Torre, in his Ph.D. dissertation in 2017, opined that a state has a plethora of options when it comes to electricity generation. In the case of nuclear power, it is not a simple yes/no or present/absent dichotomy as it is often portrayed in the literature and technical news or editorials. A state that has existing nuclear capacity can choose to: expand, maintain, or phase out nuclear power. It will implement one of these three policies towards nuclear power for a variety of political, social, and economic reasons; the challenge is to discern the criteria used in reaching these policy outcomes.
Using data from Finland*, Canada**, and Germany***(see page bottom), the author examined the most similar cases with differing outcomes during the nuclear renaissance (2000-2015). Each case is illustrative of one of the three possible trajectories for a state already in possession of at least one commercial nuclear power plant. The author sought to better understand why they choose such divergent policies around nuclear power during this period of study.
The author's findings confirm the literature’s claim [as of 2015]] that nuclear expansions are most likely to take place within governance models that are centralized, technocratic, and involve limited public engagement. As electricity planning shifts away from centrally planned, technically-informed decisions among experts to a more democratic process, with an increased emphasis on social considerations, large-infrastructure projects like nuclear power plants will become that much more challenging to advance. Taken together with the rising costs of building new reactors, it will greatly limit where new construction will seriously be considered.
When the author first began considering the topic of nuclear power for his dissertation, he considered the technology as a relatively straightforward means of helping to reduce emissions and address the complex issue of climate change. He saw it as a commercially available, mature technology that could potentially play a significant role in decarbonizing the world’s electricity supply at a time when much of the world’s energy supply was still driven by fossil fuels [and nuclear power has been generating electricity without serious accidents, where no one has died or has been irradiated, except for the Soviet disaster at Chernobyl, which could have been avoided (see (more)]. He assumed (perhaps naively) that many of the technical barriers to entry would already be addressed in a state with decades of experience with the technology, allowing them to fully exploit the benefits of nuclear power in order to achieve their ambitious emissions reductions targets, [which they were....?] Upon closer inspection, a technological solution to climate change driven by nuclear power did not hold up to scrutiny [Bias Alert: This statement is untrue. Nuclear power has been in operation with some 400 reactors for decades, which clearly held up their objectives of being climate friendly, then and now]
In practice, [by 2015] there have only been a handful of OECD states looking to expand their nuclear fleets, with many only seeking to maintain existing capacity, and a growing chorus of them looking to phase out the technology altogether, [those countries that allowed politics to interfere with sound technical reasoning]. The author sought to better understand what led similarly situated states to adopt such divergent policy outcomes in the area of nuclear policy. It confirmed the literature’s long held assertion that closed, technocratic decision-making processes, with limited public engagement, were factors positively correlated with nuclear expansion [and this is rightly so becasue public whims have no role in determining energy selection, where what is best for the climate should have been the rule in 2015, and even more clearly now in 2021]. However, the trend in energy governance is moving towards more inclusive, participatory models, that tend to be less favorable to commercial nuclear power. [This is untenable becasue the public politics are generally ignorant to judge what is the best technology in energy selection. Such "decisions by committee" were not acceptable after the French Revolution or after the Russian Revolution, both led to chaos and "technical dark ages"]. What does this mean for the future of nuclear power, and more broadly speaking, what does this tell us about the decision-making process surrounding energy policy?
One lesson to take away from all of this is that science and technology-related policies cannot be forced upon a society as the best and/or only option, relying primarily on technical justifications [BIAS Alert: And by inference, public health should not mandate vaccines? (note current stupidity of many Republicans and some others of color (fear of Tuskegee experiments, etc.)) ]. These policies have social implications that need to be discussed and considered before public acceptance can be established. The lay person may not understand all of the technical features of a technology, nor are they necessarily going to be interested in being educated on its benefits, but that does not mean that policymakers have free rein to do as they please.[Of course it does ... people must rely science and technology and what's best for them simply because they are ignorant of the technical issues. That is the role of scientists and engineers.!!] While more research needs to be done to ascertain what counts as effective public consultation in the area of energy policy, its growing importance is difficult to dismiss [becasue some people carry opinions that they should control science & technology and those in government, even though they are ignorant of the facts and do not have the training to understand the decision-making issues].
A second, and related lesson, is that a slower process of development is not necessarily a negative outcome. Public trust and understanding has long been understood to be difficult to establish, and even more challenging to restore once lost (Slovic, 1999). Rushing consultations to meet industry deadlines can make the approvals process longer and more arduous than it has to be. Long lead times and extensive consultation may be less than ideal from an economic standpoint, but are quickly becoming prerequisites of the regulatory process. There is no shortcut to gaining and maintaining public trust. [Of course, but "politics" should not interfere with technological progress. Public "faith" should be based on having respect for science and technology and the scientists and and engineers involved, not expressing jealousy and envy of such as are often the motives behind the "politics" of energy selection and social engagement in 2015 and still in 2021].
A third lesson is that simply because something is efficient and/or desirable from a technical point-of-view does not mean that it will be acceptable to the broader public [Of course it does !! This were ignorance and even stupidly begin to play a role in the politics of energy selection. For example, Greta Thunberg has nothing to bring to the discussions on energy policy. She has no credentials or understanding, excerpt for what people tell her or for that she reads in the media]. Opponents of nuclear power and other science and technology-driven policies cannot simply be dismissed as irrational, emotional, and/or ill-informed [They must be dismissed because they bring nothing to the discussions, except "faith", rumors, misinformation, or bare-faced lies on the subject at hand] Their mistrust of industry and the authorities responsible for regulating them is based on a lived experience [that is, of misinformation, misunderstanding, and rumors, due to ignorance or even outright stupidity, often obtained from sources with hidden agendas], one in which they felt their best interests were not always maintained by those in power. [But one or a group should not throw the baby out with the bathwater; obtain independent views on the subject]. For a democratic society, this means opening up the process (of course to vote, but not for energy selection. That should left to the independent scientists and engineers to decide], to allow those concerns to be raised, vetted, and included as part of an honest debate about the appropriateness of a given technology within society. [Of course, but should be wary of hidden agendas (such as Left Politics generally supporting wind and solar, while Center and Right Politics (after removing coal, oil and natural gas interests (i.e., agendas) for burning to create electricity, which generally supports nuclear power.] The public benefits of nuclear power cannot be simply dictated to the public as part of an education campaign, but instead must be rigorously debated, and negotiated within a public forum [but many supporting wind and solar will not admit to the failings of these renewables and the impending lack of power even with increasing costs to the consumer. Ignorant supporters "believe" that since wind and solar are free energy sources, then they are the best source of power to light their homes, which they are clearly not on the whole.]
For the nuclear industry, this move toward increased public engagement in energy policy may seem like an additional hurdle, one that makes their business that much more challenging [Of course it does...especially in dealing with people with hidden agendas (wind and solar devotees or with other other agendas, see (more)]. In practice, however, it should serve as a wake-up call to the need for a stronger public engagement strategy, one that goes beyond their nuclear communities, and speaks to a broader swath of society. Nuclear power has many merits, but it also comes with a troubled history, marred by accidents [no one has died, no one was irradiated], cost escalation and delays [caused by excessive regulations brought about by anti-nuclear groups, etc],. The nuclear renaissance may have fizzled in Western democratic states [Bias Alert: No fizzling, just no expansion ... until 2021 (more)], but there remain ample opportunities for the existing fleet to play a role in off-setting emissions along with the potential for next generation reactors to be deployed in the coming decades, see (more). A rethink of how the nuclear industry and policymakers choose to address the public on these issues will be needed in order for sophisticated science and technology policy to be effectively advanced. The final frontier for nuclear energy will not be addressed in a lab, instead, it will take place in a different milieu. It is a complex social issue, one that will require patience, dialogue, and understanding if it is to be effectively overcome.[People will soon see the errors in their anti-nuclear thinking, and as the Republican have done recently concerning getting vaccinated, although there will be some left to die or freeze, that being the nature of Democracy ... your right to be stupid].
[Let's see how the following countries have progresses since the author's investigation of 2015:
*Finland (here)
**Canada (here)
***Germany (here)
Japan (here)
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
