De-regulating nuclear power is dumb, dangerous, and expensive

[OrphanSlug]

It takes a special kind of dumb to agree that de-regulating nuclear power is wise.

 

[Gordy327]

Fusion has been 10 years away since the 70's.

Unfortunately. But we've gotten a little closer. What we really need is matter/antimatter reactors. Best bang for the proverbial buck.

 

[Gordy327]

It takes a special kind of dumb to agree that de-regulating nuclear power is wise.

Well, we do have a special kind of dumb for an administration. And here we are.

 

[longview]

It takes a special kind of dumb to agree that de-regulating nuclear power is wise.

So of it depends on the purpose of the regulations in the first place.
Are the existing regulations based in science, or were they politically driven?

 

[Hamish Howl]

President Donald Trump signed four executive orders on May 23, 2025 that violate the Atomic Energy Act and effectively terminate the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its ability to protect the public health and safety in the operation of commercial nuclear facilities. The orders reject settled science on the public health impacts of radiation.

One order will slash the NRC’s staff and subjugate the agency to White House approval of its regulations and licensing decisions. Other orders direct the military and Department of Energy to build commercial nuclear power plants without NRC regulation and oversight.

This will end well for everyone.

 

[Hamish Howl]

So of it depends on the purpose of the regulations in the first place.
Are the existing regulations based in science, or were they politically driven?

I invite you to look at Chernobyl and Fukashima and tell me how extensive engineering regulations are not necessary.

Fukashima is the best one. They had the expended/spare rods on pools on the roof, and the backup generators on the ground. Mind you, the ONLY threat they faced was Tsunami. If they had the generators on the roof, they wouldn't have lost control of the plant. If the rods were on the ground, they would have been deluged with cold sea water for the duration of the emergency.

Chernobyl was caused in large part by the slipshod idea of welding stainless to zirconium, and encasing the coolant lines in a concrete block rather than individually supporting them.

Details matter. Regulations matter.

 

[longview]

I invite you to look at Chernobyl and Fukashima and tell me how extensive engineering regulations are not necessary.

Fukashima is the best one. They had the expended/spare rods on pools on the roof, and the backup generators on the ground. Mind you, the ONLY threat they faced was Tsunami. If they had the generators on the roof, they wouldn't have lost control of the plant. If the rods were on the ground, they would have been deluged with cold sea water for the duration of the emergency.

Chernobyl was caused in large part by the slipshod idea of welding stainless to zirconium, and encasing the coolant lines in a concrete block rather than individually supporting them.

Details matter. Regulations matter.

Details do matter! Do you have any idea if the regulations proposed to be limited have any bearing on public safety?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Details do matter! Do you have any idea if the regulations proposed to be limited have any bearing on public safety?

Do you imagine that NRC regulations are just dreamed up by a couple of coked up frat boys for kicks?

Find me one (1) NRC regulation that doesn't make sense. I'll wait.

 

[longview]

Do you imagine that NRC regulations are just dreamed up by a couple of coked up frat boys for kicks?

Find me one (1) NRC regulation that doesn't make sense. I'll wait.

No I think the regulations accumulated over time, with many likely having more to do with the public’s fear of nuclear energy.
Did you know the original name MRI was NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance? They changed the name because of public fear.

 

[Hamish Howl]

No I think the regulations accumulated over time, with many likely having more to do with the public’s fear of nuclear energy.
Did you know the original name MRI was NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance? They changed the name because of public fear.

Okay, I'll buy that, if you can find a single regulation based on Luddites like Greenpeace rather than engineering.

 

[uptower]

Most of what this admin does is.

Dumb, dangerous and expensive should get Trump's campaign slogan.

He'd probably keep most of his following too.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Those EO's are a necessary step for the creation of Small Modular Reactors (SMR). In fact, Trump was very clear that his push for new reactors is NOT about the behemoth reactors of the past. Instead, it's about small reactors that focus on critical infrastructure and national security systems.

​

POWERING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS: President Trump recognizes the need to power and operate critical defense facilities and computing infrastructure for AI capabilities.​

• Military installations, including those in locations that are not well-served by other types of power due to complex supply chains required to reach them, require uninterruptible, dispatchable, high-density power of the type that advanced nuclear reactors can provide because of their unique size and generation capabilities. This is critical for readiness and national security.
• The Federal Government’s advanced computing AI infrastructure will require a substantial increase in scalable power solutions, which advanced nuclear reactors are well-positioned to provide. This will ensure our technological supremacy in the emerging technologies of both AI and nuclear power.
• By empowering the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to expand utilization of advanced nuclear power and instructing each to reduce regulatory red tape hampering use of nuclear power at their sites, this Order enhances our national security and reduces reliance on foreign sources of energy for our military and AI operations.
• 87% of new reactor builds worldwide are based on foreign designs, and the majority of the world’s nuclear fuel comes from foreign sources. By instructing the Department of State and other agencies to aggressively pursue export opportunities, this Order will strengthen our relationships with our allies and disrupt potential industry control by adversaries.

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Deploys Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security

DEPLOYING NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to rapidly deploy advanced nuclear

www.whitehouse.gov

SMR's are a viable alternative to the massive reactors of the past for providing power to localized areas like cities and towns. They would also provide safety for the national power grid. When these small reactors are taken out of service for maintenance and such, the power grid isn't crippled in the way it is if the grid depends upon large reactors.

What Are SMRs: What Small Modular Reactors Are And Why They Matter

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are factory-built nuclear fission reactors designed for scalable deployment.

climateinsider.com

Hi Mycroft.

The nuclear reactors are not the issue. As a matter of fact, I agree that SMRs should be pushed. But not at the expense of safety.

So what is the issue? Trump of course. He claims he wants to do something good and he thinks he needs to do that be de-regulation. That is a typical recipe for disaster. Combine this with Trumps track-record of lying and the chances are that you not get what you voted for.

Let's put it this way. If an SMR is places near me I would not have objected. Knowing that it has been pushed through by Trump means I would not want this reactor anywhere near my house. Preferably they should build it right under the white house. If that works, I'll believe it's safe.

Joey

 

[Ikari]

Nuclear power is far safer, cleaner, and more efficient than fossil fuel power plants. Strong regulations helps keep it that way too. If regulations are weakened, we shouldn't be surprised if something bad happens.

I do think we should be pushing more for nuclear power, it is a superior form of power generation. But yes, these regulatory institutions and structures are necessary in the system. I can't believe that Trump would be so ****ing stupid as to try to do away with it.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Nobody yet has been able to make a functioning thorium reactor for power. You are whining about nothing.

Hi Planar,

That is not entirely true.

From 1965 to 1969 the US ran the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) in Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It's operated at full power for about 1 year. Initially they ran the reactor on U-235. Later they ran the reactor on U-233 from Thorium. The MSRE successfully demonstrated the feasibility of molten salt reactors, including operation with uranium-233 bred from thorium, but the program was discontinued largely due to shifting political and military priorities. It did not produce Plutonium and was therefore not of interest to the government any longer.

And since 2 months now, China is operating a Thorium reactor. It's the first, and it's experimental of course. But it is running and it is refuelling in-situ. Or whatever you wanna call that. The result is that they can refuel without shutting down. They need U-233, and they make that in-situ from Thorium. And it is also a molten salt reactor.

Molten salt can also be used for conventional reactors and would offer a much higher efficiency rate because of the extreme temperatures of molten Sodium.

Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Trump probably supports the Biden-Harris-Newsome scheme to subsidize PG&E's Diablo Canyon with billions of taxpayer dollars - plus Power Charge Indifference Assessment increases to consumer rates.

I wonder if Joe understands the radiological embrittlement, due to metallurgical design flaws in the Unit 1 reactor vessel, that risks millions of people.

Hi Volunteer,

You make a lot of wild statements. There is something to most of what you say. Though much is sensationalized and exaggerated.

Radiological embrittlement. All reactor vessels suffer from this. And this is periodically verified and checked and measured in a very stringent regime of tests. If the NRC says it is safe, I think you should trust them. And if you know something they do not know, than you should share that with them. And us of course, but that's besides the point. lol.

You talk about safety. Have you done any research on safety at all? Nuclear is far safer than Coal, Oil, Gas and Biomass. Like 100-500 times safer. So you are right it is dangerous, but you need context...

You also make claims on nuclear waste. This one stands. But you still need context. You are sensationalizing it. Their were indeed major problems with nuclear waste. Many of these issues have been solved. Namely the volume. Turns out, if you throw the waste back into the reactor, the waste produces more energy and less waste. So you have less volume of waste and the 'half time' of the waste has been drastically lowered as well. So your claim is exaggerated and therefore misleading.

I haven't finished reading all your posts yet. Should I continue?


Joey

 

[JoeyJoystick]

The Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR) have some inherent safety features, if the reaction overheats,
the liquid salt melts a safety plug and the liquid causing the reaction flows out, stopping the reaction.
I suspect there are still many details to work out, but China has a small one working.

Hi Longview,

I just wrote about that as well. And I give them credit for that. Well done to China.

But...

China seriously struggles to make quality. I do not mean toys or electronics. I mean the very basics. They struggle to make high quality specialty steels consistently. And now they did not just design a new reactor. They let it run on a molten salt at about 650 degrees Celsius. This salt is so corrosive that the salt has to be produced extremely accurately to not further increase corrosion... Both contamination and ratios are very accurately monitored. This implies the sensitivity of the steel used for the reactor.

I hope it works and goes well. It's a good lesson for all. I worry though... I not worry it will blow up tomorrow. But I do worry that this is what will happen in time. Or worse, the issue is not found and then reproduced in other reactors where it does go wrong...

And the second reactor is coming online in just a few years I heard.


Joey

 

[Uncensored2008]

btw, the US Navy has used small reactors in ships for decades. I asked Copilot about their safety.

have there ever been nuclear reactor accidents on us naval ships​

​

No, the U.S. Navy has never experienced a nuclear reactor accident that resulted in harm to human health or the environment. U.S. nuclear-powered warships have operated safely for over 50 years, accumulating more than 134 million miles of travel on nuclear power and over 5,700 reactor-years of safe operation​

Yeah, but there is no opportunity for green scams with nuclear energy.

democrats are concerned with what's truly important.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I do think we should be pushing more for nuclear power, it is a superior form of power generation. But yes, these regulatory institutions and structures are necessary in the system. I can't believe that Trump would be so ****ing stupid as to try to do away with it.

LOL

The left has zero integrity - zero.

Trump is not pushing to do away with regulation - and you know it. But you need to attack the enemy of the hive - regardless of the subject.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Planar,

That is not entirely true.

From 1965 to 1969 the US ran the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) in Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It's operated at full power for about 1 year. Initially they ran the reactor on U-235. Later they ran the reactor on U-233 from Thorium. The MSRE successfully demonstrated the feasibility of molten salt reactors, including operation with uranium-233 bred from thorium, but the program was discontinued largely due to shifting political and military priorities. It did not produce Plutonium and was therefore not of interest to the government any longer.

And since 2 months now, China is operating a Thorium reactor. It's the first, and it's experimental of course. But it is running and it is refuelling in-situ. Or whatever you wanna call that. The result is that they can refuel without shutting down. They need U-233, and they make that in-situ from Thorium. And it is also a molten salt reactor.

Molten salt can also be used for conventional reactors and would offer a much higher efficiency rate because of the extreme temperatures of molten Sodium.

Joey

I am speaking on one that can be scaled to produce usable power.

Many things can be prototype to a working size, but to then expand the capacity a thousand-fold can be very hard at times, and sometimes impossible.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I will believe it when I see it. they have done what? 20 megawatts.... I will believe it when i see them scale it to the usable values or 500 megawatts and higher.

BTW... they are using a high content of highly enriched uranium, U235 for their process. The Thorium reactors that are desired use no U235.

What's in a name...

Hi Planar,

The way I know the process is as follows.

Your fuel Thorium-232 (Th-232) is mixed with Uranium-233 (U-233). This is only done one time for start-up. This is your fuel. After this initial load, only Th-232 is added. The U-233 converts the Th-232 into U-233 while it is undergoing its sustained reaction in the reactor.

There is no U-235 involved as far as I know. It is possible to use U-235 for start-up, but that undermines one of the major advantages of Th-232; low risk of proliferation. When using Th-232 and using U-233 for start-up you have a relatively safe system that can not be used for making nuclear weapons. Some U-232 is produced which could be used for weapons, but it is extremely difficult and very dangerous and is therefore considered 'Safe'.

De start-up fuel can be slowly replaced in time by Thorium.

Similarly, you can also start-up the reactor with plutonium. This is dumb for proliferation, but for a country that already has nuclear weapons, it offers a simple way to dispose of old Plutonium. So Pu-239 is also used as a start-up fuel in thorium reactors. And this has been done before. There were a few reactors running on Thorium. But they were all mixing their thorium with uranium or plutonium. Only the experimental reactor in oak ridge was a molten salt reactor.


Joey

 

[Uncensored2008]

It takes a special kind of dumb to agree that de-regulating nuclear power is wise.

It takes a mindless drone to think Trump deregulated nuclear power.

But go ahead and go down to Walmart and try to buy some plutonium...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm for expanding nuclear power, but it needs to be well regulated.

Can one of the comrades post exactly what was "deregulated?"

It's not that I don't believe the rantings of the fringe left - actually that's exactly it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hi Planar,

The way I know the process is as follows.

Your fuel Thorium-232 (Th-232) is mixed with Uranium-233 (U-233). This is only done one time for start-up. This is your fuel. After this initial load, only Th-232 is added. The U-233 converts the Th-232 into U-233 while it is undergoing its sustained reaction in the reactor.

There is no U-235 involved as far as I know. It is possible to use U-235 for start-up, but that undermines one of the major advantages of Th-232; low risk of proliferation. When using Th-232 and using U-233 for start-up you have a relatively safe system that can not be used for making nuclear weapons. Some U-232 is produced which could be used for weapons, but it is extremely difficult and very dangerous and is therefore considered 'Safe'.

De start-up fuel can be slowly replaced in time by Thorium.

Similarly, you can also start-up the reactor with plutonium. This is dumb for proliferation, but for a country that already has nuclear weapons, it offers a simple way to dispose of old Plutonium. So Pu-239 is also used as a start-up fuel in thorium reactors. And this has been done before. There were a few reactors running on Thorium. But they were all mixing their thorium with uranium or plutonium. Only the experimental reactor in oak ridge was a molten salt reactor.


Joey

Can you show us a link where a working thorium reactor is supply commercial power?

I have looked, and never found one.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I am speaking on one that can be scaled to produce usable power.

Many things can be prototype to a working size, but to then expand the capacity a thousand-fold can be very hard at times, and sometimes impossible.

Hi Planar,

That is true of course, but that was not the case here. It worked like a charm. It was not rejected because it could not be scaled up, but only because it did not produce Pu-239.

But it is challenging. Extreme engineering always is. They'll get there eventually. Personally, I see this realized at full scale well before the first fusion reactor. And that's what we really want of course.


Joey

 

[Lord of Planar]

China has successfully developed a 2 megawatt experimental reactor, and plans to attempt a commercial size in about another five years.

To my knowledge, a commercial size, operational thorium reactor has never been made.