3 ms·

Yes, that is a problem, but it's absolutely not some problem intrinsic to it - it's completely a political problem. The cost of the regulatory red tape is stagg

Yes, that is a problem, but it's absolutely not some problem intrinsic to it - it's completely a political problem. The cost of the regulatory red tape is staggering, and beyond cost is sheer capriciousness on the part of the NRC. Note this article for example: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-nuclear...) "Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978" The NRC was created in 1975. So think about that. In stark contrast, France built 52 reactors between 1975 and 1990, supplying a whopping ~70% of France's power needs. Are the laws of physics and economics different in France? Hardly. The difference is political.

pfdietz 3y ago
Regulatory red tape is the go-to excuse nuclear stans use for why their energy waifu is in such desperate shape. That particular link you presented is misrepresented. New nuclear wasn't approved for decades because nuclear's economic case was shown to be nonexistent after the first nuclear buildout. The thing that killed nuclear in the US wasn't the NRC, it was the slowdown in electricity demand growth, and especially the passage of PURPA in 1978. Nuclear now had to compete with non-utility power sources, and it had no hope of doing that. The market for new NPPs dried up; without that market, there was no pressure to get new reactor designs (which also couldn't compete) through the NRC.