If it's really the case that the only way to make nuclear viable is to deregulate the industry, then Bernie is absolutely right that we need to end reliance on nuclear power.
Even when deregulation things like airplanes, logistics and lots and lots of other industry has been very beneficial.
I don't think people even realize to what absurd extend the anti-nuclear movement had managed to attack nuclear energy. To the point where it is basically impossible to build any kind of new reactor in the US.
There are only two types of regulation, for extremely tiny research reactors that are whole unsuited for researching actual power reactors. Or full deployment ready reactors that meet all the regulation of a current reactor.
Now the current regulation says that you need to have a way to cool steam. Well, a sodium or molten salt reactor (or lots of others) simply don't have steam that can be cooled. Meaning that LOTS of technical requirements that are only valid for one specific type of reactor and a specific way of building that reactor is valid at all.
Now we can argue over the expect right regulation needed to run a nuclear plant but arguing that 'deregulation' as a concept is so horrible that its worth trying to destroy the biggest source of carbon free energy is beyond dogmatic and wholly irrational.
Its simply outright refusing to deal with the problems of the nuclear industry based on principle rather then actually trying to evaluate the real problems with the current set of regulations (that are widely acknowledged by people from the industry and even within the government itself).
Furthermore, the Trump administration is already deregulating the nuclear industry, so you're getting your wish.
But the amount of regulation interceded was in no relation to the accident that actually happened. But rather the accident gave the political momentum to the anti-nuclear people to essentially make further development of nuclear impossible.
You are just engaging in binary logic, while I try to point out real problems with the current system that need to be addressed on a lot of levels, from development, to building, to licensing and so on
The reality is that you have no interest in even engaging in the actual problems with the current system in order to present some binary choice that you can force on people. Its simply the same old fear tactics, don't engage with the actual subject matter, demonize based on principle.
> Furthermore, the Trump administration is already deregulating the nuclear industry, so you're getting your wish.
No they are not actually. And some general 'deregulation' is not my goal.
I would be willing to bet that it will be dramatically cheaper than $10T "deals" floated so far. Shit, getting fusion to work with net energy gain will likely cost less than $1T all in all (although it'll take time).
If done properly, we could finally end up with electricity that's "too cheap to meter", and massively reduce the need for coal, oil, and gas, all without having to hobble the entire domestic industries and force them to burn coal in China instead.
It's not: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Russias-BN-800-unit-ent...
I agree with you on fusion. But as a stop gap, thorium and 4th gen nuclear sound awesome to me.