And in particular, Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and crystallized a lot of US opposition to nuclear power. One of the problems it exposed is a too-friendly connection between the NRC and the nuclear power industry. According to a recent book [1], this problem still exists.
Although [former NRC commissioner] Jaczko's account will become standard reading as an antinuclear book, his reasons have more to do with regulation than nuclear energy per se. Jaczko sees two paths ahead. One has a sustainable future with nuclear reactors that includes widespread recognition that accidents will happen and a greater commitment to safety. The other path is the one he witnessed as NRC chairman, featuring waning public trust in a secretive, uncooperative industry that regards safety regulations as unfair and cumbersome.
The problem that plagued the old Atomic Energy Commission [the predecessor agency to the NRC] — that the promoters and regulators were too cozy with each other — is clearly alive and well. Jaczko describes the relationship as a “corrupt, toxic environment.” It may be a hard warning to hear, but it comes from one who had a fuller view of the nuclear regulatory landscape than most.
Citation needed! From what I've read the US government has been incredibly supportive of the nuclear industry. For example, both Obama and Trump have secured federal funding for the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants. US public opinion has also been heavily in favor of nuclear power, even after Fukushima. The "red tape is causing all our problems!" seem, to me, to be just a myth spread by the nuclear lobby.
If everybody is so supportive and the regulatory picture is so rosy why is there a 20 year gap from 1996 to 2016 in the construction of nuclear plants? Even then the 2016 plant is an expansion of an existing plant.
Not to mention the ones that were started but never finished construction like the Virgil C. Summer plants.
Why not mention that cancelled plant? Construction started in 2013 but it became to expensive so the contractors abandoned the project. Why there was a 17 year gap, I don't know. Big cost overruns and time delays plagued nuclear construction projects in the 80's. So perhaps the gap was because that is how long it took politicians to forget the previous decades failures and give the nuclear lobby another chance?
Or rather the MASSIVE overreaction compared to the actual events. Chernobyl was a Soviet reactor that was designed to make nuclear weapons. Three Mile Island killed less people then 1000s of mining accidents, pipeline explosions and lots of other things.
The perception of Three Mile Island was hilariously out of scale with the actual danger.
The regulatory overreaction was so big that since then basically the whole nuclear industry died and has been on life support for 30 years.
> In interviews, U.S. and West European officials said that some of the graphite reactors like the four at Chernobyl may be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, but that their most likely military purpose is to make tritium, a rare isotope of hydrogen used in thermonuclear weapons.
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/237