←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 5 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
reenorap ◴[12 Sep 25 18:54 UTC] No.45225348[source]▶
We need to drive down the costs of implementing nuclear energy. Most of it are fake costs due to regulation. I understand that regulation is needed but we also need nuclear energy, we have to find a streamlined way to get more plants up and running as soon as possible. I think they should all be government projects so that private companies can't complain that they're losing money and keep have to ratchet up the prices, like PG&E in California. My rates have doubled in a few years to over $0.40/kWh and up over $0.50/kWh after I go up a tier depending on usage.
replies(39): >>45225431 #>>45225480 #>>45225524 #>>45225535 #>>45225565 #>>45225613 #>>45225619 #>>45225755 #>>45225860 #>>45225949 #>>45225961 #>>45226031 #>>45226055 #>>45226067 #>>45226154 #>>45226181 #>>45226458 #>>45226594 #>>45226646 #>>45226658 #>>45226803 #>>45226943 #>>45226958 #>>45227052 #>>45227098 #>>45227206 #>>45227241 #>>45227262 #>>45227391 #>>45227592 #>>45227750 #>>45228008 #>>45228029 #>>45228207 #>>45228266 #>>45228536 #>>45229440 #>>45229710 #>>45229877 #
epistasis ◴[12 Sep 25 19:01 UTC] No.45225431[source]▶
Which are the fake costs from regulation?

We have new builds in Europe of the EPR, in France and Finland, and it has had disastrous costs. China has built some too, presumably cheaper, since they keep on building more. What is the regulatory difference there?

I have yet to find any concrete defense of the idea that costs are coming from regulation, rather than the costs of construction in advanced economies.

If regulations are the cost, name them and a solution. Otherwise it seems like we are wasting efforts in optimizing the wrong thing for nuclear.

replies(6): >>45225588 #>>45225822 #>>45225895 #>>45225921 #>>45225935 #>>45225989 #
reenorap ◴[12 Sep 25 19:15 UTC] No.45225588[source]▶
It takes 15 years to build a nuclear power plant. It shouldn't take this long at all and it's strictly because of regulations. If we cut down the time it takes to build a plant the cost plummets.
replies(3): >>45225612 #>>45225804 #>>45225876 #
1. epistasis ◴[12 Sep 25 19:41 UTC] No.45225876[source]▶
Which regulations?

What would change in the construction process?

China builds the same designs as the EU and US, yet faster. What is different?

I saw toooooooons of reports of construction mishaps in the US at Vogtle and Summer. I didn't see anything about "oh if we changed this sort of regulation it would have saved us money."

It's a very worthwhile to read the retrospectives on these builds. There are lots of plans of future builds of the AP1000 that would be cheaper, but none of the plans even indicate that a regulation change would help.

I beg of people who say regulations are in the way: which regulations? Concretely, what should change to make construction cheaper? Pun intended.

replies(2): >>45226384 #>>45226514 #
2. RandomBacon ◴[12 Sep 25 20:28 UTC] No.45226384[source]▶
> What is different?

All of the NIMBY roadblocks that ties up U.S. projects in court, that China doesn't give a F about considering they'll displace 1.3 million people to build a damn.

replies(2): >>45226662 #>>45227962 #
3. jay_kyburz ◴[12 Sep 25 20:40 UTC] No.45226514[source]▶
Perhaps the are talking about Unions and the regulations around minimum pay and working conditions.

I don't know about big construction projects, but the costs to get an extension approved on my house is a drop in the ocean compared to paying tradies. (contractors in us speak.)

4. epistasis ◴[12 Sep 25 20:55 UTC] No.45226662[source]▶
We have recent examples of construction costs going through the roof in the US: Vogtle and Summer.

Both projects were welcomed by their communities in Georgia and South Carolina. And at the state level, legislators were so enthusiastic for the projects that they passed new laws so that the costs of any overrun would get directly passed on to ratepayers, letting utilities escape financial risk for construction overruns.

I have no doubt that constructing nuclear at a new site would run into many NIMBY complaints. But most (not all) existing nuclear sites have communities that welcome the nuclear reactors, and want new ones to replace the aging ones, and ensure continuity of jobs for the community.

5. pfdietz ◴[12 Sep 25 23:42 UTC] No.45227962[source]▶
The recent US builds were not tied up by "NIMBY roadblocks".

It's interesting that in China, which you assert lacks roadblocks, renewables are being installed to a much greater extent than nuclear.