The author seems to imply, as if it were generally understood and accepted, that the reason nuclear reactors are heavily regulated is because they produce a lot of energy.
Perhaps that's a component, but one really doesn't need to think about it too hard to identify better explanations for why this particular energy source is held to unusually high regulatory standards.
I don't have an opinion as to whether other large-scale sources of energy should be held to similar standards, but to suggest that solar energy's failure modes are comparable to nuclear energy seems intentionally misleading.
> In the Netherlands alone, these solar panels generate a power output equivalent to at least 25 medium sized nuclear power plants.
> Because everything runs through the manufacturer, they are able to turn all panels on and off. Or install software on the inverters so that the wrong current flows into the grid. Now, a manufacturer won’t do this intentionally, but it is easy enough to mess this up.
> As an interim step, we might need to demand that control panels stick to providing pretty graphs, and make it impossible to remotely switch panels/loaders/batteries on or off.
Basically, if a hacker were to make all batteries (or panels) suddenly switch between full discharge and full charge every second or so, it would tear down the electric grid. Voltage and frequency would swing rapidly, and whatever plants are riding load would struggle.
This could create a massive power outage; but there is a huge risk that this could damage power plants and other infrastructure.
Perhaps that's a component, but one really doesn't need to think about it too hard to identify better explanations for why this particular energy source is held to unusually high regulatory standards.
I don't have an opinion as to whether other large-scale sources of energy should be held to similar standards, but to suggest that solar energy's failure modes are comparable to nuclear energy seems intentionally misleading.