Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
1) Fix radiation limits:
Currently, nuclear must not exceed 10 mrem / year in a release to the public.
This is 1% of the threshold known to have any measurable impact on human health.
Measurable impact here means a slightly observable impact in expected lifespan.
Comparing this to the limits for oil and gas plants (for PM2.5, VOCs, NOx) shows that nuclear is held to a much higher standard.
Limits for oil and gas plants are higher relative to the threshold known to have measurable impacts on health.
2) Fix environmental reviews:
Always allow EA instead of EIS for NEPA
NEPA can be satisfied either through an EA (Environmental Assessment) or an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).
An EA takes months, while an EIS can take YEARS.
If all nuclear plants could pursue EAs, we could build nuclear plants faster, and turn off more oil and gas, saving more lives and doing LESS damage to the environment. (Which is what EPA was meant for, to begin with).
3) Fix NOAK licensing:
Once a reactor design is approved by the NRC, subsequent deployments should require a simple form to be filled out, with an approval process of a few weeks, rather than another 2 years.
Currently, every single new nuclear plant, even if its design was previously approved elsewhere, must go through an entirely new approval process that takes at least another 1-2 years.
Nuclear should be a repeatable product, not a project.
So those were their three main points.
Any strong opinions? Any that were missed?
Let me know below...
20-30% of the parts of a nuclear power plant have to be nuclear grade but these parts account for more than half the total cost. Nuclear grade parts are a lot more expensive even when they are the same as industrial grade. This is due to all the testing and documentation. For
Dive into the critical issues shaping economic policy, from President-elect Trump’s sweeping tariff proposals to the challenges Texas faces under rising government spending.
Now is the time for bold reforms to protect taxpayers and ensure economic freedom thrives.
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="800" height="418"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
1) Get rid of the aircraft impact assessment rule
2) Allow once-through cooling without cooling towers
3) Reduce the exclusion zone around plants with passive safety features
So, if I understand correctly, just a few executive orders could transform the nuclear energy sector. Hope it happens - with the current administration, it just might. 
3.5M unfilled cybersecurity jobs by 2025! 
High demand, high pay! 
Don't let jargon hold you back. Get our "Cybersecurity Dictionary for Everyone" and unlock your cybersecurity potential. 
Available on Amazon! 
amazon.com/CYBERSECURITY-
Settle on a small(?) number of designs. Large medium small?
Mass produce. Build until the Haber Process is carbon free. Re-evaluate
Why not hold the administrators, engineers, management and their heirs ... personally accountable for any and all damages that result from a bad design and/or poor implementation / operation ?
Watch the energy master Epstein from 1:37:00 in this youtube.com/watch?v=2W3pxO
to understand the biggest issue, it's scandalous.
We are working on all of these issues right now. EAs are already being used more, but a rule change is needed.
While the critical mass of Pu-239 is much smaller than U-235, it's vastly more difficult for a non-state actor to make a bomb with it. Reactor grade Pu is practically impossible for a non-state actor. U-233 from sequestered Pa is as easy as U-235.
I don't see why we cant have more stringent policies than the crappy oil industry. the 1% rule is fine. Agree on everything else.
That said, if we would just allow liability to happen for design and ops choices, we wouldnt need all this regulation.
Dive into the critical issues shaping economic policy, from President-elect Trump’s sweeping tariff proposals to the challenges Texas faces under rising government spending.
Now is the time for bold reforms to protect taxpayers and ensure economic freedom thrives.
You phrased that question perfectly in what was in my mind. Further yet, is safe and low-cost component repair possible in these systems?
Necessary. The world has effectively stopped any expansion of safe and environmentally friendly nuclear energy, which is necessary to provide weather-independent base load for our electric grids. Also in Europe the exactly same situation.
Deregulation as a way to make it more competitive?
I'm not against nuke power in principal if it can compete on equal terms which will never be
$30 MWh is the futur
we should really factor in randomness and anonymity in politics, they can bring both efficiency and fairness, fight corruption and mitigate extortion. We can improve our democracy
Do you know anything about UK and Finnish regulators?looks like they like stupid rules too
Sunch radiaion limits are rubbish, as the danger is not just the amount but where it goes. Killing by microdose ingestion is someones MOD. You also assume the USA etc remains intact, technology required to prevent cleanups will not be avsilable after your civil war meltdown.
The risk of weapons proliferation is negligible--the real danger, for the U.S., comes from its insanely provocative foreign policy, which also promotes, even employs, terrorism! A minimum of vigilance will prevent any non-state actor from making a fission weapon.
Nuclear power is no longer the future; it’s the present. Get exposure to cutting-edge nuclear companies poised to lead the charge in safe, efficient, and low-carbon energy production. Consider $NUKZ for your gateway to sustainable energy investments.
