Becker-Posner on Nuclear Power

Two of the brightest lights in the blogosphere, Gary Becker and Richard Posner, are discussing nuclear power as an energy alternative over at their blog. Posner lays out his position here.

If externalities are excluded, but fossil-fuel prices are assumed to remain high, nuclear generation of electricity is only marginally economical. (For helpful background, see The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study [2003].) The question whether to permit or encourage the construction of additional nuclear electrical generating plants therefore turns on the weight given the various externalities that such plants produce, both positive and negative.

He then lists positive externalities: 1) nuclear power is cleaner than most alternatives, 2) it lessens our reliance on foreign energy sources -- and negative ones: 1) possibility of meltdown, 2) problem of disposing of waste [especially in an age of terrorism], 3) it would undermine efforts to discourage non-western countries from developing nuclear power, 4) the American public remains skeptical regarding nuclear power.

He therefore argues against subsidizing the industry, but is willing to reduce regulatory barriers that raise the cost of nuclear power. [Informed comments follow.]

Becker lays out his position here.

Nuclear power plants are competitive with other forms of nuclear power and will become more so if prices for energy remain high.

Nuclear power is used widely around the world. Other nations are moving rapidly toward it. It has many advantages: 1) it relieves dependence on foreign energy sources, 2) uranium is abundant and cheap and, if fossil fuels are becoming scarce [which he doesn't believe, but has been argued] can replace them, 3) nuclear power is clean, compared to fossil fuels and will benefit the environment.

The disadvantages are: 1) public fear of a nuclear accident, 2) problems with waste disposal, and 3) fear of terrorist attack. These have been exaggerated. The safety technology has advanced to the point where nuclear power is safe; the problems of waste disposal are primarily political [NIMBY] and not technical; and plants can be hardened against terrorist attack.

He concludes that it is time for the US to make a major move toward nuclear. [discussion, some of it off topic follows].

Becker has followup comments here.

He recognizes that there are some problems associated with disposal at Yucca Flats, but notes that they are solvable. He notes that we have used nuclear generators for military purposes for a long time. Other nations are going ahead and don't have exaggerated fears of the technology. He disagrees with Bush's proposal for the government to assume liability for the industry, but does want to cap payments in legal actions. He wants to educate the public about the safety and benefits of nuclear power.

These are really bright and accomplished guys, and most of their commentators are serious people. Check out the discussion. You'll be glad you did.