Bill Gates’ nuclear innovation firm TerraPower has broken ground on the non-nuclear portion of Kemmerer Unit 1, a 345-MW Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) power plant. The groundbreaking on June 10 makes the federal demonstration project the first advanced nuclear reactor project to move from design into construction in the Western Hemisphere, the company noted.

The project is taking shape in Lincoln County, Wyoming, about 3 miles from PacifiCorp’s three-unit 604-MW coal and gas–fired Naughton Power Plant, furnished with up to $2 billion in authorized funding under the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP).

An incredible NUCLEAR-POWERED FLIGHT film is newly available online!

We just scanned this declassified film showing 30 minutes of detail from the major reactor development program at its peak, between 1956-1958.

It presents the program goals and evolution, including how global operating costs were expected to be reduced by eliminating the need to operate foreign air bases around the world. Materials problems required them to reduce requirements from high-altitude/supersonic to low-altitude/subsonic. Ongoing development and progress is shown on the GE direct air cycle (XMA-2) in Idaho and Evandale, and the P&W indirect liquid-metal lithium-7 cooled cycle at CANAL, where they developed niobium-based alloys and technology that could run at the required crazy-high temperatures and withstand lithium.

It shows dozens of things I've never seen before, like the 3 ZrH and BeO inserts put into HTRE-2, and talks a bit about the HTRE-3 meltdown. The HTREs can still be seen in the parking lot of the EBR-1 museum on the INL site.

They show an in-reactor test loop being fabricated and tested in a large oil-fired heater, destined to be inserted in the ETR in Idaho.

James Hopf
@HopfJames
An Indiana bill would create a pilot program to build two SMRs in the state. The bill would also allow tech companies to share the cost (i.e., finance the project), so that ratepayers would not have to foot the entire bill. Article link in reply.

So far, tech/datacenter companies have only been interested in long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) where they buy the power at a fixed (and often generous) price. They haven't expressed interest in financing reactor projects (which would expose them to financial risk).

https://t.co/QWrDxVxRMc

But they know no matter what they do, they cannot prevent all seamen deaths. So they must devise a way to show that, when that catastrophe happens, they have done everything they could to prevent it. They require detailed analyses showing that any possible mistake or failure by man or machine will not result in a seaman death.

They require that all vendors go through an expensive and restrictive certification process. The yard is no longer free to bid anyone it wants to. Newcomers need not apply. The incumbent vendors enjoy a deep regulatory moat. Their focus becomes maintaining the paperwork required to preserve that moat. Cost is determined by amount of paperwork not quality.

The OSD writes detailed process requirements dictating just how components will be manufactured and who can do that work. They imposes multiple layers of paperwork documenting that all their procedures have been followed. Any change has to go through a long list of sign offs, requiring reanalysis of anything that might be affected. How long these approvals will take is anybody's guess.

They instruct their inspectors to reject any departure from an approved drawing no matter how trivial or beneficial. If an OSD inspector does not show up for a required test, the test has to wait until he does.

What do you think will happen to our shipyard's productivity? I can tell you what will happen. The carefully choreographed system will be thrown into chaos, and grind to a virtual halt. Cost will increase by an order of magnitude or more. Quality will deteriorate drastically. The ships will be delivered years late. They will rarely perform to spec, some will not perform at all.

Why can I tell you what will happen? US naval shipyards resemble Korean yards on the surface but they are controlled by something that looks very much like the OSD system. In fact, the OSD system is modeled on the Navy system. I spent the first decade or so of my career, working within this system. I saw the focus on process rather than substance. I saw the waste. I saw inexplicable decisions go unchallenged. I saw obvious errors turned into profit centers. I saw promotions based not on output, but on keeping the paperwork clean. I saw horribly bloated initial prices followed by enormous overruns. I saw schedules busted by months and then by years. I saw ships that did not work. I saw everybody involved stridently defend the system.

Thank God the OSD does not run nuclear power. We'd have no chance of solving the Gordian Knot.

Germany is decommissioning its closed nuclear plants, but opportunities for restarting remain. New energy demand and news of Three Mile Island's revival have improved the outlook for closed plants. No significant technical barriers prevent Germany’s nuclear restart, but swift action is needed.

Germany shut down its last nuclear plants on April 15, 2023, and is making significant progress in decommissioning 31 reactors. After years of producing enough electricity for its own needs and exporting the surplus, Germany imported 9 TWh net in 2023 and as of November 25, 2024, increased imports to 25 TWh net. The German economy is expected to shrink by 0.2% in 2024, following a 0.3% decline in 2023. A 2024 survey by Germany’s DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce shows a rising number of businesses are considering reducing production or relocating out of Germany.

A German nuclear restart depends solely on political will. The two most urgent measures include an immediate moratorium on the dismantling of reactors and an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to allow nuclear power plants to be operated again.

Germany once operated one of the world's largest nuclear power fleets and was a leading provider of nuclear technology. However, public opposition halted nuclear expansion by 1990, leading to a phase-out agreement in 2002. Despite a brief runtime extension under Chancellor Merkel in 2009, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted her to make a rapid reversal of her previous policy, with Germany committing to shut down all nuclear plants by the end of 2022.

To replace nuclear power, Germany planned to rely on a mix of coal, wind, solar, and Russian natural gas from pipelines. The country aimed to gradually phase out coal while increasing renewables and using natural gas as a bridge fuel. However, this strategy faced a significant setback when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupting Germany's plans for cheap Russian gas imports. This crisis sparked public debates about extending nuclear plant operations. Nevertheless, Germany's last nuclear reactors ceased electricity production on April 15, 2023.

The shutdown of Germany’s nuclear plants has had major impacts. Before the final nuclear closures, Germany had been a net exporter of electricity. Now, Germany is a net importer, relying on its neighbors for power. Imports in 2024 have nearly tripled those of 2023 before the start of December. Ironically, about half of this imported energy came from France, Switzerland, and Belgium, where nuclear power provides a substantial portion of the electricity supply.

In the ever-evolving landscape of energy logistics, Russia is exploring an unconventional approach that could redefine the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Imagine this: massive nuclear-powered submarines quietly carrying LNG beneath the icy waters of the Arctic, bypassing traditional shipping routes and geopolitical hurdles. This ambitious idea, proposed by Russian experts, might seem like something out of a science fiction novel, but it reflects a bold strategy to navigate a challenging economic and political environment. //

The proposed submarine model would weigh a staggering 180,000 tons and boast a draft of under 14 meters, making it capable of navigating areas that conventional LNG carriers cannot. The ability to traverse beneath the Arctic’s frozen expanse presents a tantalizing opportunity to shorten shipping times and bypass traditional chokepoints. //

The design isn’t just impressive—it’s revolutionary. Equipped with three Rhythm-200 nuclear reactors, the submarine would rely on 30 MW electric propellers, allowing it to reach speeds of 17 knots (about 31.5 km/h). At 360 meters long and 70 meters wide, the vessel’s size rivals that of the world’s largest oil tankers. More importantly, its operational capabilities would cut transit times between Arctic gas fields and Asian markets from 20 days to just 12.

This innovation isn’t solely about speed. These nuclear-powered giants could safely operate year-round, including during the harsh Arctic winter months when sea ice renders many traditional shipping lanes impassable. //

Russia’s largest LNG producer, Novatek, recently announced plans to acquire 16 ice-class LNG carriers. Yet sanctions and technological barriers have stymied progress, highlighting the difficulties of expanding Arctic shipping routes. By turning to nuclear-powered submarines, Russia hopes to sidestep these roadblocks while reinforcing its sovereignty over the Arctic.

The sudden desire to destroy trees for solar panels comes as the state risks failing to meet its own climate goal of 100% “clean” energy by 2040. If it doesn’t increase its development of so-called renewable energy, it won’t meet its arbitrary timeframe.

The 420 acres about to be bulldozed are part of 4,000 acres of public land that will be flattened to try and meet the 2040 deadline. //

Public land, even - meaning, presumably, land that is held by the state government in trust, as it were, for the people of the state of Michigan. Land that would otherwise be available for a variety of recreational uses, as most public land is.

Now, though, it will be destroyed in favor of solar panels that will take up an enormous amount of space to produce far less energy than a nuclear power plant would generate with a much, much smaller footprint.

This is ridiculous. //

To sum that up, solar arrays require 38 times more land to produce the same amount of electricity as one modern fission plant. Wind is even worse, requiring 140 times the land to produce that same amount of electricity - enough to power about 775,000 typical homes. That doesn't even take into account the issues with reliability or the necessity of battery backups for times when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. //

So, why do these "clean energy" goals never include nuclear power? Fission reactors are everything the climate scolds and "clean energy" types profess to want; modern reactors, including molten-salt and small modular reactors, are safe, efficient, and produce no carbon emissions. //

They are literally destroying the environment to protect the environment. //

ConservativeInMinnesota
an hour ago edited
This is another example of progressive greenwashing. This won’t help the environment, it won’t reduce carbon and it isn’t scalable. It also isn’t base power as it won’t work at night or as well depending on the weather. That means another power plant needs to be built o provide power when this doesn't.

Get real and start deploying nuclear energy. Stop buying Chinese solar panels (based on stolen US IP) and leave the trees alone. The real world pollution will be effectively nonexistent, there will be less carbon and we don’t have to give more money to the CCP. //

Quiverfull
22 minutes ago
The deer and the antelope do not play
In the middle of a gross solar array

Most people do not realize how delayed portions of the Fukushima evacuation were. I certainly did not. By the end of March, the situation at the plant was under control. Power had been restored to the site. The team was getting water to all the stricken reactors. The temperatures were coming down. The release rate was one ten thousandth of what it had been earlier.\cite{tepco-2012a}[p 51]

The government fully expected to restart Japan's reactors quickly. The job was mainly clean up and rebuild from the tsunami. They were quite taken back when the public led by a normally tame press turned against nuclear power, threatening the ruling Democratic party.

The politicians responded. On April 22, 40 days after the start of the release, the government implemented two new evacuation zones, Figure 1. The area out to 20 kilometers from the plant had already been evacuated. //

Figure 2 shows the GKG dose rate profile for the high end Iitate population. GKG estimates the peak high end ambient dose rate for this town was 47 microGy/h, not that much lower than UCS's number for Okuma. According to LNT, making these people evacuate after 50 days increased their life expectancy by 24 days. For most of the citizens of Iitate, the numbers would be lower to much lower. According to SNT, forcing these to people to evacuate after 50 days, increased their life expectancy by 1.7 minutes. The stress of evacuation will be far, far more costly. //

Under LNT, the harm just keeps building up. In a nuclear power plant release, after the initial rapid decline, the dose rate falls off very slowly. The cumulative dose for the Iitate high end group after a 40 year exposure period is 613 mSv. For an LNTer, this is a scary number, since it only took a 150 mSv or so acute dose to produce significant increases in cancer in the bomb survivors. For an LNTer, the fact that the bomb survivors suffered most of their dose in seconds, while the Iitate citizens will receive their dose fairly evenly over 40 years is irrelevant. Given our rate dependent ability to repair radiation damage, this is biological nonsense. //

This is so stupidly tragic that I don't know where to begin. The peak dose rate in the EPA was around 0.06 mSv/d and lasted roughly 10 days. In the Karunagappally study, Figure 4, the people who got 0.06 mSv/d showed no increase in cancer and they averaged that dose rate for at least 19 years. By day 50, when most of these people were frightened into leaving, the dose rate was down to around 0.02 mSv/d. In the Karunagappally study, we have nearly a million person-years at this dose rate or higher with no increase in cancer. And most of these people experienced these dose rates their whole life. //

The people in the EPA had their lives uprooted, and in many cases ruined for no reason at all. Or rather by a model that is tragically misleading. Given its consequences, I have no problem calling LNT evil. What does that say about its promoters?

Wednesday 19th June 2013 08:28 GMT
John Smith 19Gold badge
Coat
PDP 11 odds and ends.
The PDP 11 (like the PARC Alto) had a main processor built from standard 4 bit TTL "ALU" parts and their companion "register file." So 2nd, 3rd,4th sourced. I'm not sure how many mfg still list them on their available list in the old standard 0.1" pin spacing.

El Reg ran a story that Chorus (formerly British Steel) ran them for controlling all sorts of bits of their rolling mills but I can't recall if they are

I think the core role for this task is the refueling robots for the CANDU reactors. CANDU allows "on load" refuelling. The robots work in pairs locked onto each end of the pressurized pipes that carry the fuel and heavy water coolant/moderator. They then pressurize their internal storage areas, open the ends and one pushes new fuel bundles in while the other stores the old ones, before sealing the ends. However CANDU have been working on new designs with different fuel mixes (CANDU's special sauce (C Lewis Page) is that it's run with unenriched Uranium, which is much cheaper and does not need a bomb making enrichment facility) and new fuel bundle geometries, so time for a software upgrade.

And 128 users on a PDP 11/70. Certain customers ran bespoke OSes in the early 90s that could get 300+ when VMS could only support about less than 20 on the same spec.

Note for embedded use this is likely to be RSX rather than VMS, which also hosted the ICI developed RTL/2, which was partly what hosted the BBC CEEFAX service for decades.

Yes, it's an anorak.. //

Wednesday 19th June 2013 18:20 GMT
Jamie JonesSilver badge
Thumb Up
Who's laughing?
I feel much better knowing this.

What is the alternative? Buggy software written by the "'Have you tried switching it off and on again" generation? Wednesday 19th June 2013 20:24 GMT
bscottm
Reply Icon
Re: It just costs money
It's not the GHz clock cycle that is the problem. It's the smaller feature size of the transistors that increases the single event upset (SEU) rate. Yes, the two are inter-related, but one could conceivably build multi-core, chip symmetric multiprocessors based on the PDP-11 at today's feature sizes and not have GHz clock cycle times (and still end up with significant SEU rates.)

A couple of years ago, a NASA/JPL scientist pointed out that the alpha particles (helium nuclei) from lead solder were causing interesting issues with current x86_64 I/O pins -- radiation issues on commodity hardware. //

Wednesday 19th June 2013 07:32 GMT
Duncan Macdonald
RSX11M - Dave Cutler
Anyone who read the RSX11M sources (driver writers especially) realised that Dave Cutler was a very very good programmer long before he worked on VMS and later Windows NT. He managed to get a multiuser protected general purpose operating system to work with a minimum memory footprint of under 32kbytes on machines with about the same CPU power as the chip on a credit card. (A 96kByte PDP 11/40 (1/3 mip) with 2 RK05 disks (2.4Mbyte each) could support 2 concurrent programmers - a PDP 11/70 (1 mip) with 1Mbyte and 2 RM03 disk packs (65Mbyte each) could support 10 or more.) During the many years that the CEGB used PDP-11 computers with RSX11M, I did not hear of a single OS failure that was not caused by a hardware fault - I wish that current systems were as good. //

Wednesday 19th June 2013 17:23 GMT
MD Rackham
Reply Icon
Re: RSX11M - Dave Cutler
Of course, that was several years after there was a protected, multi-user timesharing system running on the PDP-8, TSS/8. And it would run in 8K of memory, although you had to spring for 12K for decent performance. Swapped off a fixed-head 256K word disk.

You PDP-11 kids get off my lawn! //

Wednesday 19th June 2013 15:28 GMT
Bastage
Reply Icon
Go
Re: there are alternatives
There is replacement hardware available. NuPDP replacment CPU's including QBUS support and peripheral cards. Also NuVAX for the new kids.

The Reviver boards for PDP-11 and HP1000.

The Osprey PDP-11 and Kestral HP1000 hardware from Strobe Data.

There are also the Stromasys/Charon software emulators VAX/AXP/HP3000. //

Go
Re: there are alternatives
@Peter Gathercole

There is already a well established PDP-11 project on OpenCores:

http://opencores.org/project,w11 //

PDP 11 odds and ends.
The PDP 11 (like the PARC Alto) had a main processor built from standard 4 bit TTL "ALU" parts and their companion "register file." So 2nd, 3rd,4th sourced. I'm not sure how many mfg still list them on their available list in the old standard 0.1" pin spacing.

El Reg ran a story that Chorus (formerly British Steel) ran them for controlling all sorts of bits of their rolling mills but I can't recall if they are

I think the core role for this task is the refueling robots for the CANDU reactors. CANDU allows "on load" refuelling. The robots work in pairs locked onto each end of the pressurized pipes that carry the fuel and heavy water coolant/moderator. They then pressurize their internal storage areas, open the ends and one pushes new fuel bundles in while the other stores the old ones, before sealing the ends. However CANDU have been working on new designs with different fuel mixes (CANDU's special sauce (C Lewis Page) is that it's run with unenriched Uranium, which is much cheaper and does not need a bomb making enrichment facility) and new fuel bundle geometries, so time for a software upgrade.

And 128 users on a PDP 11/70. Certain customers ran bespoke OSes in the early 90s that could get 300+ when VMS could only support about less than 20 on the same spec.

Note for embedded use this is likely to be RSX rather than VMS, which also hosted the ICI developed RTL/2, which was partly what hosted the BBC CEEFAX service for decades. //

Wednesday 19th June 2013 13:20 GMT
PhilBuk
Reply Icon
Happy
Re: PDP 11 odds and ends.
Most real-time systems stayed as PDP-11 when the industry realised that the interupt latency on VAX/VMS was too slow for a lot of applications. You could improve it with a ccustomised VMS kernel but, in most cases, it was cheaper to stick with the devil you knew. Similarly, a friend worked for a measuring company that were using embedded PDP-8 systems as controllers well into the end of the 90s. used to drive round with a clip-on PDP-8 front panel in the boot of his car.

Phil. //

Thursday 20th June 2013 08:25 GMT
FrankAlphaXII
Reply Icon
Re: PDP 11 odds and ends.
Its a certainly a CANDU reactor and its fuel bundle loader robots from what it looks like.

CANDU is a different type of reactor than what gets built most of the time, they can burn just about anything, from some unenriched uranium with some slightly enriched uranium at the same time, to thorium, to Mixed Oxide fuels partially from decommissioned nuclear weapons, to "fun" transuranic actinides and also (as a proliferation concern) some quite nasty fuel mixes which can breed massive (relatively speaking of course) amounts of Plutonium if the reactor isn't properly safeguarded. Thats where India and probably Pakistan bred most of their Special Materials.

And what's cool about this is if the PDP-11 is what GE is using in Canada for their loaders, then its probably what they're using in India, South Korea, Romania, Argentina and China as well, as they also have CANDU reactors or designs derived from CANDU. //

In the early days of Russia's war on Ukraine, President Joe Biden boldly declared he was ready to seize "ill-begotten gains" of the region's oligarchs.

But in the years before Moscow twice invaded Ukraine, Democrats enriched themselves politically and personally from such oligarchs and businesses in the region while empowering Vladimir Putin with energy and technology deals that still haunt America today.

GALTean
5 months ago
russians threaten with nukes??? Must be a day ending in Y...seriously how many of their nukes would even launch and go bang WHEN they are supposed to and not immediately or not at all? After seeing Ivantech in action in Ukraine and my time in the cold war going up against the soviet crap...I would say that most may be painted telephone poles.

streiff GALTean
5 months ago
the last Russian nuke test was 1990. So there's 30 years of Russian maintenance and quality control at work on those warheads.

Dieter Schultz streiff
5 months ago
I've noted this before...

There's been some discussion here and elsewhere that Russia's nuclear arsenal and delivery vehicles are largely past their useful designed lifespan. One news site suggested that Russia ended the inspection of their nuclear arsenal four or five years ago, in large part, because they didn't want western countries to discover the sorry state of their arsenal.

Laocoön of Troy streiff
5 months ago edited
You know...it just occurs to me that Russia could put to rest any doubts about their nukes by doing an above-the-ground public nuke test at their Semipalatinsk Test Site. Of course, suitably observed and recorded by their usual Western media allies. It would exponentially increase their leverage in terms of their threats. But so far Putin hasn't gone there. Why?

streiff Laocoön of Troy
5 months ago
for the same reason the USSR didn't invade Western Europe, they know how f***ed they are and we have too many centers of influence with a financial/power stake in making the threat larger than it is.

More Than a Newsletter
Access to Energy is one of those rare newsletters that does not stop with just publication, but goes into effective action for the causes it espouses. The latest instance of this is the Petition Project - an anti-global warming petition signed by over 17,000 scientists - which exposes Al Gore's "scientific consensus" on global warming as phony. This Petition Project was funded by subscriptions and donations from the readers of Access to Energy. See Global Warming Debunking News and Views for more.

Global Warming Report – $20

Hammer and Tickle by Petr Beckmann – $12

Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear by Petr Beckmann – $15

As we grapple with the twin challenges of energy security and energy reliability, revisiting Nixon’s vision offers valuable lessons. //

In the annals of American energy policy, few moments stand out as boldly as the unveiling of Nixon’s nuclear agenda. His plan, set against the backdrop of the 1973 oil embargo, was both a response to the immediate crisis and a long-term strategy for the nation’s energy security. One allure of nuclear power was its potential to diversify America’s energy portfolio and market, providing a backup in case of a crisis in one sector. Nixon envisaged a future where America’s cities and industries would be powered by the atom, reducing domestic risks associated with dependence on foreign oil. //

However, several factors derailed Nixon’s nuclear dream. During the Cold War, concerns about nuclear proliferation were already mounting, particularly around civilian nuclear programs that could lay the groundwork for weapon development if nuclear energy expanded into politically unstable regions. These proliferation concerns, combined with environmental fears intensified by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and later the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, significantly dampened public and political support for nuclear energy. This climate of skepticism led policymakers to impose regulatory hurdles on nuclear plant construction that ultimately proved insurmountable.

Every major advance in human technology, in human standard of living, has come with increases in energy density. From wood to charcoal to coal to oil to natural gas to fission power, the arc of progress in energy has always been toward greater, not lower, energy density. That is until the green energy types came along with their insistence on low-density sources like solar and wind.

So, with nuclear fission reactors providing the highest energy density available today, the question arises, "Where do we go from here?" What energy source can provide greater energy density than fission power?

The answer is fusion power. But the problem is that it's a few decades away, and has been since the '50s:

Meta believes it will need one to four gigawatts of nuclear power, in additional to the energy it already consumes, to fuel its AI ambitions. As such, it will put out a request for proposals (RFP) to find developers capable of supplying that level of electricity in the United States by early 2030. //

But while Meta plans to continue investing in solar and wind, hyperscalers seem convinced that harnessing the atom is the only practical means of meeting AI's thirst for power while making good on its sustainability commitments.

SpaceWeatherNews @SunWeatherMan
·
Trying to shoot a hole in this argument. Can’t. Any takers?
prayingforexits 🏴‍☠️
@mrexits
He is kind of asking the right questions here

There exist magic rocks that can boil water.

Boiling water gives us energy.

We stop using magic rocks because they exploded that one time.

Are we re*ed? Imagine if pre historic (sic) peoples stopped using fire because some red burnt his house down once.
10:54 AM · Dec 2, 2024

It's an interesting question. It's also a great illustration of the irrational thinking in some quarters when things like climate change are concerned. The fact is that nuclear energy is safer, with a lower rate of injury, than any energy method other than solar.

Climate scolds, people who want to keep the earth at some human-approved level, are all about "clean energy." They love the intermittent, low-energy-density sources - windmills, solar power - but can't abide and will not discuss nuclear power or "magic rocks." And when it comes to energy density, there just isn't any comparison. One fuel pellet of uranium in a light-water reactor produces as much energy as 1.3 tons of coal, 250 gallons of oil, and 34,000 cubic feet of natural gas. In a breeder reactor, the numbers are much higher: 22 tons of coal, 4,350 gallons of oil, and 590,000 cubic feet of natural gas. //

Forget what climate scolds claim to want. Look at what they are in favor of: You (not they) reducing your standard of living to meet their claimed goals. Look at the actions of the high-profile members of the opposition: Jetting around the globe in private jets, living in huge mansions a few feet above the tide line in the oceans they claim are rising out of control. They expect you to pay the price they aren’t willing to.

Do you want clean energy? This is clean energy. It's safe energy. No “still just thirty years away” fusion boondoggles are required. Not that fusion wouldn’t be even greater if we can make it work on an industrial scale, but how long have various organizations been trying to make that happen? This technology, nuclear power, especially the promising small modular reactors, is a technology we have now.

The new, improved small modular reactors described above could and should be built today. Technological societies like ours are dependent on abundant, cheap energy, and nuclear power has the ability to provide that power. Throughout our history, every major technological advance in power – from animal to machine, from wood to coal to oil to gas – has had one key characteristic in common, and that is increased energy density. Nuclear power represents just such an increase over generating electricity with coal or gas. Solar and wind power run in just the opposite direction, which is why they don’t scale up. //

anon-j5pd
a day ago
I’m an engineer and was a nuclear operator in the Navy. I’m a big supporter of nuclear power.
My dad used to work at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in AZ. It’s the biggest nuke in the country.
Just for fun I calculated the area of solar panels required to match Palo Verde’s output. It would require a field of panels 25 miles on a side, 625 square miles of panels. I used the power conversion factor and highest rate of sunlight incidence on the panels.
Palo Verde churns out the same amount of power day and night and isn’t impacted by dust. //

They Call Me Bruce
a day ago
Can't argue with a word of this.

As for safety, I used to be fond of pointing out that more people died in Ted Kennedy's car than in every civilian nuclear accident in the US combined.

How Innovative Is China in Nuclear Power? | ITIF

An interesting (albeit saddening) article from the Swamp-based Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

• China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations.

• China has commenced operation of the world’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor, for which China asserts it developed some 90 percent of the technology.

• China is leading in the development and launch of cost-competitive small modular reactors (SMRs).

• Overall, analysts assess that China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale.

• China’s innovation strengths in nuclear power pertain especially to organizational, systemic, and incremental innovation. Many fourth-generation nuclear technologies have been known for years, but China’s state-backed approach excels at fielding them.

That used to be the US’s strength – the ability to take smart ideas from anywhere around the world and actually implement them. That was before the US changed itself into a make-work program for bureaucrats & lawyers.

The fuel today with the greatest energy density is nuclear fuel; a chunk of enriched uranium the size of a thumbnail contains as much energy as one ton of coal, 120 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

So when our nearest neighbor, Canada, has the potential to become the Saudi Arabia of uranium, the United States should sit up and take notice. //

Nuclear power is the energy source of the future. We can't wait for the day when fusion power becomes economically viable, either. America's energy requirements in coming decades will be increasing, not decreasing, and anyone who has looked at the data knows that wind, solar, and other "green" sources won't meet the needs. We need nuclear power, we need reliable, friendly sources of uranium to augment our own production, and we need to streamline the process for approving new reactors.

Legal Insurrection readers will recall that in my post on the United Nations climate conference in Azerbaijan this week, its president boldly declared that oil and gas were a ‘gift from God’.

The eco-activists attending the event were enraged.

The climate cultists will likely be working themselves up into even more hysteria because of another climate conference that occurred mid-November in the Czech Republic city of Prague.

The Czech division of the International Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) organized a two-day climate conference in Prague on November 12-13, 2024, where climate scientists declared that the “climate emergency” is over. The conference concluded with a communiqué drafted by the participating scientists and researchers that targeted the climate hysteria promoted by the United Nations body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.’

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

The declaration has 18 different point referencing climate science and facts that counter the narratives being pushed by the IPCC and those who want to push their green agendas. //

1 The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.

2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
4. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
5. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual. //

Though I have to say, #17 is a favorite of mine:

17. Since wind and solar power are costly, intermittent and more environmentally destructive per TWh generated than any other energy source, governments should cease to subsidize or to prioritize them, and should instead expand coal, gas and, above, all nuclear generation.

But, perhaps most importantly, the conference attendees demand the end of persecution of those researchers doing real science who struggle to share their reasonable and reliable findings whenever the data counters the political narratives.

david says:
January 20, 2015 at 1:50 PM

There’s a big difference in what we’re told about climate change versus the effects of radiation.

Decades ago people subjected test animals to “large” amounts of radiation, and extrapolated their results to “small” amounts of radiation. The assumption was that as the amount of radiation decreased, then so did the effects of the radiation linearly. This implies that even at low doses of radiation there would be some damage. (ie. 1/10th the radiation = 1/10th the damage, 1/100th the radiation = 1/100th the damage..)

However, that’s not how science works. They had an hypothesis, but where were the experiments to prove it true?

Eventually it was found that the LNT model didn’t hold to be true. The expected cancers from Chernobyl didn’t match what was expected. Different parts of the world have different background levels of radiation, yet those changes don’t seem to correspond with the LNT hypothesis. There were accident where people were subjected to radiation, yet once again no correlation with cancer rates as suggested by the LNT hypothesis; in fact, in such cases it sometimes appeared that low doses of radiation could decrease cancer rates.

The LNT hypothesis is dead, or at least it should be. But there are people who benefit from keeping it alive, and rather than going back to the labs to try to figure out the proper relationship between radiation at low levels, and genetic damage, they try to muddy the waters.

Climate change might have its fear-mongers, much like the supporters of the LNT hypothesis do, but it has yet to be proven wrong. We know that greenhouse gases do affect the Earth’s climate, though to what degree our meddling will affect it is open to some debate, as is how harshly those changes will affect us humans. But, since the Earth isn’t a frozen wasteland, we “know” that greenhouse gases do affect the climate.

In short:
———-

Low doses of radiation:
-> has fear mongers
-> those fear mongers have been proven wrong.
-> end of story, (or it should be.)

Climate Change:
-> has fear mongers, and also
-> has those who benefit from denying it.
-> greenhouse gases affect climate, else the Earth would be a lot colder.
-> end of story, including how bad it will be, is yet to be written.

Given we don’t know the full story, we should research, and act, because the worse case scenario is disaster for us human. Replacing coal with nuclear is a no brainer. If there is room for some small release of greenhouse gases by us humans, it won’t include the use of coal to generate electricity. That’s one of the lower-hanging branches that we should be eliminating now.