The 20+ year time to build is at best the direct result of lobbying and NIMBY and realistically just propoganda by antinuclear. The US mean for nuclear construction to production is 8 years. Japan has it down to under 5.
That’s a bad faith argument. As someone who spent years in the nuclear industry, a lot of the regulation exists to strangle the industry.
An example was at Vogtle in Georgia, where a section of pipe was determined by the NRC inspectors to be too small and ordered it redesigned.
When that happens, that’s where huge delays come in. The design has to go back to home office and be redesigned and bench tested. While that happens, worm is stalled on that section of the plant. That costs money because all the workers still need to be paid.
They redesigned the pipe and installed it just for the NRC to go back and say that the original pipe was correct and to put it back.
The cost of nuclear also comes from the way we manage energy utilities. When a solar farm is built, the builders can just sell it to the utility and walk away, no consideration for decommissioning or waste disposal or environmental considerations.
A nuclear plant requires a whole plan and money on how it will be decommissioned by the builders themselves. Nuclear is the only power type held to this standard.
Nuclear power is a good thing, and its time the greens and people left of center get on board. Its scientifically sound and immensely powerful with no greenhouse gasses released.
Yes and no. I wrote it in a blunt way, but to deregulate nuclear plants I want to be sure it doesn’t impact safety.
Your story does nothing to convince me that the industry is regulated to “strangle” it. You don’t say what the pipe did. It may have been part of a coolant loop in which case it’s safety critical and having the wrong pipe might mean early failure of joints of connected components. Getting that right could be important and so it’s right to be regulated.
The problem is actually that it took far too long to be sure what was right, and that’s down to companies / people being far too dogmatic about how they work.
nuclear also comes from the way we manage energy utilities. When a solar farm is built, the builders can just sell it to the utility and walk away, no consideration for decommissioning or waste disposal or environmental considerations.
Well yes, because the site isn’t a million tonnes of low level nuclear waste that needs to be dismantled in a controlled fashion, and specially processed. A solar farm might have some toxic metals in the panels when ground-up, but all are quite easily reclaimed. There’s no special skill / process needed for anyone dismantling it. It just needs responsible disposal.
“Your story does nothing to convince me that the industry is regulated to “strangle” it. You don’t say what the pipe did”
The point of that story is to illustrate the gross inefficiency and bureaucracy of engineering design changes in the nuclear regulatory cycle. What the pipe did doesn’t matter as much as how regulators chose to approach the problem. They effectively wasted months of manpower and materials for nothing.
That to me is strangulation of an industry. Another is how the Obama administration handled Yucca mountain and how the federal government, by law, owns all the uranium and is thus legally responsible for its disposal.
No real movement has been made on this front by the NRC and is the main cause of why we have all our spent fuel sitting on concrete outside of the plant instead of a long term geological repository.
It came out of the ground, so just dig under the water table into the bed rock and leave it there.
“Completely different scale of responsibility”
And completely different scale of power generation. Nuclear plants are far more power dense, and that is the ultimate factor in “potential danger”. Solar is great for places that we have already developed but are underutilized, like roof tops or farms, but they aren’t going to power an arc furnace or a manufacturing facility or a data center. The power simply isn’t there vs. The land cost that would be required for it would be astronomical.
Nuclear and " renewables " are two different tools for the same toolbox. One shouldn’t be excluded over the other because both are extremely beneficial.
The “green” infighting only serves the fossil fuel lobby.
The 20+ year time to build is at best the direct result of lobbying and NIMBY and realistically just propoganda by antinuclear. The US mean for nuclear construction to production is 8 years. Japan has it down to under 5.
You want to drop safety standards on reactors?
That’s a bad faith argument. As someone who spent years in the nuclear industry, a lot of the regulation exists to strangle the industry.
An example was at Vogtle in Georgia, where a section of pipe was determined by the NRC inspectors to be too small and ordered it redesigned.
When that happens, that’s where huge delays come in. The design has to go back to home office and be redesigned and bench tested. While that happens, worm is stalled on that section of the plant. That costs money because all the workers still need to be paid.
They redesigned the pipe and installed it just for the NRC to go back and say that the original pipe was correct and to put it back.
The cost of nuclear also comes from the way we manage energy utilities. When a solar farm is built, the builders can just sell it to the utility and walk away, no consideration for decommissioning or waste disposal or environmental considerations.
A nuclear plant requires a whole plan and money on how it will be decommissioned by the builders themselves. Nuclear is the only power type held to this standard.
Nuclear power is a good thing, and its time the greens and people left of center get on board. Its scientifically sound and immensely powerful with no greenhouse gasses released.
Yes and no. I wrote it in a blunt way, but to deregulate nuclear plants I want to be sure it doesn’t impact safety.
Your story does nothing to convince me that the industry is regulated to “strangle” it. You don’t say what the pipe did. It may have been part of a coolant loop in which case it’s safety critical and having the wrong pipe might mean early failure of joints of connected components. Getting that right could be important and so it’s right to be regulated.
The problem is actually that it took far too long to be sure what was right, and that’s down to companies / people being far too dogmatic about how they work.
Well yes, because the site isn’t a million tonnes of low level nuclear waste that needs to be dismantled in a controlled fashion, and specially processed. A solar farm might have some toxic metals in the panels when ground-up, but all are quite easily reclaimed. There’s no special skill / process needed for anyone dismantling it. It just needs responsible disposal.
Completely different scale of responsibility.
The point of that story is to illustrate the gross inefficiency and bureaucracy of engineering design changes in the nuclear regulatory cycle. What the pipe did doesn’t matter as much as how regulators chose to approach the problem. They effectively wasted months of manpower and materials for nothing.
That to me is strangulation of an industry. Another is how the Obama administration handled Yucca mountain and how the federal government, by law, owns all the uranium and is thus legally responsible for its disposal.
No real movement has been made on this front by the NRC and is the main cause of why we have all our spent fuel sitting on concrete outside of the plant instead of a long term geological repository.
It came out of the ground, so just dig under the water table into the bed rock and leave it there.
“Completely different scale of responsibility”
And completely different scale of power generation. Nuclear plants are far more power dense, and that is the ultimate factor in “potential danger”. Solar is great for places that we have already developed but are underutilized, like roof tops or farms, but they aren’t going to power an arc furnace or a manufacturing facility or a data center. The power simply isn’t there vs. The land cost that would be required for it would be astronomical.
Nuclear and " renewables " are two different tools for the same toolbox. One shouldn’t be excluded over the other because both are extremely beneficial. The “green” infighting only serves the fossil fuel lobby.
I think they want to drop the lobbying red tape, not the safety standards
That is exactly what they want to do.
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5677187/nuclear-safety-rules-rewritten-trump