5 ms·

The sad part is, this is a solvable problem. If the nation really wanted to build a large number of safe, effective nuclear power plant, we could, and probably

The sad part is, this is a solvable problem. If the nation really wanted to build a large number of safe, effective nuclear power plant, we could, and probably in a time frame of months, not years. But entrenched interest from natural gas and coal producers combined with anti-nuclear sentiment practically guarantee that will never happen. Nuclear power is held to too high of a standard to really be a viable source of power, especially in a democracy.

breckenedge 3y ago
> Nuclear power is held to too high of a standard to really be a viable source of power, especially in a democracy Don’t tell that to France.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  France can't do it these days either. Look at the fiasco of the EPR; it drove their nuclear corporation to insolvency.
lamontcg 3y ago
None of that is the root problem. Nuclear plants are too big, and we can't build big things cheaply in this country. The idle corruption of middle managers is what kills these kinds of projects.
- mywittyname 3y ago
  It's not corruption; people in power don't want nuclear, and so the industry is regulated into its current quagmire. No other industry faces moving goalposts like nuclear does. The USA can move mountains if it really wants to. But as it stands, the country is doing everything it can to keep that mountain right where it is.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > The USA can move mountains if it really wants to. not cheaply, no.
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    >people in power don't want nuclear, and so the industry is regulated into its current quagmire. No other industry faces moving goalposts like nuclear does. I think it's the other way around. We only have nuclear today because people in power wanted it for strategic reasons. Getting lots of energy now and paying for it later seemed like a good idea at the time, so the goalposts were artificially placed to make it look financially viable. "We'll figure out the waste thing later, let's go!" Politicians are tempted by the same thing today. Voters worry about electricity prices, so give them power today and let their grandchildren pay for it! France dictated the price of nuclear to a point that bankrupted the operator, even though the same operator basically neglected maintenance to a point where the plants have to be taken offline for - I kid you not - rust. The problem is that now we are the people having to pay, and nuclear has the unfortunate property that you have no choice but to pay, no matter how wrong the estimates have turned out to be you can't just abandon the project. Any other power plant can simply be abandoned if it turns out it was a bad idea, and the costs will stop.
dale_glass 3y ago
Doubtful. Nuclear is very specific tech. I don't think there's a whole bunch of companies out there sitting on their hands just waiting for a bunch of contracts to show up.
blibble 3y ago
> If the nation really wanted to build a large number of safe, effective nuclear power plant, we could, and probably in a time frame of months, not years. But entrenched interest from natural gas and coal producers combined with anti-nuclear sentiment practically guarantee that will never happen. meanwhile the Chinese have 22 power stations under construction and 70 planned

breckenedge 3y ago

> Nuclear power is held to too high of a standard to really be a viable source of power, especially in a democracy Don’t tell that to France.

pfdietz 3y ago
France can't do it these days either. Look at the fiasco of the EPR; it drove their nuclear corporation to insolvency.

lamontcg 3y ago

None of that is the root problem. Nuclear plants are too big, and we can't build big things cheaply in this country. The idle corruption of middle managers is what kills these kinds of projects.

mywittyname 3y ago
It's not corruption; people in power don't want nuclear, and so the industry is regulated into its current quagmire. No other industry faces moving goalposts like nuclear does. The USA can move mountains if it really wants to. But as it stands, the country is doing everything it can to keep that mountain right where it is.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > The USA can move mountains if it really wants to. not cheaply, no.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >people in power don't want nuclear, and so the industry is regulated into its current quagmire. No other industry faces moving goalposts like nuclear does. I think it's the other way around. We only have nuclear today because people in power wanted it for strategic reasons. Getting lots of energy now and paying for it later seemed like a good idea at the time, so the goalposts were artificially placed to make it look financially viable. "We'll figure out the waste thing later, let's go!" Politicians are tempted by the same thing today. Voters worry about electricity prices, so give them power today and let their grandchildren pay for it! France dictated the price of nuclear to a point that bankrupted the operator, even though the same operator basically neglected maintenance to a point where the plants have to be taken offline for - I kid you not - rust. The problem is that now we are the people having to pay, and nuclear has the unfortunate property that you have no choice but to pay, no matter how wrong the estimates have turned out to be you can't just abandon the project. Any other power plant can simply be abandoned if it turns out it was a bad idea, and the costs will stop.

dale_glass 3y ago

Doubtful. Nuclear is very specific tech. I don't think there's a whole bunch of companies out there sitting on their hands just waiting for a bunch of contracts to show up.

blibble 3y ago

> If the nation really wanted to build a large number of safe, effective nuclear power plant, we could, and probably in a time frame of months, not years. But entrenched interest from natural gas and coal producers combined with anti-nuclear sentiment practically guarantee that will never happen. meanwhile the Chinese have 22 power stations under construction and 70 planned