The anti nuclear movement is not the main reason we didn't make progress. Capitalism is. The existing reactors still work, so why retire them even though they already exceeded their designed life span? Why invest billions into research and testing of newer, safer designs when the existing ones are "good enough"? Why try to reduce the amount and hazardousness of the waste when you can unload a lot of the cost and responsibility to politics and the tax payer?
HN has this idealistic image of nuclear power where everything is handled by passionate responsible scientists, when in practice those plants are run by corporations trying to cut costs wherever possible. Better and more modern designs wouldn't change anything about that.
Aggressive anti-nuclear sentiment killed new construction due to HUGE costs to comply with regulation and HUGE costs for finances - more than half of the _entire cost of the plat_ in some cases. Yes - capitalism gave rise to the stop in production - The cost and risks were too high. Why? The anti-nuclear movement .
The costs of regulation, while perhaps not ideally efficient, are a real cost of nuclear power. They are the mechanism by which risks to the common environment are controlled.
Currently, and increasingly in the future, there is this huge “externality” in the full costs of burning fossil fuels, which is not being connected to the use.
Basic economic theory argues that externalities need to be handled by “non-market” means. Which essentially means regulation.
For whatever reason, the particulars of nuclear power enable enough political will to make a serious attempt at regulation aimed at minimizing (horrific) externalities.
The problem of human induced climate change presents a scary political reality, in which the political structures required to apportion the “true” cost of fossil fuel use might be not be possible. Or possible in a way where the cure is worse than the disease.
If these costs were indeed born by users, the competitive position of nuclear power might be improved.
However, this is not a sufficient argument to relax regulatory requirements for nuclear power.
> The cost and risks were too high. Why? The anti-nuclear movement .
Also the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it costs to clean up nuclear disasters. But sure, good to know that nuclear power would be profitable if only corporations didn’t have to comply with all those pesky safety regulations.
HN has this idealistic image of nuclear power where everything is handled by passionate responsible scientists, when in practice those plants are run by corporations trying to cut costs wherever possible. Better and more modern designs wouldn't change anything about that.