Rod, the response from Duke is a little puzzling to me. If Duke sees the value of a clean energy future and the role that nuclear will play in that, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot by maintaining market barriers for small reactors? These are the very small reactors that they might be interested in investing in to be more competitive themselves?
I understand predictability, but there are a number of ways that rules can be creatively designed so that they are grandfathered for a period of time until new rules apply to them. Why wouldn't they suggest any contingencies for such a proposal? Are they that short sighted or just that greedy?
Just doing some quick estimates, if the 4 million license fee goes to an 1100 MWe plant, then that represents about $3600 per MW. Rounding to $3500, a license fee for a small 50MWe plant would then be $175,000. That still might be a lot of money for a small village in Alaska, but seems reasonable enough for a utility Co. Perhaps a tiered structure would be good too, but the point is that there is a number of ways to approach this that would be fair to everyone.
I wonder if this is at all possible to challenge in court on some basis of unfair trade barriers? It's just very disappointing to see Americans work against the spirit of innovation and free enterprise, especially when the future depends on it.
In response to Jason, indeed, it seems odd at first glance but these companies are not REALLY interested in much beyond the bottom line. There is a real, big, "uranium industrial complex" out there that likes things the way they are, with no bumps, no further things or products to consider. It's a sort of 'enthropy' that infects big companies. GM is a good example of this, Ford tends to buck the trend and is thus more innovative.
David
David, although Rod points out that one comment, as I look at a few other comments, (have to dig a little for them)many were quite supportive of a variable license fee structure so there is some hope. Looking at the background document, they threw out the reactor size exception rule in 2005 based on the fact that no one was using it. This seems odd to me. It's a bit like a car company saying they decided not to include seatbelts because they found no one was using them or there was little proof they saved lives in accidents.
I question the method and motives of the NRC in this case. They obviously know that their rule structure is a market barrier for smaller reactors. Yet they are also constrained by collecting these license fees for their budget. Could that be a conflict of interests right there? Rather than thinking it through and taking any unnecessary risks to their budget, they put forth the government's version of market research on the matter.
Are they asking for comments knowing full well they will get a certain response and therefore that would help justify not making any changes? In this respect they can remain blameless if nothing moves forward because they solicited public opinion and found the "key" stakeholders were not interested in changing, perhaps.
When it comes to it, Russia will shortly be deploying small ship-borne nuclear reactors to remote areas to stand in for expensive diesel things, very much like the use case scenario in, say, Alaska. I believe that Toshiba is interested in doing something similar, anywhere that will buy them. Once other countries start doing it, assuming it works out well, and there's no particular reason to think it shouldn't, the NRC will have to go with the flow, so you should see the result you're looking for later, if not sooner.
Robert - you may be right, but what is wrong with wanting to lead rather than follow? After all is said and done, producing reliable, affordable, clean energy is a competitive business with huge upside potential. Why should America unilaterally put roadblocks in the way of its own progress? Who are we trying to protect and what are we trying to protect them from?
(My theory is that our structure is designed to protect the established energy industry from competition. As you point out, that is a losing strategy over the medium term and a potentially devastating one if maintained over a long term.)
Commenting by HaloScan
