• eldain@feddit.nl
    51·
    1 year ago

    The problem is not regulation, it is that you can’t get insurance for nuclear power plants. Why would you invest billions if you can’t do that? Therefore governments have to provide guarantees, and that’s where shit gets stuck. Not regulation, risk management. And because there is always a non zero chance of incidents in this universe, which are obsenely uncalculable costly for nuclear incidents, this is unlikely to change.

  • Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social
    3·
    1 year ago

    Design/engineering, regulatory approvals and site selection combined are typically between 10% and 15% of capital costs. Reducing regulations is not going to make a huge difference in the economics of a new reactor.

    • door_in_the_face@feddit.nl
      3·
      1 year ago

      If the choice is between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, or well sealed containers nuclear waste, I’d choose the latter. At least with nuclear waste, we have ways to control where it ends up and we can store it as long as there’s political will to do so. With greenhouse gasses, the technical side isn’t solved at all.

      • Balios@kbin.social
        12·
        1 year ago

        The technical side isn’t solved with nuclear waste, either. There isn’t a single final storage site in the world. We just started building nuclear plants, without knowing how to actually store that trash so it’s “well sealed”. Nowadays there are a least ideas, investigations and plans but nobody actually created one, moved all their trash there and started using it. But once they do, it’s also not simple. All of the existing trash needs to moved around the respective countries (hopefully nobody signs on the idea to move it between countries) since it’s only in temporary storage, I’d call that far from “well sealed”. There will be literally trains or trucks carrying that shit through neighbourhoods, ifnthey ever actually find their permanant storage.

        Also the choice is absolutely not between CO2, greenhouse gases and nuclear waste, that’s just pro-nuclear nonsense. Plus, since when do we trust governments and possibly involved companies to actually find a solution that will not harm anyone? Putting your trust into them to not dump that shit in unsuitable sites is a huge ask. They can’t do that with chemicals, so why would nuclear trash be any different?