Nuclear energy dying in the US due to increased regulations?

File: 20130601_USC718.png (44KB, 290x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 290x480px

>>8495921
>People say it's due to increased regulations which increases the cost of building new plants.

>Is this true?

No.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578690-thanks-cheap-natural-gas-americas-nuclear-renaissance-hold-fracked

>>8495953
It's not lack of money or profitability that stalled or withdrew those applications
It's the years passing by without getting an approval, hundreds of millions spent on EACH APPLICATION without a spec of real work done on actually building the power plant.

And of course almost all the cost is regulation too

>>8495988
You can't blame them from trying to play safe. Nuclear Liability is a huge issue.

Fukushima cost $40B and rising. That kind of liability demands high amount of regulation.

This isn't that true, they just opened a new nuclear power plant a few weeks / months ago, I don't remember where it is though.

>>8497612
Watts Bar in Tennessee is a plant from 1976 they never completed.

A few AP1000s are coming up in Georgia and South Carolina in a few years.

Those could very well be the last commercial reactors in America for quite some time.

>>8495921
Nuclear power is retarded

>>8497625
I bet you hate the sun too faggot.

>>8497634
Nuclear plant 93 million miles away, with no waste storing problems - fine with that.

>>8497644
>implying man made nuclear power plants have waste storage problems