4 ms·

> Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions. This claim explains a l

> Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions. This claim explains a lot about our previous interactions. It's also the polar opposite of my experience. I have never heard a single advocate of nuclear advocating for fossil fuels, and I certainly don't do it myself. I've also never heard them speak against solar (and again I also don't do this). It's purely about defending nuclear from fear-mongering and trying to make it possible faster, rather than being crushed under ridiculous and unjustified regulations.

bryanlarsen 1y ago
Nuclear in 2025 is not cost competitive for two major reasons unrelated to regulations. 1. It relies on a ridiculously expensive massive steam turbine 2. It's a major infrastructure project, which the USA seems incapable of building without massive cost over run. Yes, there are other reasons why nuclear is slow and expensive, but those two can't be fixed with a magic wand getting rid of nuclear regulations Also, there's an easy way to minimize regalatory bother: just build an already approved design, like thr AP1000.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Nuclear in 2025 is not cost competitive for two major reasons unrelated to regulations. And yet Canada was able to build them decades ago, along with many other poorer countries.