In a 2017 study in Energies, the Australian economist Peter Lang calculated that if the heavy regulation championed by anti-nuclear activists had not prevailed during the 1970s and '80s, nuclear power “could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity” globally by 2015.
Wow. That’s an extra dumb take even by the lofty standards of this exalted community. As someone who works in the industry, let me tell you that those regulations are absolutely essential and never cover more than the bare minimum. But if course capitalist megacorps can totally be trusted to not cut corners and always behave perfectly responsibly, amirite?
I’m not familiar with Lang’s paper, but I know the German Greens for example have explicitly stated as much:
WELT: Das Hauptziel der Grünen war der sofortige Ausstieg aus der Atomenergie. Es hat dann doch etwas länger gedauert. Begann damit die Realpolitik?
Trittin: 1990 flogen wir West-Grünen aus dem Bundestag. Aber in Niedersachsen haben wir damals gewonnen, es kam zu einer rot-grünen Landesregierung mit Gerhard Schröder (SPD). Zwar mit einem schwachen Ergebnis, 5,5 Prozent – aber wir regierten. Uns war klar, dass wir Atomkraft nicht nur über Protest auf der Straße verhindern können. Daraufhin haben wir in den Regierungen in Niedersachsen und später in Hessen versucht, Atomkraftwerke unrentabel zu machen, indem man die Sicherheitsanforderungen hochschraubt. Das war nicht willkürlich, sondern fachlich geboten.
Translated:
WELT: The main goal of the Greens was to immediately phase out nuclear energy. It did take a little longer. Did this begin realpolitik?
Trittin: In 1990, we West Greens were thrown out of the Bundestag. But we won in Lower Saxony back then; a red-green state government was formed with Gerhard Schröder (SPD). Admittedly with a weak result, 5.5 percent – but we ruled.
It was clear to us that we couldn’t prevent nuclear power just by protesting on the streets. As a result, we in the governments of Lower Saxony and later Hesse tried to make nuclear power plants unprofitable by increasing safety requirements. This was not arbitrary, but technically necessary.
@Emil @Diplomjodler Given that no western country build a nuclear power plant on time and on budget in the last 25 years, that point is rather mood. Or it is simply true and regulations were indeed technically necessary in all those countries.
@Sweetshark @Emil @Diplomjodler
Regulations are necessary. But regulations can be implemented in ways that do not create arbitrary month-long delays for simple and standard engineering questions. Or you can do what Trittin described.
The problem is that the Greens /still/ have not cleaned up their priorities. Habeck last year was unable to affirm in an interview the direct question whether coal is worse for the environment than nuclear.
@Sweetshark @Emil @Diplomjodler
It's almost funny to watch anti-nuclear rhethoric over the years. In the beginning it was »it's unsafe, you're just doing it for profit«, then »it's dirty, you're just doing it for profit«, and now that those points don't hold up, it's »it's unprofitable, you're just doing it for, uhmm…«.