6 ms·

The fact that nuclear power regulators are routinely anti-nuclear power probably isn't helping things. https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say

by sb057 4y ago

The fact that nuclear power regulators are routinely anti-nuclear power probably isn't helping things. https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-to-new-reactors/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-... >Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, former Head of the Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste, Federal Environment Ministry, Germany Dr. Bernard Laponche, former Director General, French Agency for Energy Management, former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
It's a tragedy
ncmncm 4y ago
I.e., the more you know about nukes, the less you like them.
- sb057 4y ago
  I'm not sure about the other regulators, but Jaczko is hardly liked by his colleagues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko >A report by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General Hubert T. Bell accused Jaczko of "strategically" withholding information from his colleagues in an effort to keep plans for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository from advancing. >In October 2011, all the other four NRC commissioners—two Democrats and two Republicans—sent a letter to the White House expressing "grave concern" about Jaczko's actions at the NRC. On December 14, 2011, Commissioner William Ostendorff, a Republican, told a House oversight committee that Jaczko's "bullying and intimidation... should not and cannot be tolerated."
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    The more you know about nukes, the less you like nukes.
    - nickelpro 4y ago
      Is this a play on the Navy term that calls anyone associated with the nuclear field a "nuke"? Well I giggled but it's a pretty far off reference for the standard HN audience
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        No.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  Are you a nuclear scientist
DennisP 4y ago
A few years ago I got to sit in a meeting between reps from a bunch of GenIV reactor startups, and a former chair of the NRC (not Jaczko). The reactor people said their main problem was that the NRC required near-complete blueprints before they would even look at a design. Getting to that point took several hundred million dollars. Then the NRC would give a flat yes or no. If no then you were out of business. That's a pretty difficult environment for investors. The reactor people said just breaking the process into phases would be a huge help. The NRC person was unsympathetic, said it wasn't the NRC's job to help develop nuclear technology, and was uninterested in climate change.
- dv_dt 4y ago
  Requiring blueprints would seem critical to actually being able to have a product to review for safety. Not only blueprints, but detailed material specs as well.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    Nobody was asking for complete approval without blueprints. They just wanted an early indication along the lines of "sure, you're on the right track" or "don't waste your time, no way in hell we're approving anything like that." Or maybe "that sorta works but we would require X and Y," and then they could incorporate that into the design.
- mateo1 4y ago
  - JTBooth 4y ago
    It would be nice if, say, ten million dollars into the process of preparing blueprints, the agency could look over the prints and the plans for the remaining prints and say "yes it looks like you're on the right track, make sure the reactor wall you decide on isn't too heavy for those struts." In a much more precise way that probably costs a million bucks, of course. Regulatory intervention could happen at any point in the process. You could imagine an even worse world where the first inspection is after the plant is built, and changes are typically requested to the high level design.
pfdietz 4y ago
The NRC exists to separate nuclear advocacy from nuclear regulation (AEC did both.) Perhaps you are confusing non-advocacy with opposition?
- sb057 4y ago
  I'm not sure how a statement describing nuclear power as "too costly... too costly and risky... unsustainable... financially unsustainable... militarily hazardous... inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents... subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems... [and] too unwieldy and complex" can be construed as anything other than opposition to nuclear power.
  - freemint 4y ago
    They can be construed as opposition to tax payer founded nuclear power which technically is so something else then nuclear power. One is a policy the other a technology.

by sb057 4y ago

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

It's a tragedy

ncmncm 4y ago

I.e., the more you know about nukes, the less you like them.

sb057 4y ago
I'm not sure about the other regulators, but Jaczko is hardly liked by his colleagues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko >A report by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General Hubert T. Bell accused Jaczko of "strategically" withholding information from his colleagues in an effort to keep plans for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository from advancing. >In October 2011, all the other four NRC commissioners—two Democrats and two Republicans—sent a letter to the White House expressing "grave concern" about Jaczko's actions at the NRC. On December 14, 2011, Commissioner William Ostendorff, a Republican, told a House oversight committee that Jaczko's "bullying and intimidation... should not and cannot be tolerated."
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The more you know about nukes, the less you like nukes.
  - nickelpro 4y ago
    Is this a play on the Navy term that calls anyone associated with the nuclear field a "nuke"? Well I giggled but it's a pretty far off reference for the standard HN audience
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      No.
diordiderot 4y ago
Are you a nuclear scientist

DennisP 4y ago

A few years ago I got to sit in a meeting between reps from a bunch of GenIV reactor startups, and a former chair of the NRC (not Jaczko). The reactor people said their main problem was that the NRC required near-complete blueprints before they would even look at a design. Getting to that point took several hundred million dollars. Then the NRC would give a flat yes or no. If no then you were out of business. That's a pretty difficult environment for investors. The reactor people said just breaking the process into phases would be a huge help. The NRC person was unsympathetic, said it wasn't the NRC's job to help develop nuclear technology, and was uninterested in climate change.

dv_dt 4y ago
Requiring blueprints would seem critical to actually being able to have a product to review for safety. Not only blueprints, but detailed material specs as well.
- DennisP 4y ago
  Nobody was asking for complete approval without blueprints. They just wanted an early indication along the lines of "sure, you're on the right track" or "don't waste your time, no way in hell we're approving anything like that." Or maybe "that sorta works but we would require X and Y," and then they could incorporate that into the design.
mateo1 4y ago
- JTBooth 4y ago
  It would be nice if, say, ten million dollars into the process of preparing blueprints, the agency could look over the prints and the plans for the remaining prints and say "yes it looks like you're on the right track, make sure the reactor wall you decide on isn't too heavy for those struts." In a much more precise way that probably costs a million bucks, of course. Regulatory intervention could happen at any point in the process. You could imagine an even worse world where the first inspection is after the plant is built, and changes are typically requested to the high level design.

pfdietz 4y ago

The NRC exists to separate nuclear advocacy from nuclear regulation (AEC did both.) Perhaps you are confusing non-advocacy with opposition?

sb057 4y ago
I'm not sure how a statement describing nuclear power as "too costly... too costly and risky... unsustainable... financially unsustainable... militarily hazardous... inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents... subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems... [and] too unwieldy and complex" can be construed as anything other than opposition to nuclear power.
- freemint 4y ago
  They can be construed as opposition to tax payer founded nuclear power which technically is so something else then nuclear power. One is a policy the other a technology.