6 ms·

> The truly unique feature of US nuclear power is the unlimited power that was given to federal regulators. > [...] Congress had effectively told the regulator

> The truly unique feature of US nuclear power is the unlimited power that was given to federal regulators. > [...] Congress had effectively told the regulator make the rules up as you go. This meant the regulator had no problem changing the rules. A design that was legal at the start of construction, could be declared illegal any time thereafter. No capital project would ever break ground with these conditions in place. Who would invest billions of dollars in something that could be made illegal any day with no recourse? I'm surprised that any new nuclear power plants were built at all.

Gwypaas 4y ago
They were only built with massive subsidies or through legal means being able to shift the costs to the ratepayers like the now cancelled Virgil C. Summer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  So you don't think we should subsidize technology that decarbonizes power production?
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Sure, spend money on solving energy storage even for the 99% case and I'm all in! That would be agtual R&D and not putting another round of subsidies in the nuclear companies pockets.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  I'd much rather we be spending massive subsidies on nuclear power (and space exploration, and science in general) than on an increasingly-bloated military-industrial complex.
makotech221 4y ago
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Someone has to foot the bill in the end, and that someone is regular citizens—either through their taxes, or through their energy bills.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    The point is that neither of those is happening because the plants are not being built at all. They are footing an entirely different kind of bill instead, paid with an entirely different kind of currency. Instead of paying for a nuclear plant, regardless by what mechanism, they are living with continued use of coal and gas, or simply not enough capacity to meet the upcoming needs of things like wider adoption of EVs.
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      I'm not against government investment in energy production, I just don't think it solves the problem of nuclear overregulation.
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        No single entity solves anything. There is no such thing as an unbiased decision maker. Competing interests must always have to deal with each other and answer for whatever they do. Here we've had an entity with no consequences and it's had a negative outcome. It doesn't matter that it was a government or a private entity. Examples of both abound.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  As soon as you find someone who isn't a profiteer will you let the rest of us know?
einpoklum 4y ago
> Who would invest billions of dollars in something that could be made illegal any day with no recourse? 1. The government itself. 2. Corporations which can rely on being able to influence the government to make sure regulations are relaxed, cancelled, or not enforced.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  When did the NRC ever relax, cancel, or not enforce regulations on the nuclear industry? [*edit] if you’re downvoting, could you please provide an example. I’m pretty well read on this and have never encountered any regulatory loosening by the NRC.
  - einpoklum 4y ago
    I was trying to answer the question generally; I don't know what the US NRC has or has not done in any detail. But in the US, the government seems to have funded a lot of the practical research activity on Nuclear energy - tens of Billions of USD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... and I also suppose that the contracts with private corporations are such, that they don't just lose their money if regulation changes. Although, again, I'm a lay person when it comes to the US energy sector. (PS - I didn't downvote you.)
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Totally fair. I think the issue has been that the various parts of the US government have been working at cross purposes with respect to nuclear power. > and I also suppose that the contracts with private corporations are such, that they don't just lose their money if regulation changes. The way the NRC works, they can without notice change the rules in a way that will force you to redesign a plant that is under construction. If you're too far along you'll just have to scrap the whole thing. If you look at this list of closed or abandoned nuclear projects, 4 are explicitly due to NRC changes[1]. This doesn't include any cancelled plans that hadn't begun construction and isn't a complete list. If coal power were regulated the way nuclear was, there would be no coal power in the US. Coal plants release 2 orders of magnitude more radiation per kwh than nuclear in the US and in a form that is more dangerous, e.g. coal ash which goes deep into your lungs[2]. [1]https://www.powermag.com/interactive-map-abandoned-nuclear-power-projects/ https://www.powermag.com/interactive-map-abandoned-nuclear-p... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
chinabot 4y ago
That's why most great innovations happen during or just after wars. Bureaucracy stifles everything. It would be nice if we could fix this without having a war.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  You'd think "increasingly-inevitable catastrophic destruction of Earth's biosphere" would count as a "war", given the projected casualty counts potentially dwarfing all wars combined.
  - klabb3 4y ago
    Not a real war, but a latent war like the Cold War. Perhaps it should be called the Warm War?
    - akiselev 4y ago
      The HAWT War or the War against Human Anthropogenic Warming Trends. You have to spruce it up a bit for the bureaucrats.
7952 4y ago
There could bwhate similarity with what aeroplane manufacturers have to do. The Max 8 was declared illegal overnight. And new planes cost tens of billions to develop.
- p_l 4y ago
  737 MAX was in violation of existing rules though - it just wasn't properly checked before.
gpm 4y ago
Literally everyone who builds anything ever does so under the condition that it could be made illegal any day with no recourse. That's the normal state of affairs.

Gwypaas 4y ago

They were only built with massive subsidies or through legal means being able to shift the costs to the ratepayers like the now cancelled Virgil C. Summer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal

throwaway4aday 4y ago
So you don't think we should subsidize technology that decarbonizes power production?
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Sure, spend money on solving energy storage even for the 99% case and I'm all in! That would be agtual R&D and not putting another round of subsidies in the nuclear companies pockets.
yellowapple 4y ago
I'd much rather we be spending massive subsidies on nuclear power (and space exploration, and science in general) than on an increasingly-bloated military-industrial complex.

makotech221 4y ago

Georgelemental 4y ago
Someone has to foot the bill in the end, and that someone is regular citizens—either through their taxes, or through their energy bills.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  The point is that neither of those is happening because the plants are not being built at all. They are footing an entirely different kind of bill instead, paid with an entirely different kind of currency. Instead of paying for a nuclear plant, regardless by what mechanism, they are living with continued use of coal and gas, or simply not enough capacity to meet the upcoming needs of things like wider adoption of EVs.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    I'm not against government investment in energy production, I just don't think it solves the problem of nuclear overregulation.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      No single entity solves anything. There is no such thing as an unbiased decision maker. Competing interests must always have to deal with each other and answer for whatever they do. Here we've had an entity with no consequences and it's had a negative outcome. It doesn't matter that it was a government or a private entity. Examples of both abound.
willcipriano 4y ago
As soon as you find someone who isn't a profiteer will you let the rest of us know?

einpoklum 4y ago

> Who would invest billions of dollars in something that could be made illegal any day with no recourse? 1. The government itself. 2. Corporations which can rely on being able to influence the government to make sure regulations are relaxed, cancelled, or not enforced.

ch4s3 4y ago
When did the NRC ever relax, cancel, or not enforce regulations on the nuclear industry? [*edit] if you’re downvoting, could you please provide an example. I’m pretty well read on this and have never encountered any regulatory loosening by the NRC.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  I was trying to answer the question generally; I don't know what the US NRC has or has not done in any detail. But in the US, the government seems to have funded a lot of the practical research activity on Nuclear energy - tens of Billions of USD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... and I also suppose that the contracts with private corporations are such, that they don't just lose their money if regulation changes. Although, again, I'm a lay person when it comes to the US energy sector. (PS - I didn't downvote you.)
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Totally fair. I think the issue has been that the various parts of the US government have been working at cross purposes with respect to nuclear power. > and I also suppose that the contracts with private corporations are such, that they don't just lose their money if regulation changes. The way the NRC works, they can without notice change the rules in a way that will force you to redesign a plant that is under construction. If you're too far along you'll just have to scrap the whole thing. If you look at this list of closed or abandoned nuclear projects, 4 are explicitly due to NRC changes[1]. This doesn't include any cancelled plans that hadn't begun construction and isn't a complete list. If coal power were regulated the way nuclear was, there would be no coal power in the US. Coal plants release 2 orders of magnitude more radiation per kwh than nuclear in the US and in a form that is more dangerous, e.g. coal ash which goes deep into your lungs[2]. [1]https://www.powermag.com/interactive-map-abandoned-nuclear-power-projects/ https://www.powermag.com/interactive-map-abandoned-nuclear-p... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chinabot 4y ago

That's why most great innovations happen during or just after wars. Bureaucracy stifles everything. It would be nice if we could fix this without having a war.

yellowapple 4y ago
You'd think "increasingly-inevitable catastrophic destruction of Earth's biosphere" would count as a "war", given the projected casualty counts potentially dwarfing all wars combined.
- klabb3 4y ago
  Not a real war, but a latent war like the Cold War. Perhaps it should be called the Warm War?
  - akiselev 4y ago
    The HAWT War or the War against Human Anthropogenic Warming Trends. You have to spruce it up a bit for the bureaucrats.

7952 4y ago

There could bwhate similarity with what aeroplane manufacturers have to do. The Max 8 was declared illegal overnight. And new planes cost tens of billions to develop.

p_l 4y ago
737 MAX was in violation of existing rules though - it just wasn't properly checked before.

gpm 4y ago

Literally everyone who builds anything ever does so under the condition that it could be made illegal any day with no recourse. That's the normal state of affairs.