What's the hold up with New Safer Nuclear Reactors? The N.R.C. (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

Me, "This is an interesting article to read. It's about way too much bureaucracy, standing in the way of safer nuclear power plants that do not use water as coolant, and have passive safety technology; basic speak for it won't blow up if the power stops suddenly. It would also cut down dramatically on Nuclear Waste. The whole problem with commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. is the fact that it relies on early Nuclear Submarine Technology that uses water as a coolant. Since submarines were already operating for years in the ocean using water to cool its reactor It made sense, from a commercial point of view, to just add this proven technology to the U.S. power grid.
The problem is they are not as safe as new non-water cooled reactor designs have shown. And, the reason that these new reactors can't even get a license to build, let alone operate, is because the NRC is basically broken. It does not work the way it should. It shouldn't take 5-10-15 years to get a license. It should take 1-2 at the most. By the time a company gets a license they have decided not to proceed. The NRC is not up to the challenge of producing nuclear reactor licenses, and should either be scrapped, and rebuilt as a new organization, with the top minds that can do the work, or we should just expect the fact that there will be no new reactors built.
Eventually, U.S. superiority in nuclear energy will fade as a fad; an interesting experiment that other countries have superiors skills in, killed by regulations and people who do not have the skills to do the required work."



From article, "NRC Vision And Strategy For Licensing Advanced Reactors Needs Improvement"

(The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published its vision and strategy for preparing to review applications for permission to begin building reactors that do not use light water as the coolant.

[But!]

The NRC has a long history of claiming to be ready to review advanced reactors. Its institutional history, however, also includes at least half a dozen advanced reactor reviews that began and proceeded part way to completion before being abandoned.

[Why?]

They have stated that the cost and schedule uncertainty for obtaining a license and resolving other long-unresolved regulatory issues like emergency planning boundaries, insurance requirements, annual fee structures and control room manning requirements played a major role in their decision to quit trying.

[Hence.]

Unfortunately, the NRC hasn't displayed any understanding of the near impossibility of producing a complete design and high-quality application without access to any published criteria or a proven process of efficiently communicating the application requirements.

Not surprisingly, none of the 50 companies that are working on advanced reactors in the U.S. have announced any plans to apply to the NRC for permission to build their designs in the U.S.

The best hope for a change in that situation would be a clear declaration by the federal government that the widespread use of advanced nuclear energy systems is vital for protecting public health and safety, contributing to common defense and security of the United States and protecting the environment.

With that declaration, the NRC would be required by its existing mission statement to produce a more workable plan to review and approve advanced nuclear power systems. The people on the staff at the NRC are fully capable of completing that task as long as they are told that they can stop being agnostic about whether or not nuclear technology succeeds.

Policy makers who are interested in ensuring that American reactor developers have the opportunity to lead in the nascent – but potentially very lucrative field – of advanced nuclear reactor technology development and manufacturing should demand improvements to the plan. Funding appropriators should follow through with support for an implementation process that enables a quicker, less tortuous path to initial deployment, especially for those designs that allow simpler, less costly approaches to protecting public health and safety.)

Just like Oil companies opened up Gas Stations it makes sense that Electric Companies would open up recharging stations for electric cars.

Me, "It's like the saying, 'what came first the chicken or the egg?' If you build electric cars where will they get their charges from? and if you don't build electric cars, then no charging stations will open up.
Just like Oil companies opened up Gas Stations for gasoline cars, to make profit, it makes sense that Electric Companies would open up recharging stations, for electric cars. The normal business of electric companies are to provide electricity for businesses and residential customers. With more and more electric cars coming on to the road, it only makes sense that electric companies would start providing the service of public charging stations. In fact public charging stations will become more and more prevalent.
The problem car buyers have with electric cars is range anxiety. They don't want to run out of power and have to call a tow truck. But with new electric cars like the Chevy Bolt and the Tesla cars, these fears are becoming irrelevant. You can drive your car 200+ miles and charge your car at home.
A lot of people feel well that should be enough. As anybody can tell you, for long trips, or apartment dwellers, who do not have access to electric charging for their cars, there needs to be public charging stations. Why?  These stations can charge cars as fast as a gasoline car and make the process of going on long trips feasible. There is still the problem of finding a charging station, but with Tesla and other electric companies opening up charging stations this problem should go away.
Now what needs to be tackled is the time of a charge. I have heard figures of new charging station charging an electric car in between 5 to 20 minutes but of course this depends on what your electric car is designed to do. So, is waiting for the third or fourth generation of the electric car needed? or, should you just buy what is on the market? This depends on how you want to use your electric car.
 It is amazing, though, how fast the technology has progressed. President Obama wanted a million cars on the road by the end of his presidency, which won't happen, but we are definitely on the path to the next phase of the electric car, affordability, and distance capable."


From article, "California's PG&E utility now offers $500 rebate for electric-car use"

(In certain states, electric utilities are getting into the business of installing and operating electric-car charging infrastructure.

They may build public charging stations, or work with other entities that operate them, but that's usually as far as their efforts to promote electric cars go.

...PG&E received approval last month from California regulators to install 7,500 electric-car charging stations within its area of operations.

The project, which has an estimated cost of $130 million, was designed in concert with stakeholders, including environmental groups and automakers.

MORE: Should Utility Customers Pay For Electric-Car Charging Stations They Don't Use? (Feb 2016)

It is one of three charging-infrastructure projects currently being undertaken by California utilities.

Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) are involved in similar projects, expected to yield a combined 5,000 new charging stations.)