More, on nuclear energy and the public interest test ... by gimleteye

I don't like nuclear power, and safety is only a small part of my complaint. I don't like nuclear power, because I believe the risks to public health are understated by government and industry. I don't like nuclear power, but building new nuclear is a piece of the Faustian bargain I am willing to make to reverse climate change.

The way this Faustian bargain should work is this: the nation's electric utilities have to meet certain threshold issues in order for the public to drop its objections. High on my list: that except for California, the nation's electric utilities have refused to accept conservation as the precept of its business model. So long as utilities are allowed to profit by incremental volume increase in units of energy produced, the public will be at a severe disadvantage in the quest to reform both the energy grid (ie. how power is distributed to consumers) and in respect to diminishing global warming pollutants like C02.

So, here is the first point: electric utilities like Florida Power and Light must accept that their profits will be regulated according to units of energy conserved, from a baseline, as opposed to energy produced.

Even when conservation is required, as a mandate, the mothballing of electric utilities powered by fossil fuels still requires reliable power.

But electric utilities should not be allowed to build new nuclear unless they address other costs: in particular, to account for how these nuclear facilities will be maintained, operated and decommissioned as a consequence of sea level rise.

Take the example of Turkey Point, in South Florida at the edge of Biscayne National Park. Turkey Point is far from alone in being located close to the waterfront, for the purposes of cooling. Despite the raised fill pad for the reactor or future facility, there has been no public disclosure of costs when sea levels rise. There are two aspects here, for consideration: first, who will pay to ensure that the access to the facilities are maintained at a height so that emergency access is assured? There is another key question to be addressed before any permitting of nuclear: what will be the impact on the utilities' rate base when sea levels rise?

Because nuclear is so inherently dangerous, these questions have to be answered before the Faustian bargain is embraced: what is predicted as to the impact of sea level rise on Florida’s economy and demand for electricity? In other words: when nuclear is permitted, it must only be built as a bulwark; defensible both in terms of projected needs and safety conditions that are anticipated, not based on current climate, but on the eventualities and worst case scenarios we can predict based on a climate and sea levels that could change within the service lifetime of a nuclear reactor and its waste.