3 ms·

They can absolutely be built economically, but they are hobbled by excessive regulation due to public fear. This argument is akin to when congress accuses the

They can absolutely be built economically, but they are hobbled by excessive regulation due to public fear. This argument is akin to when congress accuses the US Postal Service of losing money and being uneconomic, when in reality congress itself mandated that it must be run that way.

epistasis 6y ago
I'm not sure that I've ever seen somebody in the field suggest a reform that would reduce that cost, except for the small modular style construction. That is to say, nobody involved with the process has a suggestion on what regulations are unnecessarily increasing costs. So I don't think the USPS is comparable, as there are very clear and easy fixes that would solve their problems (ie increase stamp prices). When you look at what happened with Westinghouse and the AP-1000 in Georgia and South Carolina, it seems that parts of the problem is that the designs weren't even buildable as they were laid out, and when it came time to build the construction side just went ahead with whatever they could hobble together. So it's been suggested that if the NRC checked the plans not only for safety, but also basic construct ability, then maybe these massive projects would succeed. But because the engineers did not do their job, and construction teams did jobs they shouldn't have, and the business arrangements were such that all this went sideways instead of problems being identified and fixed, there was massive failure. Personally, I think more regulation has a better chance of fixing the industry rather than less regulation. The executives are clearly incompetent and have no clue or long term planning ability.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >I'm not sure that I've ever seen somebody in the field suggest a reform that would reduce that cost, You don't wind up in the nuclear field by being dumb and smart people don't say things that can easily be construed by the opposition as advocating for reduced safety.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    That doesn't sound like a smart strategy to me, because it leads to the conclusion that every regulation is necessary for safety and noting can be cut. Meanwhile at the same time lots of people are saying "too much regulation drives up costs," which means that the implication is still that nuclear advocates are asking for less safety fit cost savings.

epistasis 6y ago

I'm not sure that I've ever seen somebody in the field suggest a reform that would reduce that cost, except for the small modular style construction. That is to say, nobody involved with the process has a suggestion on what regulations are unnecessarily increasing costs. So I don't think the USPS is comparable, as there are very clear and easy fixes that would solve their problems (ie increase stamp prices). When you look at what happened with Westinghouse and the AP-1000 in Georgia and South Carolina, it seems that parts of the problem is that the designs weren't even buildable as they were laid out, and when it came time to build the construction side just went ahead with whatever they could hobble together. So it's been suggested that if the NRC checked the plans not only for safety, but also basic construct ability, then maybe these massive projects would succeed. But because the engineers did not do their job, and construction teams did jobs they shouldn't have, and the business arrangements were such that all this went sideways instead of problems being identified and fixed, there was massive failure. Personally, I think more regulation has a better chance of fixing the industry rather than less regulation. The executives are clearly incompetent and have no clue or long term planning ability.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>I'm not sure that I've ever seen somebody in the field suggest a reform that would reduce that cost, You don't wind up in the nuclear field by being dumb and smart people don't say things that can easily be construed by the opposition as advocating for reduced safety.
- epistasis 6y ago
  That doesn't sound like a smart strategy to me, because it leads to the conclusion that every regulation is necessary for safety and noting can be cut. Meanwhile at the same time lots of people are saying "too much regulation drives up costs," which means that the implication is still that nuclear advocates are asking for less safety fit cost savings.