7 Comments

Why don’t you run a quick poll among your readers on the subjects? I am sure you will find close to 100% support for nuclear power and a way lower percentage supporting uncontrolled immigration. Are we all irrational? Don’t think so at all.

Expand full comment

yes you are all wrong

Expand full comment

The question of immigration seems more complicated than that of nuclear power. There is persuasive evidence from Nordic countries (specifically, Denmark) that immigration from Middle East and North and sub-Saharan Africa has a net negative effect on public finances across the whole lifetime of the immigrants. Therefore at least in these countries numerate and scientifically literate people would have reason to oppose immigration from these parts of the world.

Expand full comment

Kinda.

Nuclear makes sense when the scale is applicable. Small loads less than 500MW aren't viable.

Immigration makes sense when its discriminate. Importing masses of culturally incompatible people or the unproductive is always a net negative.

Expand full comment

This is just dumb. It costs about $10,000 kw in overnight costs to build nuclear in the US. It costs about $775 to build equivalent gas. Construction is also high risk, withb enormous construction overruns and delays. And I am pro nuke.

PS. The NRC just closed its comments period on a whole series of clearly positive regulatory shifts. More is needed, but just shouting about regulation is absurd: no one wants an under regulated nuclear reactor in their backyard.

Expand full comment

No, Bryan is correct. The reason nuclear is expensive here is overregulation. High cost is not inherent to nuclear as proven by the US's earlier experience and the experience of South Korea and others.

"Underregulated" is absurd. Reducing vast overregulation is not underregulation. Every time nuclear gets safer, the NRC raises the standards, ensuring that it never gets cheaper.

Expand full comment

Overnight costs?

Expand full comment