5 ms·

It's a threat comparable to fission reactors only if fusion reactor containment vessels are built out of uranium, which they aren't. To put it another way: ope

It's a threat comparable to fission reactors only if fusion reactor containment vessels are built out of uranium, which they aren't. To put it another way: operating a nuclear reactor today is expensive due to regulatory constraints meant to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation. If the fuel for your reactor can't be mistaken for nuclear bomb parts, and the components of your reactor can't be mistaken for nuclear bomb parts, it's a lot cheaper to build and operate. And it's a lot safer for someone to sign off on "Yep that's a whole bunch of lithium for a fusion reactor" than looking at a bunch of uranium and being like... Well...

dmitrygr 6y ago
> operating a nuclear reactor today is expensive due to regulatory constraints meant to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation The way I read that, you seem to imply that this cost dominates all others. If you do mean that, i'd like to see a citation please.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  Here you go: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear... "These figures have profound implications for the industry’s bottom-line. Based on a review of per-plant profitability, there are at least six plants nationwide where regulatory burdens exceed profit margins." Regardless, as I mentioned, the entire process is safer from a proliferation perspective.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Those regulatory burdens described there exceed profit margins on operations. Those margins ignore the sunk capital cost of the plants. For new nuclear construction, these regulatory costs would be a small compared to the cost of actually building the plants. Of course, new nuclear plants would be outrageously unprofitable.
    - reissbaker 6y ago
      You can't ignore operating costs because of sunk capital costs. That's the sunk cost fallacy! You can sometimes ignore sunk costs if operating revenue is good. But if it's negative, that's the problem.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        I wasn't ignoring operating costs. I was pointing out you can't ignore capital and financing costs.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dmitrygr 6y ago

> operating a nuclear reactor today is expensive due to regulatory constraints meant to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation The way I read that, you seem to imply that this cost dominates all others. If you do mean that, i'd like to see a citation please.

reissbaker 6y ago
Here you go: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear... "These figures have profound implications for the industry’s bottom-line. Based on a review of per-plant profitability, there are at least six plants nationwide where regulatory burdens exceed profit margins." Regardless, as I mentioned, the entire process is safer from a proliferation perspective.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Those regulatory burdens described there exceed profit margins on operations. Those margins ignore the sunk capital cost of the plants. For new nuclear construction, these regulatory costs would be a small compared to the cost of actually building the plants. Of course, new nuclear plants would be outrageously unprofitable.
  - reissbaker 6y ago
    You can't ignore operating costs because of sunk capital costs. That's the sunk cost fallacy! You can sometimes ignore sunk costs if operating revenue is good. But if it's negative, that's the problem.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      I wasn't ignoring operating costs. I was pointing out you can't ignore capital and financing costs.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]