3 ms·

How does China build 24 Gen III+ reactors in 10 years, and we spend billions in court arguing about environmental reviews. We F ourselves because we don't allo

by q1w2 4y ago

How does China build 24 Gen III+ reactors in 10 years, and we spend billions in court arguing about environmental reviews. We F ourselves because we don't allow construction companies to do their jobs.

bilbo0s 4y ago
It's not the environmentalism that gets us. In fact even if there were no environmental rules or any other regulations at all, we'd still have Vogtie in the mess it's in. Construction costs money and time. Metallurgy costs money and time. And on and on and on. I doubt we could build a reactor for less than USD5 Billion even with no regulations at all. This stuff takes time, and if you don't get it right, the damn things don't work. It's not like they work with less efficiency, they just don't work at all if any one of a thousand critical things is done incorrectly. Then that has to be fixed, and you try again. And so on. And keep in mind, that's for designs we are familiar with and understand. Just imagine trying to build and scale out the new designs. When it comes to the new designs, what is it that we don't know that we don't know? How much time and money will those mistakes cost? It's about a lot more than environmentalism. Put in layman's terms: "This stuff is just hard." Getting rid of regulations helps some. Getting rid of the need to actually make any kind of money by making the government shoulder the costs helps even more. But in the end, you're still left with constructing a nuclear plant. Which is an extremely hard problem that is enormously expensive to solve. So put yourself in the place of an energy investor, what's s/he going to do? Raise USD5 Billion to spend on the hopes that we can actually construct one of these correctly and under budget in under 10 years? Or just keep slapping up wind farms and start pulling in his/her generation fee in less than a month?
- q1w2 4y ago
  I would advocate the government to protect nuclear plant construction from frivolous litigations, environmental rereviews, and local political challenges, as well as reopen the storage facility in Nevada. The construction isn't the big cost - it's all the nonsense that we do to interfere with those trying to build the plants.
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    And I'm saying that "those trying to build the plants" has to be the government itself. Because despite your belief, the construction is absolutely the dominant cost. You need to contract for specialized materials to make components. Forge those materials incorrectly and it's PHYSICS that stops the project from working, not the government. Not lawsuits. Do you have an idea of how much it costs to enrich nuclear materials? Do you have an idea what the specs are for materials that can contain enriched nuclear materials? Materials that can contain a meltdown? What it takes to construct structures incorporating said materials? I'll tell you right now that it will cost more than lawsuits about the hornbutted swallow losing its habitat or whatever. That's just reality.

by q1w2 4y ago

bilbo0s 4y ago

It's not the environmentalism that gets us. In fact even if there were no environmental rules or any other regulations at all, we'd still have Vogtie in the mess it's in. Construction costs money and time. Metallurgy costs money and time. And on and on and on. I doubt we could build a reactor for less than USD5 Billion even with no regulations at all. This stuff takes time, and if you don't get it right, the damn things don't work. It's not like they work with less efficiency, they just don't work at all if any one of a thousand critical things is done incorrectly. Then that has to be fixed, and you try again. And so on. And keep in mind, that's for designs we are familiar with and understand. Just imagine trying to build and scale out the new designs. When it comes to the new designs, what is it that we don't know that we don't know? How much time and money will those mistakes cost? It's about a lot more than environmentalism. Put in layman's terms: "This stuff is just hard." Getting rid of regulations helps some. Getting rid of the need to actually make any kind of money by making the government shoulder the costs helps even more. But in the end, you're still left with constructing a nuclear plant. Which is an extremely hard problem that is enormously expensive to solve. So put yourself in the place of an energy investor, what's s/he going to do? Raise USD5 Billion to spend on the hopes that we can actually construct one of these correctly and under budget in under 10 years? Or just keep slapping up wind farms and start pulling in his/her generation fee in less than a month?

q1w2 4y ago
I would advocate the government to protect nuclear plant construction from frivolous litigations, environmental rereviews, and local political challenges, as well as reopen the storage facility in Nevada. The construction isn't the big cost - it's all the nonsense that we do to interfere with those trying to build the plants.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  And I'm saying that "those trying to build the plants" has to be the government itself. Because despite your belief, the construction is absolutely the dominant cost. You need to contract for specialized materials to make components. Forge those materials incorrectly and it's PHYSICS that stops the project from working, not the government. Not lawsuits. Do you have an idea of how much it costs to enrich nuclear materials? Do you have an idea what the specs are for materials that can contain enriched nuclear materials? Materials that can contain a meltdown? What it takes to construct structures incorporating said materials? I'll tell you right now that it will cost more than lawsuits about the hornbutted swallow losing its habitat or whatever. That's just reality.