You mentioned that other countries sell their nuclear projects as a complete package, including that the seller will take back the spent fuel. That single element could be a deal killer for any U.S. company, given the opposition to long term spent fuel storage in the U.S.. Russia and China do not have to contend with political opposition. They can just pick a remote place to store it and do so without even telling anybody about it. We can't even get our arms around our own nuclear waste. I can't imagine the firestorm if we tried to take back the waste from other countries.
The prospect of having the waste stored in the client country invites poitical oppositon in said country from loud, knee jerk nuclear opponents, regardless of whether it is the contractual responsibility of the contractor or the client country. Having the supplier remove the waste takes one scare tactic of the nuclear opponents of the table. Advantage contractor that can make that offer while bidding for the contract in the first place.
Leave us not forget that after more than a half century of employing nuclear energy in the U.S. we still do not have a designated permanent storage site for waste. Overwhelming "not in my backyard" wherever proposed. The idea that we would permit a contractor to take in waste from an overseas plant seems to me to be a political non-starter.
It is worth taking on the "Think globally act locally" on its own terms. In practice it means "McKibben-ism:" oppose fossil fuel production and transportation projects in the US regardless of the effect (no matter how small) on reduction in global emissions. It practice it means do NOT think globally at all.
"Reversing the dictum" is a bit of a hook. :) Of course the larger policy issue is neutrality among CO2 emissions reducing technologies. In the context of decades of artificial restraint on nuclear power development, this look like the need to "favor" or "cheerlead" nuclear, but at the bottom we need to just tax net CO2 emissions, regulate according to cost benefit principles, and let entrepreneurs an technologists work out the details.
You mentioned that other countries sell their nuclear projects as a complete package, including that the seller will take back the spent fuel. That single element could be a deal killer for any U.S. company, given the opposition to long term spent fuel storage in the U.S.. Russia and China do not have to contend with political opposition. They can just pick a remote place to store it and do so without even telling anybody about it. We can't even get our arms around our own nuclear waste. I can't imagine the firestorm if we tried to take back the waste from other countries.
The US firm could offer to store it elsewhere including in the client country.
Same for US waste. Aren't there any places with appropriate geology that would be willing to lease their underground for the right price?
The prospect of having the waste stored in the client country invites poitical oppositon in said country from loud, knee jerk nuclear opponents, regardless of whether it is the contractual responsibility of the contractor or the client country. Having the supplier remove the waste takes one scare tactic of the nuclear opponents of the table. Advantage contractor that can make that offer while bidding for the contract in the first place.
Leave us not forget that after more than a half century of employing nuclear energy in the U.S. we still do not have a designated permanent storage site for waste. Overwhelming "not in my backyard" wherever proposed. The idea that we would permit a contractor to take in waste from an overseas plant seems to me to be a political non-starter.
It is worth taking on the "Think globally act locally" on its own terms. In practice it means "McKibben-ism:" oppose fossil fuel production and transportation projects in the US regardless of the effect (no matter how small) on reduction in global emissions. It practice it means do NOT think globally at all.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/power-decarbonization-and-lng-exports
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/why-not-lng-exports
"Reversing the dictum" is a bit of a hook. :) Of course the larger policy issue is neutrality among CO2 emissions reducing technologies. In the context of decades of artificial restraint on nuclear power development, this look like the need to "favor" or "cheerlead" nuclear, but at the bottom we need to just tax net CO2 emissions, regulate according to cost benefit principles, and let entrepreneurs an technologists work out the details.