[epistasis]

Are you saying that the NRC asks for more than that? That there was a different process in the past? The big complaint I've heard about the NRC are changes required mid-construction, which happened last in the 1980s.

In the 2000s the NRC adopted a new licensing scheme at industry urging. What "hamstringing" are you talking about?

Okla would sound a lot more reliable here if they would have fought back with lawsuits with their accusations, or if the would release the communication now that there's no chance of this supposed retribution. As it is Okla makes all the talk of "hamstringing" seem like people not doing their jobs and trying to blame others.

[ai_critic]

Without speaking to Okla specifically--I think it's completely reasonable (if not accurate or charitable) to assume they're avoiding as much compliance as possible--the simple fact is that, under the watch of the NRC, there have been a tiny number of licenses issued.

From the horse's mouth in 2012, only 3 (*3!*) such licenses had been granted in 30 years ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=5250# ).

If your agency's job is to regulate something and you've done it so successfully that barely anybody has actually gotten a license--all while complaining about compliance costs--maybe you're the problem.

Had the fellow said "Oh, we have a really high bar for safety and compliance, and not everybody's able to handle that", it'd be fine. But, acting like "oh golly gee we're so easy to work with we don't ask for much" is brazen horseshit.

[epistasis]

The data doesn't fit for NRC being the problem. Hell look at the Summer reactor that was approved alongside Vogtle in Georgia: construction failure, billions wasted, and none of it to do with the NRC.

Or any the other many many other reactors abandoned at various states of development:

http://www.powermag.com/blog/nuclear-renaissance-recalls-pas...

There's an argument that the NRC could do things better, but placing all the well documented failures in the nuclear construction industry on the NRC doesn't make sense. Who are going to believe, the people who are always late and over budget, or the bystanders in the industry that have watched it all play out?

[MrBuddyCasino]

It is TWICE as expensive to install a megawatt of nuclear reactor on US soil than it is to put a megawatt of nuclear power into a US Aircraft Carrier.

Why?

The US Navy doesn't have to go through the NRC.

[epistasis]

I'd like to see the source of your cost numbers, I've never seen a $/MW from the Navy's subs' and carriers' reactors that was defensible, even Construction Physics didn't want to come up with a $/MW number in their discussion [0]

But remember that with the Seawolf classes the cost was astronomically higher than in the Virginia submarine; high costs are very possible without the NRC and are frequent, and an excellent counterexample to show the underlying fallacy behind the "NRC must be reason costs are high" argument. And remember that the Navy can use highly-enriched fuel that we don't allow in civilian reactors, and that the military nuclear labor force usually gets the best and the brightest and that the civilian nuclear work force gets the leftovers.

The NRC could be the source of high cost, but if so there should be two clear pieces of evidence to show that: 1) clear examples of the NRC doing something to drive up costs, and 2) some example of what to do instead of the NRC, or differences with other regulatory schemes that we could adopt instead. In particular, I never hear the corrective action that people want to the NRC. Having the Navy license civilian power reactors does not seem feasible. The closest we got to suggested regulatory reform culminated with Vogtle and Summer's failure: combined licensing. The biggest benefit of the industry's request merely gave the builders enough rope to hang themselves with bad design and their own delays.

[0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...

[MrBuddyCasino]

Over the last decade the US Navy has commissioned 1-2 new nuclear reactors per year. They currently operate 100 reactors, more than any other org on the planet.

The US Navy has managed a total of 273 nuclear reactors, 6200 reactor-years, over 177 million miles, averaging 4 new reactors per year over 70 years.

They have done this with a perfect safety record. Zero accidents. Zero injuries, zero deaths, zero environmental pollution.

US Navy Cost: $2 billion for 2 x 400 MW reactors in Ford-class aircraft carrier

NuScale: $10 bn for 500 MW reactor

Westinghouse: ~$8 bn for 1000MW reactor

Military reactors should be more expensive, not less, because they operate under harsher conditions. But they aren't, because the US Navy doesn't have to go through the NRC.

[philipkglass]

Naval reactor power ratings are for thermal output. You can assume that about 1/3 of the thermal output can be converted to electricity when steam from the reactor is used to drive an electrical generator:

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/thermodyna...

Assuming that your cited numbers are correct, "$2 billion for 2 x 400 MW reactors in Ford-class aircraft carrier" translates to 267 megawatts of electrical output for $2 billion. Or $7.5 billion for 1000 megawatts of electrical output. This is not much cheaper than "Westinghouse: ~$8 bn for 1000MW reactor."