3 ms·

You are missing the forest for the trees in your blind defense of everything nuclear. There is no problem with the fact that the civilian nuclear programs came

You are missing the forest for the trees in your blind defense of everything nuclear. There is no problem with the fact that the civilian nuclear programs came from the military ones. The point is that we have come full circle. For a nation not the size of the US, you today need to have a civilian nuclear program to have the industrial base to enable the military ambitions. Look at Sweden, a country once capable of building nuclear reactors. Today you can not even study nuclear engineering at any of the universities at the graduate level. The demand does not exist, so the programs died out. That is why you need to civilian complement. Otherwise, it is simply too costly.

indymike 4y ago
I think you'd be better served by a different argument served with a lot less bluster directed at me (forest for the trees, blind defense, etc...). What you are arguing is that an industrial sector that was created with military funds, has a market far bigger than it's original military application. Nuclear is no different than nearly every other industry that relied on military research money, then early purchases that fueled initial industry growth, followed by growth where the sector's market grew to dwarf it's military purchases. In all cases, the military does benefit from less expensive chips, or pre-built utility communications infrastructure, or even less expensive fuel for submarines -- it is a simple and natural economic effect of scale.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Again, the market does not exist anymore. That is the point you are missing. The British taxpayers are set to lose ~£50 billion in subsidies to Hinkley Point C because the government decided they needed a nuclear industry. [1] There is no market for nuclear except when you can tie them together with military ambitions or prestige projects in authoritarian countries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_to_consumers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
  - indymike 4y ago
    The market exists, and nuclear power is expensive only because of artificial regulatory expense. Hinkley Point is the poster child for this. I'm sorry you feel so strongly about nuclear power. Since you raise the spectre of military ambitions, I'll point out that the war in Ukraine is an autocrat trying to control more of the world's oil and natural gas. Russia's war was financed largely by oil and gas and clearly is about controlling it's distribution. There's not one right answer to the world's energy needs. Nuclear is a part of it, as are renewables.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Which regulations should we remove then if it is that easy? We tried to solve the climate crisis with nuclear energy 15-20 years ago. It was the right thing to do at the time but it did not work out, instead renewables have exceeded all possible expectations. Lets embrace that instead of living in the past and hoping another 40 years of taxpayer and ratepayer money into the blackhole that is nuclear is a worthwhile exercise. All the current projects have gone horribly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr-uamps-rising-steel-prices-interest-rates/636619/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr...
      - indymike 4y ago
        Thank you for posting more articles that show how regulation is making nuclear expensive.

indymike 4y ago

I think you'd be better served by a different argument served with a lot less bluster directed at me (forest for the trees, blind defense, etc...). What you are arguing is that an industrial sector that was created with military funds, has a market far bigger than it's original military application. Nuclear is no different than nearly every other industry that relied on military research money, then early purchases that fueled initial industry growth, followed by growth where the sector's market grew to dwarf it's military purchases. In all cases, the military does benefit from less expensive chips, or pre-built utility communications infrastructure, or even less expensive fuel for submarines -- it is a simple and natural economic effect of scale.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Again, the market does not exist anymore. That is the point you are missing. The British taxpayers are set to lose ~£50 billion in subsidies to Hinkley Point C because the government decided they needed a nuclear industry. [1] There is no market for nuclear except when you can tie them together with military ambitions or prestige projects in authoritarian countries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_to_consumers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
- indymike 4y ago
  The market exists, and nuclear power is expensive only because of artificial regulatory expense. Hinkley Point is the poster child for this. I'm sorry you feel so strongly about nuclear power. Since you raise the spectre of military ambitions, I'll point out that the war in Ukraine is an autocrat trying to control more of the world's oil and natural gas. Russia's war was financed largely by oil and gas and clearly is about controlling it's distribution. There's not one right answer to the world's energy needs. Nuclear is a part of it, as are renewables.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Which regulations should we remove then if it is that easy? We tried to solve the climate crisis with nuclear energy 15-20 years ago. It was the right thing to do at the time but it did not work out, instead renewables have exceeded all possible expectations. Lets embrace that instead of living in the past and hoping another 40 years of taxpayer and ratepayer money into the blackhole that is nuclear is a worthwhile exercise. All the current projects have gone horribly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr-uamps-rising-steel-prices-interest-rates/636619/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr...
    - indymike 4y ago
      Thank you for posting more articles that show how regulation is making nuclear expensive.