Before you get wildly excited or stunningly depressed about the results from election night, just remember, 99% of government wasn'’t affected by how you voted.
While we officially call few government organizations "“bureaus"anymore, they remain bureaucracies --– the people in them act and think, are motivated or not, by common customs and restraints, all rooted in the nature and role of government action in a law-abiding democracy. Yet, the Federalist Papers barely mentions them.
Renowned Harvard political scientist, James Q. Wilson, has explained their nature and behavior in a book we in the nuclear industry, in government or not, should read. Titled simply Bureaucracy, it starts with a reflection on the quality of customer service at the author'’s local department of motor vehicles in Cambridge, Mass. and then explains why such interactions are the norm rather than the exception, at all levels. Of course, people in the employ of bureaucracies are people like the rest of us, but their behavior in organizations is not personal but political behavior.
One telling concept is that the great battles for a bureaucrat are not between the bureaucrat and Congress, or with the President, or with the citizens it serves, but rather with other bureaucrats. In the history of the US nuclear industry, the early interactions between the NRC and predecessors with the Tennessee Valley Authority would serve as an example. The slow erosion of scope of NRC'’s regulation over to the EPA is another illustration. The rise and fall of the AEC is yet another.
With the extensive new plant licensing efforts just beginning, it would behoove us all to read and ponder this work.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, AEC, NRC, TVA
While we officially call few government organizations "“bureaus"anymore, they remain bureaucracies --– the people in them act and think, are motivated or not, by common customs and restraints, all rooted in the nature and role of government action in a law-abiding democracy. Yet, the Federalist Papers barely mentions them.
Renowned Harvard political scientist, James Q. Wilson, has explained their nature and behavior in a book we in the nuclear industry, in government or not, should read. Titled simply Bureaucracy, it starts with a reflection on the quality of customer service at the author'’s local department of motor vehicles in Cambridge, Mass. and then explains why such interactions are the norm rather than the exception, at all levels. Of course, people in the employ of bureaucracies are people like the rest of us, but their behavior in organizations is not personal but political behavior.
One telling concept is that the great battles for a bureaucrat are not between the bureaucrat and Congress, or with the President, or with the citizens it serves, but rather with other bureaucrats. In the history of the US nuclear industry, the early interactions between the NRC and predecessors with the Tennessee Valley Authority would serve as an example. The slow erosion of scope of NRC'’s regulation over to the EPA is another illustration. The rise and fall of the AEC is yet another.
With the extensive new plant licensing efforts just beginning, it would behoove us all to read and ponder this work.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, AEC, NRC, TVA
Comments
The problem is that in 2001, the Republicans came in with a quite radical agenda that included refusing to ratify Kyoto. This was one of their big plays in favor of the fossil fuel lobby. This was their first of many "tiffs" with the Europeans on foreign policy. The Europeans had gotten along quite well with the Clinton Administration and, at the time, in spring 2001, were baffled at the way things were being handled.
The Iraq war was the Republicans' other big play for the fossil fuel lobby.
Another part of the radical agenda of the Republicans was their attempt to cut Social Security.
I believe that moderate concepts such as the 2005 Energy Bill and legislation to move forward on Yucca Mtn. got "steamrolled" in the Republican Party by an agenda that was dominated by radical neocons and by fossil fuel interests.
This is, in my mind, a failure of Republican policy, just as Clinton's failure to address vehicle fuel economy standards and failure to promote U.S. energy independence were failures of Democratic policy.
I don't like the idea of Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader either.
In posting this book review, I was trying to cheer myself up.
For the nuclear industry, the kindest prospect from Democratic control of the Congress is probably some sort of carbon tax or trading scheme which will improve the apparent economics of new nuclear plants. I won't support such a scheme but any extra income I net from any such plan could ameliorate the pain.
The fix is in on Yucca Mountain it appears - reprocessing is being pushed globally with work on actinide burners being funded. Ultimately, it is just so much cheaper (for government). See my article here:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1108
The path for the next two years seems clear - license new nukes. That means the action shifts to the "pointy end of the energy stick" - the NRC and those of us who provide them their raw materials - COLAs, LTRs, ESPs, etc.
That's why we should stop crying in our beer and buckle down and get those license applications written.
If ESBWRs are indeed cheaper than coal plants, and a carbon tax is in fact established, ESBWRs will be built. IIRC they use a 36-month construction schedule, with lessons learned from ABWRs that have been built on time and on budget in Japan.
Jim:
If they want to deal with waste but not have to make any hard decisions, and want to immediately make it possible to double nuclear output, they could push DUPIC as a "Democratic alternative to Yucca." It would certainly work and would be politically feasible. A number of other processes could as well, but DUPIC is ready-for-prime-time, no?