A politician might believe our nation will need more power plants within the next 20 years. But they're incentivised to do the thing that, relatively, will be best for their near-term re-election prospects.
And just think of all the things that are better for their re-election prospects than a nuclear power plant in their constituency:
* A nuclear power plant in someone else's constituency. Play chicken with keeping the lights on and maybe someone else will swerve!
* Running an existing coal or gas power plant for longer
* A solar or wind power installation. Or better yet, one in someone else's back yard.
* Demand reduction like subsidised LED lightbulbs.
* Vague technology promises, like electric car batteries stabilising the grid.
* Finding of creating some organisation to take the blame once the brownouts and bill increases start.
* Just plain doing nothing and retiring before the bill comes due.
Why risk your job today supporting a nuclear plant, when you can kick the can down the road and keep yourself employed for another 20 years, maybe more?
Politicians are subject to those incentives, and it's hardly realistic to expect them to place the nation's interests above their own. Frankly it's a wonder any infrastructure gets built at all.
But my main point is realpolitik, or like you say "the way our political system operates." We have a political system that has evolved to handle issues in what we think is the least bad way (worst system except for all the others). Is nuclear in its blind spot, or would untested science-ocracy lead to worse outcomes?
And one of those reasons is political, independent of finance. I agree other reasons are financial.
The reason I think there are political reasons independent of the financial is because I've seen politicians oppose waste incinerators and windfarms in the face of local opposition, even though they were entirely privately financed.
For every community in the US where you can find voters too afraid of radiation to permit reactors, I can find one where voters' first thought about new nukes is enthusiasm over the increased employment and property tax base. But that's a two-edged sword. It's also the local community that is going to be stuck paying off huge costs if the projects go over budget. The recent projects in South Carolina and Georgia went hugely over budget. The SC project has been halted. If the Georgia project finishes it's still going to be one of the most expensive energy projects in US history.
So it would be hard to pitch another AP1000 project in the US today, but mostly because the first ones had every sort of problem that the builders promised to avoid. Less than a decade ago there were a dozen places in the US that had tentative plans to follow up with AP1000 reactors of their own, if the initial projects performed to spec. They've evaporated because the initial projects were years behind schedule and billions over budget. If you want to have a serious conversation about building new reactors in the US, start with the potential host communities that aren't afraid of radiation but are afraid of multi-billion-dollar project overruns. What do you think it would take to build a new reactor at VC Summer now, given the painful recent experience with the AP1000?
No, that’s not the case. Politicians won’t back it because of their perceived risk based on their own ignorance. Or, even if they aren’t ignorant, they are focused more on staying in office rather than helping humanity so they don’t take up any projects that the ignorant public might pitchfork about. Neither of these “give legitimacy” to incorrect risk analysis.
A politician being afraid of flying does not give legitimacy to flying fears either. Risk isn’t measured by popularity.
AOC will gain far more popularity from her completely unrealistic green new deal than she ever would proposing something that would actually help based on nuclear. Politicians propose what’s popular, not what’s moral, ethical, or scientifically sound.
>Here's a qustion to help cut through the Gordon knot: at what point is it scientifically rational to accept/shun nuclear?
When peoples’ fears are based on a real understanding/evidence and not their own ignorant imaginations.
> real understanding/evidence
Well, where are they? I originally replied to trimbo's comment because he seemed to be pro-nuclear and scientific, but then all his arguments seemed to acknowledge that well, nuclear wasn't up to the task. So where are the rational arguments that nuclear can be a solution?
So the rational arguments are everywhere. The problem is that people want to clutch onto their irrational fear and believe in eithe the fantasy of non existent climate change or the fantasy of solar/wind storage becoming feasible in 10 years or less.
In other words, as a technical solution there isn’t anything nearly as good. There are no rational arguments against that. It’s arguing with anti-vaxers at this point.
As an actual solution, well how do we deal with the anti-vaxer problem? The same could be applied there.
- Politicians won't back nuclear because of the risk of accident, thus giving legitimacy to the risk and the public's fears.
- There hasn't been adequate research and advancement in the nuclear industry (and other threads mention the lack of applied design research). So previous scientists and industrials have already determined it's too hard/expensive/difficult. Global warming may change that equation, but it won't make up for lost research.
- So people see the exclusion zones and shouldn't be afraid? We currently have 2 molten reactors with no long term solution found. At what point does the fear become irrational?
- Same point as above: lack of advancement, bad designs, and human mistakes, how can any of these be fixed to allay fears and be operational in time?
- Another comment mentions how storage of waste is a question of will, yet we have pools of it all over, and the underground solution doesn't seem reliable either.
All I hear is that nuclear is the perfect solution if it were perfect and people weren't irrational.
Here's a qustion to help cut through the Gordon knot: at what point is it scientifically rational to accept/shun nuclear?