| ▲ | theptip 3 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agreed, you are talking about non-safety factors. I don’t think they necessitate the price levels we see; for example, look at how cheaply China can build reactors. I think it’s quite clear that we pay a high safety / regulatory premium in the west for Nuclear. My point about safety is that we are over-indexing on regulation. We should reduce (not remove!) regulations on nuclear projects, this would make them more affordable. I don’t think this is a controversial point, if you look into post-mortems on why US projects overrun by billions you always see issues with last-minute adaptations requiring expensive re-certification of designs, ie purely regulatory (safety-motivated) friction. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | bobthepanda 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The notable thing is that more or less China has kept ramping up solar and wind targets whereas nuclear has been much slower to grow. China's energy requirements are so large that this still represents an absolute number increase, but it's telling that even with as heavy handed an industrial policy's as China's that nuclear has not really lifted off. > Authorities have steadily downgraded plans for nuclear to dominate China's energy generation. At present, the goal is 18 per cent of generation by 2060. China installed 1GW of nuclear last year, compared to 300GW of solar and wind, Mr Buckley said. > https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewa... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||