3 ms·
> The power itself is cheap. You state that as if it's a fact. > The amount of regulation around 40 year old reactor designs is high, so that's expensive. Imp
by olau 7y ago
> The power itself is cheap.
You state that as if it's a fact.
> The amount of regulation around 40 year old reactor designs is high, so that's expensive. Implementation of a newer design would be much, much cheaper.
That regulation is the price paid for insurance by the government. It's the only control the public have with potentially disastrous plants.
Go to a private insurance company and try to get an insurance for your new plant design, if you succeed I'm sure a government somewhere will be willing to look at the regulation.
- Accujack 7y ago>You state that as if it's a fact. Because it is. If you Google it, you can find plenty of sources that state exactly this. Even anti-nuclear activists generally agree that economically nuclear power is cheap per kilowatt hour simply because of the capacity of nuclear plants multiplied by their longevity. They just argue that the cheap power isn't worth it because of the "other down sides" surrounding nuclear. >potentially disastrous plants. False. No electrical generating nuclear plant in the US has had a "disaster" associated with it. The closest was three mile island, and that had no injuries or negative health effects other than psychological. Only nuclear weapons manufacturing has had a significant environmental impact. The regulation around nuclear reactors is insane, and much of it doesn't add in any way to their safety. That's what you get when big, scary reactors become an easy target for politicians who want to look like they're doing something for a change.