Tuesday, August 5, 2008
What’s the most extreme locally unwanted land use (LULU) that generates the NIMBY response? Is it a half-way house? An oil refinery? Or, as I tell my students when we read the infamous Supreme Court decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, group housing for college students? In terms of effect, opposition to nuclear power plants has been as successful as any effort. This is not only because a nuclear plant is a LULU: since the incidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, nuclear power has been a NULU.
But the confluence of concerns over globe-warming greenhouse emissions (a nuclear plant emits almost none) and high energy costs have pushed many to reconsider the benefits of nuclear power. Although some groups still oppose more such plants, other environmentalists see nuclear plants as a lesser risk to long-term health and safety.
As part of this potential “nuclear renaissance,” electrical authorities in the mid-Atlantic states are planning new plants. One of the most advanced plans is for a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs, on the Chesapeake Bay in southern Maryland, and the focus of a famous case in the ‘70s that led to the complex federal environmental impact statement process. What is most interesting about the approval process so far, according to this report, is the lack of strong and vocal public opposition. Maryland regulatory authorities are holding public hearings this month.
If new plants are approved and are built successfully, it may encourage governments at all levels to look to replacing traditional electrical-generating sources with nuclear plants, with profound effects on land use. It’s a good bet that, 30 years from now, we’ll see fewer coal-belching smokestacks and more nuclear cooling towers –- as well as giant windmills -– across our national landscape.
[Comments must be approved and thus take some time to appear online.]
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances