Our current nuclear regulatory system is resulting in millions of premature deaths and effectively halting any progress on global warming. It must be changed. But to what?

The GKG proposes that nuclear power be regulated by a variant of the same system by which we regulate other hazardous but beneficial activities. We call that system Underwriter Certification (UCert).

This slide deck is the first of two part presentation on UCert. It attempts to explain why we must scrap the current regulatory system in which there is an enormous chasm between an omnipotent regulator's incentives and societal welfare.

Councilwoman Vickie Paladino @VickieforNYC
·
We must destroy the environment to save it!

Once every Joshua Tree is uprooted to make room for acres solar panels and the whales and birds are killed by windmills, and electricity is expensive and intermittent for all but the wealthiest, we’ll have saved the planet!

This is all much better than building a few modern nuclear plants.

John Solomon @jsolomonReports
Joshua trees growing for over 100 years will be cleared for solar farm in California https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/joshua-trees-growing-over-100-years-will-be-cleared-solar-farm-california
8:55 PM · Jun 7, 2024

The nuclear establishment never fails to disappoint.

When it comes to spent nuclear fuel, the stupidest thing we can do is argue for deep geologic disposal.

This is trebly idiotic.

1) It puts already mined, valuable material in place whence it is difficult to impossible to recover.

2) It is a horrendous waste of resources.

By making nuclear more expensive, we guarantee there will be less nuclear. Less nuclear means more fossil, more pollution, and more CO2.

3) It convinces everybody that aged spent fuel is uniquely dangerous. Why else would you spend billions of our money in this manner?

In fact, 600 year old spent fuel is just another poison. You must swallow this glass for it to harm you.

Bacon is probably more dangerous. You are much more likely to eat that carcinogen.

This set of slides outlines a plan for handling spent nuclear fuel
which makes sense. The nuclear establishment will reject it,
because they are far more interested in extracting taxpayer money, than they are in providing cheap, pollution free, low CO2 electricity.

This is criminal selfishness.

This slide deck is an introduction to the Sigmoid No Threshold (SNT) radiation harm model.

It depends on the Radiation Damage and Repair presentation.

Under the terms of the sale, Amazon not only acquired Cumulus' datacenter facilities and associated power infrastructure, but has direct — behind the meter — access to a sizable chunk of the energy generated by the nuclear plant's two reactors.

Over the course of its contract with Talen, Amazon expects to unlock upwards of 960 MW of power supply. However, we'll note that the cloud titan has the option to cap this at 480 MW if it doesn't actually need all of it.

We've now learned at least 15 new datacenters will be built adjacent and connected to the fission plant over the next ten years. As we've previously reported, an AWS campus with five buildings may take up 600,000 square feet, or around 13 acres, and capacity of between 50 and 60 megawatts. //

As generative AI has taken off, it's not uncommon to see clusters of 20,000 or more GPUs capable of consuming in excess of 25 megawatts of power, deployed.

This slide deck lays out the fundamentals of DNA damage and repair.

It explains why we are so good at repairing radiation damage,
and the importance of keeping the damage rate below the repair rate.

The information in this deck is a prerequisite for all the other
Gordian Knot Group slide shows.

Under the new plan, however, all such habitats would be categorically off-limits as soon as it is discovered that the land is occupied by a listed species. Any potential impacts to endangered species habitats that are discovered in the course of site surveys (usually after millions of dollars have already been expended on the project application) would kill the project entirely.

The permitting risk, already prohibitive for many new projects, could put whole states beyond the reach of all but the most hardy (or foolish) developers. The solar energy areas under the new solar plan overlap substantially with areas containing multiple endangered and threatened species. This endangered species exclusion alone would eliminate virtually all new solar development in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, which lead the nation in solar capacity per acre. //

Even for the 14% of BLM land left available for solar project development after all these exclusions, the new plan imposes onerous permitting requirements. These include some 600 mandatory design elements.

Some of these verge on the comical. BLM proposes a blanket prohibition on “grading” (leveling out land), which is indispensable for access roads, utility-scale batteries, transmission poles, and construction staging. The plan also prohibits development within 200 feet of ephemeral streams (those that come into existence, for example, after heavy rainfall, and then go away) and requires 75% residual vegetation around the development.

These requirements will be impossible to meet economically for many projects, and even where possible, would significantly expand the amount of land required per unit of electricity, thus defeating the goal of conservation. //

Most surprisingly, the new plan does not address any of the major problems that years of experience have revealed in the permitting process for solar and other energy projects on BLM land. On the contrary, it makes the permitting challenges even worse for existing projects applications, which are not “grandfathered” in any respect. Many solar project applications already in process will have to start over, and many of those applicants will prefer to cut their losses instead.

Many projects’ applications have been pending for years, and companies have already negotiated operational and power-purchase agreements of various kinds and would be bankrupted by having to start over.

This demonstrates a problem with heavily regulated sectors: Officials feel all too free to “move the goal posts” with little concern for the enormous losses they are causing developers and investors and little understanding that these are social losses that impact everybody.

For Americans to avoid a prolonged period of energy scarcity in the high-demand decade ahead, the nation will require a significant expansion in electricity generation. The bulk of that will need to come from nuclear and fossil sources, which are significantly more abundant, “energy dense,” and reliable than renewable sources like solar and wind. //

The new solar plan is being promoted as a partial solution, but even a brief review shows clearly that it will only make those problems worse. The plan is a clear sellout to left-wing environmentalists. And it shows that while those environmentalists hate fossil fuels, they don’t particularly love renewable energy—or energy of any kind.

They mean to save the planet for what they think is the planet’s sake, not for our sake. And if in the process they plunge the world into energy scarcity—a much grimmer fate than all the doomsday climate scenarios put together—in their minds, that’s just too bad for us.

Anyway, when some champion of human liberty in a Che Guevara T-shirt and Mao jacket was haranguing his audience with claims like “A single Hiroshima bomb set off downtown would annihilate this university and all of us in the blink of an eye”, what better way to burnish one's Strangelovian credentials than to whip out a handy-dandy nuclear bomb computer slide rule, whip—slip—slide, and interrupt, “Naaah…fifteen kilotons at five miles? Surface burst? Why, that's only a quarter to a third of a pound per square inch overpressure—it'll probably break some window glass but that's about it.” Flipping the slide rule over, “The flash isn't even enough to cause sunburn, and the immediate radiation is next to nothing.” For some unfathomable reason, this never seemed to either carry the argument or suitably impress chicks. //

My nostalgia for this particular relic of the Cold War was such that I've had a project to produce an online edition on my to-do list for more than five years. Like many items on this embarrassingly long and all too infrequently shortened list of unrealised ambitions, it's something I half expected someone else to do long before I got to it. This would be perfectly fine with me—I undertake these projects because I want to see them done, and crossing off an item without the wear and tear of doing it myself couldn't make me happier. In fact, scanning (and possibly OCR-ing) The Effects of Nuclear Weapons was an item on my list before the fine folks at Princeton got the job done.

The Web edition of the nuclear bomb effects computer, however handy when you're online, isn't much use when operating under field conditions, in a post-Armageddon environment, or for settling thermonuclear bar bets. Fortunately, with a little time, patience, and access to a suitable printer and office supplies, you can assemble your own pocket slide rule computer, just like the original—no batteries or Internet connection required!

You'll need to be able to print graphics (ideally in colour) from images in PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format with a specified and consistent scale. The rotating discs of the bomb computer must be printed on clear plastic with white areas of the image left clear. Most printers can print transparencies intended for overhead projectors which are suitable for this purpose.

Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution Wednesday that would have reaffirmed a nearly 50-year-old ban on placing weapons of mass destruction into orbit, two months after reports Russia has plans to do just that.

Carlson and Rogan didn’t moralize over Hamburg, Dresden, or Tokyo. Instead, they bobbed their heads and lamented the use of a particular type of weapon, not the death toll or civilians roasting alive from firebombs.

Even with that horror, Japan was not moved to surrender after Tokyo was set on fire 17 months before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan didn’t surrender after a half million of her civilians had died from conventional bombs. Japan only surrendered when Truman bluffed and assured Japan that her cities would be leveled with more atomic bombs.

When Truman ordered Fat Man and Little Boy to drop on Japanese cities, he saved countless lives, both civilians and combatants. When Emperor Hirohito ordered his country to stand down, he saved countless lives – both civilian and combatants. Both decisions saved the lives of Marines like my father. Men who came back to build lives and raise families. The deaths of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were regrettable, but the lives of Americans and Japanese were spared because of it. That act was “good” in that the resulting surrender and peace clearly were. //

AdeleInTexas
7 hours ago
Great piece, heartfelt and factual. Carlson's claim that ending the war in Japan by use of the atomic bombs was prima facie evil is prima facie stupidity. //

. I asked him what he thought about the use of the atomic bombs and he was all for it. He just wished they had them sooner.

Gordian Knot News is now up to 100 some posts. They range in importance from fundamental to trivial; in writing quality from pretty good to tech manualese. But it is impossible to figure out either importance or readability from the title.

So I've prepared a list of links, which groups the posts by subject and gives them a grade. The same post can show up multiple times.

A means you must read this to stay in the choir.

B means you should read the piece.

C means read this if you have nothing better to do.

D means don't waste your time.

In many cases, there is a very similar PDF on the Flop Book site, in which case I have also included a link to display that file.

Fear campaigns have led to tight regulation of nuclear power plants and nuclear waste, which means that to see dry fuel casks you have to jump through hoops with security clearance, over-the-top security checks, supervised visits and so on.

I think we should normalise nuclear waste by putting it in public places that allow people to see it. In the Netherlands, COVRA (The Central Organisation For Radioactive Waste) stores all of the country’s high-level waste and is also a public museum and art gallery that hosts many exhibitions.
Inside COVRA: the art of preservation

On a panel in Paris last year, I called nuclear power plants national monuments, and I believe that they are, because they represent clean air, good jobs, and high-quality lifestyles. I think we should decorate nuclear power stations like the mural on the Cruas-Meysse cooling tower in France. We should celebrate what humankind can achieve with clean energy: a high quality of life for everybody, without the negative impacts of burning fossil fuels.

Consider uranium: the underrated element of awe //

Back to energy density: uranium metal really packs a punch. It is 1.67 times more dense than lead, and 1 kilogram of uranium-235 contains 2 to 3 million times the energy equivalent of 1 kg of oil or coal. This means that a relatively small quantity of nuclear fuel can produce significant amounts of energy through fission. How does uranium compare to other fuels? Calculations vary a little, but through fission, 1 kg of enriched uranium corresponds to roughly 10,000 kg of mineral oil or 14,000 kg of coal. That’s a lot of raw material that can be left in the ground. //

A single nuclear fuel pellet in a typical reactor creates about the same amount of energy as one tonne of coal. //

nuclear energy stands its ground. It’s reliable and dependable, with the highest capacity factor of all energy sources, which means that power plants produce maximum power more than 92% of the time during the year. That’s almost twice as much as natural gas and coal and nearly three times more than wind and solar farms.

Since less raw material is needed to create the same amount of power, nuclear energy also has a very small land footprint compared to the alternatives. More land is required to mine the coal and dig the metals and minerals used in wind turbines and solar panels out of the ground, and for the sites they are built on, which makes it the most land-efficient source of energy. //

https://xkcd.com/1162/

nuclear power

Cyril R says:
March 3, 2024 at 7:34 AM

A good writeup Michael. A couple of poimts though.

Actually water without precise chemistry control is very corrosive. All reactors require good chemistry control (there’s no such thing as pure helium). Davis Besse shows that borated water isn’t too nice either. And 155 bar borated water at 320C doesn’t qualify as “no hazard”.

Fluoride salts are stable, don’t generate hydrogen, and corrosion control rests on having the salt reducing toward the structural alloy rather than the passivation layer required with water. Fluoride salts also do not cause stress corrosion. So it ends up a simple matter of allowance thicknesses.

I like LWRs. Much better than coal plants. But they are basically glass cannons. The power goes out, the core melts down, generating explosive hydrogen in the process that detonates the containment and spreads radionuclides all over the country. Or someone thinks there is water in the core when there isn’t and the core melts down. A glass cannon like that just begs for military grade bureacracy not unlike a nuclear missile silo. Said bureaucracy is very expensive and results in all manner of bloat that inflated prices and build times. With advanced reactors focussing on inherent safety you at least have a case for a more rational regulatory approach.

A 3000 MWt LWR gets you 1000 MWe. An advanced reactor of 3000 MWt gets you 1500 MWe. That’s a quarter billion bucks a year more revenue.

By the way, 3 outages in 10 years is very good. Solar power stations have 365 outages a year.

During the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) earliest years, the General Advisory Committee was sometimes viewed as a source of discouraging, delaying advice. Made up of selected members of the scientific establishment, the group habitually sought more studies and inserted costly delays aimed at making the perfect next step instead of taking steps that were good enough to support practical learning.

A March 8, 1952 New York Times article titled “Atomic Delay Laid to A.E.C. Advisers: Even Dr. Conant Should Yield to Men With Faith in Goal, Coast Chemists are Told,” provides a well-positioned person’s insights into the disappointingly slow process of developing power reactors. //

Pitzer gave the AEC a backhanded slap by calling it “reasonably efficient by general governmental standards,” and stated that its monopoly in atomic energy had delayed atomic reactor development.

He described how material production reactors, with their complex chemical processing systems, had been built in less than three years during wartime. During that time of rapid progress, he said, if there was a disagreement about which of two courses of action were best, both of them were followed.

In the succeeding years, following either route needed to be preceded by an “exhaustive series of preliminary studies” that added layers of cost to the project. Salaries, overhead and other cost components always accumulate during delays.

He noted how it took six years from the end of the war to build anything that could generate electricity, and even then it was a tiny reactor that produced just 100 kilowatts of power in December, 1951.

“The slowness,” Dr. Pitzer declared, “did not arise from a lack of designs for power reactors which reputable scientists and engineers were willing to build and test. It came rather from an unwillingness of the commission to proceed with any one of these designs until all of the advisers agreed that this was the best design.”

The speaker likened the present setup, with a multitude of committees advising the Atomic Energy Commission, to an automobile equipped with a separate brake lever for every passenger.

Stewart Peterson says:
January 18, 2021 at 12:14 PM

Conversely, from the perspective of the people conducting the approval process:

Nobody ever gets fired for doing nothing. However, people get fired for exceeding their authority all the time. Lawyers are arguing over where the line is, and the line never stops moving, and all previous decisions are reviewable and the people who made them are fireable, on the basis of a legal standard that didn’t exist at the time the decision was made.

So what do you do? If there is anything at all novel about what the applicant wants to do, you insist to the applicant that you have no authority to act on their application. This only changes once you have a directive, in writing, from someone above you. That person is unlikely to make such a directive unless they’re such a short-timer that they won’t get fired when the rules are reinterpreted. This is how political appointees get exasperated with minor and obvious decisions being kicked up to them instead of being resolved three levels below, where by any logic they should have been.

What it looks like to the applicant is that old political cartoon of the officials standing in a circle and pointing to the next guy. (You go to the Department of X. They say, “X doesn’t have authority to do that. Y does. Ask them.” You go to the Department of Y. You go there and they say, “Y doesn’t have authority to do that. X does. Ask them.”) Meanwhile, the organization as a whole drops the ball. No individual person in it has any incentive to act in the group’s interest.

I call this the “organizational infield fly rule.”

Much of the anti-nuclear activism in the courts is effective precisely by creating this type of doubt in the minds of the NRC staff – not by changing policy. All they have to do is create that question in the back of a junior manager’s mind: “will I be fired if I sign this?”

The path of least resistance? Appoint another committee to write another report.

A DIY Guide to Going Nuclear

Building a nuclear weapon has never been easier. NATO's Michael R�hle provides step-by-step instructions for going nuclear, from discretely collecting material to minimizing the fallout when caught. These simple steps have worked for the likes of Israel, Pakistan or North Korea, and your country could be next.

Tired of being bossed around? Want your neighbors to treat you with more respect? Want to play in the majors? If so, you have to have your own nukes.

Impossible? Not really. Granted, if your country is a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), as most countries are, the constraints on your bomb building are considerable. Inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are difficult to circumvent. And the IAEA can no longer be fooled as easily as in the 1980s, when it failed to uncover Saddam Hussein's military nuclear program in Iraq despite regular inspections.

The IAEA's increased awareness means that you have to be imaginative. Here are some steps to consider.

Now, for the first time in 50 years, INL is preparing to build two new reactors and one reactor experiment at its desert site. One of these projects, the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation (MARVEL) microreactor will produce about 85 kilowatts of heat — which will be converted to approximately 20 kilowatts of electricity. A reactor this size would power around 10 homes. //

Microreactors like MARVEL are small nuclear reactors built in factories and transported wherever they are needed to provide electricity and heat. Initially, these reactors could power communities like remote Alaskan towns that now rely on expensive diesel shipments, along with industrial applications that require high temperature heat and electricity.