My grandfather and dad were nuclear engineers. My sister and I both grew up destined to be nuclear engineers. I did a couple internships at nuclear power and at LLNL: built dry cask spent fuel storage (Wisconsin), missile shields for spent fuel pool protection (Florida), and radioisotope thermoelectric generators for deep space satellites. Saw how dead the industry was, and went into software full time in 2000. My little sister, though, stuck it out. She has probably built more new nuclear power reactors than any currently practicing engineer in US industry under the age of 75. Not terrestrial power stations, but the reactors designed, built, and maintained at Lockheed ->NNNS->HII that are used in aircraft carriers and submarines.
If the degree of fighting against fully licensing a new terrestrial nuclear plant is the same as it was in the late 1990s, roughly half of the startup costs are from those fights. Lawsuits from environmentalist organizations, lawsuits from local citizens, duplicative insanely expensive site evaluations required by 4-5 layers of overlapping gov't agencies, etc etc.
If there was a regulatory change and automatic protections against environmental and Nimby obstinacy, the small reactors that power carriers and subs could be built all over the country. Small but they have punch, and the knowledge is already available.
Edit for this post:
I just realized there is also another option: bypass state and local jurisdiction, build nukes that operate on the water. The federal government has sole authority over power generation within lakes, and coastal waters. If this sounds ludicrous, consider the numbers: there are currently 93 terrestrial nuclear power reactors running at a total of 54 privately-owned plants, but the US Navy currently operates 83 nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships. Reactors are built on land, but they require direct access to an ocean or a very large lake to vent the excess heat generated by the reactor. High voltage power cabling at scale over water is already done for wind turbine farms in the ocean, the same basics would apply to a nuclear rig in the ocean (but with zero bird kills).
While on the surface, if you get rid of public perception and the classic NIMBY problem, nuclear might seem like the obvious choice to save the planet, once you dig into the industrial side and the economics you get the sense why it's very difficult to build a nuclear power station nowadays unless you have the government paying for it.
Great article - what about the cost of extraction of uranium 235 - the process of going from raw uranium to processed uranium itself leads to carbon emissions and harms the environment. Is there a dataset that observes the ratio of carbon emitted to carbon emissions saved pre and post Uranium processes?
Also what about the availability of uranium/plutonium as a resource? These resources are scarce and costs will go up as a result. What happens when we run out of it? Solar doesn't have this problem neither does wind.
I think this article is also not technologically neutral. The area of a wind mill increases as a circle quadratically with the length of the rotors, which makes the equation interesting. Sure, there are many problems with Germany‘s approach but to say these are luddites really misses the point. Germany had made a diverging bet and yes it looks as it it won‘t pan out well. But this goes back 10 years ago and tbh I still think there is value in pursuing this bet. Germans are technologically optimistic and if you ever come to Germany and talk to those pro renewables, you will also understand that.
Resposting a comment I made @ the White Pill
My grandfather and dad were nuclear engineers. My sister and I both grew up destined to be nuclear engineers. I did a couple internships at nuclear power and at LLNL: built dry cask spent fuel storage (Wisconsin), missile shields for spent fuel pool protection (Florida), and radioisotope thermoelectric generators for deep space satellites. Saw how dead the industry was, and went into software full time in 2000. My little sister, though, stuck it out. She has probably built more new nuclear power reactors than any currently practicing engineer in US industry under the age of 75. Not terrestrial power stations, but the reactors designed, built, and maintained at Lockheed ->NNNS->HII that are used in aircraft carriers and submarines.
If the degree of fighting against fully licensing a new terrestrial nuclear plant is the same as it was in the late 1990s, roughly half of the startup costs are from those fights. Lawsuits from environmentalist organizations, lawsuits from local citizens, duplicative insanely expensive site evaluations required by 4-5 layers of overlapping gov't agencies, etc etc.
If there was a regulatory change and automatic protections against environmental and Nimby obstinacy, the small reactors that power carriers and subs could be built all over the country. Small but they have punch, and the knowledge is already available.
Edit for this post:
I just realized there is also another option: bypass state and local jurisdiction, build nukes that operate on the water. The federal government has sole authority over power generation within lakes, and coastal waters. If this sounds ludicrous, consider the numbers: there are currently 93 terrestrial nuclear power reactors running at a total of 54 privately-owned plants, but the US Navy currently operates 83 nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships. Reactors are built on land, but they require direct access to an ocean or a very large lake to vent the excess heat generated by the reactor. High voltage power cabling at scale over water is already done for wind turbine farms in the ocean, the same basics would apply to a nuclear rig in the ocean (but with zero bird kills).
typo:
"For one, vivid imagery from Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island Vivid imagery from events like Chernobyl, and three-mile island, "
While on the surface, if you get rid of public perception and the classic NIMBY problem, nuclear might seem like the obvious choice to save the planet, once you dig into the industrial side and the economics you get the sense why it's very difficult to build a nuclear power station nowadays unless you have the government paying for it.
Working in the industry I can tell that it's very hard to put money on nuclear today....for a deep-dive into the topic: https://currentsandflows.substack.com/p/near-zero
Great article - what about the cost of extraction of uranium 235 - the process of going from raw uranium to processed uranium itself leads to carbon emissions and harms the environment. Is there a dataset that observes the ratio of carbon emitted to carbon emissions saved pre and post Uranium processes?
Also what about the availability of uranium/plutonium as a resource? These resources are scarce and costs will go up as a result. What happens when we run out of it? Solar doesn't have this problem neither does wind.
How do we solve these 2 core problems in nuclear?
I think this article is also not technologically neutral. The area of a wind mill increases as a circle quadratically with the length of the rotors, which makes the equation interesting. Sure, there are many problems with Germany‘s approach but to say these are luddites really misses the point. Germany had made a diverging bet and yes it looks as it it won‘t pan out well. But this goes back 10 years ago and tbh I still think there is value in pursuing this bet. Germans are technologically optimistic and if you ever come to Germany and talk to those pro renewables, you will also understand that.
Most Excellent Erik. I agree with you.