/sci/ - Science & Math

>>This power plant will cost $2 billion to build
>approved
>>This power plant will cost $9 billion to build
>denied
>>This power plant that you already spent $2 billion now costs $9 billion
>Well we are already in it for $2 billion, approved

>>14527846
Some of this, but also because the West has largely screwed up regulations as a knee-jerk reaction to Chernobyl (which had a completely different reactor design) and Three Mile Island (which resulted in 0 deaths and to be fair also did result some shortcomings). In addition, powerful political factions see it as an existential threat (oil & gas) while others are useful idiots for the above (greenies). Here's a good article on the subject:
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop

>>14527717
up

>>14527717
Everyone's spooked by chernobyl and fukushima so it's very easy to repeatedly make the argument
>We could rush this to hit the deadline with a small budget, but if we do that there is a chance we'll have a disaster.
Would you rather be the guy who greenlit a little more budget money than you really needed to, or the guy who insisted on withholding funds who ends up in the news as the primary cause for the next big literal nuclear meltdown?

>>14528669
>because the West has largely screwed up regulations as a knee-jerk reaction
the Us deregulated a lot several decades back due to regualtory capture. You really cannot leave that out at all anon.

>>14527717
Because lot of the builders are shite (France), or some unknown factor that they could not account for occurs like construction cost jumps, oil price jumps, or learnign that the area they started doing a lot of construction on was actually REALLY ill-suited for a Nuclear plant.

>>14528669
Interesting how the US built a bunch with astronomically inflating costs before giving up, meanwhile France got their entire country running on nuclear at a reasonable cost over a few decades. If they hadn't imported so many... uh... diverse immigrants, they would have been set for the next millennia.

>>14529729
>meanwhile France got their entire country running on nuclear at a reasonable cost over a few decades. If
They still amke use of Natural Gas. Also on top of that they are part of the EU so they do Pay-to-Clear.

>If they hadn't imported so many... uh... diverse immigrants, they would have been set for the next millennia.
No they wouldn't. France as state basically has been running on fumes for decades before to immigants were a factor.

>>14529738
Looks pretty sustainable to me.

Because to do something tightly regulated by the state, you must always deal with its bureaucracy.

>>14529754
>sustainable
while relying on China/Russia for fuel for their reactors. kek

>>14529759
France gets its uranium from Africa.

>Speaking to Express.co.uk, Dr Paul Dorfman, an associate fellow at the University of Sussex’s Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group said: “In terms of energy security, Russian controlled uranium – basically reactors run on uranium, includes both Russia and corporations in Kazakhstan, which are Russian controlled.
>“There's no question about that, it does [control Kazhakstan].
>“Russian-controlled uranium currently supplies 42 percent of all the worldwide nuclear reactors."
How fungible is uranium?