Why not? This is something the plant would probably do without any urging. Recruit local talent and get some good PR at very little expense.
Skamania County is an area where the fathers and grandfathers truly were wealthier in real terms than the current generation, which has the choice of seasonal, service jobs in the tourist business or moving out. The plant could revitalize the community.
Sure, if it's something the plant would do voluntarily. If not excessive, it would indeed be great publicity. If it were me, I would make it voluntary, rather than risk killing the project by layering on more requirements. The other requirements you proposed seem clearly related to costs and risks to the community. This one went further. Once you cross that line, you risk the community requiring... a new swimming pool (without radioactive isotopes!), new schools, new libraries, a hyperloop... (okay, that last one is unlikely, but you get the point.)
I love this! The only hair I would split regards LLY, which are not going to be evenly distributed among the exposed population. A fairer means of compensation might be a life insurance policy covering death due to a long list of all established radiation-related illnesses, and including a pre-death benefit option.
It's an interesting idea; but, unless the compensation scheme is based on the dose profile's the plant actually emits, we won't internalize the harm, and properly incentivize the plant to try and avoid it.
To make this work, the "insurance" payment must be based on the individual cancer victim's dose profile, not just the fact that he got cancer or was killed by cancer. Needs thought.
Here's one way to partially implement your thought. Suppose we set the value of a life year at $127,000 based on the dialysis standard. Suppose the lost life expectancy with getting cancer is 6 years. Suppose the probability of getting cancer from non-rad causes is 0.4, which is roughly the American incidence. Let's suppose an individual's dose profile is such that SNT says it results in a 0.01 probability of her getting cancer. In the pre-Peri SNT, our subject would get 0.01 * 6 * 127000 = $7,620. In the post-Peri SNT, we wait. If the subject does not get cancer, she gets nothing. If she does get cancer, then the conditional probability that her cancer is rad-caused is 0.01 /(0.40 + 0.01) = 0.0244. Her compensation would be 0.0244 * 6 * 127,000 = $18,593.
A couple of points:
1) The cost of the compensation program is the same either way, with the important exception that the payments are made later in the post-Peri SNT.
2) We are still "over-compensating" people whose cancer was not caused by the dose, and "under-compensating" people whose cancer was caused by the radiation. But this is unavoidable, since we have no way of determining whether or not the cancer was rad caused.
I'm ambivalent on this one. The post-Peri scheme does funnel more of the money to the people who are actually harmed; but most of the money still goes to people whose cancer was not caused by the release. It involves keeping track of people for 50 years or more. My guess is the immediate, automatic payment would be more politically palatable. The equity argument can be turned around. Everybody who gets the same dose profile is taking the same chance of cancer. At the end of the day, I'd probably stick with the pre-Peri SNT.
If the plant can't make a reasonable ROI, what's the point? This is why stuff won't get built. No private investor will put money into a project only to go to pay people, it's just not how capital works.
I am not saying investors should be charitable. I'm a market guy. But I am saying we need to internalize the cost of releases just like we need to internalize the cost of CO2 emissions.
If nuclear were as cheap as it could be and should be, there would be plenty of economic rent to compensate the local community for accepting the chance of a release. All my requests would add up to about 0.5 cents/kWh. Nuclear should cost less than 3 cents/kWh naive LCOE. And my list is a bargaining position. If I'm an investor, I go up and down the river asking for bid packages. I make the communities compete for my plant. If I can't make money from the best bid, then I won't build and the plant should not be built.
Fair. In the end, ratepayers pay for their own taxes through a utility or anything else. The plants cost basis would be 3.5c not 3c. It would be built into the ratepayers bill.
Which means other communities who might want the plant more badly would be willing to forego those asks. It's not uncommon for a business enterprise to seek and get tax relief and go elsewhere.
If you're requirements, and I think they're reasonable, are to be had as a matter of course, they would need to be supported by public law or regulation.
Everything else should be between the plant and the locals. If the local communities compete away the rest of the items on my list that's their prerogative. As long as there's no bribery involved, competition among the potential sites is essential to the overall efficiency of the process. Like I said, I'm a market guy.
This is exactly what is needed in every city and county of the country. I love fossil fuels, but nuclear makes far more sense in almost any scenario. And this kind of thoughtful approach to implementing it should satisfy any reasonable person who doesn't belong to the Anti Human Flourishing Complex.
My backyard in the Arizona desert is even better, but my wife won't let me store uranium in our horse pasture. :>) Seriously though, the problem is not local approval. Plenty of communities like mine would understand the risks and benefits and go for it. The problem is at the state level, where the anti-nukers are now focusing their efforts. Why should the state care about these risks any more than the locals? This is nuts !!
It's true that local communities tend to do a better job of evaluating the risks and benefits than the state. But some states may be coming around. For example, Wyoming. The core problem is US nuclear is too expensive. Who wants a plant that is going to increase their electricity bill? And that's a federal level problem.
The expense problem could be easily solved, if not for the politics. The feds have issued permits for SNF storage in Utah, Texas, and New Mexico. I'm surprised Wyoming and Idaho are not on the list. The opposition, in every case is at the state level - endless and expensive lawsuits over trivia - state laws banning SNF storage, overriding local communities approval.
I would love to see an analysis of the funding sources of the anti-nuclear groups compared to the pro-nuclear groups. I wonder if we could tease out of the data how much goes to state-level politicians.
Why 1GW?. Economic "plants" in Korea, Japan, UAE etc are 4 to 6 reactors. Up to 8 GW. It doesn't make econic sense to build just one reactor once you develop the site.
Yes, there are important economies associated with multiple units on the same site. But I'm a big believer in mini-buffer zones around each unit so that a casualty at one unit does not spread to a neighboring unit as happened at Fukushima and could easily have happened at Chernobyl.
I may be splitting hairs but I think your probability of a harmful radiation release is too high. So far there have been three TMI or larger releases worldwide, including Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. The Chernobyl disaster was for a reactor type no longer built so should no longer be included. Using approximate numbers there are about 400 plants operating worldwide with a median age of around 38 years. Therefore, there have been two significant releases in 15,000 reactor years (400x38) but it is prudent to assume the next reactor year will have a release, so my estimate is one release in 5000 reactor years, or 0.2 in 1000. That is only 0.02 chances in 100 years.
Invoking your assumption of at least 90% of those releases being TMI-like with no detectable harm off site I would certainly be happy to live near nuclear power plants.
We must be very careful to distinguish between teh probability of a release at a single reactor in a single year and the probability of a release from any of a large fleet of reactors in say the next 50 years. As you point out, the former can be quite small, but at the same time the latter can be very close to 1.00. If nuclear is truly successful in a decarbonized world we would need 25,000 one GW reactors. Using your number we would average 5 TMI or bigger releases per year.
The key here is not the frequency of releases per reactor-year. The key here is waht is the harm to the public associated with the radiation from that release. In most releases, it will not be detectable as Fukushima proved. In a few cases, it might be equivalent to a commericial airplane crash a la Chernobyl. It should be obvious that sucha set of releases is tolerable in return for the manifold benefits of nuclear which include saving far more lives than are taken by reducing fossil fuel pollution. It should also be obvious that there is a point beyond which it is counter-productive to attempt to further reduce the frequency of releases. I argue we are far beyond that point, altho I feel it is important to ensure that the harm associated with releases is small by providing buffer zones around the plants.
It seems to me that individuals want to know what their personal risk is. Obviously two factors - the probability of their neighbourhood plant releasing anything and the probability of it affecting their health and/or well-being. That said I agree ensuring that most releases cause little, or no harm is important. Buffer zones are obviously good.
It's your backyard, but why would you require a local training program? The rest sounds unobjectionable.
Max,
Why not? This is something the plant would probably do without any urging. Recruit local talent and get some good PR at very little expense.
Skamania County is an area where the fathers and grandfathers truly were wealthier in real terms than the current generation, which has the choice of seasonal, service jobs in the tourist business or moving out. The plant could revitalize the community.
Sure, if it's something the plant would do voluntarily. If not excessive, it would indeed be great publicity. If it were me, I would make it voluntary, rather than risk killing the project by layering on more requirements. The other requirements you proposed seem clearly related to costs and risks to the community. This one went further. Once you cross that line, you risk the community requiring... a new swimming pool (without radioactive isotopes!), new schools, new libraries, a hyperloop... (okay, that last one is unlikely, but you get the point.)
I love this! The only hair I would split regards LLY, which are not going to be evenly distributed among the exposed population. A fairer means of compensation might be a life insurance policy covering death due to a long list of all established radiation-related illnesses, and including a pre-death benefit option.
Peri,
It's an interesting idea; but, unless the compensation scheme is based on the dose profile's the plant actually emits, we won't internalize the harm, and properly incentivize the plant to try and avoid it.
To make this work, the "insurance" payment must be based on the individual cancer victim's dose profile, not just the fact that he got cancer or was killed by cancer. Needs thought.
Here's one way to partially implement your thought. Suppose we set the value of a life year at $127,000 based on the dialysis standard. Suppose the lost life expectancy with getting cancer is 6 years. Suppose the probability of getting cancer from non-rad causes is 0.4, which is roughly the American incidence. Let's suppose an individual's dose profile is such that SNT says it results in a 0.01 probability of her getting cancer. In the pre-Peri SNT, our subject would get 0.01 * 6 * 127000 = $7,620. In the post-Peri SNT, we wait. If the subject does not get cancer, she gets nothing. If she does get cancer, then the conditional probability that her cancer is rad-caused is 0.01 /(0.40 + 0.01) = 0.0244. Her compensation would be 0.0244 * 6 * 127,000 = $18,593.
A couple of points:
1) The cost of the compensation program is the same either way, with the important exception that the payments are made later in the post-Peri SNT.
2) We are still "over-compensating" people whose cancer was not caused by the dose, and "under-compensating" people whose cancer was caused by the radiation. But this is unavoidable, since we have no way of determining whether or not the cancer was rad caused.
I'm ambivalent on this one. The post-Peri scheme does funnel more of the money to the people who are actually harmed; but most of the money still goes to people whose cancer was not caused by the release. It involves keeping track of people for 50 years or more. My guess is the immediate, automatic payment would be more politically palatable. The equity argument can be turned around. Everybody who gets the same dose profile is taking the same chance of cancer. At the end of the day, I'd probably stick with the pre-Peri SNT.
If the plant can't make a reasonable ROI, what's the point? This is why stuff won't get built. No private investor will put money into a project only to go to pay people, it's just not how capital works.
Flugel,
I am not saying investors should be charitable. I'm a market guy. But I am saying we need to internalize the cost of releases just like we need to internalize the cost of CO2 emissions.
If nuclear were as cheap as it could be and should be, there would be plenty of economic rent to compensate the local community for accepting the chance of a release. All my requests would add up to about 0.5 cents/kWh. Nuclear should cost less than 3 cents/kWh naive LCOE. And my list is a bargaining position. If I'm an investor, I go up and down the river asking for bid packages. I make the communities compete for my plant. If I can't make money from the best bid, then I won't build and the plant should not be built.
Fair. In the end, ratepayers pay for their own taxes through a utility or anything else. The plants cost basis would be 3.5c not 3c. It would be built into the ratepayers bill.
True, but most of the plant's customers would be outside the county, So there
is a net wealth transfer to Skamania residents.
Which means other communities who might want the plant more badly would be willing to forego those asks. It's not uncommon for a business enterprise to seek and get tax relief and go elsewhere.
If you're requirements, and I think they're reasonable, are to be had as a matter of course, they would need to be supported by public law or regulation.
In my view, only the compensation scheme needs regulatory support. See
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/implementing-underwriter-certification
and in return the NRC disappears.
Everything else should be between the plant and the locals. If the local communities compete away the rest of the items on my list that's their prerogative. As long as there's no bribery involved, competition among the potential sites is essential to the overall efficiency of the process. Like I said, I'm a market guy.
This is exactly what is needed in every city and county of the country. I love fossil fuels, but nuclear makes far more sense in almost any scenario. And this kind of thoughtful approach to implementing it should satisfy any reasonable person who doesn't belong to the Anti Human Flourishing Complex.
My backyard in the Arizona desert is even better, but my wife won't let me store uranium in our horse pasture. :>) Seriously though, the problem is not local approval. Plenty of communities like mine would understand the risks and benefits and go for it. The problem is at the state level, where the anti-nukers are now focusing their efforts. Why should the state care about these risks any more than the locals? This is nuts !!
David,
It's true that local communities tend to do a better job of evaluating the risks and benefits than the state. But some states may be coming around. For example, Wyoming. The core problem is US nuclear is too expensive. Who wants a plant that is going to increase their electricity bill? And that's a federal level problem.
The expense problem could be easily solved, if not for the politics. The feds have issued permits for SNF storage in Utah, Texas, and New Mexico. I'm surprised Wyoming and Idaho are not on the list. The opposition, in every case is at the state level - endless and expensive lawsuits over trivia - state laws banning SNF storage, overriding local communities approval.
https://www.ans.org/news/article-4986/holtec-receives-license-for-consolidated-spent-fuel-storage-site-in-new-mexico/
I would love to see an analysis of the funding sources of the anti-nuclear groups compared to the pro-nuclear groups. I wonder if we could tease out of the data how much goes to state-level politicians.
The problem is not the expense of dry cask storage; it's the cost of the plant itself which is controlled by the NRC.
Why 1GW?. Economic "plants" in Korea, Japan, UAE etc are 4 to 6 reactors. Up to 8 GW. It doesn't make econic sense to build just one reactor once you develop the site.
Dan,
Yes, there are important economies associated with multiple units on the same site. But I'm a big believer in mini-buffer zones around each unit so that a casualty at one unit does not spread to a neighboring unit as happened at Fukushima and could easily have happened at Chernobyl.
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/more-on-buffer-zones
This particular site probably only has room for two,maybe three units.
I may be splitting hairs but I think your probability of a harmful radiation release is too high. So far there have been three TMI or larger releases worldwide, including Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. The Chernobyl disaster was for a reactor type no longer built so should no longer be included. Using approximate numbers there are about 400 plants operating worldwide with a median age of around 38 years. Therefore, there have been two significant releases in 15,000 reactor years (400x38) but it is prudent to assume the next reactor year will have a release, so my estimate is one release in 5000 reactor years, or 0.2 in 1000. That is only 0.02 chances in 100 years.
Invoking your assumption of at least 90% of those releases being TMI-like with no detectable harm off site I would certainly be happy to live near nuclear power plants.
David,
We must be very careful to distinguish between teh probability of a release at a single reactor in a single year and the probability of a release from any of a large fleet of reactors in say the next 50 years. As you point out, the former can be quite small, but at the same time the latter can be very close to 1.00. If nuclear is truly successful in a decarbonized world we would need 25,000 one GW reactors. Using your number we would average 5 TMI or bigger releases per year.
The key here is not the frequency of releases per reactor-year. The key here is waht is the harm to the public associated with the radiation from that release. In most releases, it will not be detectable as Fukushima proved. In a few cases, it might be equivalent to a commericial airplane crash a la Chernobyl. It should be obvious that sucha set of releases is tolerable in return for the manifold benefits of nuclear which include saving far more lives than are taken by reducing fossil fuel pollution. It should also be obvious that there is a point beyond which it is counter-productive to attempt to further reduce the frequency of releases. I argue we are far beyond that point, altho I feel it is important to ensure that the harm associated with releases is small by providing buffer zones around the plants.
It seems to me that individuals want to know what their personal risk is. Obviously two factors - the probability of their neighbourhood plant releasing anything and the probability of it affecting their health and/or well-being. That said I agree ensuring that most releases cause little, or no harm is important. Buffer zones are obviously good.