- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It’s worth noting that he also fired many of the staff who know how to ensure that they’re actually safe, as well as the staff who would approve financing.
It’s worth noting that he also fired many of the staff who know how to ensure that they’re actually safe, as well as the staff who would approve financing.
Because every plant is essentially a unique prototype in a field with very few experienced experts. Building nuclear plants makes building future nuclear plants cheaper and increases the pool of nuclear experts in the country.
Yeah. Let’s build one. Oh it’s costing more than expected because no one here knows what they are doing. But they are trained up now so the next one will be cheaper. Ah, contract cancelled so that training will die out by the time another reactor build is agreed on.
Sure, that’s what has been happening due to the high regulatory hurdle for getting a plant cleared. Compared to other countries, it takes a lot longer in the US to get through the regulatory hurdles.
I think that, because of events like Three Mile Island and the influence of fossil fuel competitors, politicians have been using overregulation as a way of limiting the deployment of nuclear power generation and not simply as a means of making it more safe.
Having an administration that is pro-nuclear would probably help the skill decay issue, if we’re starting new plants more often then there will be less time for the knowledge to die out so future plants can be built faster, cheaper and safer.
Of course, this is the Trump administration so how much of this is performative and how much is substantial change has yet to be seen.
The learning-by-doing cycle happened in other areas, but plateaued with nuclear quite a while back.