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.

Now, this is a big, complex issue, and a lot to absorb, but the thumbnail is this: Rising nationalism in Europe is driven in part by frustration over rising energy costs (as well as things like unchecked immigration) and those rising energy costs are in large part due to net-zero schemes to appease climate activists. Britain has gone all-in for renewables, but the renewables aren't consistent, and when the wind isn't blowing, the United Kingdom has been relying on the expensive proposition of starting up natural-gas-powered electrical plants - using Norwegian natural gas. Their backup, incidentally, is gas imported from the United States, and President Trump is planning to ramp up production, but he's also likely to meet American consumer and industrial needs over exports. Interestingly, in the article linked above, "The Telegraph," an outlet not terribly friendly to President Trump, has actually given him credit for doing what's right by America first.

A new study says that many large-scale hydropower projects in Europe and the US have been disastrous for the environment.

Dozens of these dams are being removed every year, with many considered dangerous and uneconomic.

But the authors fear that the unsustainable nature of these projects has not been recognised in the developing world.

Thousands of new dams are now being planned for rivers in Africa and Asia.

'They dammed everything' - hydropower gone sour

Are too many hydropower dams being built?

Hydropower is the source of 71% of renewable energy throughout the world and has played a major role in the development of many countries.

But researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.

Dams are now being removed at a rate of more than one a week on both sides of the Atlantic.

The problem, say the authors of this new paper, is that governments were blindsided by the prospect of cheap electricity without taking into account the full environmental and social costs of these installations.

More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the decomposition of flooded lands and forests.

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.

A new online product called the Edison Lost Generator Plans has been gaining a lot of attention lately, with advertisements claiming it can help people build their own power generators to reduce or eliminate their electricity bills. However, many people are questioning the legitimacy of these plans and wondering if it is actually a scam designed to take advantage of consumers. //

The advertisements for the Edison Lost Generator Plans appear online through social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. They often begin with a video or image of an elderly man claiming to have built his own generator which allows him to stop paying electricity bills.

Other actors appear and make exaggerated claims that the plans will allow consumers to build generators that can produce free, unlimited energy. The ads claim the instructions are being sold for a one-time low payment of $59 or less. //

Once purchased, customers gain access to a set of online articles that barely pass as generator plans. They consist of vague, generic information and lack the specific steps, diagrams, and part lists that would actually be needed to construct a working generator.

Often, the instructions simply mention general components like “battery system” or “charge controller” without any directions on which parts and brands to purchase. There are no schematics, wiring diagrams, or adequate explanations for how to convert energy sources like solar, wind, or kinetic energy into electricity.

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.

There is renewed talk of a coal power comeback in the United States, inspired by Donald Trump’s return to the presidency and forecasts of soaring electricity demand.

The evidence so far only shows that some plants are getting small extensions on their retirement dates. This means a slowdown in coal’s rate of decline, which is bad for the environment, but it does little to change the long-term trajectory for the domestic coal industry.

In October, I wrote about how five of the country’s 10 largest coal-fired power plants had retirement dates. Today, I’m revisiting the list, providing some updates and then taking a few steps back to look at US coal plants as a whole. Consider this the “before” picture that can be judged against the “after” in four years.

Some coal plant owners have already pushed back retirement timetables. The largest example, this one from just before the election, is the Gibson plant in Indiana, the second-largest coal plant in the country. It’s set to close in 2038 instead of 2035, following an announcement in October from the owner, Duke Energy.

But the changes do not constitute a coal comeback in this country. For that to happen, power companies would need to be building new plants to replace the many that are closing, and there is almost no development of new coal plants. //

The United States had about 176,000 megawatts of coal plant capacity as of October, down from about 300,000 megawatts in 2014.

The coal plants that do remain are being used less. In 2023, the average capacity factor for a coal plant was 42 percent. Capacity factor is a measure of how much electricity a plant has generated relative to the maximum possible if it was running all the time. In 2014, the average capacity factor was 61 percent.

Set to be killed by Trump, the rules mostly lock in existing trends. //

The net result of a number of Supreme Court decisions is that greenhouse gasses are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA needed to determine whether they posed a threat to people. George W. Bush's EPA dutifully performed that analysis but sat on the results until its second term ended, leaving it to the Obama administration to reach the same conclusion. The EPA went on to formulate rules for limiting carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis, but these were rapidly made irrelevant because renewable power and natural gas began displacing coal even without the EPA's encouragement.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration replaced those rules with ones designed to accomplish even less, which were thrown out by a court just before Biden's inauguration. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stepped in to rule on the now-even-more-irrelevant Obama rules, determining that the EPA could only regulate carbon emissions at the level of individual power plants rather than at the level of the grid.

All of that set the stage for the latest EPA rules, which were formulated by the Biden administration's EPA. Forced by the court to regulate individual power plants, the EPA allowed coal plants that were set to retire within the decade to continue to operate as they have. Anything that would remain operational longer would need to either switch fuels or install carbon capture equipment. Similarly, natural gas plants were regulated based on how frequently they were operational; those that ran less than 40 percent of the time could face significant new regulations. More than that, and they'd have to capture carbon or burn a fuel mixture that is primarily hydrogen produced without carbon emissions.

The State of Alaska filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging a violation of a congressional directive mandating the development of oil and gas resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s (ANWR) Coastal Plain.

Known as the Section 1002 Area, the 1.5 million-acre stretch of Alaska’s northern coast was designated by Congress in 1980 for potential energy development.

In 2017, Congress explicitly directed federal agencies to open the area for oil and gas leasing.

But a December, 2024 decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management significantly curtailed this directive.

The World Bank’s mission has been subverted by green ideologues who assert that a low-carbon world benefits the world’s poor but fail to acknowledge that making energy much more costly increases poverty. The World Bank tags itself as ‘working for a world free of poverty’ … In making its choice between development and sustainability, the World Bank has decided it is going to try and ‘save the planet’ on the backs of the poor.

By abdicating its founding principles for alleviating global poverty, the World Bank has taken a lead role among multilateral financial institutions in denying vast financial resources to poorer countries. It has hypocritically vetoed the right of developing countries to adopt the path of economic growth and environmental improvement that the now-rich countries had taken up successfully since the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago. The World Bank’s obsessive support for intermittent, low-yield renewable energy such as solar and wind power comes at the cost of its central charter to help the poor, an outcome that can only be described as egregiously unjust.

Unfortunately, Trump cannot undo Biden’s executive order.

Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), a law established in 1953, states, “the President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.”

Trump needs Congress to change the law. That could happen since the GOP controls the House and Senate.

No one can receive a lease to drill for oil, gas, or other minerals in those areas.

OCSLA lacks language that allows a future president to undo an executive order under Section 12(a).

Former President Barack Obama issued a similar executive order on December 20, 2016.

In April 2017, Trump signed an executive order to undo Obama’s order.

Activist groups challenged Trump’s order.

In 2019, US District Court Judge Sharon Gleason, based in Alaska, overturned Trump’s executive order, leaving in place Obama’s protection of the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea and the East Coast of America.

In 2019, during Trump's first term, a federal judge ruled that OCSLA does not permit presidents to overturn bans established by previous administrations. This means Trump would need congressional approval to reverse Biden's decision. //

Here's the part that really makes Joe Biden look petty and vindictive, not that he didn't look that way already. The outgoing president cited concerns about climate change as a reason for signing the order. If that really was his concern — if he really wanted to shut down energy production on essentially the entire United States continental shelf because of climate change — why did he wait until two weeks before leaving office?

The answer is obvious: This order has nothing to do with the climate. It's all political backbiting and attempted sabotage, pure and simple.

The Biden administration announced Monday that it is banning future offshore oil and gas activity across 625 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf—an area larger than the amount of land included in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803—in its waning days.

The action will shut down future drilling along the East Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, 250 million acres along the West Coast, and 44 million acres of the Bering Sea along the Alaskan Coast. The law that President Joe Biden invoked to issue the policy does not give presidents explicit authority to revoke withdrawals approved by a former president, so the incoming Trump administration may have difficulty unwinding the ban as it pursues plans to unleash the U.S. energy sector. //

The White House announcement laying out the new drilling ban suggests that Monday’s actions secure Biden’s legacy on climate and energy policy, and the administration previously moved to cut offshore oil and gas drilling by issuing the most restrictive five-year leasing schedule in modern history in 2023. The 625 million acres affected by Monday’s announcement is a larger total area of land than the 530 million acres bought in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

Biden declared a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters on Monday.

With only two weeks remaining in his term, the current president invoked the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to place restrictions on areas along the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaska's Northern Bering Sea from future oil and natural gas leasing.

In a statement prepared by his handlers, Biden declared any future offshore drilling was "not worth the risks."

"As the climate crisis continues to threaten communities across the country and we are transitioning to a clean energy economy, now is the time to protect these coasts for our children and grandchildren," he announced. //

USA_Proud Big Hairy American Winner 7 hours ago

Actually, it is binding astaire to executive Orders, as it is based on an old law that allowed the President to remove these "lands" from the drilling list, but no authorization to return them. Of course, it can be removed by law, but with a nearly evenly divided legislature, some GOP members of scenic coastal areas, like FL, may not be willing to let any President restore offshore drilling to their coast. It might need to get complicated to target these Biden areas, which takes time.

Jprs Big Hairy American Winner 7 hours ago

Unfortunately, by invoking the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act it does bind future presidents. It will have to be over turned by Congress.

Less than a year before the end of World War II, then-U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau drew up a nightmarish plan to punish postwar Germany.

After the serial 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War, World War I, and World War II—along with the failed Versailles peace treaty of 1919—the Allies in World War II wanted to ensure there would never again be an aggressive Germany powerful enough to invade its neighbors.

When the so-called Morgenthau Plan was leaked to the press in September 1944, at first it was widely praised. After all, it would supposedly render Germany incapable of ever starting another world war in Europe.

Morgenthau certainly envisioned a Carthaginian peace, designed to ensure a permanently deindustrialized, unarmed, and pastoral Germany. //

When the dying Nazi Party got wind of the plan, Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels had a field day. He screamed to Germans that they were all doomed to oblivion if they lost the war, even growing opponents of the Nazi Party.

Even many Americans were aghast at the plan.

Gen. George Marshall, the Army chief of staff, warned that its mere mention had galvanized German troops to fight to the end, increasing American casualties as they closed in on the German homeland.

Ex-President Herbert Hoover blasted the plan as inhumane. He feared mass starvation of the German people if they were reduced to a premodern, rural peasantry.

But once the victorious allies occupied a devastated Germany, witnessed its moonscape ruined by massive bombing and house-to-house fighting, and discovered that their “ally” Russia’s Josef Stalin was ruthless and hellbent on turning all of Europe communist, the Harry Truman administration backed off the plan.

There is a tragic footnote to the aborted horrors of the Morgenthau Plan. Currently, Germany is doing to itself almost everything Morgenthau once dreamed of.

Its green delusions have shut down far too many of its nuclear, coal, and gas electrical generation plants.

Erratic solar and wind “sustainable energy” means that power costs are four times higher than on average in the United States.

Once-dominant European giants Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes are now bleeding customers and profits. Their own government’s green and electric vehicle mandates ensure they will become globally uncompetitive.

The German economy actually shrank in 2023. And the diminished Ruhr can no longer save the German economy from its own utopian politicians.

The German military is all but disarmed and short thousands of recruits.

German industries do not produce enough ammunition, tanks, ships, and aircraft to equip even its diminished army, navy, and air force. //

After World War II, the Truman administration rejected the notion of a pastoral, deindustrialized, and insecure Germany as a cruel prescription for poverty, hunger, and depopulation.

But now the German people themselves voted for their own updated version of Morgenthau’s plan—as they willingly reduced factory hours, curtailed power and fuel supplies, and struggled with millions of illegal aliens and porous borders.

Germans accept that they have no military to speak of that could protect their insecure borders—without a United States-led NATO.

Eighty years ago, Germany’s former conquerors rejected wrecking the defeated nation as too harsh. But now Germany is willfully pastoralizing, disarming, deindustrializing—and destroying—itself.

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

Meredith Angwin @MeredithAngwin
·
Dec 23
Grid frequency drifting outside operational limits implies the system is running at the margins. https://watt-logic.com/2024/12/23/gb-grid-frequency/
Thanks to Kathryn Porter for this analysis!
From watt-logic.com

chrispydog @chrispydog
When I explain this stuff to people: "Have you seen when a spinning top starts to wobble, and what comes next?"

Most people 'get it' pretty fast.
4:34 PM · Dec 24, 2024. //

I then analysed the number of 15-second intervals in each winter season for which the operation or statutory limits were breached. The results are in the table below. As can be seen, in the past 4 years, there have been c 500 times the upper operational limit was breached, but in 2017 – 2019 the number was higher. The lower limit has tended to be breached less often – 2022 was an outlier with a very high number of breaches. There has also been a consistent trend of lower limit breaches increasing in frequency, which is consistent with falling grid inertia (see chart). //

This fits with the expected picture that the grid is becoming less reliable. It is also interesting that when individual occurrences are inspected, it is more often the case that frequency has drifted outside the operational range rather than suddenly falling out as would be expected from an outage. This is more worrying as it points to a general difficulty in maintaining stable frequency – things will always break and trip, and the grid is designed to deal with that, but these drifts outside the range speak more to a wider reduction in stability versus what is expected.