I'm conflicted about nuclear power. I'm not convinced that it is safe (either from terrorism or for storage), but I think that given the reality of global warning some movement in this area may be appropriate. I am truly thrilled by the diaries I read here from time to time that intelligently address advances in nuclear power technology that make it safer and usually smaller -- but I am not qualified to assess the scientific arguments made. (I'm just happy that an intelligent discussion about such possibilities is happening out there somewhere, and especially in here somewhere.)
There's one thing, though, that I do feel strongly about with respect to nuclear power:
Nuclear power generation in the U.S. cannot be privately owned!
That's right: I'd consider nuclear power so long as it's socialized -- and while I favor socialization of some industries (primarily defense), I am not someone who routinely pulls socialization out of my box as the first tool of choice. But with nuclear power, this seems like an obvious choice.
First, we have to understand that, going back to the Price-Anderson Act, nuclear power is only going to proceed if the government guarantees against liability for catastrophe, because no company is going to be able to survive financially if something goes very, very wrong. So, do we want people to be able to profit off of nuclear power generation when they won't face the risks? No, I submit, we do not.
Second, we have to understand that that money that is not going into setting up reserve accounts for disasters is instead going into lobbying -- largely, lobbying against the sort of regulation (and enforcement of regulation) that makes disaster less likely. I don't want anyone to have a stake in less effective regulation for nuclear power plants; I don't want less effective regulation to put money in anyone's pocket, the way that it does in many other industries. The stakes with nuclear power are just too high.
Third -- and this one may strike many people as counterintuitive -- I want all nuclear power to be planned, owned, and operated by the federal government because that is the best way to foster innovation. Yep -- in this case, socialism would lead to more competition. Why? Because then you don't have powerful interests with a stake in preventing innovation.
Think of it this way: if you have one of these great innovations in nuclear power (and I think I remember one dealing with lithium, another with boron, and who knows what else -- I'll update if and when people show up here with suggestions), it will have two effects:
(1) it will lead to cheap and safe energy
(2) it will put existing nuclear power plants out of business
In other words, so long as nuclear power is privately owned, the owners have a financial stake in slowing or blocking the development of truly innovative technology. (A nuclear power plant takes many years to pay off the substantial initial investment.) We want an owner that can, when a newer and better model comes along, say "to hell with it -- I'll take the loss on scrapping the old technology because this new technology is what we should have." I don't want private companies -- like the ones who will own these Georgia reactors -- in a position to harm us all in order to protect their bottom lines.
So: I'll listen happily to debates about future use of nuclear power. I will not listen happily to debates about ownership of it. I don't see anything to debate there: if this is something that the U.S. is going to do, it should be something that the U.S. is going to do.