←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 3 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.439s | 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 #
1. helaoban ◴[12 Sep 25 19:46 UTC] No.45225935[source]▶
Shouldn't the burden of proof belong to those that claim that regulation isn't the cost, when it is so extremely obvious to anybody who has ever had to build anything that it is?

Just look at building costs in California vs Texas. Both are nominally constituents of the same "advanced economy".

replies(2): >>45225991 #>>45229882 #
2. epistasis ◴[12 Sep 25 19:50 UTC] No.45225991[source]▶
If you're proposing a change, shouldn't the change be specifiable? Why is the burden of proof on those asking "what change?" to demonstrate that no change is possible? That's a complete inversion of responsibility.

I have a whole host of clearly specifiable changes to California building law that will make it cheaper, and am actively working on them both locally and at the state level! This is clear!

As somebody who is very interested in making Calforina housing cheaper, and in particular housing construction cheaper, it is my duty to say what should change, why, and convince others of it.

If I go out and advocate for "change" without being able to specify a single change, I would get jack shit done. It doesn't work that way.

Every single nuclear advocate that I have ever met that says "regulations should change" can still not yet specify how those regulations should change. That's the minimal bar for holding an opinion.

Reading the DoE LPO report on how nuclear can scale up and get cheaper, it wasn't regulations doing the work. It was learning how to build.

3. ◴[13 Sep 25 06:45 UTC] No.45229882[source]▶