Trump Launches Reform of Nuclear Industry, Slashes Regulation (cnbc.com) 161
Longtime Slashdot reader sinij shares a press release from the White House, outlining a series of executive orders that overhaul the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and speed up deployment of new nuclear power reactions in the U.S.. From a report: The NRC is a 50-year-old, independent agency that regulates the nation's fleet of nuclear reactors. Trump's orders call for a "total and complete reform" of the agency, a senior White House official told reporters in a briefing. Under the new rules, the commission will be forced to decide on nuclear reactor licenses within 18 months. Trump said Friday the orders focus on small, advanced reactors that are viewed by many in the industry as the future. But the president also said his administration supports building large plants. "We're also talking about the big plants -- the very, very big, the biggest," Trump said. "We're going to be doing them also."
When asked whether NRC reform will result in staff reductions, the White House official said "there will be turnover and changes in roles." "Total reduction in staff is undetermined at this point, but the executive orders do call for a substantial reorganization" of the agency, the official said. The orders, however, will not remove or replace any of the five commissioners who lead the body, according to the White House. Any reduction in staff at the NRC would come at time when the commission faces a heavy workload. The agency is currently reviewing whether two mothballed nuclear plants, Palisades in Michigan and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, should restart operations, a historic and unprecedented process. [...]
Trump's orders also create a regulatory framework for the Departments of Energy and Defense to build nuclear reactors on federal land, the administration official said. "This allows for safe and reliable nuclear energy to power and operate critical defense facilities and AI data centers," the official told reporters. The NRC will not have a direct role, as the departments will use separate authorities under their control to authorize reactor construction for national security purposes, the official said. The president's orders also aim to jump start the mining of uranium in the U.S. and expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, the official said. Trump's actions also aim to speed up reactor testing at the Department of Energy's national laboratories.
When asked whether NRC reform will result in staff reductions, the White House official said "there will be turnover and changes in roles." "Total reduction in staff is undetermined at this point, but the executive orders do call for a substantial reorganization" of the agency, the official said. The orders, however, will not remove or replace any of the five commissioners who lead the body, according to the White House. Any reduction in staff at the NRC would come at time when the commission faces a heavy workload. The agency is currently reviewing whether two mothballed nuclear plants, Palisades in Michigan and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, should restart operations, a historic and unprecedented process. [...]
Trump's orders also create a regulatory framework for the Departments of Energy and Defense to build nuclear reactors on federal land, the administration official said. "This allows for safe and reliable nuclear energy to power and operate critical defense facilities and AI data centers," the official told reporters. The NRC will not have a direct role, as the departments will use separate authorities under their control to authorize reactor construction for national security purposes, the official said. The president's orders also aim to jump start the mining of uranium in the U.S. and expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, the official said. Trump's actions also aim to speed up reactor testing at the Department of Energy's national laboratories.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
>Is it a contest?
Yes of fucking course it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Only for the terminally stupid. You seem to qualify.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You know, you could just get along... The whole world domination thing is not worth it. Just be nice to eachother. Imagine. I better be carefull. Once they crucified a dude who said something similar. Another one got shot.
The problem is that for the US, everything is a Zero-Sum Game. The idea of Win-Win is anathema. For the Americans, for them to win, someone has to lose.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously? Good luck competing technologically when you don't have enough power or it costs twice as much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The race is who creates ASI first. Energy will be a limiting factor in the near future.
Existential fossil fuel based environmental crisis (Score:2)
Is it a contest?
No, it's an existential fossil fuel based environmental crisis.
China’s CO emissions up 38%, USA's down 13% (Score:2)
Is it a contest?
No, it's an existential fossil fuel based environmental crisis.
Caused mostly by America and Americans. 23% coal increase. And they were already top of the class for pollution before.
Nope. China's CO2 emissions have been increasing while the US and EU have been decreasing. The problem is that China could have reduced CO2 far more if they had NOT pursued a coal first strategy. They spent many years making the problem worse while the rest of the world was improving things.
Per capita is the wrong metric. China's pollution is overwhelming industrial based, its government policy, the behavior of individual Chinese citizens makes no difference. Given this government/industrial nature the c
If not nuclear, you'll just use more fossil fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. and China are fervently engaged in a dick measuring contest, and at the rate we're going I'm afraid China is going to measure many more dicks.
Nope, the real environmentalists. Greenpeace founders and such, have realized that opposing nuclear energy all these years was a mistake. That nuclear is part of the "all of the above" non-fossil fuel alternatives we should be using. Our pulling back on nuclear just perpetuated the use of fossil fuels. Europe, Germany in particular, backed off nuclear and tried switching to natural gas bought from Putin. The Ukraine war interfered with that, US coal exports to Europe then doubled.
Re:If not nuclear, you'll just use more fossil fue (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing has changed regarding the beliefs of Greenpeace. What has changed is that Big Oil is seeing the writing on the wall for them. Nations are very successfully transitioning to cheaper, cleaner renewables regardless of their decades-long lobbying and disinformation campaigns against it.
Nuclear at least pushes the deadline back a few decades, because that's how long it will take to build a meaningful amount of them even if they have to destroy regulations and compromise safety to do so. Or maybe even pivot their businesses to nuclear. But don't worry too much, it's not like they really plan on building them anyway. They'll keep stringing you along with "nuclear any day now..." while building more coal plants as an "interim" solution, and the public will eat it up like morons. Anything to delay the inevitable; it only needs to outlast the current CEOs.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Earth-loving hippies won't let us have nuclear" narrative is a bullshit attempt to shift the blame away from the fossil fuel industry lobbying against it. It's very obvious and you should feel embarrassed for falling for it.
Not really. Bill Clinton shut down some nuclear research to appease the green elements of his party. The Green Party in Germany was literally infiltrated by the Soviets who helped develop Germany's current attitude towards nuclear. Many of the lawsuits that delayed construction of nuclear plants came from various greens.
Try some critical thinkin: nobody listened to all the greens when they rallied against coal and gas, why the fuck would anybody listen to the fraction of them that oppose nuclear?
People fear nuclear power, in part due to greens, far more than they feared fossil fuels. Despite coal releasing more radiation into the environment than the US nuclear industry.
Nothing has changed regarding the beliefs of Greenpeace.
Notice I ref
Re: (Score:2)
Great, more direct lies. You nuclear fanatics are really the scum of the scum.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, more direct lies. You nuclear fanatics are really the scum of the scum.
Nope. You are just ignorant.
... “Anybody taking a realistic view of our country’s energy requirements knows nuclear has to be a big part of the global warming equation,” Moore said. “These environmental groups are not doing that.”
...
"As global warming grew from scientific theory to public concern in the late 1980s, Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, aiming to prove to the environmental community that pro-nuclear environmentalism was not an oxymoron.
A trustee of Friends of the
Per capita wrong metric when industrial based (Score:2)
US per capita coal use is way above Europe. Closer to China's use. And that was before increasing another 23%.
Per capita is the wrong metric. China's pollution is overwhelming industrial based, its government policy, the behavior of individual Chinese citizens makes no difference. Given this government/industrial nature the correct measurement would be per GDP. China generates more pollution on a GDP basis. Matter of fact, pollution has been increasing in China while decreasing in the US.
China produces 2.4x the pollution for 0.6x the GDP
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, havi
Its not the population, its industry (Score:2)
Trump is increasing coal by 23%
It's for exports to Europe. After Europe shut down nuclear and switched to natural gas from Russia, and lost that nat gas due to the war in Ukraine, US coal exports to Europe doubled.
Domestic coal usage significantly dropped in the US during Trump. Industry is replacing coal with natural gas. Unlike China with its coal first strategy, the US is not goal for the lowest cost fossil fuel (coal), it is going the for lowest cost fossil fuel (nat gas).
>Trump is taxing solar and wind to make coal more attractive.
Nope. Trump is taxing Chinese made solar and wind which is
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest the U.S. buy some reactors from China, but the tariffs on them would be terrible. :-)
That would be doubly ironic given most of the reactors currently being built by China were originally designed by Westinghouse.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
were originally designed by Westinghouse.
Hardly.
Chinese have always applied a heavily diversified approach to nuclear power generation, and have purposefully avoided reliance on any single design, licensing tech from many sources and localizing it heavily, practically to the point of technological independence usually by the time they build their second reactor.
Virtually all operational Chinese reactors are their own designs, even when based on foreign tech. The foreign tech is mostly French, Canadian or Soviet but the plants are locally built and the designs and most manufacturing is local.
Of the reactors under construction, less than half are the CAP1000. While based on the AP1000, the "Westinghouse" designs, the CAP1000s are also heavily modified and localized.
Most new reactors are, however, of Hualong One design, which is completely Chinese, built on two older Chinese designs, one of which was based on a Gen II 1GWt French reactor, if memory serves.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Of the reactors under construction, less than half are the CAP1000. While based on the AP1000, the "Westinghouse" designs, the CAP1000s are also heavily modified and localized.
Of course the Chinese have modified the design. Mostly for the purpose of making plants more "cookie-cutter" and less bespoke like the ridiculous way they do it in the west. Just fixing that is an impressive accomplishment in itself that we don't need to wait for SMRs to emulate. The concept scales. We just can't build big things in the west anymore.
https://www.world-nuclear-news... [world-nuclear-news.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We just can't build big things in the west anymore.
You misspelled "not allowed to". Also, the need to "build big" is not well justified.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "not allowed to". Also, the need to "build big" is not well justified.
Big, safe proven cookie cutter nuke plants are perfectly well justified, but our inability to build big things extends far beyond nuclear plants. I live in a place with much untapped hydro potential, but we can't build hydro dams anymore either. The last one was so astronomically over time and budget I can't see anyone trying again for a long, long while.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Big, safe proven cookie cutter nuke plants are perfectly well justified, but...
...the only problem is they exist only in your imagination.
So far every reactor built has been a fairly unique enterprise. Why?
There used to be 6 where I used to work (the "greens", paid by competing interest managed to close down 4), built in the age where "we could build them". It still took three decades to get them up and running. Why?
Because each plant, 1 reactor or several, is basically a small country. Just so that you get a bit of a perspective, on the premises we have a water utility with a two large complexes of many very powerful pumps, 10 km of waterways and pools, the equivalent of a medium-sized thermal power plant in backup generation, a 30MW hydro where the water from the outermost loop falls back into the source, a chemical treatment plant for the water in the loops, which is actually 3 plants, one for each loop, a complex system of warehouses, some storing fresh and spent fuel, a small hospital, a military police security unit, a large restaurant complex, several small to medium tool maker shops, two or three specialized construction businesses, transportation firms, education and training outfits. These are absolutely necessary to run the plant, and I'm forgetting or unaware of probably 2/3 of all there is. Yes, there is even a small airport nearby where the aircraft that delivers the fuel has to land.
It takes at least 6 or 7 years to build, integrate and commission one reactor into this mess.
Since they are done somewhat sequentially, each and every one is different, from top to bottom and in reverse: different welder teams, different welding electrodes, different welding technologies, different verification procedures, different structure of the valves, pumps and whatnot, different treatment of the pipes, different hardware, different requirements for the oil of the switches, different requirements for the temperature and neutron sensors, different look of the "radiation" signs, different paint on the reactor hall walls... An endless list. Multiply that by the necessary support above, and you'll begin to see why it is hard.
This is compounded by the flux of regulations - whether they become more or less doesn't matter - what matters is that you have to have a complete history valid per the regulations in effect at the time, and a current set per your current regulations.
Since the projects are large, there's a lot of money going about, so the politicians love to come up with ways to extort the project for some of it. Nuclear is love by all participants - both pro and anti, because it is a neat feeding ground.
On top of the national and local players, since it is a source of radioactive material, the project is under international control. This is a subject I don't even want to begin to discuss.
No matter where in the chain you stand, you can't just sit there, come up with a good idea and implement it. You need approval for every piece you'll want to be using, that means time and cost for testing and certification, that means you must rely on approved technologies that get old and are phased out.
Even if you build to scale, like they are in China, you're not immune from this. Hence the large number of reactor designs there, and the reason why they only produce about 5-6% of their total power from nuclear.
There is a lot of talk about "small reactors", but I have not heard of one being approved for construction of even one, even on paper.
Why? Because see above, you need the small industrial town around it regardless of the size, and all expertise and tech required to operate it, and it is heavily front-loaded, which makes it inflexible, risky and necessarily outdated with respect to the market needs.
So yes, nuclear has its advantages and uses, but it also has its issues. Therefore it is and will remain an option limited by the nature of the requirements for its construction and operation.
Re: (Score:2)
...the only problem is they exist only in your imagination.
The CAP1400 is as close as it gets and that was its design goal. I hope they sell many of them. I expect they will.
Because each plant, 1 reactor or several, is basically a small country.
None of those things are specialized. Roads, pumps, hospitals, airports. They are nothingburgers, China can build those in a few months. If those are holding up your reactor construction that would be sad. Did you see the video of the hospital they built at the beginning of COVID - in a week? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] The point is the reactors themselves are cookie cutter. You
Re: (Score:2)
None of those things are specialized.
Tell me how you know nothing about it without telling me so :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will add this: Having worked in DoD and especially the rail industry, mission/scope creep is so common that the rail industry informally and internally adds 20-30% in time and cost to every aspect of every project's contract(s) as the actual limit before even considering any formal legal or contractual actions.
This is just my personal experience, and to a larger degree, what was passed on to me by project/program managers and directors. These large public projects like bridges and such seem to go worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to larger projects, we have a bit of work to do in order to see another Empire State Building, Golden Gate Bridge, or any nuclear facility that is on time, on budget, and most importantly, SAFE.
I often use the transcontinental railway and the interstate highway system as example of things that could never be built today.
Re: (Score:2)
All of those are solvable issues. You just don't want to solve them. *shrug*
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Mostly for the purpose of making plants more "cookie-cutter" and less bespoke like the ridiculous way they do it in the west.
That's ironic. Firstly China doesn't do standard production of large scale projects like this, largely because attempting perfect standardisation is something that is important when you outsource production. And secondly because nuclear plants are cookie cutter already. They have a standard design by the licensor, with everything process and construction requirement specified very carefully with virtually no option to deviate. There's nothing bespoke about reactors in the west. The out of battery limits components like utilities may be bespoke but that's typically true of all licensed projects.
I worked in the industry, it was the easiest job I ever had, there was virtually no engineering thought required. None of this "here are the process conditions, let me know how to measure it" and more like "you will buy exactly this instrument and when you get it don't forget to paint it yellow."
Re: (Score:2)
They have a standard design by the licensor, with everything process and construction requirement specified very carefully with virtually no option to deviate. There's nothing bespoke about reactors in the west.
If all the parts are off-the-shelf how does it take 10 years to assemble in the west?
The CAP1000 reactor design uses modular construction techniques, enabling large structural modules to be built at factories and then installed at the site. This means that more construction activities can take place at the same time, reducing the time taken to build a plant as well as offering economic and quality control benefits. https://www.world-nuclear-news... [world-nuclear-news.org]
I worked in the industry, it was the easiest job I ever had
That explains a lot, and why China is going to eat out
Re: (Score:2)
and why China is going to eat out lunch
Yum... take out Chinese. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If all the parts are off-the-shelf how does it take 10 years to assemble in the west?
You're conflating two concepts. Standard and "off the shelf" are not the same thing. The shelf implies stock, where there is none. The design is standard but it remains made to order because nuclear projects are slow and rare. Also what do you mean "the west"? It takes 10 years everywhere. Even China for all the talk about its efficiency takes over 8 years to get an additional reactor installed at an existing facility (a best case for this kind of project as many utilities and logistics are taken care of).
T
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating two concepts. Standard and "off the shelf" are not the same thing. The shelf implies stock, where there is none. The design is standard but it remains made to order because nuclear projects are slow and rare.
Yes, exactly zero economies of scale by design. Sweet. I think the Chinese are fixing that too. Once you build whole factories specifically for the purpose of cranking out modules you might as well keep using them.
It takes 10 years everywhere.
Google says it averages 7 years in China, 10 globally.
There's nothing unique about the CAP1000 for this.
It is what sets it apart from the AP1000. Westinghouse apparently designed the AP600 to be modular but did not sell any. There is a big push for small modular reactors. China is cornering the market on large modular reactors.
Re: Good (Score:2)
The AP1000 was supposed to be more standardized, but really just the reactor itself. At least when I was still dialed in to Vogtles construction one of the wildest sources of delays was outside of containment none of the building layout had been finalized. At one point when they were trying to figure out how to lay things out some genius had the idea to put the count room (the place you didn't radioassays on reactor samples) directly adjacent to containment. When the Radiation Protection folks found out the
Re: (Score:2)
At least when I was still dialed in to Vogtles construction one of the wildest sources of delays was outside of containment none of the building layout had been finalized.
My furnace is standardized, all the rest of the air handling and electrical and the layout of my house are not. Nothing stops people from building standardized houses with standardized furnaces though. They actually do it all the time, they even build duplicates of skyscrapers and container ships. Yes, you have to make some adjustments for site services and such, but this should not require a completely new design every time. A previous poster mentioned how each facility is like a small city. Russia bu
Re: (Score:2)
That should be embarrasing.
Let me tell you, this isn't just nuclear. It's amazing how many dumb decisions get made in major projects the world over. Yes even in facilities I've worked at in China. I recall a lovely attempt to build a new hydocracker at a refinery in Washington. The reactor was delivered by sea and Barnhart managed to accidently roll it into the ocean. https://www.gdiving.com/projec... [gdiving.com] It did get salvaged though. Funny enough Barnhart has two divisions, one is lifting, rigging and logistics, and the other ... nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
Let me tell you, this isn't just nuclear. It's amazing how many dumb decisions get made in major projects the world over.
I am under no illusions. That said, there was a time even in my lifetime where projects, even big projects, were not always, grossly over time and budget by default.
that's international standards, not something you can fix by DOGEing the NRC
I'm Canadian and both confident in our regulators and supportive of our nuclear industry. The general aversion to nuclear globally has not helped our export industry either, but fortunately we have lots of oil too.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a list with all Chinese reactors, you can look up the reactor type and then use that site or Wikipedia or similar to track the history and specs of each type:
https://world-nuclear.org/nucl... [world-nuclear.org]
The US Navy knows a thing or two about reactors (Score:2)
I'd suggest the U.S. buy some reactors from China, but the tariffs on them would be terrible. :-)
On a more serious note, I'd point out there are some folks who never backed off of nuclear reactors in the US and they have an excellent safety record. The US Navy.
Re: (Score:2)
I do, and there's nothing you can do about it because this is the internet so nyah nyah nyah!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the US can build a new nuclear plant in the next 40 years.
Maybe Russia can "gift" the U.S. one, I think they have an used one somewhere ... :-)
They'd have to steal it from Ukraine [wikipedia.org] first.
Re: (Score:3)
For everyone's information, the US abandoned it's 4G Integral Fast Reactor in 1994. Russia didn't, so the BN-800 is the current gold standard in fast reactors. It burns plutonium they built up during the nuclear arms race, but could burn nuclear waste as well (which is fertile - it can be bred to Plutonium). The US could do that, too, with a fast reactor, France, too, they had one as well. Russia sold this tech to China.
On that note, private companies are developing technologies mostly based on the Molten S
Re: (Score:2)
For everyone's information, the US abandoned it's 4G Integral Fast Reactor in 1994. Russia didn't, so the BN-800 is the current gold standard in fast reactors. It burns plutonium they built up during the nuclear arms race, but could burn nuclear waste as well (which is fertile - it can be bred to Plutonium). The US could do that, too, with a fast reactor, France, too, they had one as well. Russia sold this tech to China.
We mostly abandoned the idea of fast breeder reactors out of fear that they could be used to create more weapons-grade plutonium, for non-proliferation reasons. Also, concerns about the need for waste reprocessing and the complexity of doing that on-site or the cost and safety and security risk of doing it off-site. I'm not saying it isn't a nice idea in theory, but in practice, there's still a *lot* of politics involved in why those aren't being built, and I don't expect that to change any time soon.
What
Renewables + Nuclear displaces fossil fuel faster (Score:2)
another perfect example of how classism and corruption are destroying both our society and our planet, this is exactly what evil looks like
Dialing back on fossil fuel use is evil? Renewables + Nuclear displaces fossil fuel faster than Renewables alone.
On the bright side.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Building a nuclear reactor takes so long simply from a construction standpoint Trump will be out of office and we can reverse all this before the U.S. has its own Chernobyl.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump with be out of office? And you think that would end MAGA?
Re: (Score:2)
Our God Lord will never be out of office. All Hail Pope and God Lord TRUMP.
If you don't see sarcasm there, sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:On the bright side.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Removing regulations" the trump way is a good way to start having a Chernobyl.
Re: (Score:2)
"More regulation" vs "less regulation" is too simplistic. The answer is "Yes, we need more good regulation," and "Yes we need less bad regulation." Without a detailed analysis, you can't know if it's good or bad. Most likely here there is some good and some bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, look at the education history of the officer who is presenting the EOs. A BA in Greek political drama!
White House Office of Science and Technology Director Michael Kratsios
Inspires confidence.
I'm asking myself why did I waste 8 years on a doctorate in nuclear power engineering, when I could have done a liberal arts BA instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. But do you think anybody appointed by Trump can do this competently?
Re: (Score:2)
Any time you see great wealth there is a great crime behind it.
Re: On the bright side.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yea we know you will stop at nothing to destroy America, and as first order of business the few good things Trump manages to do will be axed along with all the bad ones.
The world is gonna have to use nuclear power eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Building a nuclear reactor takes so long simply from a construction standpoint Trump will be out of office and we can reverse all this before the U.S. has its own Chernobyl.
The worst that can happen with modern nuclear reactors is Three-Mile Island: no casualties, at most minor radiation leaks, all the fuel contained within the designated structure.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, those containment structures take a long time to build. All that concrete. It's silly. Just look at Walmart, now they know how to build. Some steel girders, bit of sheet metal and a week later there you go! Now that's how you build. Smart!
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR; if they build plants without containment, it still won't cause Chernobyl v2.0
Re: (Score:2)
Some modern designs can run without a containment vessel and can even be buried for 10+ years without refueling or engineer interaction. That is designs without reprocessing, like Russia's BN-800 (they abandoned reprocessing due to proliferation concerns - the US killed the whole IFR mostly on the same grounds).
Re: (Score:2)
You probably have no clue how close TMI came to a hydrogen explosion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Building a nuclear reactor takes so long simply from a construction standpoint Trump will be out of office
Trump keeps claiming he will run for a third term, and I have no reasons left to doubt him about that. If something removes Trump from office, it will be his arteries, rather than any of the suggestions (no longer rules) written into the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just a distraction. His goal is to take his loot with him when he goes tits-up. Greenland, Panama Canal, Canada, third term, etc are mere distractions to prevent people from understanding that he has no management experience and cannot actually manage the fed. gov. So he must destroy it.
Re:On the bright side.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Building a nuclear reactor takes so long simply from a construction standpoint Trump will be out of office and we can reverse all this before the U.S. has its own Chernobyl.
The problem with the Republican party is that they are their own worst enemy, not thinking things through before they open their mouths and propose solutions to problems.
For example, the reason modern nuclear power plants aren't available in the U.S. is largely because modern designs haven't been approved by the NRC. Why haven't they been approved? Budget cuts that the Republicans insisted on. So now to fix what they screwed up, they'll rip out the regulations and leave us with a risk of dangerous, poorly validated reactors being designed. And when they melt down, they'll bail out the companies that caused it so that they don't pay the cost of their screw ups. And in the end, the American public gets f**ked. Every time. Let's hope if it happens that people remember exactly which party led them there.
All you have to do to fix the burden of overregulation is give the relevant departments enough resources to A. regulate properly and B. occasionally ask Congress to clear out the regulations that no longer make sense. But that second one has to come from the agencies themselves, from the bottom up. As soon as you try to deregulate from the top down, it is almost always a mistake. And deregulating as a workaround for inadequate regulatory staffing is doubly so.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the Republican party is that they are their own worst enemy, not thinking things through before they open their mouths and propose solutions to problems.
The Republican party is finished. They will never get another organic vote. Their true colors are shining through brightly now and they are distinctly un-American.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely to be Chernobyl, the US has negative coefficient requirements. I don't know what that means, specifically, but in layman's terms, no chance of going boom.
Re: (Score:2)
Vance is already being groomed for 2028.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's him or DeSantis.
Vance is a weird couch fucker (Score:3, Insightful)
He won't make it out of the primary but at the same time if Trump isn't dead I fully expect him to run again and to win the primary.
Then I fully expect the corrupt supreme Court to rule that because his terms aren't consecutive he can run again.
Finally voter suppression means Trump will win that election.
Even though the economy will be a smoldering mess by 2028.
I don'
Re: (Score:2)
After 2016 and 2020, who will oppose him? MAGAts want an anointed successor, and they love JD Vance.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when was that a requirement?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think he is going to leave?
He's quite old and the immortality serum is yet to be discovered.
Trumpism will stay on, though.
Re: (Score:2)
We can only hope
Memories (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress can delegate authority to the president (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal and Congress is supposed to oversee what the president does along with the courts.
And frankly that's not happening.
What really upended and killed our politics once and for all was when Elon musk came out and said that anyone who crossed him and Trump would face a primary Challenger fully funded by Elon musk's unlimited money.
Of course that really only applies to the Republicans but the fact of the matter is if musk drops 15 or 20 million on a race as small as a House of Representatives primary then whoever he backs is almost guaranteed to win.
That doesn't necessarily work for the Senate and it can backfire if he's not careful about keeping his nose out of it like what happened with that state supreme court seat he basically gave to the Democrats in Wisconsin.
But I will give musk credit for this he does learn from his mistakes and he is stepping back from overt politics. He will of course continue to do nasty little back room deals but he'll do nasty little backroom deals instead of being out in the open where it's obvious he's buying the election.
voters don't like it when they see that but as long as you're not rubbing their nose in it like a dog that just shit on the rug they don't really care about corruption.
All this means that Congress as long as it's in the hands of the Republican party is basically owned Lock stock and barrel by Donald Trump and though him Elon musk. Therefore one of the fundamental checks and balances on Presidential power is just gone.
That leaves the supreme Court but our court is openly on the take. Most notably Clarence Thomas and alito routinely accept bribes in the form of multi-million dollar vacations and in Clarence Thomas's case they bought him a house for his mom and a luxury motor Coach which he is very very proud of. Just don't call it an RV.
The final check in balance on unchecked Presidential power was the voters and well, they blew it. Voter suppression really did it to. So it's not entirely to voters fault but there is still 77 million people who didn't understand that letting a handful of billionaires take absolute control of everything was a bad idea...
And of course talking about politics openly like I am is considered a social faux pas so I'm going to get modded into pulp and it's unlikely the things I've said and the ideas I've put out here, all of which are actually true and readily verifiable, aren't going to go anywhere.
And honestly even if I get modded up this is a dying forum. If by some miracle I became a successful journalist and started to say these things on primetime TV I would be fired. I know this because during the election I watched several longstanding journalists trying to do exactly this and watch them dog walked.
And that was the other check and balance, the 4th estate. Journalism was supposed to inform us so we would know better and that failed because the billionaires just bought everything and anyone who didn't do exactly what they wanted to got fired.
Every single institution designed to protect you from unchecked political power has failed. Bad things are going to happen and there is no longer anything that can be done to stop it. Shit is going to get real bad. Makes me wish I didn't have a kid. That was a fucked up thing to do
Re:Memories (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Remember when the US used to pass laws through Congress like it's supposed to..."
Yes, it was a time before Congress intentionally gave up more and more and more of their power, responsibility, and control to the zillions of agencies they created, which are controlled by the Executive branch. Why? So they couldn't be blamed or held accountable for anything. It is the same reason we end up with multi-thousand page bills with all kinds of totally unrelated crap in them. So nobody can or will read or understand it before it is voted on. "Sorry, I didn't want that part, but I didn't have a choice."
So let's place the blame where it belongs: Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
So let's place the blame where it belongs: Congress.
Yes and no. Congress was willing, so they are culpable, but who is the mastermind and is providing the force? There is where you will find the ultimate criminals.
Good. Hope they get Thorium too. (Score:5, Interesting)
When Sagan briefed Congress on anthropogenic climate change in 1985, this is what he recommended, specifically safe nuclear tech. The original scientific solution, that also advances nuclear research and gets us closer to fusion. Nothing in the numbers including meltdowns comes close to the danger posed by old school coal plants without even considering climate change, but it has become the most feared thing in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone actually overcome the salt corrosion problem that plagued earlier thorium reactor designs?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the linked article doesn't mention how (or if) Chinese researchers have dealt with corrosion. I have to wonder how well self-sealing pipes will work in the long run. Seems like key cooling components would need to be replaced on a fairly regular basis.
Re: (Score:2)
When Sagan briefed Congress on anthropogenic climate change in 1985
If Sagan briefed Congress today he wouldn't repeat this. Sagan is someone who knows we need viable solutions that can be implemented in a short timeframe, and few scientists would advocate an approach that boots the problem 40 years down the road. Existing climate models and "deadlines" don't even take into account a "do nothing for the first 20 years" approach. Which is precisely what you get with nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen also briefed congress about climate change. He had the same solution--nuclear energy. "Nuclear energy is the only path forward on climate change." Sagan was an intelligent man. Consequentially he would still support nuclear energy.
There are currently zero examples of a country or state deep decarbonizing with just solar and wind. ZERO! Germany has spent 500 billion euros and failed hard. Their energy is currently dirtier than Texas. It looks like solar and wind
One of Trump's issues (Score:3, Insightful)
We need next gen Nuclear power to help stabilize the grids while renewables do their thing.
Even a stopped clock is sometimes right (Score:2, Insightful)
The US has too much nuclear regulation relative to the risks when compared to fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has too much nuclear regulation relative to the risks when compared to fossil fuels.
Then you don't understand the concept. The risk is the result of the regulation. You can't have too much regulation relative to risk. You can have an unreasonable amount of regulation driving risk, but remember if you're happy with the nuclear risk now it is *the result* of that regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I like this (Score:2)
As someone who despises just about everything about this admin there's nothing in the EO I object to and I think nuclear power is a good thing and we should have more of it so you know, a W in my book. All that said do I think this will mature into anything? It'll be good but marginal, I think the NRC needs a big reform but this is something you do want smart, motivated people focused on the goal and not the ideology to get there and Trump is antithetic to staffing smart, capable people.
Re:I like this (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a good example of nuclear power done right is the US Navy. They've been running nuclear reactors on ships(!), 24/7/365, with no safety incidents since 1954.
Their secret? They aren't trying to "maximize sharedholder value", so they don't have any incentive to cut corners on safety. Also, they have excellent training programs and hundreds of nuclear experts with decades of expertise and the authority to exercise it.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration just hires random people straight from Fox News or the WWE, plops them down into a job they know literally nothing about, and says "knock yourself out". Occasionally they let a rogue CEO run around with a chain saw (literally or metaphorically) firing people en masse as a way of finding out which employees were necessary and which weren't.
Therefore, even if the nuclear plan is a good one on paper, the fact that it being proposed by those bozos makes it a bad bet. I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, never mind to handle nuclear regulation adequately.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean we can trace so much of American nuclear program both naval and civilian right to Admiral Rickover and I think overall the whole thing lost its steam and a steady, reasonable hand like that. I've been pretty convinced the surest way forward is the French model, just have the state own and operate it. Changing regulation is good and will get some progress but not enough.
The best I can hope for is this pro-nuclear directive carries through to the next hopefully more competent admin.
Re: (Score:2)
Betcha $500 (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, we know (Score:2)
Like nothing you've ever seen, biggest ever in the history of the universe, yes, we know. Just put it on the pile over there with the others...
Do the math! (Score:3)
Nuclear Fission, the only functioning form of nuclear power we have right now, isn't cost-effective. The Germans did the math, came up short and decommissioned their ambitious Fission related projects such as the Kalkar Fast Breeder and the Wackersdorf Replenishment Plant. And eventually Fission in general. And after closing down all Fission plants and after 5+ decades of searching they still haven't found a place to put their nuclear waste.
Well...prehaps... (Score:2)
There are good arguments that the nuclear industry in the US was both over-regulated and incompetently regulated. But that sure doesn't mean it shouldn't be carefully regulated. And the real problem is recycling spent fuel...which should NOT be stored on-site unless the system is designed for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you mentioned it:
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20... [npr.org]
Re:The US still imports uranium from Russia (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]
But the truth doesn't matter anymore. What matters is stigginit. Whether you have food and shelter or your kids have clean air and water or your grandkids have a future none of that matters in the face of stigginit.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not wrong, nuclear power is probably the one reason I oppose Democrats agenda. That said, I think Trump is a dumbfuck, so take what you can from that, lol.