In 1971, the AEC proposed a radically new regulatory philosophy requiring all nuclear plants be designed to hold all radioactive emissions to levels such that "exposures were as low as practicable".
I’d imagine that there are very similar to ALARA problems, & identified too which few bureaucrats and non bureaucrats alike have spoken of or even blown whistles over~ as to suggest measures are over conservative, overreaching, even counter productive to the point of total paralysis to an industry m, and in this case - nuclear power
ALARA ties in with the ‘LNT’ hypothesis, a model which wags the dog so to speak.
Radio-phobic organization and institutions can unknowingly become so entrenched with red tape and unnecessary guidelines, with ever more regulations and laws than scientifically necessary that it strangles itself to a slow death!
There is some frustration with the NRC in Congress, but they are not about to do what is needed which at a bare minimum is replace the NRC with a entity that that is responsible for BOTH providing cheap, reliable electricity and doing it adequately safely. But market based regulation is the only real solution. See companion piece.
In 2018, Congress passed NEIMA instructing the NRC to get its act together. In response, among the changes teh NRC proposed was to move ALARA from a Regulatory Guide (in theory only a recommendation) to an official Code of Federal Regulations requirement. That should tell you all you need to know about trying to change teh NRC incrementally.
I'm all in favor of abolishing the NRC. That's hard to do but it's harder and less realistic to "reform" an agency when you don't change its incentives.
Indeed the NRC is lost, infiltrated by stooges and Malthusians, new commissioner from the Rockefeller anti-nuclear NRDC. Let each state manage their own nuclear power plants. After all Ontario does just fine with 15M population and 18 NPPs including the largest Nuclear Power station on Earth. Regulated by the CNSC which would more appropriately named the Ontario Nuclear Safety Commission because all of the NPPs except one are located in Ontario.
If you had separate state regulators, there would be a competition among states and the state with the most NRC-like regulator would be a total failure at Nuclear Power and look really stupid.
Almost all the NRC rank and file are pro-nuclear. They went into nuclear because they believed it. The problem is the incentives that we have given them. As one told me, my job is not to solve problems; it is to find problems. Unless those incentives changes, changing the people won't help.
Sadly, you can probably say the same about all corrupted institutions now, FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, DHS, NIH, FDA, CDC. The rot begins at the top and works its way downhill. Hard to reform it after that happens. Better to start all over and hire back the good former employees under new leadership, which can be state run.
I'm not a fan of these big top heavy centralized institutions. Just look at ITER, was supposed to be so efficient combining the resources of all national fusion efforts into a centralized mega-bureaucracy. Instead it has become a total failure, pretty much stifled fusion progress, that was rapid before ITER.
You are missing my point. NRC regulation priced nuclear out of the market in the 1970's when teh Commissioners were all pro-nuke, when the public was solidly pro-nuke. These people were just doing what we told them to do. Focus only on nuclear's dangers, ignore its benefits.
The government obviously has the legal right and power to make these decisions, but I would like you to consider by what moral right should they have this power. If they can decide this for us, what is to stop them from coming into my home and forcibly taking away my Quarter Pounder with Cheese on the premise that I am harming myself. The answer to this is nothing. Based on our current 'principles' of government there is nothing to prevent this. They just haven't tried to go that far. There is probably a whole lot more reasons to outlaw hamburgers than to essentially outlaw nuclear power. I say a proper government should not have the ability to do either. It's only function should be to protect our rights, adjudicate disputes and punish those who do infringe on our rights.
The point Robert Zubrin makes is the proper role of government is to make the regulations and then leave it up to persons or corporations to obey the regulations. Not to micro-manage our behavior. For instance vehicle regulations, it's up to each driver to obey the regulations, and if they don't they can be fined. If a NPP screws up by breaking some rule, then the regulator would step in and fine the operator.
The Case For Nukes: How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future:
It would be very helpful if someone put together a compendium of examples of NRC idiocy and regulatory insanity like the Toomer's creek example mentioned. With a form for submissions from the public.
And a comparison of regulatory differences between different countries, in order to spot the Outliers, which will likely be mostly the NRC. I've read other countries don't have all the armed guards at Nuclear facilities unlike in the USA. Unusual number of terrorists in America?
Someone should ask the the NRC, if they think a tiny bit of radiation is so dangerous and requires such draconian efforts to eliminate, then why are their owners so intent on starting a nuclear war with Russia and exposing Ukrainian nuclear reactors to military weapons and personnel & electricity blackouts. Ya think a nuclear war might release a little bit of radiation maybe? Maybe there might ACTUALLY be some deaths due to radiation unlike for their ALARA. Lots of deaths. Millions of deaths. Idiots.
This is frustrating as it is keeping the nuclear electricity price at highwatermark forever. On the other hand, isn't this a US regulation? Why do the majority of the rest of the western world follow suit? Canada? Germany? Seems like it's only somewhat Korea and maybe France from the democratic world who's trying to operate nuclear power in a reasonable way.
Regulatory duties and licensing duties should be carried out by separate entities.
There is no ‘up side’ for a regulator if a plant works, but a definite ’down-side’ if something goes wrong.
Hence, a bureaucratic will always chose to save their ‘gravy-train’ and gold-plated pension, rather than move the world in a positive direction by enabling progress.
I've learned more relevant information on nuclear power here than anywhere else. Your content is essential reading for anyone interested in the future of nuclear energy.
Keep writing,Jack! I will be assigning your stack to the students in my course https://jick.net/nukes/ next November.
I’d imagine that there are very similar to ALARA problems, & identified too which few bureaucrats and non bureaucrats alike have spoken of or even blown whistles over~ as to suggest measures are over conservative, overreaching, even counter productive to the point of total paralysis to an industry m, and in this case - nuclear power
ALARA ties in with the ‘LNT’ hypothesis, a model which wags the dog so to speak.
Radio-phobic organization and institutions can unknowingly become so entrenched with red tape and unnecessary guidelines, with ever more regulations and laws than scientifically necessary that it strangles itself to a slow death!
Excellent !!
I have cited this article in our Citizendium article on Cost of Nuclear Power.
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Cost_of_nuclear_power
and also on the Debate Guide page for that article, in response to Amory Lovins' statements that nuclear is too expensive.
Another excellent piece!
Which organizations are working on Congress to change this nonsense?
Max,
There is some frustration with the NRC in Congress, but they are not about to do what is needed which at a bare minimum is replace the NRC with a entity that that is responsible for BOTH providing cheap, reliable electricity and doing it adequately safely. But market based regulation is the only real solution. See companion piece.
In 2018, Congress passed NEIMA instructing the NRC to get its act together. In response, among the changes teh NRC proposed was to move ALARA from a Regulatory Guide (in theory only a recommendation) to an official Code of Federal Regulations requirement. That should tell you all you need to know about trying to change teh NRC incrementally.
I'm all in favor of abolishing the NRC. That's hard to do but it's harder and less realistic to "reform" an agency when you don't change its incentives.
Indeed the NRC is lost, infiltrated by stooges and Malthusians, new commissioner from the Rockefeller anti-nuclear NRDC. Let each state manage their own nuclear power plants. After all Ontario does just fine with 15M population and 18 NPPs including the largest Nuclear Power station on Earth. Regulated by the CNSC which would more appropriately named the Ontario Nuclear Safety Commission because all of the NPPs except one are located in Ontario.
If you had separate state regulators, there would be a competition among states and the state with the most NRC-like regulator would be a total failure at Nuclear Power and look really stupid.
Smitty,
Almost all the NRC rank and file are pro-nuclear. They went into nuclear because they believed it. The problem is the incentives that we have given them. As one told me, my job is not to solve problems; it is to find problems. Unless those incentives changes, changing the people won't help.
Sadly, you can probably say the same about all corrupted institutions now, FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, DHS, NIH, FDA, CDC. The rot begins at the top and works its way downhill. Hard to reform it after that happens. Better to start all over and hire back the good former employees under new leadership, which can be state run.
I'm not a fan of these big top heavy centralized institutions. Just look at ITER, was supposed to be so efficient combining the resources of all national fusion efforts into a centralized mega-bureaucracy. Instead it has become a total failure, pretty much stifled fusion progress, that was rapid before ITER.
You are missing my point. NRC regulation priced nuclear out of the market in the 1970's when teh Commissioners were all pro-nuke, when the public was solidly pro-nuke. These people were just doing what we told them to do. Focus only on nuclear's dangers, ignore its benefits.
I need a new choir.
Outstanding but depressing as all get out. Thanks, especially for making the point about the poor and the environment.
The government obviously has the legal right and power to make these decisions, but I would like you to consider by what moral right should they have this power. If they can decide this for us, what is to stop them from coming into my home and forcibly taking away my Quarter Pounder with Cheese on the premise that I am harming myself. The answer to this is nothing. Based on our current 'principles' of government there is nothing to prevent this. They just haven't tried to go that far. There is probably a whole lot more reasons to outlaw hamburgers than to essentially outlaw nuclear power. I say a proper government should not have the ability to do either. It's only function should be to protect our rights, adjudicate disputes and punish those who do infringe on our rights.
The point Robert Zubrin makes is the proper role of government is to make the regulations and then leave it up to persons or corporations to obey the regulations. Not to micro-manage our behavior. For instance vehicle regulations, it's up to each driver to obey the regulations, and if they don't they can be fined. If a NPP screws up by breaking some rule, then the regulator would step in and fine the operator.
The Case For Nukes: How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future:
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Nukes-Global-Warming-Magnificent-ebook/dp/B0BXPCZ33K
It would be very helpful if someone put together a compendium of examples of NRC idiocy and regulatory insanity like the Toomer's creek example mentioned. With a form for submissions from the public.
And a comparison of regulatory differences between different countries, in order to spot the Outliers, which will likely be mostly the NRC. I've read other countries don't have all the armed guards at Nuclear facilities unlike in the USA. Unusual number of terrorists in America?
“The real losers here are the poor and the planet.”
Indeed. That’s what drives us nuts.
Someone should ask the the NRC, if they think a tiny bit of radiation is so dangerous and requires such draconian efforts to eliminate, then why are their owners so intent on starting a nuclear war with Russia and exposing Ukrainian nuclear reactors to military weapons and personnel & electricity blackouts. Ya think a nuclear war might release a little bit of radiation maybe? Maybe there might ACTUALLY be some deaths due to radiation unlike for their ALARA. Lots of deaths. Millions of deaths. Idiots.
This is frustrating as it is keeping the nuclear electricity price at highwatermark forever. On the other hand, isn't this a US regulation? Why do the majority of the rest of the western world follow suit? Canada? Germany? Seems like it's only somewhat Korea and maybe France from the democratic world who's trying to operate nuclear power in a reasonable way.
Regulatory duties and licensing duties should be carried out by separate entities.
There is no ‘up side’ for a regulator if a plant works, but a definite ’down-side’ if something goes wrong.
Hence, a bureaucratic will always chose to save their ‘gravy-train’ and gold-plated pension, rather than move the world in a positive direction by enabling progress.
I've learned more relevant information on nuclear power here than anywhere else. Your content is essential reading for anyone interested in the future of nuclear energy.
Hi Jack
How can I email you? This is powerful info. I want to help.