3 ms·
Which, hopefully, because of all these regulations and bureaucracy, won't have any issues that will cause (again) a meltdown of the public opinion about nuclear
by capableweb 4y ago
Which, hopefully, because of all these regulations and bureaucracy, won't have any issues that will cause (again) a meltdown of the public opinion about nuclear reactors. If some serious accident happens with something like this, be prepared to wait another 40 years before anyone dares to propose nuclear energy again.
- epistasis 4y agoThough public opinion and regulations might be a barrier too, there's a more elementary and fundamental problem around nuclear: cost and time. Even France, without the regulatory or public opinion problems, is having difficulty building nuclear, and the construction project at Flamanville is an unmitigated disaster, just exactly the same as the US's recent projects at Vogtle and Summer. And that's the reason that SMR designs are even being attempted. The design has always been rejected in the past as uneconomical. But with large reactor design proven to uneconomical, and a huge devotion to nuclear among some, SMRs are giving it a go again. If nuclear worked well, there are always populations that welcome them nearby. Most, but not all, of our current 100GW has supportive neighbors. But I always find it curious that these lesser problems of public support and regulations get so much more attention than a far more fundamental problem: economic efficiency.
- ncmncm 4y agoPublic opinion does not drive. Cost drives. Nukes have only ever been built where the cost was substantially or completely absorbed off-budget, typically by taxpayers.