation old technology. > When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong This is EXTREMELY unlikely. Even when things go wrong.
    - Mz 9y ago
      This is EXTREMELY unlikely. Even when things go wrong. It may currently be extremely unlikely -- due to the very regulations and processes you are decrying. But, if people like you get their way, the odds go up of seriously bad things happening.
      - godelski 9y ago
        This is actually how the industry as a whole thinks. I like to think expert advice, especially on difficult to understand concepts (hey, we're talking atomic physics here), should be held with more credibility than the layman. I work in a related industry, part of which is in space radiation mitigation. If you have any real questions about disasters I'll be happy to answer the best that I can. But forgive me if it appears to me that you are the one who is jumping to conclusions, preventing real progress, and harming lives.
        Mz 9y ago
        I used to moderate a gifted list. It was around 300 people, all of whom were used to being the smartest person in the room. So they tended to default to assuming that if you disagreed with them, you were merely uninformed and stupid. It took a while to convince people to talk to each other respectfully and from an assumption that both people are smart and informed and their different points of view are not merely evidence of stupidity. I occasionally see that same pattern play out on Hacker News. It would behoove you to check your ego at the door and assume that most of the people you speak with here are also well informed. In the mean time, I see no real reason to try to engage you further. Meaty discussion is never founded on chest-beating and condescension.
        mSparks43 9y ago
        How would you balance the two? From my experience "most" industry is ~10-20 years behind research. That's how long it takes to work out the kinks, be that mobile phones, cloud computing or AI. So while the US and Europe mess around spending stupid money on ITER the Chinese will be rolling out molton salt reactors leaving the west behind, and that 'sucks'. But these are big projects, running them like a Turkish ticket website would be a catastrophe. How exactly would do you re-balance the checks and balances?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Also, it has a lack of subsidies, compared to the other sectors. It has significant federal R&D and liability-related subsidies, as well as other federal and, in several states, state-level subsidies. Nuclear is by no means deprived of subsidies.
  - tbihl 9y ago
    And a stream of potential employees flowing, fully-trained, out of the military.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  A nuclear power plant has a lifetime of over 50 years, so it pays to make sure you're doing it right. It's like complaining that space probes and satellites use outdated processors and other computer technology. The Deep Space Climate Observatory was launched in 2015 with a 17 year old processor.
  - godelski 9y ago
    And now you're seeing a shift to smaller satellites with shorter operation lifetimes, and in lower orbits. This allows for use of off the shelf hardware and faster iteration. The barrier for this was brought down because it is cheaper to send hardware to space and the idea of a cluster of small sats isn't crazy anymore (because you need many satellites to provide continuous service to a specific ground location when using LEO).
Animats 9y ago
The regulatory agency on Nuclear power is stiflingly draconian. That's a feature. It's why Harrisburg, PA is still populated.
- godelski 9y ago
  You don't need Draconian regulation to have effective regulation.

godelski 9y ago

Average time from final designs to shovel in the ground is about 10 years. So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. I do agree there should be TIGHT regulations, but there certainly is a limit. Also, it has a lack of subsidies, compared to the other sectors.

Animats 9y ago
There's a huge subsidy in that the Federal Government subsidizes the disaster insurance.
- godelski 9y ago
  Owners of plants are responsible for the first $12b. 3 mile cleanup was well under this. So I'm going to have to disagree. But I'll give a caveat, it is a sample size of 1. A major accident would cost much more, but they are extremely unlikely.
Mz 9y ago
So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. Cutting edge tech tends to be unproven and unreliable tech. When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong, worrying about having the latest tech is the wrong priority.
- godelski 9y ago
  Who said anything about cutting edge? I don't care what you're building, but 10-20 years between when you start to design and have a finished product is too much time. They have a lot of research reactors, but honestly, the only way you're going to get bigger and safer reactors is if you scale up those research reactors. There is literally no other way. And we WANT to improve safety. Don't we? I'm not saying to use cutting edge. I'm saying use what has been proven at smaller scale and is well tested. Not two generation old technology. > When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong This is EXTREMELY unlikely. Even when things go wrong.
  - Mz 9y ago
    This is EXTREMELY unlikely. Even when things go wrong. It may currently be extremely unlikely -- due to the very regulations and processes you are decrying. But, if people like you get their way, the odds go up of seriously bad things happening.
    - godelski 9y ago
      This is actually how the industry as a whole thinks. I like to think expert advice, especially on difficult to understand concepts (hey, we're talking atomic physics here), should be held with more credibility than the layman. I work in a related industry, part of which is in space radiation mitigation. If you have any real questions about disasters I'll be happy to answer the best that I can. But forgive me if it appears to me that you are the one who is jumping to conclusions, preventing real progress, and harming lives.
      - Mz 9y ago
        I used to moderate a gifted list. It was around 300 people, all of whom were used to being the smartest person in the room. So they tended to default to assuming that if you disagreed with them, you were merely uninformed and stupid. It took a while to convince people to talk to each other respectfully and from an assumption that both people are smart and informed and their different points of view are not merely evidence of stupidity. I occasionally see that same pattern play out on Hacker News. It would behoove you to check your ego at the door and assume that most of the people you speak with here are also well informed. In the mean time, I see no real reason to try to engage you further. Meaty discussion is never founded on chest-beating and condescension.
      - mSparks43 9y ago
        How would you balance the two? From my experience "most" industry is ~10-20 years behind research. That's how long it takes to work out the kinks, be that mobile phones, cloud computing or AI. So while the US and Europe mess around spending stupid money on ITER the Chinese will be rolling out molton salt reactors leaving the west behind, and that 'sucks'. But these are big projects, running them like a Turkish ticket website would be a catastrophe. How exactly would do you re-balance the checks and balances?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Also, it has a lack of subsidies, compared to the other sectors. It has significant federal R&D and liability-related subsidies, as well as other federal and, in several states, state-level subsidies. Nuclear is by no means deprived of subsidies.
- tbihl 9y ago
  And a stream of potential employees flowing, fully-trained, out of the military.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
A nuclear power plant has a lifetime of over 50 years, so it pays to make sure you're doing it right. It's like complaining that space probes and satellites use outdated processors and other computer technology. The Deep Space Climate Observatory was launched in 2015 with a 17 year old processor.
- godelski 9y ago
  And now you're seeing a shift to smaller satellites with shorter operation lifetimes, and in lower orbits. This allows for use of off the shelf hardware and faster iteration. The barrier for this was brought down because it is cheaper to send hardware to space and the idea of a cluster of small sats isn't crazy anymore (because you need many satellites to provide continuous service to a specific ground location when using LEO).

Animats 9y ago

The regulatory agency on Nuclear power is stiflingly draconian. That's a feature. It's why Harrisburg, PA is still populated.

godelski 9y ago
You don't need Draconian regulation to have effective regulation.