Since I was mentioned in the original post, I quickly (q.e.d.) wanted to lay out my position—where I agree with Ulrik and what my own take on nuclear is (where, I expect, Ulrik and I somewhat disagree):
1. I agree with Ulrik that there is sometimes a “reflexive” pro-nuclearism in EA/rationality circles that seems to be related to widely held priors such as “regulation is bad”, “technology is good”, “greens got it all wrong”, etc. I think this is something where we need to be careful as a movement because a lot of those priors are imported from typical, but not justified, ideological commitments such as techno-optimistic libertarianism popular in Silicon Valley. When someone comes out as pro-nuclear on a podcast and blames regulation as the main / only culprit for nuclear’s uncompetitiveness, I think it would be good if they know the history pretty well and that it does not come across as a slogan on priors (I make no judgment on what happened here, since Ulrik has not identified the podcasts).
2. At the same time, I believe that the evidence strongly suggests that:
Over-regulation is a significant driver of increased cost and that this was a deliberate strategy by anti-nuclear activists
The overall impact of the anti-nuclear / environmental movement on the development on nuclear power was very significant and very negative, via
Over-regulation
Social stigma
Blocking of innovation in nuclear (famously, Senator Kerry’s opposition to the Integral Fast Reactor)
The nuclear industry entering a defensive posture, not innovating
A crowding out of nuclear out of the conversation, instead focusing on intermittent renewables as the energy source preferred for socio-cultural reasons (“small is beautiful”, “harmony with nature” )
At the same time the anti-nuclear movement is not alone to blame for the stalling of Gigawatt-scale nuclear in the West, with other factors typically cited:
Flattening electricity demand reducing the need for massive new capacity
In the US, the decentralized nature of utilities, making economy of scales and learning hard
De-regulation of electricity markets making it harder to finance large projects
Conflation of nuclear war and nuclear energy
Epistemically the situation is such that the evidence will always allow for multiple explanations / different weights on different factors because
We have very small N (30? countries) with lots of explanatory variables (energy market structures, resources, political systems, strength of different political forces, etc.)
Lots of causal interactions that are hard to precisely track (e.g. how much should we blame the nuclear industry’s end to innovating on the defensive posture induced by anti-nuclear activists that put the nuclear industry on retreat since the late 80s?)
Combinatorial causation, e.g. maybe the non-stalling of France required (a) extreme energy import dependence and two oil crises illustrating vulnerability, (b) centralized governance and (c) being a nuclear power already whereas the stalling in the US required (a) flattening electricity demand, (b) decentralized utilities, (c) a trend of deregulation and (d) anti-nuclear activists.
I think I agree with most if not all of the above (and on some points I would defer to you Johannes having done much more research than me).
Another point you might agree with: Renewables has significantly disrupted the operations and revenues of nuclear. Wind and solar especially ramp quickly up and down with cloud cover and the approach/retreat of weather systems. Existing nuclear is not well equipped to such fast ramp-rates. I think this has made the % of year nuclear power plants are fully operational decrease and that there are “unnecessary” periods where nuclear could have commended high prices but cannot as it takes too long to stop and start these plants. Not too sure about this, but I think I have heard nuclear operators quoting this as a reason for needing to shut down nuclear reactors for commercial purposes.
Since I was mentioned in the original post, I quickly (q.e.d.) wanted to lay out my position—where I agree with Ulrik and what my own take on nuclear is (where, I expect, Ulrik and I somewhat disagree):
1. I agree with Ulrik that there is sometimes a “reflexive” pro-nuclearism in EA/rationality circles that seems to be related to widely held priors such as “regulation is bad”, “technology is good”, “greens got it all wrong”, etc. I think this is something where we need to be careful as a movement because a lot of those priors are imported from typical, but not justified, ideological commitments such as techno-optimistic libertarianism popular in Silicon Valley. When someone comes out as pro-nuclear on a podcast and blames regulation as the main / only culprit for nuclear’s uncompetitiveness, I think it would be good if they know the history pretty well and that it does not come across as a slogan on priors (I make no judgment on what happened here, since Ulrik has not identified the podcasts).
2. At the same time, I believe that the evidence strongly suggests that:
Over-regulation is a significant driver of increased cost and that this was a deliberate strategy by anti-nuclear activists
The overall impact of the anti-nuclear / environmental movement on the development on nuclear power was very significant and very negative, via
Over-regulation
Social stigma
Blocking of innovation in nuclear (famously, Senator Kerry’s opposition to the Integral Fast Reactor)
The nuclear industry entering a defensive posture, not innovating
A crowding out of nuclear out of the conversation, instead focusing on intermittent renewables as the energy source preferred for socio-cultural reasons (“small is beautiful”, “harmony with nature” )
At the same time the anti-nuclear movement is not alone to blame for the stalling of Gigawatt-scale nuclear in the West, with other factors typically cited:
Flattening electricity demand reducing the need for massive new capacity
In the US, the decentralized nature of utilities, making economy of scales and learning hard
De-regulation of electricity markets making it harder to finance large projects
Conflation of nuclear war and nuclear energy
Epistemically the situation is such that the evidence will always allow for multiple explanations / different weights on different factors because
We have very small N (30? countries) with lots of explanatory variables (energy market structures, resources, political systems, strength of different political forces, etc.)
Lots of causal interactions that are hard to precisely track (e.g. how much should we blame the nuclear industry’s end to innovating on the defensive posture induced by anti-nuclear activists that put the nuclear industry on retreat since the late 80s?)
Combinatorial causation, e.g. maybe the non-stalling of France required (a) extreme energy import dependence and two oil crises illustrating vulnerability, (b) centralized governance and (c) being a nuclear power already whereas the stalling in the US required (a) flattening electricity demand, (b) decentralized utilities, (c) a trend of deregulation and (d) anti-nuclear activists.
I think I agree with most if not all of the above (and on some points I would defer to you Johannes having done much more research than me).
Another point you might agree with: Renewables has significantly disrupted the operations and revenues of nuclear. Wind and solar especially ramp quickly up and down with cloud cover and the approach/retreat of weather systems. Existing nuclear is not well equipped to such fast ramp-rates. I think this has made the % of year nuclear power plants are fully operational decrease and that there are “unnecessary” periods where nuclear could have commended high prices but cannot as it takes too long to stop and start these plants. Not too sure about this, but I think I have heard nuclear operators quoting this as a reason for needing to shut down nuclear reactors for commercial purposes.
Yes, thanks—the destruction of electricity markets for baseload sources is indeed another effect that makes building nuclear (and coal) harder.