3 ms·

That is not really true. Most regulators take what the us regulator is doing and copy paste with minor changes, or they have their own deranged nimbys pushing t

That is not really true. Most regulators take what the us regulator is doing and copy paste with minor changes, or they have their own deranged nimbys pushing their own version of stupid (looking at you Germany). When you look at asia the problems are much less on the cost side but they are still doing the same stupid crap buying the same expensive western designs, they just implement co struction dramatically better. China specifically has other problems stemming from government co trol so its a tough market to pin blame to one specific group of things.

pfdietz 2y ago
Or, the regulations are similar because they are rational given the realities of nuclear energy. If you find yourself having to resort to conspiracy theories to explain away a consensus, you're well into crank territory.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  That's a remarkably naive of history view. It's that way because the USA views nuclear as risk for proliferation of nuclear weapons and has very questionable foreign policy pushing regulation to follow local bad policy. Everything from the international atomic energy agency, many binding agreement from the u.s. department of state, etc. Pretty much none of the policy anywhere else has developed without the USA's heavy hand pushing bad policy ideas. America has bad ideas and pushes them onto most of the rest of the world stifling innovation in nuclear almost everywhere as part of the design of the policy, not due to any lack of merit in nuclear energy. Nuclear is where space travel was under the shuttle program. It needs someone willing to throw several billion at it to develop the technology to cut costs to a fraction of a percent of the current design but the regulation pushed by the USA on this is even worse than it was on space travel by a large margin so it's not happening.

pfdietz 2y ago

Or, the regulations are similar because they are rational given the realities of nuclear energy. If you find yourself having to resort to conspiracy theories to explain away a consensus, you're well into crank territory.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
That's a remarkably naive of history view. It's that way because the USA views nuclear as risk for proliferation of nuclear weapons and has very questionable foreign policy pushing regulation to follow local bad policy. Everything from the international atomic energy agency, many binding agreement from the u.s. department of state, etc. Pretty much none of the policy anywhere else has developed without the USA's heavy hand pushing bad policy ideas. America has bad ideas and pushes them onto most of the rest of the world stifling innovation in nuclear almost everywhere as part of the design of the policy, not due to any lack of merit in nuclear energy. Nuclear is where space travel was under the shuttle program. It needs someone willing to throw several billion at it to develop the technology to cut costs to a fraction of a percent of the current design but the regulation pushed by the USA on this is even worse than it was on space travel by a large margin so it's not happening.