Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
To make an an HN-relevant analogy: The FDA-hobbling of 23andMe pales in comparison to what it's like to work with  nuclear regulatory frameworks and societal concerns regarding nuclear science. When I was an undergrad, DOE was willing to <i>pay</i> the university the entire relicensing and operating costs of the on-campus TRIGA. The university declined, knowing that the requisite environmental impact study for relicensing would bring withering community backlash.<p>(For those who haven't seen one, here's what it looks like when the control rods are blown out of a TRIGA [1]; the reactor runs away momentarily, but then self-moderates when the fuel warms.  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orNP1wMmPK4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orNP1wMmPK4</a> . The Cherenkov flash is a beautiful blue.)<p>Nuclear power can provide a safe, well-studied, and effective bridge to solar power. Almost nobody's dabbling in it because there's so much societal opposition. Working on a reactor in an old schoolhouse in a rural area? Someone elsewhere in the county will be willing to speak at every county governmental meeting to shut you down. Their opposition has merit; it's easy to point to Fukushima and Chernobyl as major disasters.<p>A simple, clear, and publicly-understandable regulatory framework in which both society and innovators can feel comfortable with small-scale nuclear experimentation would go a long way toward driving new startups in the field. Experimenters shouldn't get their hopes up too far: Some forms of radiation are extremely penetrating/hard to shield, and some hazardous isotopes live a long, long time. If you're dabbling in the field, please plan from the beginning to minimize and safely store your waste.<p>We only get one planet; I'd rather it not be too warm nor contaminated by our litter.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA</a>