Administrative maturity does not reliably advance over time but technology does and technology can compensate for a lack of administrative maturity. The social challenges may be intractable but the compensating technological challenges are not and reactor technology has come a long way in this regard. If Fukushima had been built in 1971 instead of 1967, it would not have had the flaw that caused the 2011 meltdown. The industry has learned even more in the following 44 years.
Unfortunately, reactor designs are "frozen in" when built so we are in the awkward position of simultaneously knowing how to build safe, robust reactors and knowing that many of the reactors in service are not safe and not robust to administrative incompetence. A timeline:
date age
1956 00: Calder Hall, first commercial nuclear power
1967 11: Fukushima built
1971 15: Fukushima flaw discovered
1990 34: U.S. NRC ranks Fukushima flaw most likely risk
2004 48: Japanese NISA cites 1990 report
2011 55: Fukushima meltdown
2015 59: Today
Nuclear advocates propose closing down the old, dangerous reactors and building new, safe reactors. Nuclear opponents propose shutting down old reactors and not building new reactors -- but they haven't been able to find viable economic alternatives to the old reactors so effectively what happens is they lobby to keep the old, dangerous reactors running while stopping the construction of new, safe reactors that could otherwise have replaced them. This is the worst possible policy outcome and thanks to their efforts it is what has come to pass in the US. Ugh.
> Nuclear opponents propose shutting down old reactors and not building new reactors -- but they haven't been able to find viable economic alternatives to the old reactors
To the extent this is true, neither have nuclear proponents or the nuclear industry; the reason new nuclear reactors aren't built isn't because of nuclear opponents, its because the nuclear industry won't build them without special liability protections. So, clearly, even new reactors aren't economically viable alternatives, from the perspective of those who would pay for and profit from them, to old reactors without socializing the risk while privatizing the profits.
> so effectively what happens is they lobby to keep the old, dangerous reactors running while stopping the construction of new, safe reactors that could otherwise have replaced them.
Old reactors in the US continue to be decommissioned even though new ones aren't being built. Objectively, the market has found economically viable alternatives to nuclear power.
> its because the nuclear industry won't build them without special liability protections.
You say "liability protections" as if the dispute were over indemnification in case of a meltdown or accident. That's not what has made nuclear reactors too "risky" to be built in the US. The "risk" in question is that anti-nuclear factions will be able to indefinitely stall construction by repeatedly coming up with new "safety studies" to perform (e.g. environmental impact on squirrel population). This strategy worked for them in the past and the nuclear industry reckons it will work in the future unless they have legal protection against it.
> Old reactors in the US continue to be decommissioned even though new ones aren't being built.
A few old reactors, yes. But we've been holding steady at ~750GW of nuclear power for 15 years. "We have been keeping the old reactors running" is far, far closer to the truth than "we have been shutting them down."
Clean sources other than nuclear will eventually make this point moot but it'll take decades and in the meantime we have been / will be running on an unholy mix of unclean, nonrenewable power and power derived from old, dangerous nuclear reactors when we could have switched to clean, safe nuclear sources decades ago.
Not to mention that arguing about the degree of liability the owners face is effectively the same as arguing about the cost of their liability insurance. If the insurance is expensive enough to make it impossible to turn a profit, that is just as effective as a regulator causing endless delays by fiat.
Those cheaper power sources are coal and oil, right? Doesn't every discussion of nuclear being with the assumption that controlling carbon emissions are the real goal?
Germany relying on France is not a bad thing at all. It is called European integration. We do it in other areas, too, because the benefits way outweigh the costs. They could for example crash our currency or stop to sell us food. We could not feed us on our own. Remember, Germany is tiny by US standards.
Somebody has to be the first mover. Once France follows, we will provide them with renewable energy of the finest quality.
No one is complaining about one country cooperating with another, they're simply pointing out that Germany isn't as nuclear free as some claim as it uses nuclear energy from France on days when it's not "sunny".
Unfortunately, reactor designs are "frozen in" when built so we are in the awkward position of simultaneously knowing how to build safe, robust reactors and knowing that many of the reactors in service are not safe and not robust to administrative incompetence. A timeline:
Nuclear advocates propose closing down the old, dangerous reactors and building new, safe reactors. Nuclear opponents propose shutting down old reactors and not building new reactors -- but they haven't been able to find viable economic alternatives to the old reactors so effectively what happens is they lobby to keep the old, dangerous reactors running while stopping the construction of new, safe reactors that could otherwise have replaced them. This is the worst possible policy outcome and thanks to their efforts it is what has come to pass in the US. Ugh.