⚛ A Quick Q&A on nuclear regulation with ... energy policy analyst Michael Giberson
Mini-Essay: Guess what? There are AI doomers in Japan, too!
Quote of the Issue
"Why does America dominate? Because it is by far the world's broadest, deepest market for what economics has to offer — everything from cutting-edge research to routine instruction to mechanism design, strategic analysis, and prognostication." - David Warsh, Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations: A Story of Economic Discovery
The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised
“With groundbreaking ideas and sharp analysis, Pethokoukis provides a detailed roadmap to a fantastic future filled with incredible progress and prosperity that is both optimistic and realistic.”
Q&A
⚛ A Quick Q&A on nuclear regulation with ... energy policy analyst Michael Giberson
Given the massive untapped potential of nuclear power, it’s downright frustrating to witness us fall short of our energetic capabilities time and time again. Poor management, ineffective policy, slow development, and bad press all contribute to the lag in progress. I asked Michael Giberson a few quick questions about how we might overcome inefficiency and reap the full potential of nuclear reactor technology.
Giberson is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, where his research concentrates on federal electric power and energy policy.
1/ Why do nuclear reactor projects so often overshoot their budget?
Large-scale nuclear power plants are complex mega-projects which are challenging for any organization—public or private—to manage well. Electric utilities with regulated rates have a special problem: Their profits are tied to how much they spend on capital. The utilities don’t face competition either, so consumers have to rely on state regulators for protection. It’s a recipe for cost overruns.
2/ What is the role of industrial policy when it comes to nuclear energy infrastructure?
Industrial policy relies on government and politics to choose the way forward while using the private sector to do what it is good at: innovating, using resources efficiently, and so on. That’s the positive spin: The government offers support to ensure favored industries get the resources they need. Unfortunately, the government has not proven especially successful at picking winners and losers. Advocates for nuclear industrial policy hope that economies of scale and ‘learning by doing’ will cut costs. Historically, that did not happen. The United States electric utility industry built nearly 100 nuclear power plants in the 1970s and 1980s, and they went up in cost—not down—as we gained experience.
3/ What are the best ways to combat inefficiencies in the reactor development process?
Get the regulated electricity out of the business of building nuclear energy. Private investors are much better motivated to keep costs low—their eventual profits depend upon it. I agree with industrial policy proponents on the point that companies can be expected to be better at innovating and cost-management and efficient operations. But we need market exposure throughout the process, no government managers picking winners and losers in advance, but rather companies exposed to all the risks and opportunities that markets offer. Overall, I’m pretty optimistic that industry efforts to develop small modular reactors (SMRs) will get us access to nuclear power at reasonable cost.
4/ Do you foresee small modular reactors (SMRs) completely overtaking the demand for larger nuclear plants in the future?
Yes. They have so many advantages: easier to finance, easier to site, easier to permit, easier to interconnect to the grid, easier to manage costs. Regulatory reforms are needed, but politics seem to be aligning in ways that will allow that to happen.
5/ How much safer are today’s nuclear reactor designs compared to those that existed in 1974, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was first established? How significantly has the technology advanced?
The existing fleet of reactors is already one of the safest ways we have for generating electricity—safer than nearly everything other than solar power. Newer designs typically involve passive safety technologies offering even stronger assurances, but I’m not expert enough on engineering issues to answer the question well.
6/ How would you ideally envision public-private partnerships to maximize innovation and efficiency?
There is a standard argument in mainstream economics for public support of basic research when there is a potential for large and widespread public benefits. The standard argument is reasonable, as far as it goes, but overlooks how things can go wrong, and so overstates the prospects for success. Money may flow more on political influence than potential value, ends up supporting companies well beyond the research stage, and gets used to building careers for bureaucrats rather than advancing scientific discovery. Still, support for basic research and even demonstration projects for innovative technologies are not the worst uses of government money. It should be the case that data generated with the help of public funding should be widely shared to maximize potential benefits. Private firms should not be able to socialize the cost of risky research, then monopolize the benefits of discoveries.
7/ How would you like to see popular media spread the message about the potential of nuclear energy and encourage greater investment?
Reporters should read my “Juicing Nuclear Power the Right Way” column and get excited for private investment in SMRs. A recent documentary claimed the best way to get a lot of nuclear energy built was to create a powerful government bureaucracy and give it a lot of money, but I think we have had enough experience with bureaucracy to doubt the wisdom of this approach.
8/ Should the Department of Energy be encouraging the development of nuclear power in tandem with other green energy sources like wind and solar, or should it concentrate on nuclear for energy production?
The Department of Energy should emphasize basic research where the opportunities for vast positive spillover benefits are largest and do so on a fuel- and technology-neutral basis. These days, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power are mature technologies supported by large, well-capitalized companies. We can let markets drive innovation for these technologies.
The Mini-Essay
🤖 Guess what? There are AI doomers in Japan, too!
AI doomers aren’t confined to a particularly weird group of American technologists. This Wall Street Journal headline gives proof: “‘Social Order Could Collapse’ in AI Era, Two Top Japan Companies Say.”
The two companies referenced are NTT, Japan’s largest telecommunications company, and Yomiuri Shimbun Group, owner of the country’s biggest newspaper. As the WSJ reports, these companies are calling for “speedy legislation to restrain generative artificial intelligence.” Without it, some very bad things might happen, supposedly.
From their manifesto:
If generative AI is allowed to go unchecked, trust in society as a whole may be damaged as people grow distrustful of one another and incentives are lost for guaranteeing authenticity and trustworthiness. There is a concern that, in the worst-case scenario, democracy and social order could collapse, resulting in wars.
So, rather than concerns about superintelligent AI pulling a Terminator on humanity, the companies seem mostly concerned about more mundane issues such as bias, political misinformation, and copyright infringement.
Now, those are hardly unimportant issues, even if concerns about societal collapse are a bit hyperbolic. (In the case of Japan, I would think population decline would be far higher on the list of societal concerns, a problem that would be helped by smarter machines helping to keep the economy running.) Misinformation? Societies will adapt. People will learn that images, audio, or video alone cannot prove an event's occurrence. Copyright? It’s early days and the law will catch up — hopefully not in a way that significantly slows progress, however.
This bit from the manifesto I thought interesting:
To create an environment that ensures discussion spaces in which human liberty and dignity are maintained, it is necessary to ensure that there are multiple AIs of various kinds and of equal rank, that they keep each other in check, and that users can refer to them autonomously, so that users do not have to depend on a specific AI. Such moves should be promoted from both institutional and technological perspectives
Indeed, the importance of having “multiple AIs of various kinds and of equal rank” is why many AI enthusiasts think open-source AI models are so important. We need to avoid a future where a few large tech companies and government agencies monopolize access to cutting-edge AI research. And we need to ensure that the benefits and advancements of AI are accessible to a wide range of people and organizations, not just a select few. AI democracy! Otherwise, scary headlines might actually be appropriate.
Micro Reads
▶ Business and Economics
Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon’s AI Predictions and What They Mean for the Future of Humanity - WSJ
TSMC boosts Joe Biden’s AI chip ambitions with $11.6bn US production deal - FT
Generative AI and Asset Management - SSRN
▶ Policy
How to Protect Americans From the Many Growing Threats of AI - Politico
Biden and Europeans Work Together to Stifle Competition and Innovation - AEIdeas
▶ AI
OpenAI and Meta ready new AI models capable of ‘reasoning’ - FT
Humans Forget. AI Assistants Will Remember Everything - Wired
Speed of AI development stretches risk assessments to breaking point - FT
AI’s Advances Will Echo the Internet, Not the Steam Engine - Bberg Opinion
Generative AI can turn your most precious memories into photos that never existed - MIT Tech Review
▶ Clean Energy
Nuclear could be the crown jewel for Texas energy - Dallas Morning News