Argument: Nuclear energy costs are unfairly increased by regulations and politics
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Pascal Zachary. "The case for nuclear power". SFGate. February 5, 2006 - "Entergy, Exelon and a few other nuclear specialists are pressing the federal government for more guarantees against the many risks faced in building a plant, not the least of which are the inevitable legal challenges. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the chief regulator, has responded by imposing a one-stop approval process, but the process has never been tested in court.
Arguably the biggest economic hurdle for nuclear power is short-term: who will bear the risk of being the first mover?
To get past the economic penalties for being first, a consortium of utilities including Exelon and Entergy, has formed a clever joint venture. The group, called NuStart Energy Development LLC, is filing a single application for a combined operating and construction license, in effect testing the regulatory and legal environment as a group so that no one utility gets stuck holding the bag if the process goes awry."
Mark Brandly. "The Case for Nuclear Power". Virginia Viewpoint. October, 2001 - On the economic side, while costs are competitive in existing nuclear plants, government regulations, political delays, and public relations problems increase those costs substantially, making new plants less economically feasible.
Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006 - "Meanwhile, the nuclear licensing process must be improved. Last year’s energy bill streamlined procedures somewhat, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must get serious about processing license applications in a timely manner. Delays caused by red tape and bureaucratic foot-dragging could send private investment elsewhere."