How the NRC stopped the U.S. nuclear power industry.
It was the U.S. Congress that created the NRC in 1975 at the behest of the coal industry. Official line was that the Atomic Energy Commission had a conflicting mission of promoting nuclear energy and ensuring safety. The mission of promoting nuclear was given to the DOE and dropped. The NRC was given the mission to “maximize safety”. Orders for nuclear plants were cancelled as electric companies correctly anticipated skyrocketing costs and delays from onerous NRC regulation. In the 40 years since the NRC opened its doors not a single nuclear power plant was built from conception to completion. It will take the proverbial act of congress to reign in the NRC, or better yet, abolish it and replace it with something similar to the Atomic Energy Commission under which about 70 or 80 nuclear reactors were built in 10 or 15 years. That act of congress isn’t going happen as long as the fossil fuel industries own congress.
--
Jerry Nolan (first comment here)
Mark4asp,
ReplyDeleteYou have some interesting posts, especially 'How the NRC stopped the U.S. nuclear power industry.' You might be interested in 'Nuclear power learning rates: policy implications': https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/
"A revolution could be achieved with nuclear power if we remove the factors that caused the large cost increases during and since the 1970’s, i.e. return to the learning rates demonstrated before 1970.
Main Points:
• Learning rate is the rate costs reduce per doubling of capacity. Until about 1970 learning rates for nuclear power were 23% in the US and 27% to 35% in the other countries studied, except India.
• Around 1970, learning rates reversed and become negative (-94% in the US, -82% in Germany, -23% to -56% in the other countries, except South Korea); clearly something caused the reversal of learning rates for nuclear power around 1970.
• If the positive learning rates from 1953 to 1970 had continued, nuclear power would cost less than 1/10th of current cost.
• If nuclear deployment had continued at 30 GW per year from 1980, nuclear would cost much less than 1/10th of what it does now; furthermore the additional nuclear generation would have substituted for 85,000 TWh of mostly coal-generated electricity, thereby avoiding 85 Gt CO2 emissions and 5 million fatalities.
• In 2015, assuming nuclear replaced coal, the additional nuclear generation would have replaced half of coal generation, thus avoided half of the CO2 emissions and 300,000 future fatalities. If the accelerating rate of deployment from 1960 to 1976 had continued, nuclear would have replaced all baseload coal and gas generation before 2015.
• High learning rates were achieved in the past and could be achieved again with appropriate policies. "
continue reading ... https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/
Mark4asp,
ReplyDeleteYou have some interesting posts, especially 'How the NRC stopped the U.S. nuclear power industry.' You might be interested in 'Nuclear power learning rates: policy implications': https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/
"A revolution could be achieved with nuclear power if we remove the factors that caused the large cost increases during and since the 1970’s, i.e. return to the learning rates demonstrated before 1970.
Main Points:
• Learning rate is the rate costs reduce per doubling of capacity. Until about 1970 learning rates for nuclear power were 23% in the US and 27% to 35% in the other countries studied, except India.
• Around 1970, learning rates reversed and become negative (-94% in the US, -82% in Germany, -23% to -56% in the other countries, except South Korea); clearly something caused the reversal of learning rates for nuclear power around 1970.
• If the positive learning rates from 1953 to 1970 had continued, nuclear power would cost less than 1/10th of current cost.
• If nuclear deployment had continued at 30 GW per year from 1980, nuclear would cost much less than 1/10th of what it does now; furthermore the additional nuclear generation would have substituted for 85,000 TWh of mostly coal-generated electricity, thereby avoiding 85 Gt CO2 emissions and 5 million fatalities.
• In 2015, assuming nuclear replaced coal, the additional nuclear generation would have replaced half of coal generation, thus avoided half of the CO2 emissions and 300,000 future fatalities. If the accelerating rate of deployment from 1960 to 1976 had continued, nuclear would have replaced all baseload coal and gas generation before 2015.
• High learning rates were achieved in the past and could be achieved again with appropriate policies. "
continue reading ... https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/