[simplyluke]

> Technology has changed over 50 years

Technology sure has but through a confluence of outsourcing, bad policy, NIMBY attitudes among the boomer generation, and weaponized lawsuits US infrastructure remains somewhat frozen in the 1970s. Look at how much pushback, red tape, and cost there is to building a solar farm, road, datacenter or yes, nuclear plant compared to China. Nuclear actually might be the best example of this: the plants are so much more expensive per megawatt than what the navy builds day-in-day-out because of 1) lawsuits every step of the way 2) regulatory paralysis and 3) we haven't been doing it for 50 years so the talent and patterns aren't there.

Which directly contributes to your later point:

> We go into climate action with the industries and technologies we have, not the industries and technologies we read about in scifi

I wouldn't consider what the US navy does scifi. Nor would I consider the ongoing rollout of reactors in China, which haven't seen the cost overruns of western nations, scifi. I'd consider those things consequences of the systems they were developed in. China's power plants have come in at about $2M/megawatt, which is coincidentally almost exactly what the US navy spends on their reactors and appears to be the cost of doing business in a well functioning environment. Solar is cheaper in the buildout (~$1M/megawatt), but not nearly to the extent that opponents of nuclear have made it out to be. It turns out when you make it almost impossible to do something, it gets really expensive!

These are problems we could solve through policy, but the lasting gift of the Boomer generation's rise to power and refusal to relinquish it is that US policy, industry, regulatory structure, and infrastructure were largely frozen-in-time 50 years ago and have been trying to cope with the crumbling shell of that ever since.

[epistasis]

> wouldn't consider what the US navy does scifi.

Military small reactor designs use fuel enriched to levels higher than what we want to be standard in civillian reactors. Second, military nuclear reactors are expensive as hell, and we wouldn't want to power our society with them.

We build nuclear submarines because operationally they are unsurpassed, there's no alternative, and the operational benefits are worth sky-high costs. When it comes to the grid, we have cheaper, more flexible, and faster to deploy options.

[thinkcontext]

> Look at how much pushback, red tape, and cost there is to building a solar farm, road, datacenter or yes, nuclear plant compared to China

That's quite a comparison given China's governance and environmental record. China will take your land, poison you, imprison you if you protest and suppress any mention of it on social media or in the press. Of course a business can get a lot done in that environment, is that really something to aspire to?

Some level of permitting reform is warranted but I would think hard about whether you want to adopt China's policies.

[thereisnospork]

>Some level of permitting reform is warranted but I would think hard about whether you want to adopt China's policies.

Given the current geopolitical trajectories we are going to be adopting their policies one way or another.

[dalyons]

china is a single party state. they can order whatever plants they want and they'll get built - regardless of how much they cost, regardless of if the power is economically competitive, with no need for insurance (the state will clean anything up if it comes to that), and with no need to factor in disposal or decommissioning costs. They can do all this and need not worry if the math pencils out long term, or if the bet was wrong vs renewables. They cant get voted out. Yes their buildout is impressive, but its just not a comparable situation in any way to the mostly free market driven west.

Similarly the US navy does not have to produce commercially viable nuclear power on an all in cost basis. Different goals, different situation.

[simplyluke]

South Korea produces power plants at almost exactly the same cost and is not a single party command economy as far as I know.

[dalyons]

not single party, but the nukes are all majority owned by the state. Which tends to obscure real costs, as there are no insurance, cleanup, and capex loan interest costs. All covered by the state. Which are some of the biggest costs that make private nukes untenable in the west.

State owned NPPs could work like this elsewhere, i just dont see it happening politically. Outside of maybe france or some other euro countries that still believe in state owned industries. The rest of the west is too deep in the "free market and private industry will solve everything" rabbithole.