In a recent post, I pointed out that the NRC's ability to change the rules of the game at will is incompatible with a deregulated electricity market. No rational investor can play by those rules. Under these rules, the only US nuclear will be a highly subsidized, preposterously expensive and regressive
I would add to your list: the requirement that the board of the NRC consists of people with the proper technical expertise. I recently looked at who is in the board, and except for one nuclear engineer, all members had a political science degree or similar.. Maybe one member with such background is fine, but a majority that is not able to understand the actual mechanics is not very useful...
Yep, Nope... It has to go! The NRC has Reactor, Waste, Material, Security, Plant Operations purview.
Reactor: The Dais of the National Labs (ORNL, Los Alamos, INL,, LLNL and Argonne will review paper reactors, test and simulate. The stamp opens access to the DOE CAPEX Bank, and the DOE Underwriters Association (DOE-UA). What gets stamped is what is approved! Change orders must have ominous implications. After FOAK build, a review will open a "stamped" plan for edits. WANO operational reports may open at stamped plan for edits. DOE UA will structure insurance to encourage the implementation of edits into built and operational reactors. Critical issues will be referred to the States AERs for immediate action.
Waste: USGS will take over waste management and spent fuel reprocessing. One man's trash is another's treasure, and I would expect this endeavor will create a windfall for the USGS and its subcontractors.
Material: Material and security will be taken over by the ARMED SERVICES REACTOR GROUP (ASRG).
Security: All existing and future NPPs will be converted to ASRG bases. The Army, Navy, Air-force, Marines, Coast Guard/Border Patrol and Space-force will each get their fair share. The ancillary process might be branch specific- rocket fuel, nuclear navy, desalination, mobile energy, atomic flight, but the primary responsibility is LANDLORD. The Generator/Operator is a very high value tenant, as is the T & D Company and their step up facility. Additionally, any process heat applications (Desal, refining, chemical, concrete, H2, metals facilities) are tenants on the base.
Each state with Nuclear Facilities will have an Atomic Energy Regulator. This is the permitter. They are the landlord to the ASRG base. They commission WANO to run all operator inspections. They commission the State DEQ to inspect and make "EPA type" "recommendations" for the AER to pass to the Military ASRG Tenant.
The top authority for Nuclear in Montana is "Bob." He is the chief of AER-MT. He is appointed and/or replaced by a super-majority of the State Senate and Governor. If you want to build a dais stamped plan in Montana, Bob will work with the ASRG to get you a landlord. That is all. No NRC or EPA. The 11 Blue States that prohibit nuclear will just miss out on all this economic flourishing.
While people may remain umbilically attached to the NRC regarding large light water it seems reasonable that there could be an opening to regulate any design deemed 'meltdown proof' with Underwriter Certification
Release is still possible or certain but Fukushima events may not be. In this case the perception that extreme measures are needed, and helpful, for nuclear regulation may lighten up enough for insurance certification to be accepted for some set of Gen IV reactors. The results should speak for themselves
Thanks, Jack. I was the one who had the guts to ask. My question stemmed from an assumption that any of these models (social monopoly, private insurance, etc.) would require an act of Congress. As such, all of the minimum requirements for a successful and reborn NRC could be written into legislation just as easily as the requirements for a successful private market managed through underwriter certification. If all options begin with Congress, does that change the calculus?
I would add to your list: the requirement that the board of the NRC consists of people with the proper technical expertise. I recently looked at who is in the board, and except for one nuclear engineer, all members had a political science degree or similar.. Maybe one member with such background is fine, but a majority that is not able to understand the actual mechanics is not very useful...
Yep, Nope... It has to go! The NRC has Reactor, Waste, Material, Security, Plant Operations purview.
Reactor: The Dais of the National Labs (ORNL, Los Alamos, INL,, LLNL and Argonne will review paper reactors, test and simulate. The stamp opens access to the DOE CAPEX Bank, and the DOE Underwriters Association (DOE-UA). What gets stamped is what is approved! Change orders must have ominous implications. After FOAK build, a review will open a "stamped" plan for edits. WANO operational reports may open at stamped plan for edits. DOE UA will structure insurance to encourage the implementation of edits into built and operational reactors. Critical issues will be referred to the States AERs for immediate action.
Waste: USGS will take over waste management and spent fuel reprocessing. One man's trash is another's treasure, and I would expect this endeavor will create a windfall for the USGS and its subcontractors.
Material: Material and security will be taken over by the ARMED SERVICES REACTOR GROUP (ASRG).
Security: All existing and future NPPs will be converted to ASRG bases. The Army, Navy, Air-force, Marines, Coast Guard/Border Patrol and Space-force will each get their fair share. The ancillary process might be branch specific- rocket fuel, nuclear navy, desalination, mobile energy, atomic flight, but the primary responsibility is LANDLORD. The Generator/Operator is a very high value tenant, as is the T & D Company and their step up facility. Additionally, any process heat applications (Desal, refining, chemical, concrete, H2, metals facilities) are tenants on the base.
Each state with Nuclear Facilities will have an Atomic Energy Regulator. This is the permitter. They are the landlord to the ASRG base. They commission WANO to run all operator inspections. They commission the State DEQ to inspect and make "EPA type" "recommendations" for the AER to pass to the Military ASRG Tenant.
The top authority for Nuclear in Montana is "Bob." He is the chief of AER-MT. He is appointed and/or replaced by a super-majority of the State Senate and Governor. If you want to build a dais stamped plan in Montana, Bob will work with the ASRG to get you a landlord. That is all. No NRC or EPA. The 11 Blue States that prohibit nuclear will just miss out on all this economic flourishing.
While people may remain umbilically attached to the NRC regarding large light water it seems reasonable that there could be an opening to regulate any design deemed 'meltdown proof' with Underwriter Certification
Release is still possible or certain but Fukushima events may not be. In this case the perception that extreme measures are needed, and helpful, for nuclear regulation may lighten up enough for insurance certification to be accepted for some set of Gen IV reactors. The results should speak for themselves
Thanks, Jack. I was the one who had the guts to ask. My question stemmed from an assumption that any of these models (social monopoly, private insurance, etc.) would require an act of Congress. As such, all of the minimum requirements for a successful and reborn NRC could be written into legislation just as easily as the requirements for a successful private market managed through underwriter certification. If all options begin with Congress, does that change the calculus?