| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
Next revision
|
Previous revision
|
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:nuclear_power [2023/04/04 18:28]
jeffreyheninger |
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:nuclear_power [2023/04/05 23:10] (current)
rickkorzekwa |
| Instead, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission added increasingly strict safety regulations, which caused the cost of building new nuclear power plants to increase dramatically. Reactors which began construction in the late 1970s took 2.4 times as long and cost 9 times as much as reactors which began in the 1960s. Especially damaging were changes to the regulatory code made during construction. New plants stopped being built under this stricter, and still frequently changing, regulatory regime. For more details of how this occurred, see discussions by Jason Crawford((Crawford. Why has nuclear power been a flop? Roots of Progress. (2021) [[https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop]].)) and Brian Potter.((Potter. Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Construction Physics. (2022) Parts [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction|I]], [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370|II]], and [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c|III]].)) | Instead, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission added increasingly strict safety regulations, which caused the cost of building new nuclear power plants to increase dramatically. Reactors which began construction in the late 1970s took 2.4 times as long and cost 9 times as much as reactors which began in the 1960s. Especially damaging were changes to the regulatory code made during construction. New plants stopped being built under this stricter, and still frequently changing, regulatory regime. For more details of how this occurred, see discussions by Jason Crawford((Crawford. Why has nuclear power been a flop? Roots of Progress. (2021) [[https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop]].)) and Brian Potter.((Potter. Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Construction Physics. (2022) Parts [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction|I]], [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370|II]], and [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c|III]].)) |
| |
| It is unclear to me why this occurred. It might be the result of a failure to align the incentives of the NRC with the goal of building new nuclear power plants. It also might have been an intentional strategy by anti-nuclear activists to slow the development of nuclear power. Distinguishing between these possibilities would require figuring out the motivations of various individuals on the NRC during the 1960s and 1970s, which is beyond the scope of this page. | We are uncertain why this occurred. It might be the result of a failure to align the incentives of the NRC with the goal of building new nuclear power plants. It also might have been an intentional strategy by anti-nuclear activists to slow the development of nuclear power. Distinguishing between these possibilities would require figuring out the motivations of various individuals on the NRC during the 1960s and 1970s, which is beyond the scope of this page. |
| |
| Estimating the direct cost of nuclear power being too expensive to build requires a bit of a calculation, which can be found in the Appendix. Under a different regulatory regime, the levelized cost of electricity for nuclear power could be $20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas. If 20% of the United States’ electricity generation switched from coal to nuclear, this would reduce the direct costs of electricity in the US by \$16 billion/yr. For comparison, the total sales of electricity in the US are about \$400 billion/yr.((The United States consumed about 3.9 trillion kWh in 2021 and the average price was about 10 ¢/kWh.. \\ //Use of Electricity.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php]]. \\ //Prices and Factors Affecting Prices.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php]].)) | Estimating the direct cost of nuclear power being too expensive to build requires a bit of a calculation, which can be found in the Appendix. Under a different regulatory regime, the levelized cost of electricity for nuclear power could be $20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas. If 20% of the United States’ electricity generation switched from coal to nuclear, this would reduce the direct costs of electricity in the US by \$16 billion/yr. For comparison, the total sales of electricity in the US are about \$400 billion/yr.((The United States consumed about 3.9 trillion kWh in 2021 and the average price was about 10 ¢/kWh.. \\ //Use of Electricity.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php]]. \\ //Prices and Factors Affecting Prices.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php]].)) |
| The German anti-nuclear movement has a similar origin to the American one.((For a good short history of Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, see: \\ Appunn. //The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out.// Clean Energy Wire. (2021) [[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out]].)) The movement began with local opposition to a nuclear power plant in Wyhl, which subsequently developed into anti-nuclear-power organizations, including the Green Party. Regulatory cost increases were not as severe as in the United States, but they were sufficient to stop any new construction from starting after 1982. An SPD-Green coalition government from 1998-2005 decided to slowly phase out nuclear power, although this decision was reversed after Merkel came to power. In 2010, nuclear power provided about 20% of Germany’s electricity. | The German anti-nuclear movement has a similar origin to the American one.((For a good short history of Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, see: \\ Appunn. //The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out.// Clean Energy Wire. (2021) [[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out]].)) The movement began with local opposition to a nuclear power plant in Wyhl, which subsequently developed into anti-nuclear-power organizations, including the Green Party. Regulatory cost increases were not as severe as in the United States, but they were sufficient to stop any new construction from starting after 1982. An SPD-Green coalition government from 1998-2005 decided to slowly phase out nuclear power, although this decision was reversed after Merkel came to power. In 2010, nuclear power provided about 20% of Germany’s electricity. |
| |
| In 2010, an earthquake and tsunami along the coast of Japan caused nuclear meltdowns and hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The Japanese government has confirmed one death from radiation,((//Responses and Actions Taken by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan on Radiation Protection at Works Relating to the Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant 6th Edition (Fiscal Year of 2018).// Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. (2018) p. 13. [[https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/2011eq/workers/ri/gr/gr_190131.pdf]].)) and no measurable increase in cancer rates as a result of released radiation is expected, with estimates ranging from zero((//The health effects of Fukushima.// World Nuclear News. (2012) [[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_The_health_effects_of_Fukushima_2808121.html]].)) to a few hundred.((Caracappa. //Fukushima Accident: Radioactive Releases and Potential Dose Consequences. ANS Annual Meeting.// (2011) [[http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf]].)) Massive anti-nuclear protests broke out across the world, including in Germany. In response, Merkel’s government decided to phase out nuclear power by 2022. This has been delayed slightly by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the last of Germany’s nuclear power plants will be shut off in April 2023. | In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami along the coast of Japan caused nuclear meltdowns and hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The Japanese government has confirmed one death from radiation,((//Responses and Actions Taken by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan on Radiation Protection at Works Relating to the Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant 6th Edition (Fiscal Year of 2018).// Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. (2018) p. 13. [[https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/2011eq/workers/ri/gr/gr_190131.pdf]].)) and no measurable increase in cancer rates as a result of released radiation is expected, with estimates ranging from zero((//The health effects of Fukushima.// World Nuclear News. (2012) [[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_The_health_effects_of_Fukushima_2808121.html]].)) to a few hundred.((Caracappa. //Fukushima Accident: Radioactive Releases and Potential Dose Consequences. ANS Annual Meeting.// (2011) [[http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf]].)) Massive anti-nuclear protests broke out across the world, including in Germany. In response, Merkel’s government decided to phase out nuclear power by 2022. This has been delayed slightly by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the last of Germany’s nuclear power plants will be shut off in April 2023. |
| |
| The decision to abandon nuclear power in Germany was clearly political, made at the highest level of government. It occurred in response to a highly publicized crisis involving nuclear power. This crisis was vaguely like a warning shot in that its consequences were not that terrible, but it rallied public and political opinion against the risks posed by a technology. | The decision to abandon nuclear power in Germany was clearly political, made at the highest level of government. It occurred in response to a highly publicized crisis involving nuclear power. This crisis was vaguely like a warning shot in that its consequences were not that terrible, but it rallied public and political opinion against the risks posed by a technology. |
