3 ms·

That's a myth. Regulatory requirements for all large scale power generation have to deal with very similar regulatory requirements, which typically scales with

That's a myth. Regulatory requirements for all large scale power generation have to deal with very similar regulatory requirements, which typically scales with size of the project. In fact wind had likely to deal with more restrictions than nuclear (largely to protect the nuclear investments of operators), let's not even talk about certain housing communities not allowing rooftop solar for aesthetic reasons.

pfdietz 4y ago
Indeed. One of the first big rulings that nuclear fans complained about was that nuclear had to comply with a law that applied generally to all industrial activities, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The AEC had interpreted their responsibilities under this act very narrowly, and lost in court on that when sued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs%27_Coordinating_Committee,_Inc._v._Atomic_Energy_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs%27_Coordinating...
pdonis 4y ago
> Regulatory requirements for all large scale power generation have to deal with very similar regulatory requirements As far as the general regulatory requirements for large scale power generation, that may be true. But there are additional requirements that nuclear has to meet that no other power source does. One is the completely irrational requirement for a waste disposal plan that has to last ten thousand years or more--instead of just reprocessing the waste, which is what every other country that uses nuclear energy does. That requirement alone basically killed nuclear power in the US for several decades.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > As far as the general regulatory requirements for large scale power generation, that may be true. But there are additional requirements that nuclear has to meet that no other power source does. One is the completely irrational requirement for a waste disposal plan that has to last ten thousand years or more--instead of just reprocessing the waste, which is what every other country that uses nuclear energy does. That requirement alone basically killed nuclear power in the US for several decades. What do you mean? There does not exist a fully worked out waste disposal plan anywhere in the world AFAIK. All larger long-term deposits are still in the investigation phase. So by that argument no nuclear power plants should have every been built. Also saying it is irrational to require this, why should nuclear be exempt from requirements that everyone else has to follow? If I build a house I have to specify what I'm going to do with the waste. Regarding reprocessing, unless you plan to make nuclear bombs, reprocessing is uneconomical. Moreover it actually increases the amount of waste. The produced waste is lower grade, but still needs special long-term disposal, especially because its half-life is typically very long.

pfdietz 4y ago

Indeed. One of the first big rulings that nuclear fans complained about was that nuclear had to comply with a law that applied generally to all industrial activities, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The AEC had interpreted their responsibilities under this act very narrowly, and lost in court on that when sued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs%27_Coordinating_Committee,_Inc._v._Atomic_Energy_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs%27_Coordinating...

pdonis 4y ago

> Regulatory requirements for all large scale power generation have to deal with very similar regulatory requirements As far as the general regulatory requirements for large scale power generation, that may be true. But there are additional requirements that nuclear has to meet that no other power source does. One is the completely irrational requirement for a waste disposal plan that has to last ten thousand years or more--instead of just reprocessing the waste, which is what every other country that uses nuclear energy does. That requirement alone basically killed nuclear power in the US for several decades.

cycomanic 4y ago
> As far as the general regulatory requirements for large scale power generation, that may be true. But there are additional requirements that nuclear has to meet that no other power source does. One is the completely irrational requirement for a waste disposal plan that has to last ten thousand years or more--instead of just reprocessing the waste, which is what every other country that uses nuclear energy does. That requirement alone basically killed nuclear power in the US for several decades. What do you mean? There does not exist a fully worked out waste disposal plan anywhere in the world AFAIK. All larger long-term deposits are still in the investigation phase. So by that argument no nuclear power plants should have every been built. Also saying it is irrational to require this, why should nuclear be exempt from requirements that everyone else has to follow? If I build a house I have to specify what I'm going to do with the waste. Regarding reprocessing, unless you plan to make nuclear bombs, reprocessing is uneconomical. Moreover it actually increases the amount of waste. The produced waste is lower grade, but still needs special long-term disposal, especially because its half-life is typically very long.