April 11, 2011

Nuclear Power in the Dock
by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

The unfolding nuclear emergency in Japan has prompted a reconsideration
of nuclear power here in the United States. Surprisingly, the political
faith in nuclear power appears to be relatively unshaken at the moment,
with opinion leaders on both the left and right cautioning against
overreaction and politicians in both parties swearing continued fealty
to the federal campaign to jump-start new construction orders.

This is unfortunate — not necessarily because nuclear power plants are a
catastrophic meltdown waiting to happen — but because nuclear power
makes no sense from an economic perspective and the political campaign
to ram these plants down the market's throat threatens catastrophic harm
to both taxpayers and ratepayers.

This is an issue similar to fixed-wing airliners. Both L. Neil Smith and J. Neil Schulman argue that the only reason fixed-wing airliners (FWA) beat out lighter-than-air (LTA) passenger liners is government intervention: mostly the lack of military utility of LTA craft versus faster and more easily armored and defended FWA. It is an often-debated argument, and while the Neils (and others) make sound arguments, there are a LOT of factors that decided public and private users to concentrate on FWA from the Ford Trimotor right up to the Boeing 787. Would that have happened in a peaceful and government-free society? Of such are written MANY SF stories.

Concerning nuclear power plants, the claim is that nuclear power piles exist only because (1) the government developed them for military applications during WW2, and (2) that the government subsidizes their construction, operation, and further research and development for military purposes.

The claims of government development are true, as far as they go: without the Manhattan Project of WW2, it might have taken a decade or two longer to have developed self-sustaining, power generating piles because a peaceful and government-free society did not exist, and there was no great significant benefit in using nuclear power instead of coal- or oil-fired power (or hydro-) in the Anglosphere in peace that would have warranted the investment in developing nuclear piles, during that 1940-1960 era. (Although there are strong arguments, made by Heinlein and many others, that thorium rather than uranium/plutonium, would have been the technology developed, because there are many advantages to Thorium-cycle fission, including the fact that there is no such thing as a Thorium bomb.) So some people argue that nuke power piles would not exist today except for the "subsidy" provided by the massive government research "investment" and research funded by government that has continued since into fission (and fusion). So, they are arguing, nuke power competes unfairly with coal-, oil-, and gas-powered electrical production for this reason.

On the other hand, many people will argue that without government interference, nuclear power would have been developed by private, free-market firms and research decades earlier. I tend that direction, myself. In addition, all that "free" government research has been offset, mostly if not completely, by the prevention of research due to government regs in the last 30+ years, and by the failure of the government to provide an understandable and reasonable economic and regulatory environment.

Secondly, they will argue that government "investment" into construction and "tax breaks" given to firms who build and operate nuclear power plants taints nuclear power and makes it uneconomical, since they assume that these would not have been built without that government investment and special treatment. Most of the people who make this claim should be more careful, as megawatt for megawatt, hydro-electric, solar-, and wind-power ALL appear to have MUCH higher government subsidies and MANY more tax breaks than nuclear does. And that does not even take into account the subsidies to the coal-powered plant (direct and indirect, to miners unions and firms mining and processing coal). Certainly, the low cost of research and development, tax credits, direct government investment (via organizations like Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the various rural electrical cooperatives (REA), and various other tax breaks skew the economics of nuke plants. But again, they do the same thing for coal-, gas-, oil-, hydro-, and solar-powered electrical generation and distribution.

Then they will argue that the US and Canadian governments subsidize nuclear power by allowing people to mine uranium on public land while paying a fraction of the market cost in royalties and getting away with pollution while doing it, which is then cleaned up using government money. But again, the same thing is done with coal, oil, gas, and everything else. Indeed, because the entire nuclear industry from mining right up to waste disposal is FAR more strictly regulated, by federal and state government, than either coal or the petroleum industry, it may be that the impact of government regulations (and their costs) is far heavier on nukes than on other power sources. Closely related to this is the idea that government subsidizes nuke power by providing (at least theoretically) waste disposal options, whereas other kinds of fuel have to provide for their own. Just like most governments "subsidize" domestic trash generation and disposal, and wastewater treatment by most houses, businesses, and even industry.

Finally, they will claim that the governments shield the nuke plant owners and operators from massive liabilities associated with building and operating nuke power piles. And against liability for many things by regulations and mandates and insurance controls and subsidies that "externalize" costs and make nukes appear "competitive" against coal and oil and gas. Of course, ALL these different methods are supported to some degree by government regulations and preferences.

Bottom line, without a VERY detailed and VERY neutral financial and economic analysis, I would not take much credence in any claims of this sort. Without any detailed analysis - or even a "cursory" analysis (say, 8 to 10 hours research and work), I would expect that the increased regulatory and public-response costs make up for a LOT of the "subsidies" and "advantages" of government research, especially that of decades ago. And we can't compare it to a utopian, peaceful and non-governmental "Probability Broach" world, can we?

But once we resolve that, then let us talk about moral comparisons, such as the deaths of people related to coal mining and transportation versus that of the uranium industry versus oil and gas industry. Or indirect total life-cycle environmental impacts, for the decades/centuries these have been around.

There is a reason that technological advance did not EXPLODE until the English people and their descendents in North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India gained liberty (to the extent that the various areas HAVE liberty). Authoritarian societies MUST resist as much progress and innovation as possible to avoid upset conditions. And environism is, at its heart, an authoritarian political philosophy.