Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator by Gregory B. JaczkoMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Pretty much every rational person has a healthy fear of nuclear weapons. Massively destructive and terrible long-term consequences. Nuclear power comes from the same dangerous forces, but we rely on technology and design to keep those forces in check. Jaczko makes the case in Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator that the system designed to keep nuclear power safe just isn't working.
Before I get into the main points of the book, let me first say that Jaczko has done a fine job of keeping a potentially dry subject entertaining. He includes plenty of personal anecdotes and first-hand descriptions of some pretty tense situations around events we're all familiar with - Three Mile Island, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster - as well as some near-misses that may not be as familiar - fire at Browns Ferry in Tennessee, flooding at the Fort Calhoun plant along the Missouri river. And he makes no bones about his own personal failings, either, especially his often adversarial and confrontational personal style. It's not a page-turner thriller novel, but the book is well written and kept me engaged throughout.
Jaczko makes two main points about the current state of nuclear power:
First, because the forces involved are so powerful, it's impossible to make nuclear power completely safe. We can develop elaborate safety measures that will reduce the risk to extremely low levels, but that risk is always there. This means safety measures have to be redundant, cover every known risk, be constantly updated against new risks, and strictly enforced. If you don't do those things, the risk very quickly becomes unacceptable. This is a pretty straightforward point and I don't think anyone would argue with it, though the definitely of exactly what is "acceptable" can be debated.
Second, none of that is happening as it should, because the regulatory system in place to ensure nuclear power safety is ineffective. In the current political environment, not just in the US but all around the world, putting a truly effective nuclear power regulatory system is simply not possible. This is a much more contentious point, but I think Jaczko makes a strong case. He cites repeated examples where regulators have been unable to enforce existing rules, or put into place important new rules, due to interference and delay by nuclear power providers. Those obstructions are enabled by political cover from officials who are beholden to the nuclear power industry. This is an example of regulatory capture: through political and economic influence, the nuclear power providers have taken control of the very processes meant to ensure that their product is safe.
The logical conclusion from those two points is that nuclear power should be eliminated, and that is in fact the position Jaczko takes. "Nuclear power is a failed technology"...no equivocation there. That is a very strong denouncement from a former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The argument isn't that human beings are unable to use nuclear power safely - while the risk is never zero, it can be reduced to acceptable levels. Rather, the constant pushback against updating and enforcing regulations required to maintain those low levels of risk means nuclear power won't be made safe. The issue isn't that we can't, it's that we won't.
I've long considered nuclear power to be a worthwhile alternative in the search to find alternatives to fossil fuels, but after reading this book I've changed my mind. Until we can either drastically improve technology to lower risk, or effectively address the regulatory capture concerns that Jaczko raises, nuclear power should be off the table. I don't see how the former is possible economically, or the latter politically. There are other clean alternatives, and though those have their own issues, they don't carry the same extreme risks as nuclear power.
