Energy has become a major talking point in recent years, and energy security has become a paramount concern globally, to the extent that some countries that were once weak on energy policy have now altered course.
Now that Korea and the UAE have succeeded impressively at Barakah it appears to be the best large reactor choice for countries without robust supply chains. I believe that's everybody but China and Russia. The US and Europe should build at least one large APR-1400 plant with four units to at least prime the pump
I am a new free subscriber. I have read two of your articles. You seem to be convinced that nuclear power can be a big component in decarbonizing the world’s energy supply. I thought that your lengthy review of this topic on Substack was thorough and well researched. I had thought nuclear power generation was the answer to environmental impacts associated with coal and natural gas fueled generation. I still think it should be possible to harness this technology safely and cost effectively. I wonder if fusion technology can be advanced to replace fission generation.
I live in the Pacific Northwest and saw first hand the burdensome financial impacts of nuclear generating technology. The long-term financial losses that utilities experienced in the 1970-1980, will not soon be forgotten. The Trojan nuclear plant in Oregon was closed prematurely. I believe this was due to design flaws whose repairs were cost prohibitive. Many proposed reactors were abandoned due to cost overruns and changing load forecasts. Negative experiences will create a strong reluctance to propose further nuclear generation in this region. I don’t expect to see another nuclear era unfolding in the Pacific Northwest first many years.
Sometimes with nuclear energy it’s a good idea to take a broader perspective. First, there are many examples of nuclear plants being built on time and on budget around the world. Going over budget and schedule in building nuclear power plants is largely a western phenomenon, due largely to over regulation that increases engineering costs. Second, in Florida (USA) the Turkey Point nuclear plant is being granted a 20 year extension (60 to 80 years) on its operating license giving it the distinction of being the longest operating nuclear plant in the world. These things last a long time (with maintenance and upgrades), and they produce for decades after they’ve been paid off. And we have nearly 80 years experience with fission now (fusion is many decades away from being able to be commercially deployed). Society moves to the next dense fuel over 50 to 100 year time cycles, wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to uranium. I think we’re at the point that there are more solid economic models in the process of being deployed in the nuclear space. One huge advantage nuclear has is it can produce process heat or electricity, and it might be industrial application, and data center back-up, or even in the maritime space where it really starts to get deployed. And with the Idaho National Labs (INL) up in your neck of the woods, I wouldn’t rule out a near future nuclear renaissance in the northwest just yet. Step one, upgrade to Zion Lights paid subscription, she’s a great source of accurate and timely information for everything that’s going on in nuclear.
Shawn, I agree with all your comments here. One thing that could be added is that the movement from low density to higher density fuel sources has also produced large environmental and health benefits. For example, in the Middle Ages, steel was produced via charcoal. However charcoal was produced by burning down Europe's forests resulting in massive deforestation by the mid 17th century. Use of coal for steel production in a very real sense saved Europe's forests from incineration. Coal also made possible the development of electricity.
A second case. Whale oil was a common substance for both lubrication and for lighting. The advent of petroleum made possible the elimination of both of these industrial and household uses. In Roman times, a principal industrial lubricant was olive oil. Again, petroleum has eliminated olive oil as an industrial chemical.
A third case. In the late 19th century, the city of London had a population of at least one million draft horses. All of these were defecating on city streets and thus causing an enormous health problem via water contamination. All these hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage were simply shovelled into the Thames River, thus spreading London's pollution far and wide. All of this pollution was eliminated by the advent of gasoline-powered transport.
In Denmark there is another nuclear power startup that you could have mentioned. They are
Seaborg Technologies. They are developing a Compact Molten Salt Reactor.
Now that Korea and the UAE have succeeded impressively at Barakah it appears to be the best large reactor choice for countries without robust supply chains. I believe that's everybody but China and Russia. The US and Europe should build at least one large APR-1400 plant with four units to at least prime the pump
I am a new free subscriber. I have read two of your articles. You seem to be convinced that nuclear power can be a big component in decarbonizing the world’s energy supply. I thought that your lengthy review of this topic on Substack was thorough and well researched. I had thought nuclear power generation was the answer to environmental impacts associated with coal and natural gas fueled generation. I still think it should be possible to harness this technology safely and cost effectively. I wonder if fusion technology can be advanced to replace fission generation.
I live in the Pacific Northwest and saw first hand the burdensome financial impacts of nuclear generating technology. The long-term financial losses that utilities experienced in the 1970-1980, will not soon be forgotten. The Trojan nuclear plant in Oregon was closed prematurely. I believe this was due to design flaws whose repairs were cost prohibitive. Many proposed reactors were abandoned due to cost overruns and changing load forecasts. Negative experiences will create a strong reluctance to propose further nuclear generation in this region. I don’t expect to see another nuclear era unfolding in the Pacific Northwest first many years.
Sometimes with nuclear energy it’s a good idea to take a broader perspective. First, there are many examples of nuclear plants being built on time and on budget around the world. Going over budget and schedule in building nuclear power plants is largely a western phenomenon, due largely to over regulation that increases engineering costs. Second, in Florida (USA) the Turkey Point nuclear plant is being granted a 20 year extension (60 to 80 years) on its operating license giving it the distinction of being the longest operating nuclear plant in the world. These things last a long time (with maintenance and upgrades), and they produce for decades after they’ve been paid off. And we have nearly 80 years experience with fission now (fusion is many decades away from being able to be commercially deployed). Society moves to the next dense fuel over 50 to 100 year time cycles, wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to uranium. I think we’re at the point that there are more solid economic models in the process of being deployed in the nuclear space. One huge advantage nuclear has is it can produce process heat or electricity, and it might be industrial application, and data center back-up, or even in the maritime space where it really starts to get deployed. And with the Idaho National Labs (INL) up in your neck of the woods, I wouldn’t rule out a near future nuclear renaissance in the northwest just yet. Step one, upgrade to Zion Lights paid subscription, she’s a great source of accurate and timely information for everything that’s going on in nuclear.
Shawn, I agree with all your comments here. One thing that could be added is that the movement from low density to higher density fuel sources has also produced large environmental and health benefits. For example, in the Middle Ages, steel was produced via charcoal. However charcoal was produced by burning down Europe's forests resulting in massive deforestation by the mid 17th century. Use of coal for steel production in a very real sense saved Europe's forests from incineration. Coal also made possible the development of electricity.
A second case. Whale oil was a common substance for both lubrication and for lighting. The advent of petroleum made possible the elimination of both of these industrial and household uses. In Roman times, a principal industrial lubricant was olive oil. Again, petroleum has eliminated olive oil as an industrial chemical.
A third case. In the late 19th century, the city of London had a population of at least one million draft horses. All of these were defecating on city streets and thus causing an enormous health problem via water contamination. All these hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage were simply shovelled into the Thames River, thus spreading London's pollution far and wide. All of this pollution was eliminated by the advent of gasoline-powered transport.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/business/uk-nuclear-power.html
[shakes head..
Nuclear may be a good transition energy, while we're waiting for green grid and transmission capacity to catch up.