> However our laws are backwards: regulators are required to increase safety standards for nuclear so long as it is cheaper, until the costs are brought up to par with other energy sources.
Any citation for that? It's a convenient villain to blame, but absent any proof regulators are deliberately trying to make nuclear less competitive, it seems much more plausible that regulations are driven by concern over accidents. If a wind turbine fails it doesn't make the entire region uninhabitable for decades.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s just the way some of the nuclear regulations are written. Operators are required to achieve radiation dose as low as reasonably achievable.
ALARA/ALARP has been a standard for a long time. I think you could make the argument that “reasonably” has been ignored more recently.
Ultimately, it isn’t the sole reason for nuclear construction issues. All large infrastructure is prone to cost overruns, and in combination with a stringent regulatory environment that makes it even more likely to encounter schedule and budget problems.
They made it up. Similarly you frequently see claims on here that nuclear came to a standstill because of all the ignorant beatnicks, when in actual reality raw capitalism is why nuclear stalled: Endless disastrously expensive projects tainted the industry into picking everything but nuclear.
Nuclear is a fantastic base load. It is, done right, clean and safe. The weird pro-nuclear cult that spreads manufactured nonsense is just noise, however.
Any citation for that? It's a convenient villain to blame, but absent any proof regulators are deliberately trying to make nuclear less competitive, it seems much more plausible that regulations are driven by concern over accidents. If a wind turbine fails it doesn't make the entire region uninhabitable for decades.