this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
597 points (97.6% liked)

World News

32349 readers
417 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not about reducing safety, it's about reducing regulations that are about the appearance of safety, it's about not imposing decommissioning costs as part of construction.

The US Navy has been able to consistently and safely build and run reactors for 50 years. It's basically just fear preventing that knowledge and experience from being used in the commercial sector.

[โ€“] Arcturus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

The US Navy isn't concerned about making their fleets commercially viable. Taxpayers expect to subsidise defence, and for the US, this is done at vast cost. They don't expect to constantly be funding an expensive, loss-making powerplant. Not when alternatives are cheaper and more effective.