A recent article in Time magazine (March 28, 2011) addressed a series of challenges faced by prospective developers of nuclear generating plants in the U.S. In addition to some fundamental mismatches between federal policy, utility strategies, and financial institutions, the article implied the following multi-faceted strategic-planning question:
Can we afford to make nuclear energy safe, taking into consideration:
- An appropriate assessment of risk and estimates of present costs, ongoing social stress, etc. under various future failure-probability scenarios.
- Energy cost-competitiveness compared to generation with fossil fuels or other technologies, including consideration of the value of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through nuclear generation.
- Comparisons with the value of enhancing renewable energy production technology and installations, by means of direct investment and subsidies, given the downward trajectory of costs for such systems and the fact that additional monetary support could subsequently drive costs down further.
All of these issues can be addressed within a typical strategic planning process that would begin with a panel of experts defining the appropriate research protocols and conducting the specified analysis. Without such a factual basis, which is readily achievable using the most basic analytical processes, the evolution of nuclear energy depends on political inclinations.