It scares people into making them plan and pay for everything up front. If you did the same with literally any other fuel source it wouldn't even get built. Coal would be DoA if they had the same limits on radioactive emissions as a nuclear plant.

[–] Arcturus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that's the thing with nuclear. The upfront costs are massive, and literally irrecoverable. Can you name a single nuclear powerplant that has broken even? I can't. Not unless, it's one that the government has built and then handed over to private industry, for example. Reducing safety from nuclear powerplants is not viable long term. And that's the only way to get them commercially viable.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not about reducing safety, it's about reducing regulations that are about the appearance of safety, it's about not imposing decommissioning costs as part of construction.

The US Navy has been able to consistently and safely build and run reactors for 50 years. It's basically just fear preventing that knowledge and experience from being used in the commercial sector.

[–] Arcturus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

The US Navy isn't concerned about making their fleets commercially viable. Taxpayers expect to subsidise defence, and for the US, this is done at vast cost. They don't expect to constantly be funding an expensive, loss-making powerplant. Not when alternatives are cheaper and more effective.