I have constantly been refreshing for news on the nuclear plants. I can't help but imagine those workers fighting disaster in there, knowing there could be another hydrogen explosion or that they may be exposed to radiation, as apparently some workers were already evacuated. Those guys have some serious stones. And yeah, it has made me think about the what the policy in the US should be.
I think McConnell has it right with that quote. It's impossible to know anything for certain as this point. Let's not overreact.
On nuclear policy I am generally against the status quo. When people they say they support nuclear and you ask what they mean, it usually comes down to guarantees and power subsidies with some hand waving about removing red tape. I don't believe having the NRC inspect plants and validate designs is an excessive amount of red tape - I think it's necessary given the history of the technology and the risks. Fukushima does reinforces that for me. We do need independent inspectors. I don't believe nuclear needs more financial incentives provided by the taxpayer. Ultimately I'm not against nuclear in particular but against policy that singles out nuclear in a top down decision for subsidies and guarantees.
The federal government socializes the risk of investing in nuclear power while pri-vatizing profits. This same formula drove the frenzied speculation that cratered the housing and financial markets. What might it cause with nuclear power?
See:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 08830.html" target="_blank
So what should the policy be? The government should setup the playing field, not pick the winners.
There are damn good reasons to like nuclear -- it doesn't rely on foreign energy sources and it has lower emissions. Luckily for us there is a consensus among policy wonks as the best way to do get this result from power generation, even among the left and the right. On emissions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/busin ... .html?_r=1" target="_blank
Using a Pigovian tax to address global warming is also an old idea. It was proposed as far back as 1992 by Martin S. Feldstein on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Once chief economist to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Feldstein has devoted much of his career to studying how high tax rates distort incentives and impede economic growth. But like most other policy wonks, he appreciates that some taxes align private incentives with social costs and move us toward better outcomes.
Those vying for elected office, however, are reluctant to sign on to this agenda. Their political consultants are no fans of taxes, Pigovian or otherwise. Republican consultants advise using the word “tax” only if followed immediately by the word “cut.” Democratic consultants recommend the word “tax” be followed by “on the rich.”
Yet this natural aversion to carbon taxes can be overcome if the revenue from the tax is used to reduce other taxes. By itself, a carbon tax would raise the tax burden on anyone who drives a car or uses electricity produced with fossil fuels, which means just about everybody. Some might fear this would be particularly hard on the poor and middle class. But Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of economics at Tufts, has shown how revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce payroll taxes in a way that would leave the distribution of total tax burden approximately unchanged.
Taxes could similarly optimize any other aspects of power that we want to address, foreign dependence, other pollutants, etc.
So the policy is: price the things we like or dislike about power sources into the market. Then put some taxpayer money into a national power grid to create a large competitive power market. This could be done privately, but the political difficulties of building long distance lines across local communities makes it almost impossible unless you go offshore Google is.
With that policy we get the best power for our money, in every location. Nuclear is way more competitive against oil and coal with that system. And with a better national power grid it is a lot easier to find sites for nuclear plants -- the range of possibilities is much greater if they don't need to be right next to the market they sell to. I expect nuclear will do decent in some markets where other sources are not available. But if nuclear
has those advantage and
still loses against competitors then it means the alternatives are genuinely better.
This does mean phasing out subsidies for solar or wind as well.
All that said, there is a special difficulty in attaining private insurance with nuclear as the worst case scenario is just that bad. The government should provide some help here against liability. But it shouldn't provide insurance against investors losing their lunch.