>>/155390/,  >>/155391/,  >>/155392/,  >>/155393/,  >>/155394/,  >>/155395/,  >>/155396/,  >>/155397/,  >>/155398/,  >>/155399/,  >>/155400/,  >>/155401/,  >>/155402/,  >>/155403/,  >>/155404/
Specifically, NRC needs to establish an “adequate risk” floor for regulatory intervention, using the Clean Air Act’s (CAA’s) scientifically grounded thresholds as a model.
The CAA establishes cancer risk thresholds, for both chemical and radiological exposures, below which are not of regulatory concern. Apples-to-apples comparisons to radiological and non-radiological exposures can be made, as cancer risks can be calculated for both.  But unlike the EPA, the NRC ignores the cancer risk thresholds defined in the CAA.
Instead, the NRC arbitrarily applies the same regulatory regime for all reactors, regardless of size, design or radioactive inventory (i.e., regardless of potential hazard). The same regulatory requirements, procedures and (uniquely strict) QA standards apply, even for meltdown-poof reactors that contain very small amounts of radioactive material. As a result:
“..the NRC imposes unnecessary burdens on developers, suppresses innovation, and delays the deployment of safer, smaller, and more advanced reactors.”
If the regulatory requirements don’t change, i.e., if no credit is given for inherently smaller potential hazards, compliance costs will be largely fixed, and will thus impose high per kW-hr costs on smaller reactors.
Many argue that SMRs will always be more expensive than large reactors, because economy of scale is the primary factor that governs per kW-hr cost. There are some factors in SMRs’ favor, such as mass production, broader supply changes and lower financial risks. But the main thing in their favor is, or should be, reduced regulatory burdens, requirements and standards (while remaining as safe or safer than large reactors).
I view regulatory requirements and QA standards to be the largest cost factor of all. Thus, reducing such burdens for small reactors, as appropriate, could more than offset economy of scale. But under NRC’s current policies, this will not be allowed to happen.
To put it bluntly. SMRs are not “stupid”. The regulations are stupid!  If SMRs don’t pan out, for bulk power generation, this will be the reason.
BTW, there is also an arbitrary double standard associated with post-nuclear-accident measures (e.g., Fukushima) vs. other types of pollution. As shown in a 2nd reply, areas around Fukushima that had health risks that are far smaller than those of living in a large city (urban air pollution, etc..) were declared “uninhabitable” and evacuated for over a decade! No areas around Fukushima were ever as unhealthy a place to live than most world cities. I wonder if the BTI’s recommended NRC policy changes would put a stop to such things.
https://x.com/HopfJames/status/1937533225540419998
 
James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII - My message to a dirty fed: You got sloppy, @KyleSeraphin. You published my private texts, and litigation is revealing your source on the Board of Directors. It’s unlawful, torturous behavior to expose what happens in the bedroom. But you got prideful. You let your obsession with me get in the way of practicing good OPSEC. You’re not above the law, fed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we’ll watch all of you scatter.
https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1937582674429739083

Jason Cohen @JasonJournoDC - NEW: Charlamagne to Brad Lander (Dem NYC Mayoral Candidate who got arrested by ICE): 
"I feel like a lot of that sh*t y'all do is performative. Like, I'm watching, like, a lot of these, you know, Democrats get arrested by ICE. It's just like, all right, find something else to do. Like, I feel like y'all just doing it for the attention."
@DailyCaller
https://x.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1937576414519107858

Jason Whitlock @WhitlockJason - Are the videos of low turnout at the Thunder parade real? Have they already had the victory parade?
https://x.com/WhitlockJason/status/1937666978702925943
 16