5 ms·
I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. There's been tons of research into nuclear power, for example. Look at the generation IV reactor designs [1]. And there'
by AnIrishDuck 13y ago
I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. There's been tons of research into nuclear power, for example. Look at the generation IV reactor designs [1]. And there's been tons of interest and investment in cleaner electric power alternatives [2].
The examples you cite (coal plants staying open forever, water pipes, etc) are massive capital investments. That's the primary reason they've stayed open / haven't changed for so long, once you spend that much money you want to milk it for every penny it's worth.
Utility regulation is burdensome and costly, but I don't think it necessarily kills innovation in industry like you intimate.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
2. https://www.americaspower.org/our-commitment-clean-energy-future https://www.americaspower.org/our-commitment-clean-energy-fu...
- chc 13y ago> I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. There's been tons of research into nuclear power, for example. Look at the generation IV reactor designs [1]. Research isn't industry. The regulations don't prevent people from designing reactors; just from building nuclear power plants.
- tbrownaw 13y agoI think that's more due to the NRC and the NIMBYs, than it is due to being a utility.
- chc 13y agoI don't think the statement "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the reason nuclear power hasn't taken off" is incompatible with the statement "Regulation has effectively killed the once promising nuclear industry."
- tbrownaw 13y agoRight. But the relevant regulations are because people are scared of the word "nuclear", rather than because electricity is a utility.
- saalweachter 13y agoI would also cite differential regulation. Nuclear is a significantly more regulated industry than coal and natural gas. Consequently, it is cheaper to run coal and natural gas plants, just because there are large external costs associated with natural gas and coal (emissions, environmental damage) which are passed on to the taxpayer instead of the consumer. It is quite possible that if natural gas and coal were forced to pay for their externalities (via regulation) nuclear would be more cost-competitive, and you'd see more advancement of nuclear technology in industry.