3 ms·

The argument that US nuclear power projects face the same regulatory challenges as "every other industry" is completely untenable. There is an entire regulatory

by guscost 12y ago

The argument that US nuclear power projects face the same regulatory challenges as "every other industry" is completely untenable. There is an entire regulatory body (the NRC) charged with managing regulations for that one particular method of power generation. This fact alone is enough to refute it. There is also an argument that the "regulatory ratcheting" from the NRC is due to political pressure rather than engineering principles[0]. Finally it is hard to read former chairman Gregory Jaczko's recent comments about Fukushima and not conclude that the NRC was, and quite possibly still is, actively opposing the nuclear industry with an ultimate goal of shutting it down[1]. [0] http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html [1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-ex-nuclear-chief-fukushima-lesson-phase-out http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-ex-nuclear-chief-fukushima...

dragonwriter 12y ago
I didn't say the nuclear industry faces the same regulations as any other industry, I said the problem that restricts the economic viability of the industry isn't special regulations, its general liability, which is why in a country where there is a major and powerful political faction that is favorably predisposed toward industry complaints of overregulation, the industry itself doesn't generally complain of overregulation but instead of the need for broad government-granted immunity from general liability.
- guscost 12y ago
  If you're talking about the Price-Anderson Act, a law requiring plant operators to purchase liability insurance is a kind of regulation. Let's assume you are correct that this particular regulation is not uncommon in the energy industry. Do you have an example supporting your claim that nuclear power companies are being hindered by the cost of this liability insurance rather than all the other construction protocols, environmental and safety audits, and permits from every level of government they have to pay for? These two new reactors can only be built if NuStar spends $520 million on licensing, for example: http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuredriving-for-a-licence http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuredriving-for-a-lic...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by guscost 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

I didn't say the nuclear industry faces the same regulations as any other industry, I said the problem that restricts the economic viability of the industry isn't special regulations, its general liability, which is why in a country where there is a major and powerful political faction that is favorably predisposed toward industry complaints of overregulation, the industry itself doesn't generally complain of overregulation but instead of the need for broad government-granted immunity from general liability.

guscost 12y ago
If you're talking about the Price-Anderson Act, a law requiring plant operators to purchase liability insurance is a kind of regulation. Let's assume you are correct that this particular regulation is not uncommon in the energy industry. Do you have an example supporting your claim that nuclear power companies are being hindered by the cost of this liability insurance rather than all the other construction protocols, environmental and safety audits, and permits from every level of government they have to pay for? These two new reactors can only be built if NuStar spends $520 million on licensing, for example: http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuredriving-for-a-licence http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuredriving-for-a-lic...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]