> “It’s not like the NRC asks for an extraordinary amount of information,” said a former nuclear official who was involved in reviewing Oklo’s failed application and spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their work in the industry. “The NRC asks three questions: What is the worst that can happen, what are the systems, structures and components in your reactor that prevents that from happening, and how do you know that?”

This...does not square with the successful hamstringing of the nuclear energy industry by regulation over the past several decades.

▲

epistasis 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you saying that the NRC asks for more than that? That there was a different process in the past? The big complaint I've heard about the NRC are changes required mid-construction, which happened last in the 1980s.

In the 2000s the NRC adopted a new licensing scheme at industry urging. What "hamstringing" are you talking about?

Okla would sound a lot more reliable here if they would have fought back with lawsuits with their accusations, or if the would release the communication now that there's no chance of this supposed retribution. As it is Okla makes all the talk of "hamstringing" seem like people not doing their jobs and trying to blame others.

▲

ai_critic 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Without speaking to Okla specifically--I think it's completely reasonable (if not accurate or charitable) to assume they're avoiding as much compliance as possible--the simple fact is that, under the watch of the NRC, there have been a tiny number of licenses issued.

From the horse's mouth in 2012, only 3 (*3!*) such licenses had been granted in 30 years ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=5250# ).

If your agency's job is to regulate something and you've done it so successfully that barely anybody has actually gotten a license--all while complaining about compliance costs--maybe you're the problem.

Had the fellow said "Oh, we have a really high bar for safety and compliance, and not everybody's able to handle that", it'd be fine. But, acting like "oh golly gee we're so easy to work with we don't ask for much" is brazen horseshit.

	▲	epistasis 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The data doesn't fit for NRC being the problem. Hell look at the Summer reactor that was approved alongside Vogtle in Georgia: construction failure, billions wasted, and none of it to do with the NRC. Or any the other many many other reactors abandoned at various states of development: http://www.powermag.com/blog/nuclear-renaissance-recalls-pas... There's an argument that the NRC could do things better, but placing all the well documented failures in the nuclear construction industry on the NRC doesn't make sense. Who are going to believe, the people who are always late and over budget, or the bystanders in the industry that have watched it all play out?