Public reaction to TMI played havoc with the economics of nuclear power throughout the 1980s, as the cost of capital escalated - due to, among other things, the cost of compliance with new and stringent regulation, and heated public debate that protracted, and in some cases blocked altogether, the permitting and licensing processes. Over-built capacity further exacerbated the pressure on the industry, which had overestimated energy demand. And then came Chernobyl Since 1980, the nuclear power industry has spent untold millions on safety upgrades—and on public information campaigns. Industry associations such as the US Committee for Energy Awareness (later the Nuclear Energy Institute), formed in the wake of TMI, represent a massive industry investment in restoring public confidence. The return on that investment is unclear. Certainly, reports of the demise of nuclear power are very much exaggerated, fifteen years since TMI, nuclear power generated 20 percent of electricity used in the US - up from 4 percent in 197310. However, during the same period, nuclear energy has also become the most highly regulated industry in the world, and remains among the most controversial Public scrutiny and skepticism of nuclear power remain unshaken, and are playing a strong role in the latest (and possibly most challenging) chapter of the debate—waste disposal The disposal question and its resolution warrant close study, as an illustration of an opportunity lost by industry and seized years later by its opponents. With the luxury of hindsight it is easy to point out that the nuclear industry did not devote adequate forethought to the question of spent fuel, from either an operational or a regulatory perspective. As more and more units approach their regulated capacity levels, the problem of disposal becomes increasingly urgent. Opponents of the nuclear industry recognize that blocking disposal options will have the effect of choking off production, yielding the "no nukes" result they seek, albeit by indirect means. From a public opinion perspective, the industry has a difficult battle to fight. Unlike discussions about production, in which tangible benefits can be argued, waste is waste, and radioactive waste is uniquely problematic. And the existing regulatory framework doesn't help matters, since it does not offer a specific solution, but rather a series of prohibitions. In effect, nuclear power opponents have stasis on their side; it will fall to the industry to take initiative action. Implications for Space Solar Power As the energy source most recently to achieve market maturity on a large scale, nuclear power offers some useful analogies and insights for SSP. Both nuclear power and SSP represent technological and conceptual departures from conventional fuels, and both have their origins in government research and development. Less tangibly, but at least as important in terms of public acceptance, both involve "invisible" power; "radiation" and "waves" are inherently more mysterious than incineration or combustion. Trust me "Mysterious" or "magical" may have been a neutral attribute - or even an asset - when nuclear power emerged commercially in the 1950s. Certainly the nuclear industry did little to demystify the generation 10 Source: Nuclear Energy Institute
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==