4 ms·

And in particular, Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and crystallized a lot of US opposition to nuclear power. One of the problems it exposed is a too-friendl

And in particular, Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and crystallized a lot of US opposition to nuclear power. One of the problems it exposed is a too-friendly connection between the NRC and the nuclear power industry. According to a recent book [1], this problem still exists. [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/237 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/237

js2 7y ago
I saw The China Syndrome as a kid and let’s just say I still think about it sometimes, living six miles from a Westinghouse PWR.
jandrese 7y ago
At the same time the NRC is too cozy with the industry it has kept all nuclear projects in the US tied up in red tape for literally decades.
- bjourne 7y ago
  Citation needed! From what I've read the US government has been incredibly supportive of the nuclear industry. For example, both Obama and Trump have secured federal funding for the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants. US public opinion has also been heavily in favor of nuclear power, even after Fukushima. The "red tape is causing all our problems!" seem, to me, to be just a myth spread by the nuclear lobby. https://news.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-power-year-fukushima.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-...
  - loeg 7y ago
    > US public opinion has also been heavily in favor of nuclear power, even after Fukushima. Can you source that claim? My personal experience is that people I encounter in the US are pretty nuclear-hostile, but that's just anecdotal.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    If everybody is so supportive and the regulatory picture is so rosy why is there a 20 year gap from 1996 to 2016 in the construction of nuclear plants? Even then the 2016 plant is an expansion of an existing plant. Not to mention the ones that were started but never finished construction like the Virgil C. Summer plants.
    - bjourne 7y ago
      Why not mention that cancelled plant? Construction started in 2013 but it became to expensive so the contractors abandoned the project. Why there was a 17 year gap, I don't know. Big cost overruns and time delays plagued nuclear construction projects in the 80's. So perhaps the gap was because that is how long it took politicians to forget the previous decades failures and give the nuclear lobby another chance?
- mturmon 7y ago
  An extended quote from the book review I cited: Although [former NRC commissioner] Jaczko's account will become standard reading as an antinuclear book, his reasons have more to do with regulation than nuclear energy per se. Jaczko sees two paths ahead. One has a sustainable future with nuclear reactors that includes widespread recognition that accidents will happen and a greater commitment to safety. The other path is the one he witnessed as NRC chairman, featuring waning public trust in a secretive, uncooperative industry that regards safety regulations as unfair and cumbersome. The problem that plagued the old Atomic Energy Commission [the predecessor agency to the NRC] — that the promoters and regulators were too cozy with each other — is clearly alive and well. Jaczko describes the relationship as a “corrupt, toxic environment.” It may be a hard warning to hear, but it comes from one who had a fuller view of the nuclear regulatory landscape than most.

js2 7y ago

I saw The China Syndrome as a kid and let’s just say I still think about it sometimes, living six miles from a Westinghouse PWR.

jandrese 7y ago

At the same time the NRC is too cozy with the industry it has kept all nuclear projects in the US tied up in red tape for literally decades.

bjourne 7y ago
Citation needed! From what I've read the US government has been incredibly supportive of the nuclear industry. For example, both Obama and Trump have secured federal funding for the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants. US public opinion has also been heavily in favor of nuclear power, even after Fukushima. The "red tape is causing all our problems!" seem, to me, to be just a myth spread by the nuclear lobby. https://news.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-power-year-fukushima.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-...
- loeg 7y ago
  > US public opinion has also been heavily in favor of nuclear power, even after Fukushima. Can you source that claim? My personal experience is that people I encounter in the US are pretty nuclear-hostile, but that's just anecdotal.
- jandrese 7y ago
  If everybody is so supportive and the regulatory picture is so rosy why is there a 20 year gap from 1996 to 2016 in the construction of nuclear plants? Even then the 2016 plant is an expansion of an existing plant. Not to mention the ones that were started but never finished construction like the Virgil C. Summer plants.
  - bjourne 7y ago
    Why not mention that cancelled plant? Construction started in 2013 but it became to expensive so the contractors abandoned the project. Why there was a 17 year gap, I don't know. Big cost overruns and time delays plagued nuclear construction projects in the 80's. So perhaps the gap was because that is how long it took politicians to forget the previous decades failures and give the nuclear lobby another chance?
mturmon 7y ago
An extended quote from the book review I cited: Although [former NRC commissioner] Jaczko's account will become standard reading as an antinuclear book, his reasons have more to do with regulation than nuclear energy per se. Jaczko sees two paths ahead. One has a sustainable future with nuclear reactors that includes widespread recognition that accidents will happen and a greater commitment to safety. The other path is the one he witnessed as NRC chairman, featuring waning public trust in a secretive, uncooperative industry that regards safety regulations as unfair and cumbersome. The problem that plagued the old Atomic Energy Commission [the predecessor agency to the NRC] — that the promoters and regulators were too cozy with each other — is clearly alive and well. Jaczko describes the relationship as a “corrupt, toxic environment.” It may be a hard warning to hear, but it comes from one who had a fuller view of the nuclear regulatory landscape than most.