3 ms·

Not too long ago microwave radiation was a huge boogeyman. Everybody was afraid of it turning them into mutants or used as super weapons. The only thing that ch

Not too long ago microwave radiation was a huge boogeyman. Everybody was afraid of it turning them into mutants or used as super weapons. The only thing that changed was some people started putting it into their homes. They were cooking their food with it, and nobody died. Then they went through the whole technology adoption curve, jumped the chasm, and the rest is history. I honestly believe that if we had focused more on building smaller and smaller nuclear power plants, and putting them in more and more cities, that we wouldn't have had this problem. If you look around at the areas that have high support for nuclear power, they're all areas that have had nuclear power plants for decades without a problem. Make them small enough that people don't notice them, and when they find out one has been in their backyard for 20 years, they shrug it off like if they found out their neighbor was a lesbian (maybe that's a bad example but whatever).

nickik 9y ago
Nuclear could be so awesome but its its so hard to do because of regulation. We would already have energy cheaper then coal if you could more easily develop and deploy these.
- Tomte 9y ago
  We would also have quite a few uninhabitable areas if we let Silicon Valley startup types dabble with nuclear reactors. "Move fast and break things"…
  - nickik 9y ago
    That's the same argument people make against SpaceX and they are generally far faster cheaper and have high standards. Yes, nuclear should not be a total free for all, but there is absolutely no reason why people should not be allowed to make small research reactors and small reactors to iterate on the technology. We essentially still use age old concepts for our reactors and one of the reasons is that its almost impossible to bring something different to market. Its literally stifling innovation.
    - philipkglass 9y ago
      If American nuclear power were exceptionally dysfunctional, like American health care, you'd expect to see other countries do a lot better. Long project timelines would be a problem only in the US (and perhaps other "over-regulated" countries). Canada's newest operating reactor, Darlington 4, took 8 years from construction start to commercial operation. Russia's newest, Novovoronezh 2-1, took 8 years. Civaux 2, France's newest, took 11 years. Kudankulam 2, India's newest, took 15 years. (All numbers from the IAEA's Power Reactor Information System). That's a long time for billions of dollars to be tied up in construction before producing a single watt of electricity or a single dollar of revenue. The advantages of going fast are obvious. So why has no other country developed small modular reactors that you build in 2 years, like a natural gas plant? I think that the most parsimonious explanation is that building reactors quickly just isn't easy, even without American-style regulation. Many countries take almost-a-decade to decade-plus times to build large reactors. No other countries have yet deployed small modular reactors. Why not? India, Russia, Brazil -- none of them have the slightest obligation to imitate American-style nuclear regulations, and they are not generally known for excessive attention to environmental protection or worker safety. Why don't they have cheap, quick-build reactors?
      - nickik 9y ago
        Because all countries have the same issues and all (or most) these reactors are still based on the same old basic tech and the problems with it are known. They have signed many of the same limiting treatise. They have the same problem with civilian use of partially military technology. They all have stifling regulation. It cost a lot to develop these things and because regulation only governments can really do these things in most countries. Its a simple fact that it is practically impossible to develop a new reactor type and bring it to market. All the startups that try these things have to figure out some way to get to do something in China or Indonesia. America is not unique at all. The reality is that other reactor types have been build and they have been built small. If you think based on first principle there is really nothing that makes a reactor follow different laws then air planes, rocket engines and other high precision, high material complexity object. Also there is a large amount of space between a modern PWR and a small modular reactors idea. The new reactors that China now offers commercially are 650MW, they have passive safety and are way less complex to build then current PWRs. They will also sell Molten Salt Thorium Reactors in about 10 years. But the point is that non of the things China is now doing was impossible in the US 30 years ago. It simply didn't happen because of institutional and legal issues. Even if you figure out all this stuff and you actually managed to develop the tech, its incredibly hard to get countries to allow you to actually deploy them.
matt4077 9y ago
You seem to be saying that nuclear power is harmless, and all fear of it is irrational. That's simply delusional. Yes, maybe well-maintained nuclear power plants are an acceptable risk. But pretending there's an alternative reality where we all casually refill our backyard reactors with enriched uranium on the weekend is really somewhere out there.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Sure. But also the personal coal furnace that many in the world still use for heating is a lot worse.
ben_w 9y ago
Nuclear power is kind of a research hobby of mine. Did you know the lethal dose of absorbed ionising radiation is only about 10 joules per kilogram? It would be great if it wasn’t so low. We’d already have nuclear powered manned space flight for one thing.

nickik 9y ago

Nuclear could be so awesome but its its so hard to do because of regulation. We would already have energy cheaper then coal if you could more easily develop and deploy these.

Tomte 9y ago
We would also have quite a few uninhabitable areas if we let Silicon Valley startup types dabble with nuclear reactors. "Move fast and break things"…
- nickik 9y ago
  That's the same argument people make against SpaceX and they are generally far faster cheaper and have high standards. Yes, nuclear should not be a total free for all, but there is absolutely no reason why people should not be allowed to make small research reactors and small reactors to iterate on the technology. We essentially still use age old concepts for our reactors and one of the reasons is that its almost impossible to bring something different to market. Its literally stifling innovation.
  - philipkglass 9y ago
    If American nuclear power were exceptionally dysfunctional, like American health care, you'd expect to see other countries do a lot better. Long project timelines would be a problem only in the US (and perhaps other "over-regulated" countries). Canada's newest operating reactor, Darlington 4, took 8 years from construction start to commercial operation. Russia's newest, Novovoronezh 2-1, took 8 years. Civaux 2, France's newest, took 11 years. Kudankulam 2, India's newest, took 15 years. (All numbers from the IAEA's Power Reactor Information System). That's a long time for billions of dollars to be tied up in construction before producing a single watt of electricity or a single dollar of revenue. The advantages of going fast are obvious. So why has no other country developed small modular reactors that you build in 2 years, like a natural gas plant? I think that the most parsimonious explanation is that building reactors quickly just isn't easy, even without American-style regulation. Many countries take almost-a-decade to decade-plus times to build large reactors. No other countries have yet deployed small modular reactors. Why not? India, Russia, Brazil -- none of them have the slightest obligation to imitate American-style nuclear regulations, and they are not generally known for excessive attention to environmental protection or worker safety. Why don't they have cheap, quick-build reactors?
    - nickik 9y ago
      Because all countries have the same issues and all (or most) these reactors are still based on the same old basic tech and the problems with it are known. They have signed many of the same limiting treatise. They have the same problem with civilian use of partially military technology. They all have stifling regulation. It cost a lot to develop these things and because regulation only governments can really do these things in most countries. Its a simple fact that it is practically impossible to develop a new reactor type and bring it to market. All the startups that try these things have to figure out some way to get to do something in China or Indonesia. America is not unique at all. The reality is that other reactor types have been build and they have been built small. If you think based on first principle there is really nothing that makes a reactor follow different laws then air planes, rocket engines and other high precision, high material complexity object. Also there is a large amount of space between a modern PWR and a small modular reactors idea. The new reactors that China now offers commercially are 650MW, they have passive safety and are way less complex to build then current PWRs. They will also sell Molten Salt Thorium Reactors in about 10 years. But the point is that non of the things China is now doing was impossible in the US 30 years ago. It simply didn't happen because of institutional and legal issues. Even if you figure out all this stuff and you actually managed to develop the tech, its incredibly hard to get countries to allow you to actually deploy them.

matt4077 9y ago

You seem to be saying that nuclear power is harmless, and all fear of it is irrational. That's simply delusional. Yes, maybe well-maintained nuclear power plants are an acceptable risk. But pretending there's an alternative reality where we all casually refill our backyard reactors with enriched uranium on the weekend is really somewhere out there.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Sure. But also the personal coal furnace that many in the world still use for heating is a lot worse.

ben_w 9y ago

Nuclear power is kind of a research hobby of mine. Did you know the lethal dose of absorbed ionising radiation is only about 10 joules per kilogram? It would be great if it wasn’t so low. We’d already have nuclear powered manned space flight for one thing.