[hakfoo]

What is it about nuclear that keeps it from coming online quickly?

Is it solely regulatory red tape? Do we not have off-the-shelf designs (i. e. from when the French built scores of plants), or are they dependent on a catalog of no-longer-available parts?

I was hoping for modular reactors that were neighbourhood-scale-- the size of a a small shipping container, and able to be delivered rather than site built. Maybe RTG instead of steam-turbine for mechanical simplicity.

[butlike]

I imagine it's regulatory for fission plants. Fusion is still a ways off, in terms of us having net-positive energy, but is the "true" nuclear energy solution as far as I'm concerned.

The difference is a fusion's byproduct is helium, and if the core "melts down," it implodes rather than explodes. Fission creates waste who's half life is 4.5bil years (which is demonstratedly toxic to humans, hence where I imagine the apprehension for bringing reactors online is coming from)

[specialist]

I wish I knew. I'm sure I'm not alone.

My current belief is that it just comes down to lack of investment.

Compare the current outlooks of biofuels, "next generation" nuclear, and now green H2.

The IRA is building a H2 economy, from scratch. Soon, the govt will pay anyone anywhere a stupid amount of money to make "green" H2 (details are still being hashed out). It's stupid to not get in on the action. So that govt investment begat a torrent of private investment. And now we're off to the races.

Just like how the Obama administration bootstrapped PV solar and lithium ion batteries, in 20 years we'll look back at the passing of the IRA as the genesis of our H2 economy.

In their times, both biofuels and nuclear were supposed to be the next big thing.

But instead of forging industrial policy and committing to moonshot level investments, our neoliberals predecessors had faith these nascent industries would magically emerge from the "free market".