[pfdietz]

It's a common error to think that fission power plants aren't being built because of "stigma". The actual problem is failed economics. Fusion promises to be even more expensive, for the reasons I explained.

It's not clear why one should expect fusion to have good experience effects. Fission didn't, and the non-nuclear parts of fusion power plants will be mature technologies.

[gfodor]

Your argument is that the stigma of nuclear meltdowns hasn’t impeded the deployment of nuclear energy?

[pfdietz]

If reactors were ten times safer but no cheaper, they still wouldn't be being built.

If reactors were ten times cheaper but no safer, we'd be building them like hotcakes.

[lwouis]

I think Japan disabling their fission plants after Fukushima, and Germany following that path are clear manifestation of the opposite: that people fear nuclear and democratic governments act on this fear, against development of the technology.

[nickik]

While this is true, its a fact that the regulatory and governmental outlook on fission has prevented these changes from happening.

The western world has made development of new fission plants practically impossible. Requiring 100s of millions in development before you might get a hint if the government would actually allow you to build a plant.

Thankfully this has finally started to change. Mostly in Canada and that's where we will likely see next generation fission first.

[pfdietz]

Regulation is the scapegoat for nuclear's failure, but it's equally the case that regulation is vital to nuclear (and to nuclear getting liability caps.) If the risk of nuclear were not socialized no one would build it (or insure it).

What has also prevented changes from happening is that nuclear scales down poorly, so the cost of iterating designs is so large. Making a new kind of PV cell or module, or wind turbine, is comparatively much cheaper, because these are individually much smaller and cheaper. The replicated nature of these sources is an advantage in so many ways.

[nickik]

> Regulation is the scapegoat for nuclear's failure

No it isn't. If you have a regulatory structure that makes progress so expensive and counter to the government plan then progress is very hard to make.

Even the regulatory agency themselves have realized this and are changing their structures.

> What has also prevented changes from happening is that nuclear scales down poorly, so the cost of iterating designs is so large.

US regulation allows nothing between fully commercial and university research making any time of prototyping impossible.

Its in fact very possible to make smaller reactors that can teach you a lot and are not absurdly expensive and still useful. That data then could be used for to further inform regulatory agencies.

> The replicated nature of these sources is an advantage in so many ways.

Yes but even if it doesn't scale down well in terms of engineering you can still do factory construction of reactors. If we can mass produce plans, rocket engines, rockets and cars then the same could be done with reactors.

The reality is the government selected one winner and made deploying anything else practically impossible. The change in regulatory agencies has basically made progress impossible beyond marginal improvements.