4 ms·

how much of that is due to regulations or other overhead or inefficiencies? e.g., "China Tariffs Blocked Bill Gates’ Plan for Safe Nuclear Power" https://futu

how much of that is due to regulations or other overhead or inefficiencies? e.g., "China Tariffs Blocked Bill Gates’ Plan for Safe Nuclear Power" https://futurism.com/trump-china-tariffs-bill-gates-nuclear-power https://futurism.com/trump-china-tariffs-bill-gates-nuclear-... also, SpaceX managed to make reusable rockets, I just have to imagine we could make nuclear energy feasible if we approached it from first principles and took a hard look at the entire process.

epistasis 6y ago
I always ask: what regulation would you change? Nobody in the nuclear industry has suggestions for what is unnecessary, as far as I can tell. And as Texas showed us last week, without regulations, profit motive alone is not enough to maintain proper equipment. The nuclear plant that tripped off could have made months worth of profit in less than a day. Yet they did not do simple weatherization preparations that they knew they should have based on 2011's events.
- airhead969 6y ago
  The usual answer from the unreasonable, irrational, and selfish Rand Paul-types is "gubberment always too big, so regulations bad." I would modify Madison's quote: If everyone were angelic, proactive, and wise, no government or regulations would be necessary. Since none of these can ever be true, government and regulations will always be essential. I'm in Austin and froze for 3 days because of piss-poor under-regulation due to lack of grid and backup power investment. ERCOT did they best they could while under-resourced and then thrown under the bus by the MSM and libertarian, anarcho-capitalist sympathizers like Abbott.
- undefined1 6y ago
  it's an open question. but obviously there's no such thing as perfect regulation. it's imperfect, just as with everything else. so you have to ask the question. regulations are often good and necessary, but they also often outlive their purpose and we end up with stagnation and regulatory capture from large corporations, where startups can't compete. or in the case of nuclear, even a Bill Gates' backed company has a hard time being able to build.
- glogla 6y ago
  One common complaint is that every plant is a special snowflake that is validated, qualified and certified from scratch. Building more at once as a single project using a single plan could bring a lot of efficiency in the process. I think that was the promise of Small Modular Reactors - you certify reactor by itself, making the plant certification much easier and faster. I'm not sure that materialised, though.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    SMRs like SSR heatpipes are interesting. The issues of decentralization of controlled nuclear sites are many. It's better to have many SMRs in one location for safety, security, and backbench of resources and talent for engineering and operations. Simply, it scales better. Giving every Tom, Jane, and Sally corporation or town an SMR is an absolutely terrible idea.
    - glogla 6y ago
      Oh sure, I understood the effort to make it easier to "plop down" bunch large plants at once, not hundreds of small ones - though those are kind of interesting in isolated locations. The other thing is old Soviet idea of using small nuclear reactors for heating - put small reactor to every town and run central heating to the housing estates, meaning you get to use close to 100 % of the heat output of the reactor, instead of the ~ 30 % the turbines give you in electricity. Of course, if things go wrong, you have very efficient radioactivity delivery mechanism to every home. And outside of very cold climates it might be actually less efficient than a modern heat pump, even accounting for the heat conversion.
      - airhead969 6y ago
        For local heating, ground source heat pumps are often a good idea. Also, solar thermal energy storage is an idea, as well as the potential of solar PV hot working fluid cogen. Stanford's SESI is interesting, but it would be awesome if solar, wind, or fusion could take the places of fission and methane in cogen applications.
  - 6y ago
airhead969 6y ago
Gimme a break. Don't pull the Reagan/Bush/libertarian "all regs are bad" line. It's tired. The NRC knows their job, have excellent people, and are good at it. It's like questioning whether we need the NTSB or not.
- undefined1 6y ago
  you're setting up and attacking a strawman. didn't say all regs are bad. obviously you have to identify which regulations are good and which are not, or those no longer necessary, and find a balance so you don't quash innovation. like the example I gave with Bill Gates nuclear project.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    Oh so now some nuclear industry regulations are "bad." Then who knows better than NRC engineers and scientists, legitimately aiming to ensure the industry doesn't die from mass-casualty events, public harm, or unworkable costs? Maybe before throwing shade on something you know nothing about, it's often best to not prove that you're speaking from your tail end. ; ) EDIT: You made a bunch of edits. No, you in particular and no one else have to state which regs are bad if you're making this presumption. "Innovation" and the stability of risk management are often at cross-purposes; don't upset what works and is standardized for consumerist novelty in a fucking nuclear reactor.
    - undefined1 6y ago
      in a time when institutions and experts are failing all around us, I appreciate your optimism. but it's too much like a blind faith and devotion to priests for my tastes. and maybe they are right about every regulation, that's a possibility! but clearly something has gone wrong when we could have had a clean grid powered via nuclear energy by now. so I think it would be wise to question everything in the chain.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        You say we could have that, but no other nation has it either. Presumably some nations are better at regulating than we are; what is their excuse?

epistasis 6y ago

I always ask: what regulation would you change? Nobody in the nuclear industry has suggestions for what is unnecessary, as far as I can tell. And as Texas showed us last week, without regulations, profit motive alone is not enough to maintain proper equipment. The nuclear plant that tripped off could have made months worth of profit in less than a day. Yet they did not do simple weatherization preparations that they knew they should have based on 2011's events.

airhead969 6y ago
The usual answer from the unreasonable, irrational, and selfish Rand Paul-types is "gubberment always too big, so regulations bad." I would modify Madison's quote: If everyone were angelic, proactive, and wise, no government or regulations would be necessary. Since none of these can ever be true, government and regulations will always be essential. I'm in Austin and froze for 3 days because of piss-poor under-regulation due to lack of grid and backup power investment. ERCOT did they best they could while under-resourced and then thrown under the bus by the MSM and libertarian, anarcho-capitalist sympathizers like Abbott.
undefined1 6y ago
it's an open question. but obviously there's no such thing as perfect regulation. it's imperfect, just as with everything else. so you have to ask the question. regulations are often good and necessary, but they also often outlive their purpose and we end up with stagnation and regulatory capture from large corporations, where startups can't compete. or in the case of nuclear, even a Bill Gates' backed company has a hard time being able to build.
glogla 6y ago
One common complaint is that every plant is a special snowflake that is validated, qualified and certified from scratch. Building more at once as a single project using a single plan could bring a lot of efficiency in the process. I think that was the promise of Small Modular Reactors - you certify reactor by itself, making the plant certification much easier and faster. I'm not sure that materialised, though.
- airhead969 6y ago
  SMRs like SSR heatpipes are interesting. The issues of decentralization of controlled nuclear sites are many. It's better to have many SMRs in one location for safety, security, and backbench of resources and talent for engineering and operations. Simply, it scales better. Giving every Tom, Jane, and Sally corporation or town an SMR is an absolutely terrible idea.
  - glogla 6y ago
    Oh sure, I understood the effort to make it easier to "plop down" bunch large plants at once, not hundreds of small ones - though those are kind of interesting in isolated locations. The other thing is old Soviet idea of using small nuclear reactors for heating - put small reactor to every town and run central heating to the housing estates, meaning you get to use close to 100 % of the heat output of the reactor, instead of the ~ 30 % the turbines give you in electricity. Of course, if things go wrong, you have very efficient radioactivity delivery mechanism to every home. And outside of very cold climates it might be actually less efficient than a modern heat pump, even accounting for the heat conversion.
    - airhead969 6y ago
      For local heating, ground source heat pumps are often a good idea. Also, solar thermal energy storage is an idea, as well as the potential of solar PV hot working fluid cogen. Stanford's SESI is interesting, but it would be awesome if solar, wind, or fusion could take the places of fission and methane in cogen applications.
- 6y ago

airhead969 6y ago

Gimme a break. Don't pull the Reagan/Bush/libertarian "all regs are bad" line. It's tired. The NRC knows their job, have excellent people, and are good at it. It's like questioning whether we need the NTSB or not.

undefined1 6y ago
you're setting up and attacking a strawman. didn't say all regs are bad. obviously you have to identify which regulations are good and which are not, or those no longer necessary, and find a balance so you don't quash innovation. like the example I gave with Bill Gates nuclear project.
- airhead969 6y ago
  Oh so now some nuclear industry regulations are "bad." Then who knows better than NRC engineers and scientists, legitimately aiming to ensure the industry doesn't die from mass-casualty events, public harm, or unworkable costs? Maybe before throwing shade on something you know nothing about, it's often best to not prove that you're speaking from your tail end. ; ) EDIT: You made a bunch of edits. No, you in particular and no one else have to state which regs are bad if you're making this presumption. "Innovation" and the stability of risk management are often at cross-purposes; don't upset what works and is standardized for consumerist novelty in a fucking nuclear reactor.
  - undefined1 6y ago
    in a time when institutions and experts are failing all around us, I appreciate your optimism. but it's too much like a blind faith and devotion to priests for my tastes. and maybe they are right about every regulation, that's a possibility! but clearly something has gone wrong when we could have had a clean grid powered via nuclear energy by now. so I think it would be wise to question everything in the chain.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      You say we could have that, but no other nation has it either. Presumably some nations are better at regulating than we are; what is their excuse?