3 ms·

I am skeptical of this, assuming you need some sort of public support in order to build a nuclear power plant (I'm guessing voters are involved somewhere, even

I am skeptical of this, assuming you need some sort of public support in order to build a nuclear power plant (I'm guessing voters are involved somewhere, even if it's electing their state governor). Most people are scared of nuclear power, so it seems politically problematic (at least in the United States). I went to school in Pittsburgh where there are nuclear power plants nearby and people still felt more comfortable with coal being shipped over from Virginia.

epistasis 6y ago
Current sites that would welcome new nuclear, as evidenced by enthusiastic local support matched by a new construction project: * Vogtle, Georgia * VC Summer, South Carolina * a cluster of small towns in the west that are the first customers for small modular reactors * Wylfa, UK * Hinkley, UK The greater challenge with nuclear is getting the funding to construct, followed by actual engineering, procurement, and construction.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  The funding problem is because of the safety problem. There are high regulatory costs associated with building new (fission) nuclear power plants, because: * If you don't regulate the materials and fuels used for fission nuclear power plants, most countries could easily build nuclear weapons, and * If you build fission power plants badly, or maintain them poorly, everyone and everything around them dies in a large radius, and in an even larger radius gets severely sickened. And this radius is poisoned effectively forever. If there weren't safety problems inherent to fission nuclear reactors, they would be much cheaper to build as well as being much cheaper to operate — and thus easier to fund. That's part of why fusion reactors are interesting: theoretically they should work just as well if not better than fission reactors at converting fuels to energy; the fuel is more prevalent and cheaper; and there should be lower costs associated with building and operating them since the risks are lower. We just don't know how to build them yet, and figuring that out is expensive.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    > The funding problem is because of the safety problem. I have yet to see convincing evidence of this. It seems like an excuse. Perhaps it's code for "the regulators won't let us get away with screw ups", which is what happened at Flamanville.

epistasis 6y ago

Current sites that would welcome new nuclear, as evidenced by enthusiastic local support matched by a new construction project: * Vogtle, Georgia * VC Summer, South Carolina * a cluster of small towns in the west that are the first customers for small modular reactors * Wylfa, UK * Hinkley, UK The greater challenge with nuclear is getting the funding to construct, followed by actual engineering, procurement, and construction.

reissbaker 6y ago
The funding problem is because of the safety problem. There are high regulatory costs associated with building new (fission) nuclear power plants, because: * If you don't regulate the materials and fuels used for fission nuclear power plants, most countries could easily build nuclear weapons, and * If you build fission power plants badly, or maintain them poorly, everyone and everything around them dies in a large radius, and in an even larger radius gets severely sickened. And this radius is poisoned effectively forever. If there weren't safety problems inherent to fission nuclear reactors, they would be much cheaper to build as well as being much cheaper to operate — and thus easier to fund. That's part of why fusion reactors are interesting: theoretically they should work just as well if not better than fission reactors at converting fuels to energy; the fuel is more prevalent and cheaper; and there should be lower costs associated with building and operating them since the risks are lower. We just don't know how to build them yet, and figuring that out is expensive.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pfdietz 6y ago
  > The funding problem is because of the safety problem. I have yet to see convincing evidence of this. It seems like an excuse. Perhaps it's code for "the regulators won't let us get away with screw ups", which is what happened at Flamanville.