Commercial nuclear should be very hard, almost impossible. This seems to be the correct conclusion after all the accidents and the reasons for them - incompetent, self-serving management pushing dangerous commands on the personnel (Chernobyl,Three Mile Island) or normalizing bad architecture and security plans (Fukushima). Better expensive energy than another major nuclear accident.
Nuclear energy can be done safely as long as it is run by competent nuclear energy physicists/technicians with real authority, so they can and will shut down stupid ideas such as operating outside parameters because economy/boss said so. This seems to rule out commercial organizations. NRC is more benevolent than that, maybe they should actually be even tougher.
We should allow only competent states to build and operate nuclear plants, so science and rules take precedence to money and boss boot-licking.
This may push nuclear energy into unprofitable territory, depending on the market conditions, infrastructure, water and people resources. Which is fine by me - nuclear energy in some areas is so important for grid stability we should have it even if it is unprofitable.
Extreme events and subsequent changes are why it can be the "safest form of energy". After Chernobyl and Fukushima, regulation did change in those countries as well.
There must be a name for the fallacy when one is focused on avoiding a single risk while completely ignoring much larger and closer dangers.
Nuclear energy has a minuscule list of total casualties throughout history. Casualties per megawatt produced? It's practically zero. At the same time burning hydrocarbons kills every single day through pollution. It kills millions yearly. Burning coal even spews radioactive ash into the air!
And above all, climate change is looming as a civilization-ending danger, closer and closer.
The black swan big disasters have to be taken seriously too.
A nuclear accident creates a big and costly disaster suddenly. People don't like sudden big problems but can live with continuously growing ones.
Burning hydrocarbons is much more acceptable in that regard. CO2/dust pollution is accepted by society, because it is continuous and dilutes well. Killing millions is socially acceptable when it happens randomly all over the planet. Radioactive pollution due to coal burning is/should be negligible, most is(should be) filtered out in the smokestack scrubbers.
I don't like fossil power plants, but they are much easier to build and more acceptable to people than nuclear ones. That's why regulation and security have to be high with nuclear, to make it acceptable to most of society.
> civilization-ending danger
I don't think climate change is a civilization-ending danger in the coming decades. It already creates political problems, migration. If we keep pumping CO2 then maybe in hundred years.
We had 2 huge ones. They resulted in a few thousand deaths and some uninhabitable land. Nothing compared to pollution damage.
> accepted by society [...] socially acceptable
I'd rather decide based on reason. And I doubt many people find millions of deaths due to pollution every year acceptable. They just don't know they had a choice. Choice stolen from them by rabid anti-nuclear fear mongering.
> I don't think climate change is a civilization-ending danger
Yet you think a few black swan nuclear disasters are? Can I borrow your crystal ball? You are pretty sure about the future but most experts I read disagree: nuclear experts consider it extremely safe while climate experts warn of dire futures.
That is surprising view to me. I tried to explain why naive anti-regulation talk is not helpful for getting more nuclear energy. The way to have more nuclear energy is to embrace and strengthen the state interest in nuclear.
When discussing nuclear vs coal, it's always funny to point out that coal power plants produce several times as much radiation as nuclear power plants.
Coal plants emit more radionuclides into atmosphere, but nuclear plants produce more radionuclides overall (burnt fuel). This coal nuclear pollution is however still very small to the point of irrelevance, the real pollution problem is with CO2, dust and mining coal.
I understand the sentiment, but more does not equal better.
I think we over regulate nuclear plants/nuclear plant construction/design in the United States. We should absolutely have robust regulatory controls and review in place, but those controls need to serve a purpose and reduce a specific risk(s). Controls for controls sake just add to cost and possibly sub-optimal operations.
Case in point, across the US many coal fire power stations are being decommissioned, on the face these would be great candidates to convert to Nuclear power stations. They already have a lot of the expensive infrastructure in place on site (i.e. massive transmission lines, electric substation, probably a reliable water source, etc). Great opportunity to reduce cost and accelerate a project.
But because of the way the nuclear regulations are structured, and the fact that coal ash is radioactive it's unlikely a site like this would be to become compliant.
We should have tough regulations on the nuclear industry, but they should be smart regulations.
Regulation. No matter how you find it (a drag, useful or even life-saving), one thing is certain: it significantly increases costs and time to build.
Do you know how Golden Gate or the Empire State Building were built on budget and fast? With risks and lost lives.