This is so reasonable and clearheaded, I'm not sure it has a chance until apocalyptic level of food and shelter scarcity is "achieved" through political action. Politicians have so much to gain through fearmongering.
Jack - Have you presented this proposed legislation to any members of Congress or their staffs? Or to legislative counsel of the relevant committees in House and Senate?
I'm genuinely curious about how far into the sausage making factory you (and/or others) have made it with these seemingly reasonable and sound ideas.
I'm following nuclear closely and agree that reform is very much needed. No company wants to "go it alone" but any single company's efforts are likely to be insufficient to address the wider need for reform of the regulatory structure. Unfortunately, the current nuclear industry 'trade associations' are riven with divergent and conflicting interests but the large number of new SMR/micro 'advanced reactor' companies should be able to find a lot of common ground in seeking reform.
The GKG has sent copies of the Make Nuclear Cheap Again book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F32KLXRJ to a full range of nuclear policy makers, both Congressional and in the Trump Administration. The book lays out the argument why Congress must regulate nuclear directly, rather than delegating that responsibility to an autocratic bureaucrat who is judged on his ability to prevent a release. In the case of Secretary Wright, we have good reason to believe that the book got to his desk.
So far zero response.
I have had some direct contact with members of the Trump transition team. As far as I can tell, their position is:
a) try to pressure the NRC to speed up approvals. in part by changing personnel.
b) make an end run around the NRC by claiming small reactors built for DOE account, don't need the full NRC approval process.
There appears to be no appetite for anything more, not even more EO's. My take is nuclear's not really on Trump's radar, and he has left nuclear to far more timid people.
The incumbent nuclear industry has an enormous stake in the status quo. They will defend their hard won regulatory moat vigorously, Witness the Orwellian named Nuclear Innovation Alliance coming out strongly against the suit that challenges the NRC's control of tiny reactors. There's no "conflicting interests" that I can see. Everybody's on the same page.
The pitch that just about all the new entrants have made to their investors is: my new technology is so good, we can live with NRC-style regulation. Just give us enough money to pay for the process. That's not going to change things.
This pitch is starting to sell. The reason is that the prohibitions against fossil combined with all the crippling problems of wind/solar have led a portion of the investor community to think "electricity could get so expensive, these guys just might be right". This is a terrible outcome for society, but some people will make money out of it.
This is so reasonable and clearheaded, I'm not sure it has a chance until apocalyptic level of food and shelter scarcity is "achieved" through political action. Politicians have so much to gain through fearmongering.
Jack - Have you presented this proposed legislation to any members of Congress or their staffs? Or to legislative counsel of the relevant committees in House and Senate?
I'm genuinely curious about how far into the sausage making factory you (and/or others) have made it with these seemingly reasonable and sound ideas.
I'm following nuclear closely and agree that reform is very much needed. No company wants to "go it alone" but any single company's efforts are likely to be insufficient to address the wider need for reform of the regulatory structure. Unfortunately, the current nuclear industry 'trade associations' are riven with divergent and conflicting interests but the large number of new SMR/micro 'advanced reactor' companies should be able to find a lot of common ground in seeking reform.
Alan.Dunn@ip3international.com
Alan,
Good questions, for which I have no good answers.
The GKG has sent copies of the Make Nuclear Cheap Again book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F32KLXRJ to a full range of nuclear policy makers, both Congressional and in the Trump Administration. The book lays out the argument why Congress must regulate nuclear directly, rather than delegating that responsibility to an autocratic bureaucrat who is judged on his ability to prevent a release. In the case of Secretary Wright, we have good reason to believe that the book got to his desk.
So far zero response.
I have had some direct contact with members of the Trump transition team. As far as I can tell, their position is:
a) try to pressure the NRC to speed up approvals. in part by changing personnel.
b) make an end run around the NRC by claiming small reactors built for DOE account, don't need the full NRC approval process.
There appears to be no appetite for anything more, not even more EO's. My take is nuclear's not really on Trump's radar, and he has left nuclear to far more timid people.
The incumbent nuclear industry has an enormous stake in the status quo. They will defend their hard won regulatory moat vigorously, Witness the Orwellian named Nuclear Innovation Alliance coming out strongly against the suit that challenges the NRC's control of tiny reactors. There's no "conflicting interests" that I can see. Everybody's on the same page.
The pitch that just about all the new entrants have made to their investors is: my new technology is so good, we can live with NRC-style regulation. Just give us enough money to pay for the process. That's not going to change things.
This pitch is starting to sell. The reason is that the prohibitions against fossil combined with all the crippling problems of wind/solar have led a portion of the investor community to think "electricity could get so expensive, these guys just might be right". This is a terrible outcome for society, but some people will make money out of it.