2 ms·

> 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 r

> 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-...

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-...