Here’s what T.A. Frank of the Washington Monthly reports about the notion that regulation is strangling nuclear power plants (bolding mine):
Next up, bad PR: I’ll take that on. As elucidator said in the Pit thread,
As a rule, big money does what it wants, unless it runs into a wall of opposition much more substantial than what we DFHs of the left can muster. Maybe we had the nuclear power industry on the run in 1980, but we haven’t had any industries on the run since Reagan’s re-election.
ETA: hit ‘submit’ too soon. I’ll finish the OP in a second post.
Then there’s the fear of lawsuits. That shouldn’t be a big deal, except if there’s another TMI-level catastrophe. If there’s a big enough risk of this that nobody will finance nuclear plants, that says the risk of such a catastrophe is too big, doesn’t it?
From the Washington Monthly link:
Doesn’t sound too good.
Frank’s claim is that the problem with nuclear is that it’s simply expensive:
So, what’s the story? Is government or us DFHs holding the nuclear industry back? Or is it simply a boondoggle that will forever take substantial government subsidies to operate? And if the latter, aren’t there better investments we could make that would help us live the way we want to live without exacerbating global warming?
I would say that each of the points you identified have a hand in hampering nuclear power. The bad P.R. portion stems from a lot of bad science and misinterpretations of the science itself. People just can’t seem to grasp the reality of the situation and create bat-crap insane reasons to be against it.
A bit off topic but it reminds me of when I was 16 and in high school and a classmate actually spoke against hydrogen powered cars because if said cars were involved in an accident they would actually turn into hydrogen bombs. The teacher said nothing to correct him (even agreed, IIRC) and most of the students seem fine with his conclusion. I was at a loss of words but it made me realize just how much bunk science people actually bought into.
I agree with what you say about people buying into junk science really easily.
My problem is with the step from there to the idea that big corporations are unwilling to step on the toes of people who believe absurd things about nuclear power. Not only do moneyed interests tend to do what they damned well please, but they can and routinely do hire people and spend tons of money to shape public opinion on a host of issues of concern to them.
Despite the WM’s generally strong track record, the lack of hard cites in this article bothered me, which is why I used it as the basis for questions about whether Frank was giving us the straight story.
I think it’s worth being the subject of debate because it’s in the Washington Monthly rather than the World Net Daily. But I’m not citing it as a definitive authority.
Only if you assume that risk of a TMI incident is the only factor driving lawsuits.
I believe part of what drives private investors away from nuclear power is that, the instant a new reactor is announced, the anti-nukes line up with their lawyers and take legal action against everything you do, everything they think you should have done but didn’t, everything you thought about doing, and everything you did but they want you to do again. And not with the idea of making the reactor safer - with the idea of stopping it altogether.
It’s rather like the ACLU and the death penalty. Even if the guy is guilty, they still want to stop the execution.
Witness the arguments about the casks on Yucca Mountain. They are made out of stainless steel, with walls six inches thick. They rammed them with a locomotive, they put them into a fire at a thousand degrees, they picked them up with a helicopter and dropped them onto a steel spike - the casks didn’t rupture.
Was that enough to satisfy Harry Reid? Of course not.
A certain proportion of the anti-nuke side doesn’t oppose nuclear power because it is unsafe. They say it is unsafe because they oppose it. If you satisfy them on one point, they go on to the next. If you satisfy them on that, they go on to another. If you satisfy every single solitary point, they go back to the beginning and start over again.
Nothing is blocking it ,except money. The plants cost billions and take a long time to construct. Then the energy is not competitive and needs government to help finance and insure.
Offshore drilling is perfectly safe. regulation is forcing the oil companies to waste money on useless and redundant safety. The companies should be allowed to police themselves. The company knows best.
A month ago that argument would have been offered by many. Just substitute nuke for oil and you get the same discussion.
You can not have too much regulation . The battle is pushed by big industry that wants to cut regulation and red tape. They are interested in profit and will push politicians to gut regulation and give them access to tax money. It would be rash to let them have free reign. Hell ,even the Bush admin didn’t push nuke plants. It took Obama to suggest we build some.
Well sure. But when companies have to shape public opinion, that’s another cost in the cost-benefit ledger. And we’ve been getting well over 30 years of anti-nuclear power messages. That would take billions in PR campaigns to overcome. And it’s not like you can convince everybody, with any PR campaign. And if it doesn’t work, then they lose all that money for nothing. Right now, nuke power could be profitable…but it’s incredibly risky.
As I understand it, nuclear power was having problems before TMI, with utilities canceling projects mostly because they’re too expensive and always run into delays and cost overruns. It appears that environmentalists just happened to get lucky that Wall Street wasn’t a big friend of nuke energy either.
Environmentalists, whatever that term even means these days, oppose lots of things including oil and coal but all their complaining, campaigning and lawsuits haven’t crippled those industries.
I don’t agree that we have had a couple generations of anti nuke propaganda . It is the opposite. Like this board clearly demonstrates the public mind is pro nuke. That did not happen in a vacuum. It has been pushed as completely safe for a long time.
It is just crappy and dangerous technology with unsolvable problems. We should put real effort into solar and wind like the Chinese are. Whoever perfects clean energy will rule the economy of the future. Nuke is not economical.
Here in MO AmerenUE submitted a request for a second nuclear plant at Callaway, but canceled the project when the voters didn’t approve a measure that would have allowed Ameren to charge higher rates (due to construction costs) before the plant was operational (thus putting all of the construction cost and delay risk on the consumer).
Let’s just say that “too cheap to meter” never really happened.
To put down a plant, you have to be pretty certain that it will go forward to completion. If you sink a few tens of millions of dollars into it just to have NIMBYist lawsuits get told that you can’t build it or you can’t go live for 20 years rather than the 4-5 years it takes to do the construction, then you’re out tens of millions of dollars or more. With a higher initial cost and a higher chance of something (be it the government or courts) delaying or canceling the project, it’s pretty hard to find people willing to invest those sorts of bucks.
“Tens of millions” is probably pretty short - the Callaway 2 plant (on an existing site with pretty much an existing design) was slated to cost $6 billion.
The basic fact is that the huge start-up capital costs of nuclear make it unattractive without substantial subsidies (either from the government or consumers) because it takes 50-60 years before the cost savings (through reduced fuel costs) make up for it. If we put a tax on carbon this analysis will probably change, of course.
It’s not just that you have to complete the project, once it’s complete it has to produce profitable energy. Nuclear electricity couldn’t compete well with coal and oil and natural gas and it’s impossible to foresee what future energy prices will be. Who wants to invest billions in something that won’t see any profit for decades? If ever?
For years there was a big cooling tower you drove by on I-5 between Seattle and Portland that was a power station that never came on line. They finally demolished the thing a few years ago. There’s still one standing near Aberdeen (IIRC) that they turned into an office development.