Nuclear Power Not Welcome at COP26

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — August 24, 2021

“The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late. With renewables and energy efficiency cheaper and quicker to build and run than nuclear, they have already lost this argument and should have no place to spout their lies at COP26.”

– Richard Dixon, Friends of the Earth Scotland (below)

“The nuclear industry provides most of the world’s CO2-free power, but is barred from UN IPCC meetings and even barred from the adjacent exhibit hall. Clearly UN IPCC does not pursue the public interest. What is the ‘power structure’ of IPCC? Who says ‘no’ a priori? How are these people appointed? How paid? How reimbursed? What’s the org chart?”

– Robert Hargraves, nuclear advocate (below)

It’s an agenda, Mr. Hargraves. And it is good reason for the nuclear industry to 1) stop “greenwashing” for a carbon tax; 2) stop buying into environmentalist alarmism, including climate alarmism; and 3) let the market make energy decisions, without government subsidies or regulatory obstructionism from environmentalists.

Background

Classical liberals and conservatives need not lament the current impasse between the nuclear lobby and the Progressive Left. Nuclear power is an industry that never should have been. A combination of federal subsidies, as well as rate base treatment under state public utility regulation, put an experimental, complicated, dangerous technology into play against established, improving power generation from coal, natural gas, and residual fuel oil, in particular.

The latest with U.S. nuclear is grim, with further delays and cost additions with Plant Vogtle #3 and #4. Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized. But don’t be surprised if things don’t come together in the next years to even begin what is estimated to be a seven-year build.

Environmentalists at the beginning had hopes for nuclear, as did “too cheap to meter” technology optimists. But in recent times, Left environmentalists are dead-set against new (and even existing) nuclear. Some have even turned into free-market types by correctly arguing the generation too expensive.

“The nuclear industry has effectively priced itself out of the market for new power plants, at least in market-based economies,” stated Joe Romm in early 2019. “That’s why nuclear power’s share of global power generation has dropped to around 11 percent — its lowest level in decades.” (Make that — percent today). To his credit, Romm two years earlier lambasted then-DOE head Rick Perry for throwing good billions after bad billions of dollars at Plant Vogtle.

Unwelcomed at COP26

Here is the story from Paul Dobson, “‘We’re barred from COP26’: nuclear industry complains after rejected applications The Ferret (August 19, 2021), which prompted nuclear advocate Robert Hargraves to ask:

The nuclear industry provides most of the world’s CO2-free power, but is barred from UN IPCC meetings and even barred from the adjacent exhibit hall. Clearly UN IPCC does not pursue the public interest. What is the “power structure” of IPCC? Who says “no” a priori? How are these people appointed? How paid? How reimbursed? What’s the org chart?

To which I replied:

Wake up …. don’t try to appease the Left with nuclear, end the tacit support of climate alarmism.

Excerpts from Dobson’s article follow:

The international nuclear energy industry has complained about being excluded from the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow — prompting environmentalists to say it should have “no place” there.

In a letter to COP26 UK president, Alok Sharma, global trade body, the World Nuclear Association, said that every application made by nuclear groups for exhibits at the conference had been rejected.

This was “very disappointing”, the association told The Ferret. A Scottish environmental group, however, said that it was “right” to keep the nuclear industry out.

Nuclear power is seen by some as clean energy because they say it doesn’t emit greenhouse gases when producing electricity. But it has faced continual opposition from environmental groups due to high costs, complications with decommissioning and the need to dispose of radioactive waste.

The World Nuclear Association, which lists 183 nuclear companies as members, said it was “deeply concerned” that plans for nuclear exhibits in civil society’s Green Zone at COP26 had been turned down.

The Green Zone is billed as a space for organisations to host “workshops, panel discussions and keynote speeches” which “promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments” on the climate crisis…. 

The [UK] Cabinet Office COP26 unit said it had received “a huge level of interest” from groups wanting to be in the Green Zone. “Discussions are still ongoing”, stressed a spokesperson, pointing out that “limited capacity” meant not all applicants could be accommodated.

COP26, which stands for the UN’s 26th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, is being held at the Scottish Events Campus (SEC) in Glasgow between 1-12 November. It is widely viewed as the last chance for world leaders to reach an agreement which mitigates the worst impacts of the climate crisis. 

As part of the application process, organisations interested in making use of space in the Green Zone were required to provide details of their “sustainability or environmental policies”.

Businesses looking to host Green Zone events also had to be signed up to the Science Based Targets initiative and the Race to Zero campaign. These are UN schemes aimed at ensuring companies have “credible” plans to achieve net-zero emissions….

Friends of the Earth Scotland criticised the criteria for getting a platform in the Green Zone as too weak. “But if they are keeping the nuclear industry out then they are definitely getting that bit right,” said the group’s director, Richard Dixon.

“Having failed with the ridiculous claim that nuclear is cheap, the latest wheeze from the nuclear industry is to tell us that nuclear reactors are the answer to climate change.”

There was an “very urgent” need to reduce emissions, Dixon argued. “The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late.”

He added: ”With renewables and energy efficiency cheaper and quicker to build and run than nuclear, they have already lost this argument and should have no place to spout their lies at COP26.”

The World Nuclear Association, however, insisted that nuclear power could help “meet increasing demand for low-carbon electricity”. Nuclear reactors could also play a role in “eliminating the use of fossil fuels in the production of glass and steel”, it said.

The association’s rejected exhibits would have made these points. They were also going to showcase plans to use nuclear energy in the future production of green hydrogen, which the industry says could be used as fuel to help decarbonise the economy.

The association hoped that the exclusion of its exhibits was not “indicative” of the way it will be treated throughout COP26. “It is very disappointing that no nuclear exhibits were selected for the UK’s Green Zone exhibition,” said an association spokesperson.

“More and urgent action is needed to advance the use of a broad range of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear, if we are to avoid the catastrophe that runaway climate change would cause.”

The association also confirmed that two unnamed UK-based nuclear trade associations have applied to be included in side events taking place within the UN-managed Blue Zone at COP26….

The two UK nuclear associations hope to be involved in panel discussions with what they consider “fellow clean energy groups”, including the renewables industry….

In July, The Ferret revealed that 19 nuclear industry executives were among a host of companies, including major fossil fuel polluters, who were part of key UN climate negotiations in the lead up to COP26.

Conclusion

The anti-energy, anti-economics Left cannot get out of their own way. James Hansen, father of the climate alarm, understands that it is nuclear or bust against carbon-based mineral energies. He states:

People who entreat the government to solve global warming but offer support only for renewable energies will be rewarded with the certainty that the U.S. and most of the world will be fracked-over, the dirtiest fossil fuels will be mined, mountaintop removal and mechanized long-wall coal mining will continue, the Arctic, Amazon and other pristine public lands will be violated, and the deepest oceans will be ploughed for fossil fuels.

And, Hansen should have added, the landscape will be littered with industrial wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries.

It’s just not easy being green when the greenest strategy is dense mineral energies, not wind, solar, and other dilute, intermittent power generation technologies.

—————–

Update: from Jennifer Morgan of Greenpeace International:

“Big polluting corporations have been banned from public buildings during the COP26 conference in Scotland this November.

Glasgow City Council unanimously passed the motion at a full council meeting, which is understood to be the first example of a host city counteracting the presence of particular vested interests while the crucial climate talks take place. 

Maybe everyone is conflicted and polluting, meaning that COP26 should be called off.

4.8 24 votes
Article Rating
230 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LdB
August 24, 2021 6:05 pm

So now COP/UN wants to dictate to the world what they can and can not use.
I am sorry did I miss the part that we authorized these idiots to govern us?
It is about time the world leaders and politicians started reading the riot act to the village idiots.

Davidf
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2021 6:16 pm

Ive been thinking for a while that the UN is an organization long past its use by date

Bryan A
Reply to  Davidf
August 24, 2021 7:29 pm

Perhaps from now on, the COPs should set up Solar Panels at their venues and Sever their Grid Inter-ties during the course of the meetings. Prove it works.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bryan A
August 24, 2021 8:13 pm

Also, all the attendees should be instructed to walk or take public transport to the event. Or in the alternative, it should be virtual (preferably cancelled).

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 24, 2021 8:44 pm

walk or take public transport to the event

Would that include the trip there?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 9:05 pm

Would that include the trip there?

Well, they could use Greta’s mode of transport. I’m sure they all have friends with multi-million dollar sailing yachts. I’d prefer they walk, though. They all seem to believe in miracles and can walk on water.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2021 3:56 am

Well at least St Grrrrreta can walk on water to get there.

Davidf
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 25, 2021 12:42 am

And wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic if the wind died and the resulting brownout crashed the local internet. November, in Glasgow – could happen

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Davidf
August 25, 2021 1:41 am

I’m surprised the organizers picked Glasgow in November at all. It’s hardly a salubrious location for a group of party goers like them.

To your 1st comment:

I’ve been thinking for a while that the UN is an organization long past its use by date

I have thought the same thing for almost three decades, since the Rio conference in ’92. It’s a corrupt, socialist organization with the gall to consider itself the de facto world government.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 25, 2021 2:10 am

As a Glaswegian, I was astounded that Glasgow (in November!) was picked to be the host city of COP26. Did no other city want it?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 25, 2021 2:18 am

Did no other city want it?

Maybe there’s a dark secret we’ve not been apprised of? You’d think it would be a regular little earner for the city. Maybe the “pandemic” had something to do with it. But they’re the elite and obviously exempt from getting infected.

*** maybe the organizers got a package deal on whores***

Reply to  Davidf
August 25, 2021 6:01 am

No worries. Hunterston B (1,220Mw) and Torness (1,364Mw) can take up the slack!
Scotland is very proud of the fact that last year it generated 97% of its consumption from renewables, one of the most breathtaking examples of sleight of hand imaginable!
You’d need to do a lot of digging to find out just what percentage of the “juice” that came out of the sockets was “home-grown” and how much was imported from elsewhere, mainly England. Much closer to 50:50 than 97:3!

Bill Powers
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 25, 2021 4:39 am

The Days Inn in Hoboken is on a bus route with a bus stop at the metro station.

If they don’t want to skype the conference then the least they can do to show they are serious is stop turning these conferences into all expense paid bureaucratic conventions at luxury hotels in popular tourist destination. The UN is just across the river in New York.. Hoboken is a convenient off site location..

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 25, 2021 6:16 am

I believe the phrase ‘See Hoboken and die’ accurately reflects the wishes of millions of tourists world-wide. Assuming this nonsense is still going on down the road and that the US ever has a president with the stones to call out the UN, I’d personally like to see one of the confabs held in Fargo, ND, maybe in January. COP-XX Fargo!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 25, 2021 6:49 am

Make it Minot, ND.

A sign at the entrance to town, as related to me by a friend from there, says “40 Below Keeps the Riff-Raff Out.”

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 25, 2021 7:20 am

A worthy location, I’m sure! However, anyone familiar with the Cohen brothers epic movie of the same name must surely agree that Fargo has a certain ring to it.

Steve Z
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 25, 2021 8:20 am

Hoboken also has a PATH train station with easy connections to the World Trade Center, Madison Square Garden, Times Square, the Meadowlands Sports Complex in Secaucus, as well as beautiful (sarc) downtown Newark.

If the attendees need some technical guidance on science and technology, they can consult with the professors at Stevens Institute of Technology, an excellent engineering college in Hoboken. (Full disclosure: it’s my alma mater).

Let’s all welcome COP 27 to Hoboken!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 25, 2021 10:37 am

Exactly so. But … these symposia (see original meaning of that) were intended to de “all expense paid bureaucratic conventions at luxury hotels“, for entitled patricians. We, the hoi-polloi have no entitlements and now covid has given them the opportunity for them to put us in our place.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 25, 2021 6:41 am

Even virtual uses tons of electricity, generated mostly by use of fossil fuels. Make ’em walk and sail in wooden boats made of hand cut and finished lumber using only stone tools.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 25, 2021 10:46 am

Make ’em walk and sail in wooden boats made of hand cut and finished lumber using only stone tools.

A man after my own heart. 🙂

Lrp
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2021 11:24 am

What about the UN building? Shouldn’t it come off the grid?

davidmhoffer
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2021 6:34 pm

The world leaders and politicians are the village idiots.

AndyHce
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2021 8:16 pm

Are you sure that it isn’t the case that
“the world leaders and politicians” = “the village idiots:

griff
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2021 11:59 pm

It wants to broker an agreement on what nations agree they will use, jointly

Davidf
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 12:45 am

“It wants to broker an agreement on what nations agree say they will use, jointly”.
There, fixed it for you

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 1:19 am

Griff, there is absolutely no chance of an agreement which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions at COP26. China and India will not agree to any restrictions on their energy use under any circumstances because it will damage their economic growth. Most Africans have no access to electricity; do you think that African countries will agree to anything which will harm their own people? My forecast is that COP26 will be an abject failure. China and India will agree to a meaningless statement which says that they will work to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over the long term and then do nothing at all about it.

Last edited 25 days ago by Bill Toland
Observer
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 25, 2021 2:44 am

“Most Africans have no access to electricity; do you think that African countries will agree to anything which will harm their own people?”

Judging by how most politicians govern everywhere else, I would reply with a resounding “yes” if they’re offered sufficiently large… inducements.

griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 25, 2021 2:54 am

We’ll see. The Chinese can see the damage from climate change, the Indians are already pushing massively into renewables, which are cheaper than coal.

Nobody in the last 75 years has done anything substantial to electrify Africa with fossil fuel and I don’t see them starting now.

LdB
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 3:03 am

Dream on 🙂

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 3:11 am

Griff, renewables are certainly not cheaper than coal. If they were, African countries would not be building 1250 coal fired power stations in the next decade in their drive to electrify Africa. Do you ever check the facts before you post here?

https://joannenova.com.au/2021/04/africa-to-double-coal-fired-power-by-2030/

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 25, 2021 4:29 am

Facts are inconvenient to griff. If you just put “not” into his every claim, it becomes true.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 3:19 am

Griff, this is an excerpt from the link I provided.

“Niger — a nation of 17 million people used about as much electricity as Dubbo, Australia, a town with about 40,000 residents”.

The future for Africa is a gigantic increase in coal use in power stations and nothing can stop it.

Last edited 25 days ago by Bill Toland
Bryan A
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 25, 2021 5:33 am

“Nothing can stop it” except for a lower cost alternative…
Lower construction cost
Lower production cost
Lower maintenance cost
Lower infrastructure cost
…which doesn’t exist

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:07 am

That would be the same China and India that are building coal fired power plants as fast as they can?

There’s only one problem with the claim that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel. It’s a complete lie.

African nations have been too poor to afford massive electrification projects. That proves they don’t need fossil fuel power plants.
Really griff, the thoughts that manage to penetrate your skull are fascinating.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2021 6:52 am

And China is helping African countries to build coal fired plants. Undoubtedly with some strings (i.e., Battleship Chains) attached.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 11:30 am

Your usual rubbish

DrEd
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 12:18 pm

Griff lies like a rug.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 25, 2021 6:50 am

Decision by China, just in. They commit to peak carbon by 2030 and neutrality by 2060. Expect that to be the big announcement. India, I haven’t heard.

LdB
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
August 25, 2021 8:37 am

You forgot to put the asterix on the 2030* and 2060*

*Dates are for illustrative purposes only and may differ from the actual date. Due to differences in monitors, economics and how XI Jinping feels it may also be redefined at any later time.

Last edited 25 days ago by LdB
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 2:18 am

Funny expectation of the UN… Which delegates and committees are collecting international opinions?

Based upon UN response to the nuclear industry, biased/corrupt UN delegates are dictating which concepts and attendees are acceptable.

Apparently with very biased, not democratic intentions.

But, what can be expected of an organization that charged the IPCC with determining man’s CO₂ contributions?

Anything UN or environmental loon organized is not going to be honest, truthful or reality based.

griff
Reply to  ATheoK
August 25, 2021 2:55 am

Riight… so those honest and upright and truthful oil firms should dictate what fuel we use?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:10 am

The only people trying to dictate what fuels we are permitted to use, are the green totalitarians. You know, the ones you support.

Beyond that, people use fossil fuels for power because they are cheap, reliable and as recently discovered, very good for the planet.

Gerry, England
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:27 am

Market forces should dictate what is used as the energy source with the only proviso that supply should be available 24/7. Good luck with using your windmills, griff.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:38 am

Wow! How do you even compose a sentence like that griff? Normal people can’t do that. It’s a masterpiece of illogical non seqitur. You are extraordinary, just like your mum always told you.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

BobM
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 25, 2021 6:01 am

Griff has shown he’s full of schist time and time again. Merely by using the devices and technology to blog here he has admitted that “what fuel we use” is not something he will do without, and thereby being someone we can and should ignore in the argument over what to do, since he’s a “do as I say, not as I do” idiot.

ExxonMobil doesn’t “dictate” anything to me. If I wish to stop using their products, I can freely decide to, and use any other product that provides better performance and ease of use at a better price for my transportation needs. There is none, and likely will never be one.

The many, many millions who likewise use their products, include, unfortunately, idiots like griff, who are free to criticize the free-market hands that feed and warm and provide them with the necessities of modern life, while arguing, incompetently, that things would be better if we only would be convinced of their irrational schemes.

And since we can’t be convinced by application of logic and facts, the incompetents like griff plan to use the force of government, with the help of the autocratic, un-elected, and Western-world-hating UN. They want to dictate their blindness, based on hate, really, and not allow free will, which has brought about the best human society ever, to continue to solve the problems of the world.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 5:35 am

Griff, We dictate what power sources we use…by using them ourselves, not through draconian legislation

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 12:56 pm

Notice how griff automatically assumes that it’s OK to dictate what fuel sources are used.
It’s just that he wants to be the one doing the dictating.

LdB
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 3:02 am

No sorry that isn’t their role .. the Paris agreement simply seeks countries to cut emissions.

There was nothing about how a country should achieve that.

What you have is the lunatics trying to push an agenda which is well outside what the original goal was. It is the same as all the leftwing climate justice junk that got axed at the last COP meeting.

Last edited 25 days ago by LdB
Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:16 am

Yes of course they do, griff. That’s what any honest broker does—they limit the bidders to their friends so that the buyers won’t be confused by having any good options.

After half a century doing everything possible to bankrupt nuclear power with unreasonable regulations, and while forcing unreliable technology into the energy market by a combination of massive subsidies and onerous unfunded mandates, these gaslighters have the gall to say that nuclear power was an experiment that never should have happened.

It’s gobsmacking chutzpah. Even you couldn’t be more exasperating.

While you’re here let me ask you, in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

tomo
August 24, 2021 6:27 pm

Can nuclear get in “under the radar” via something like the dihydrogen monoxide route?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  tomo
August 24, 2021 10:35 pm

Can nuclear get in “under the radar”

Ha ha! That reminds me of the times that I got into conferences hosted by my former employer who didn’t want me there because I was a significant competitor and thorn in their side. Having been one of the original developers of the software that they bought, I was the leading expert and kept nicking their customers.

The first time I went in under the name of one of my customers, the second with a mutual technology partner. After that it got difficult.

The third, and best, was when I hired a conference room for the day and a free bar for the evening. It happened to be right at the end of the air bridge to the adjoining Hilton hotel, so almost all the attendees passed by. It was easy to get them in with the free bar. The best part was that it actually cost less than paying for a table at their conference!

I had fun.

Leo Smith
Reply to  tomo
August 25, 2021 12:42 am

It is…
I just posted a link and here it is again, by the late Professor Cohen of Colorado University.

The cost issue which is always used to deny nuclear as well as the time issue are both functions of regulatory density and long build times, and the regulatory density itself is largely around safety of recently shut down reactors (Fukushima) reactors operated beyond normal parameters (Chernobyl, Windscale) and bad operator training coupled with mechanical failure (3MI)

In order to tackle these issues, as well as providing far shorter build times, the industry has recognised that large reactor rollouts are effectively infeasible, and the immediate future lies with with smaller reactors that can be mass produced in factories, type approved, and assembled in numbers on site to provide the thermal power needed.

The industry has also recognised that the reactor technology – LWR, PWR, BWR, AGR, MSR and so on is actually of far less importance than simply getting costs and build times (which equates to costs, in terms of interest on borrowed capital that is not producing income) down as far as is possible, by production engineering, and by the route of type approval, that sidesteps the need to get every stage of every new reactor approved. Small reactors fit the bill, and by virtue of their size, need no active cooling (at least for PWR/BWR designs) under SCRAM conditions (emergency shutdown).

The aim is to get something under a three year build from first bulldozer on site to grid connection of a critical reactor. And at a cost equivalent to a coal fired unit.

To achieve those targets would in economic terms wipe out windmills and solar panels. And possibly new coal as well.

So far the following consortia/companies are involved in pilot projects:

NuScale are involved in building mupltiple 72MWe units in Idaho, with another installation in Utah announced.
Rusataom has adapted its icebreaker units for build out into currently an arctic site.
Natrium are set to build a plant in Wyoming: This is quite a large gas cooled reactor for a SMR, coupled to a heat bank of molten salt that allows peak output above the reactor output, in addition to being able to absorb surplus reactor heat at times of lower demand. This is the company Bill Gates has thrown money at.
Rolls Royce in the UK, is heading up a consortium to develop small reactors based on their nuclear submarine technology.

And there are several others units being planned or considered around the world by mainly Russian and Chinese organisations

What seems to be the case, is that in the West, the less these attract the headlines, the better. The companies and investors involved realise that publicity would attract Green opposition, probably funded by other interests: development is quietly being undertaken, and there is tacit government support.

This accords with what I think is UK government policy, which is remarkably two faced. The public headlines are all about billions allocated to renewables, but in the fine print of the white papers are paragraphs where the need for up to 60GW of UK nuclear power is recognised as essential, and money is allocated without publicity to SMR and indeed fusion research.

I can’t answer for how things are being played out elsewhere – obviously Russia China and India are fully committed to nuclear power. Europe is being forced to abandon it, to its detriment, the USA is managing to keep it alive, and the UK by dint of Brexit at least has a chance to advance it oustide the heavy handed regulation of Euratom. Even in the EU the ex sovbloc coiuntries are agitating to be allowed to build nuclear as well.

So that is my perspective: while all the media is focussed on climate change and renewables, the best engineers are focussed on cheap, factory built fast assembly nuclear power ready for when the need for it is finally recognised.

What has to change is the public perception of renewables from beautiful structures that will save the planet; to monumentally expensive white elephants built by hypocritical profiteers, with public money that will destroy civilisation…and there are signs that that is beginning.

Even in fossil rich USA, the end has to be in sight for fossil fuels. We are using them way faster than they are being produced, and the cost of extraction is not going down. Already if you remove the regulatory overburden from nuclear power, the raw cost of a plant is similar to that of coal plant. And the fuel is way cheaper. Against gas power, the cost curve favours nuclear power over a capacity factor of say 60%, too – or to put that in simple terms, baseload should be run on nuclear power, but short term peaks are currently more cost effectively covered by gas. (or see the Natrium idea: by heat stored during low demand phases).

In short, I am making two inportant points:

  • nuclear hasnt gone away, it’s gone underground.
  • The mass media publishes what it is paid to publish: stories to placate the great unwashed (is there a better definition of a Green?) who actually believe what they are told. Bless!

The aim is to have nuclear ready and waiting for rapid deployment by the time that the public and politicians having exhsusted every other alternative, realise that it is in fact the only viable alternative to fossil power they have.

Hence why I bang on about nuclear at every opportunity. An individual can only really be effective by acting as a conduit for contrarian ideas. But if enough individuals clamor for nuclear power, poiliticians will dash around like headless chickens looking for someone who can provide it.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 6:39 am

When I worked for Duke Energy, they could license, site, build and commission a combined-cycle gas turbine unit in 18 months. Since these go in as arrays of units, an individual plant site’s generation capacity can be as small or as large as the need demands. These merchant power generation plants now dot the countryside close to cities.

I have been waiting for years for the nuclear industry to wake up to this same strategy, small(ish) cookie-cutter modular units of a standard type under a broad license. They could be located almost anywhere near demand centers (cities; industry) at relatively low cost with no requirement for long-distance transmission construction (unlike parasitic “renewables”).

If anthropogenic climate change really becomes a problem (which it isn’t), modular nuclear and natural gas units can be deployed relatively quickly. However, there is no emergency, nor really any climate problem at all. Sensible, planned transition to modular nuclear and gas-fired power over the next 50-100 years can be taken in stride, with no undue costs to ratepayers, and without the unnecessary costs and utter ecological destruction being wrought on the countryside by the current headlong rush into wind, solar and biofuels.

Meanwhile, fools like Griff will continue to spout memes from the lying socialist playbook. Since temperatures, sea levels, ice melt, polar bears, etc. are not cooperating with their agenda, the new socialist lie is “attribution,” claiming every weather event is evidence of dangerous climate change. Anyone who has lived several decades on planet earth with their eyes and ears open knows that weather happens, and always has, but the impressionable, immature young have no such perspective. Fortunately, at least among the young people I frequently encounter, few actually believe or take seriously the lunatic-fringe claims of the climate cabal.

Instead of disinviting the nuclear industry, perhaps a far superior strategy would be to disinvite all “environmental” NGOs, academics and so-called “renewable” energy advocates. Anyone with a vested interest in the “big lie” should not be allowed at the table or anywhere near the delegates. On the other hand, the fossil fuel industry, which supplies most of the energy that runs civilization (as a blessing to consumer demand) should be major participants. Even they know that the energy mix will need to change eventually, but they might provide a more reasoned, long-term perspective.

Editor
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 26, 2021 7:41 am

I think it’s important to point out that that the regulatory burden isn’t going away. We can try to reduce it, but no long term strategy relying on elimination (or even major reduction) of the burden is realistic.

Furthermore, there are some expectations, wrt capabilities and cost reductions, that new nuclear development companies have that, I believe, are “pie in the sky”. The vision of factory produced modules being “installed” on site and subsequently operating automatically is being sold as though it’s an achievable reality. But, I suppose you have to aim high to avoid aiming too low. Lofty goals will almost certainly get us closer to the optimal design than would, say, the curmudgeonly reluctance to consider real improvements to 1960s technologies that one *might* find in the current nuclear industry.

rip

Dan DeLong
Reply to  ripshin
August 26, 2021 10:23 am

At this moment, China has 18 large power nukes under construction and 37 planned, compared to the US with only 2 under construction and 3 planned. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme.aspx

BTW, in my opinion, a fast neutron breeder reactor that makes more fuel than it burns while making electricity, is my idea of “renewable” And yes, the Russians have two of these online.

noaaprogrammer
August 24, 2021 6:28 pm

Maybe our strategy should be to keep these COP meetings going indefinitely as they slowly become the useless idiots they are. Let’s see…What is their stance on nuclear fusion? That could be an energy source that would further fracture their unity since nuclear fusion has been just around the corner for a long time.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
August 24, 2021 6:39 pm

Actually I thought that was their strategy. If a solution is ever found, their gravy trains stops. So nothing that works will ever be allowed any consideration by them (they’re not as dumb as they appear!)

James Schrumpf
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
August 24, 2021 8:19 pm

I think Douglas Adams had the right idea with “Ark 2.”

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  James Schrumpf
August 24, 2021 10:37 pm

‘B’ Ark

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 25, 2021 10:04 am

“The planet Golgafrincham creatively solved the problem of middle managers: it blasted them into space. Golgafrincham telephone sanitizers, management consultants, and marketing executives were persuaded that the planet was under threat from an enormous mutant star goat. The useless third of their population was then packed in Ark spaceships and sent to an insignificant planet. That planet turned out to be Earth, where the arrival of the Golgafrincham B Ark rather disrupted an experiment designed to find the ultimate answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.”

August 24, 2021 6:35 pm

Call Lars at https://thorconpower.com There is no need to go to this scam ippc thing …manmade CO2 is not causing any climate heating so it is all a racket….. but thorium powered MSRs can provide cheap reliable electric power.

Bryan A
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 7:34 pm

Still have yet to see a viable utility scale Thorium MSR capable of delivering 2200MW like Diablo Canyon. Let me know when one is developed.

MarkW
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 8:45 pm

I’m still waiting for them to design, much less build a full scale version.
Lab tests don’t count.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 11:53 pm

Experimental high power MSRs have been around since the mid-1950’s (e.g., the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ARE project).

Thus, any claims that MSRs are practical and “just around the corner” deserve to be dumped into the same bucket as similar claims for cold fusion.

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 26, 2021 10:31 am

The US isn’t doing much to use Thorium or develope molten salt reactors, but both of these are under development in India, which has large concentrations of Monazite as Thorium ore. From the World Nuclear Association:

“The long-term goal of India’s nuclear program has been to develop an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle.The first stage of this employs the PHWRs fuelled by natural uranium, and light water reactors, which produce plutonium incidentally to their prime purpose of electricity generation.
Stage 2 uses fast neutron reactors burning the plutonium with the blanket around the core having uranium as well as thorium, so that further plutonium (ideally high-fissile Pu) is produced as well as U-233.
AMD has identified almost 12 million tonnes of monazite resources (typically with 6-7% thorium) and 33.7 million tonnes of zircon.
Then in stage 3, Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWRs) will burn thorium-plutonium fuels in such a manner that breeds U-233 which can eventually be used as a self-sustaining fissile driver for a fleet of breeding AHWRs. An alternative stage 3 is molten salt breeder reactors (MSBR), which are firming up as an option for eventual large-scale deployment.”

H B
August 24, 2021 6:35 pm

More proof the agenda is not climate but control of the world’s energy and world communism

n.n
Reply to  H B
August 24, 2021 7:50 pm

Yes, single/central/minority capital (e.g. redistributive change) and [population] (e.g. planned parent/hood) control schemes, layered with a Marxist (i.e. diversity (e.g. racism, sexism; class-based bigotry), inequity, and exclusion) religious orientation, in collusion with public special and peculiar interests (i.e. fascism).

griff
Reply to  H B
August 25, 2021 12:04 am

Utter nonsense and conspiracy theory

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:14 am

Anyone who listens to what the global warmistas are saying, is engaging in conspiracy theories.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:53 am

Bearing in mind, the appropriate correction factor for any griff statement:

Not utter nonsense and not conspiracy theory.

See? It works again.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 5:56 am

So says the #2 conspiracy ideationist

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 11:44 am

Given every single one of YOUR posts to date, that’s a bit rich, isn’t it? Sort of the pot calling the kettle black? Get your delusions and your disconnect from reality sorted Griffy, you need serious help.

rbabcock
August 24, 2021 6:37 pm

The ONLY way we will continue into the long future with an energy rich economy is nuclear.

The Chinese are trying the solar farm in space thing, but you will be sending a continuous high energy beam through all layers of the atmosphere to an area with receiving antennas. Who knows what it will do to both. I certainly wouldn’t want to be near it in an aircraft or especially on the ground. I’m guessing it will sterilize anything it passes through or lands on.

MarkW
Reply to  rbabcock
August 24, 2021 8:47 pm

The beam itself has a lot of energy, but that energy is spread over multiple square miles.
The actual energy density is quite low. Putting your cell phone against your ear probably results in more energy per square centimeter.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 10:41 pm

If the energy density is only as vi as a celk phone uses for communication (a lot less than total power usage, batteries last for weeks as just a phone), then even over many square miles, the total won’t be very much. Certainly not worth the land area employed.

Last edited 25 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Leo Smith
Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2021 12:49 am

If the actual energy density s even as low as sunlight, which already is high enough to give you cancer and burn you, then you might as well just use solar panels.

It is simply an idea whose time will never come. Its only use is as a cover for an orbital energy weapon.

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 12:59 pm

Different wavelengths.

Leo Smith
Reply to  rbabcock
August 25, 2021 12:47 am

The ONLY way we will continue into the long future with an energy rich economy is nuclear.

The inevitable truth of that remark is what is driving tacit nuclear development: I cannot emphisise its truth enough.

Nuclear power is not an alternative to fossil fuels, it is the ONLY alternative.

If we want to maintain population levels at anything like current, and have a decent post industrial lifestyle (most greens would be horrified at how ghastly pre industrial life actually was).

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 4:17 am

Nuclear is needed as an adjunct, to, not replacement of, fossil fuels. Then, if/when fossil fuels start pricing themselves out of the market, nuclear’s share of the energy market can be ramped up.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 7:08 am

Only alternative for electric generation, yes. But liquid fuels will still be needed for transport, unless you plan to electrify every road, parking lot, path, and off-road trail used by vehicles so the vehicles can draw electricity from the roads, lots, paths and off-road trails they operate on.

Dan DeLong
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 26, 2021 10:41 am

There’s not much you can do to make airplanes run on anything other than fossil fuels. Battery technology is just too heavy for any but short haul commuter flights, and turnaround time of typical commuters is too short to recharge those batteries.

Glen
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 10:59 am

Exactly.

Rusty
Reply to  rbabcock
August 25, 2021 1:55 am

Solar in space with energy beamed back to earth is a total no go. It’s never going to be economical.

Thomas Gasloli
August 24, 2021 6:42 pm

If the electric power generating industry, the oil and gas industry, the nuclear industry, and the auto industry would stand up against the climate change lie instead of kowtowing, climate change would be dead. They need to stop lobbying for climate change subsidies and fight or they will all be gone.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 24, 2021 6:47 pm

Like Warren Buffett, they are just looking at the next quarter’s balance sheet and to keep the politicians and bureaucrats off their backs.

griff
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 25, 2021 12:04 am

But they don’t, because the science of climate change is quite clear to them.

The auto industry (outside America at least) is headed for EVs and no turning back.

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 12:55 am

Well griff, you got the no turning back bit right. When the battery is empty there is no turning back or going forward. Unlike what happens when your ICE runs out of fuel, there is no point walking to the local battery recharge station with a can to fill up your battery either.
I don’t know a single person that has never run out of fuel at some time in their life, with ICE it is no big issue just annoying, but with battery powered vehicles it is a big issue.

Last edited 25 days ago by Rod Evans
Bryan A
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 25, 2021 5:40 pm

Not only that but the amount of mining required to produce the batteries and wiring etc would need to increase at least 20 fold globally. Just replacing the ICE cars currently in use in the UK would require twice the copper currently being mined globally. Replacing all those in the U.S. would require 4 times the current copper mining. Replacing current global ICE vehicles would require more than 20 times (especially to do so by 2030). Then most Electric Transformers and associated Primary wires would need to be scaled up and increased in quantity to allow for “At Home Charging” electrical demands. Where a single 50KVA Transformer feeds 6-8 services,.you would need to increase them to 100KAVs and add additional to split the increased loads

LdB
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 1:43 am

you mean all automobile manufacturers outside the EU

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 4:16 am

The science of climate change is quite clear.
CO2 is a minor factor in climate change, and one that is entirely beneficial.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:58 am

Griff, I’m the environmental manager for a major university system, and I am quite enjoying my “new” pre-owned 330 hp BMW 440i which I will likely keep for 15+ years. Gets better fuel economy than my ‘08, drives great, and can be refueled in 3 minutes from almost anywhere. Oh, and it has wipers when it rains (oh no, climate change!), heater when it gets hot (oh no, climate change!), a cabin filter for when the air gets smoky [rarely] (oh no, climate change!) and a heater for when it gets cold (oh no, climate change!). Get out of your mother’s basement and learn about the real world in which we live, learn a trade, and do something productive with your life rather than than spending your wasted days trolling climate websites.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 7:26 am

There are currently around 1.4 billion cars in the world. By 2050 it is estimated there will be 2 billion. In 2019 there were about 21 million EVs and this is expected to grow to about 115 million in 2030.

It is going to take an awful long time to get that figure up to 2 billion – even if that is possible given the amount of resources and lithium required. Plus that’s cars only and doesn’t include the large HGV and LGV fleets.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 7:35 am

When they’re approaching bankruptcy because nobody wants their products, they’ll “turn back.”

Rich Davis
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 25, 2021 4:58 am

They are all competing to supply the rope to their hangman.

Robert of Texas
August 24, 2021 6:57 pm

The costs of nuclear power are too high – because the liberals have made it that way.

Standardize the build, cut through the red tape, research molten salt reactors until they can burn nearly all of the “waste”, and we have the power source of the future. Meanwhile we have plentiful fossil fuels to keep civilization going.

Maybe in 400 years they will finally get a commercialized fusion power plant working. Not going to hold my breath. But even if they do, it too will have its problems – nothing is perfect, but at least it might be reliable which “green energy” is not.

Drake
Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 24, 2021 7:13 pm

In 400 years they will be saying fusion will be viable in 20 years.

Bryan A
Reply to  Drake
August 24, 2021 7:36 pm

It should be available in 10 years from now so 400 years from now, surely it will only be 6 years away

Reply to  Drake
August 24, 2021 7:37 pm

The super high temps of fusion are not needed to produce steam for power. The First Law of Nature is …..Thou shall not receive something for little or nothing. MSRs powered by thorium are available now….the first country to begin utilizing them will be doing a very smart thing.

MarkW
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 8:50 pm

If they are available now, where are they?
So far the only thing that has been built are small scale demonstrations in a handful of labs.
There are numerous problems that have yet to be overcome before commercial level plants can be built.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 25, 2021 12:54 am

Please. Stop banging on about sexy MSR technology.

No one needs a rotary engined supercar. What we want are cheap mass produced pickup trucks. Diesel or gas – no one cares.

Before we need to look into thorium we have 5000 years of uranium to use up, and current reactor tech is already developed, understood, and perfectly adequate.

What we need is to make it cheaper and faster, and embarking on high tech adventures in new technology will not achieve that – if anything the reverse.

robin townsend
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 1:08 am

this is achingly true. we have well over 100 perfectly cheap, perfectly effective nuclear reactors running around in exceptionally hazardous environments with no problems at all (ruskies excepted of course – i am tlaking us / uk / french). these are all well known, well reliable PWRs scale the fuel down to a useful weapons mix, scale the size up to an industrial size and voila. you could call it something like a ‘small modular reactor’ and build loads of them.

Bryan A
Reply to  robin townsend
August 25, 2021 5:58 am

The main potential issue with that idea is the fact that you would then have a Nuclear Weapons grade Uranium proliferation

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2021 1:02 pm

Nuclear fuel is typically concentrated to between 1 and 3 percent pure.

If you think you can make a bomb out of that, then you have never actually studied either subject.

Last edited 25 days ago by MarkW
Rich Davis
Reply to  Drake
August 25, 2021 5:02 am

In 400,000 years it will be only 40 years to commercialization.

griff
Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 25, 2021 12:03 am

There are multiple active molten salt research programmes, not least the Chinese, who are not hampered by red tape. And they say that it will be the early 2030s at least before they have a working commercial prototype.

all new reactor designs are so far vapourware, despite an enormous amount of effort and money…

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:00 am

Don’t believe everything you see on YouTube

Jit
Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 25, 2021 12:55 am

The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns

Of course. Because before they went after coal, the activists had already chewed up nuclear and spat it out. That didn’t matter as long as we had gas. For Sizewell B, originally announced in 1969 (wiki):

The public inquiry was held between 1982 and 1985, and took over 16 million words of evidence

It was eventually connected to the grid in 1995.

Tom Halla
August 24, 2021 7:07 pm

The hard core greens do not want anything that could actually sustain industrial society, as, after all a, having cheap and abundant power is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 24, 2021 8:20 pm

…having cheap and abundant power is like giving Climate Alarmist Morons a machine gun.
There, fixed it for you!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 25, 2021 7:42 am

I think you mean Taking away cheap and abundant energy is like giving climate fascist morons machine guns.”

Having cheap and abundant energy is like disarming climate fascist morons and putting them in padded cells.

george1st:)
August 24, 2021 7:35 pm

HHmmmm , tough decision , let the world catastrophically self destruct according to their own modelling which they can only control by controlling us and deindustrialising the rich by transferring that power to China etc .
Nuclear which is now the cleanest ,most reliable and safest power generation available is off the agenda .
Quite obvious who is pulling the strings and it ain’t us civilian taxpayers .

August 24, 2021 7:47 pm

James Hansen said:

“most of the world will be fracked-over, the dirtiest fossil fuels will be mined, mountaintop removal and mechanized long-wall coal mining will continue, the Arctic, Amazon and other pristine public lands will be violated, and the deepest oceans will be ploughed for fossil fuels”

And things will be noticeably different from that if all the resources for wind and solar will be extracted, and many more dams are built for pumped hydro?

Bryan A
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 25, 2021 6:03 am

Mountaintop Removal, Open Pit and Strip Wall mining are also utilized for coking coal needed to manufacture Silicon for Solar Panels

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 25, 2021 7:49 am

The climate fascist non-solutions to the imaginary “crisis” means dramatically MORE mining, including for fossil fuels, since all the metals required for batteries, wiring, etc. plus materials needed for wind turbines and solar panels will be ADDED to fossil fuel electric generation that will have to be maintained anyway to back up the worse-than-useless wind and solar power.

When you boil down their non-solutions they quickly devolve into “freezing to death and starving to death in the dark.” See Texas, USA in February, 2021 for a short, small scale preview.

stinkerp
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 25, 2021 4:59 pm

Hansen, despite all his ridiculous prognostications, is a passionate advocate of nuclear power. He got one thing right.

n.n
August 24, 2021 7:52 pm

I recall when environmentalists were concerned about green occupation (e.g. rain forests), then they evolved to occupy the land, whack the birds, and generally spread a Green blight.

Last edited 25 days ago by n.n
Dennis G Sandberg
August 24, 2021 8:04 pm

Perfect example, proof positive, IPCC/COP 26 are not concerned about “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming induced climate change”. It’s all about their political agenda.

Nuclear is in a tough spot, new generation nuclear is the cost effective alternative to hydrocarbons, wind and solar. These competitors know they can’t compete “green” with new generation nuclear like TerraPower and NuScale, so of course they’ll fight it. Host Scotland loves their, subsidized by the entire UK, wind power. Lots of local rents, jobs, commerce and campaign contributions. No energy intensive industry, so no problem with high power costs from that non-existent sector. What would Trump, or any other free trade advocate, say about the “blockade”?

markl
August 24, 2021 8:19 pm

Reality may be overtaking virtue signaling when it comes to votes.

MarkW
Reply to  markl
August 24, 2021 8:53 pm

Which is why the Democrats want to pass laws making fraudulent voting even easier.
This morning, a drunk felon fell asleep in his car at a convenience store. When the California police went to wake him up, they found 300 mail-in ballots in his car.

Last edited 25 days ago by MarkW
Juan Slayton
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 9:21 pm

I’m waiting to hear if those ballots were filled out, and if so, for whom?

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2021 5:09 am

Just another typical Newsom voter

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 25, 2021 1:05 pm

Even back in the 70’s I was told that the Democrat motto was to vote early and vote often.

Rory Forbes
August 24, 2021 8:35 pm

There isn’t enough pork and political ‘largess’ in nuclear power to satisfy the “green” fraudsters. With “renewables”, vast amounts of wealth go down the plug hole with nothing to show for it but a lot of virtue signalling and a massive shift in wealth from the merely rich to the vastly wealthy. What other scheme could have helped a third rate, failed politician like Al Gore increase his wealth from $1.5 million to half a $billion in under a decade? We should have started building nuclear power stations 30 years ago … but then there would have been no trillion dollar “climate change” industry. We would have saved trillions of dollars and China wouldn’t now be an existential threat.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 25, 2021 12:58 am

Whilst what you say is perfectly true, in the end voters also have a vote.

Democracy, active, informed, grass roots democracy of the kind that put Trump in the white house, is the only known antidote to the ‘iron law of oligarchy’

It is up to us to agitate …

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 1:56 am

Sadly, that grass roots democracy was overwhelmed by social media and a corrupt heirloom media working with the Democrats to end the level playing field of individual suffrage. If they can control what the masses hear, they can control the ballot box.

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Attributed to Stalin (attacked as untrue by Leftist “fact checkers”). Regardless who said it, it’s still true.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 25, 2021 7:09 am

Prior to the nuclear industry crash (due to mishaps and politics), nuclear power was being built at such a rate that it would easily be supplying >50% of our reliable electric power generation today. Greenhouse gas emissions (as if we really cared) would be much lower. But environmental activists shut down industry development. So if an environmentalist believes that there really is a climate emergency, it is his or her own fault.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Pflashgordon
August 25, 2021 10:51 am

Exactly so … and no one is telling us that wind farms are many times more likely to have fatal casualties than nuclear (not to mention their damage to wildlife). Nuclear is incredibly safe.

MarkW
August 24, 2021 8:41 pm

Environmental activists use lawfare to delay nuclear construction and use regulatory mal-feasance to add costs at every turn.

Then they turn around and declare that nuclear is a non-player because it’s too expensive and takes too long to build.

The so called problem with storing nuclear waste never existed. Reprocess nuclear waste the way most of the rest of the world does, and that problem completely disappears.

Last edited 25 days ago by MarkW
Ken Irwin
Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2021 12:37 am

The greens habitually refer to the high cost of nuclear construction – we have reached the point where half the cost and most of the escalations are because of protest delays and legal challenge costs – the greens are largely responsible for these high costs ! This misuse of the legal system (termed Lawfare) is a frequently used tactic by greens against anything that displeases them (and most everything displeases them).

Toshiba have scrapped a started project in Cumbria after spending some U$2 billion and Hitachi have abandoned plans for a nuclear power station to be built in Wylfa – Wales.

Both have blamed “project uncertainty” but were clearly exasperated by lack of legislative certainty or unequivocal government support in the face of incessant legal challenges.

griff
Reply to  Ken Irwin
August 25, 2021 2:51 am

The issue with both was finance, not regulation or legal delay.

No means of paying for these and producing a return could be found: setting a 30 year high electricity price like Hinkley wasn’t practical for multiple reactors (too much on consumers bills)

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:04 am

Even for you griff, that’s a dumb statement.

Let’s ignore why nuclear is expensive, the fact that it’s expensive is all you care about.
On the other hand, nuclear is way less expensive than either wind or solar, but that doesn’t stop you from pushing both of those broken solutions every chance you get.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 3:56 am

The fact it is unfinanceable is the issue.

And I have no objections to nuclear power.

I see no reason to shut existing plant down.

Leo Smith
August 24, 2021 11:34 pm

Love the way they blame the industryt for pricing themselves out of te market when its the politically driven regulatory regime which trebles the price.

griff
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 12:00 am

You don’t think that of all things nuclear plant ought to have strict regulation?

Ken Irwin
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 1:01 am

Griff – imagine you wish to build a perfectly legal addition to your home (unless you really do live under a bridge).
But your neighbour on the left challenges you in court the ensuing case takes two years and costs you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
You win – but then your neighbour to your right challenges you in court.
Repeat this process several times – or at least until you give up or go bust.
That’s the green approach to abusing the system to get their own way.
It’s not the safety regulation that is the problem.
Typical strawman argument.

griff
Reply to  Ken Irwin
August 25, 2021 2:49 am

Well the UK is actually building a reactor…

(I of course live rent free in a large mansion provided free by secret communist funds)

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:05 am

Is that what the kids are calling mother’s basement now?

Pflashgordon
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 7:11 am

Griff, I didn’t know your mom is a communist, but I am not really surprised.

MarkW
Reply to  Pflashgordon
August 25, 2021 1:07 pm

The rotten apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

griff
Reply to  Pflashgordon
August 26, 2021 3:54 am

Yes, we are all directly descended from Lenin and undermining the West is a family business.

I mean, what other motive could I have for commenting on climate science from the point of view of accepting that science?

clearly there is only one argument to be made, that against climate science and political motivation and sinister plot must be behind any contrary opinion.

clearly also a few insults on the lines ‘your mom…’ are enough to trump anti skeptic viewpoints and cause them to change opinion.

I’m humbled by your lengthy counter arguments to my posts Markw

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:04 am

The standard response of the totalitarian left.
Whenever someone says that there is too much regulation, the troll responds with the claim that “you don’t want there to be any regulations”.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 3:54 am

but you don’t want any regulation.

Or would you like to set out a lean regulation regime?

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 25, 2021 12:59 pm

“A 97% consensus confirms that wind turbine blades are a Satanic symbol whose rotation summons up dangerous evil spirits from deep in the earth.
It is thus a regulatory requirement that beside every wind turbine tower, a monastery is constructed to accommodate 12 full time monks and/or nuns. These spiritual practitioners will pray, chant and intercede 24/7 to prevent the ascent from the earth of evil spirits in response to the rotating turbine blade that represent an effective occultic symbol. The operation of this monastery must be continuous for as long as the wind turbine blade-runes rotate.”

The above would be a regulatory requirement for the wind industry that would put it on an even par with the nature and severity of the regulatory regime under which nuclear electricity generation has to operate. It would be a direct analog in every sense.

Eric Vieira
August 24, 2021 11:49 pm

The House of Commons in the UK has recently stopped funding of the IPCC. The next logical step would be that all nations stop funding the corrupt power hungry UN. It has nothing to offer concerning World peace. Only fear mongering and constantly asking for more power and money… COP26 should be boycotted by everyone…

Davidf
Reply to  Eric Vieira
August 25, 2021 12:59 am

Yes!! The UN has become the instrument of a particular political ideology. Whoever it represents, it surely isn’t the interests of the common man.

griff
August 24, 2021 11:59 pm

The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late.

and if you look at EDF’s nuclear plant at Flammanville and Olkiluoto, still building after 10 years, you might conclude he was right…

and if you look at the massive cost of UK’s Hinkley (and if it will arrive on time we just don’t know) which requires a hugely inflated electricity cost which adds directly to the bill of every UK consumer, you might conclude he was right…

The majority of nuclear plant constructed this century is Indian and Chinese… and the Chinese pay scant attention to nuclear safety, which is why their construction times are so short (that’s on the word of Chinese nuclear scientists, by the way)

Nuclear: potentially a good idea – not actually deliverable in time or at an affordable cost or safely in 2021.

(I might add the UK govt still in theory backs 17GW of new nuclear, including Hinkley, but can’t find any way to finance the rest…)

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:07 am

Once again, griffie poo totally ignores why it takes a long time to build anything nuclear. The claim that it isn’t safe is disproven by 60 years of safe operation. But what the heck, griffie’s got an ideology to push.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 3:50 am

It is because of cost overruns, manufacturing errors, underestimating the complexity etc.

It isn’t new safety concerns.

I notice you don’t give any examples.

August 25, 2021 12:14 am

Nuclear can’t survive in democracy.
Most people are too stupid.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
August 25, 2021 2:04 pm

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

I have heard two proposals for solving this problem:

1. Disallow any person who receives more from the government, in pay or welfare, than they pay in taxes, from voting.

2. Give people who are more productive in society, through a more valuable skill set and higher productivity, more votes.

Interestingly, I believe that both of these proposals would result in very much more conservative votes than liberal ones. That itself tells us a great deal: Conservatives are producing the most, and paying most of the taxes. Quite a sobering thought.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 25, 2021 11:57 pm

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin

A word recently coined to describe this political situation.
 
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy)

– a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
― Margaret Thatcher

Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote on taxation.
 

Last edited 24 days ago by Ken Irwin
Phillip Bratby
August 25, 2021 12:25 am

A lot of the UK’s “leading environmentalists” are now in favour of nuclear power.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 25, 2021 12:27 am

Why hasn’t nuclear power been widely accepted?  One reason is that for many years environmental activists have persuaded much of the public, many politicians and the media that nuclear is unsafe. However, some activists have recently changed their minds,. For example James Lovelock, author of the Gaia Theory has said that “nuclear power is the only green solution”. Bryony (now Baroness) Worthington, a lead author of the Climate Change Act, who once said that she was “passionately opposed to nuclear power” has more recently said of nuclear power “I urge you on moral ethical, scientific and environmental grounds to rethink your opposition to it”. One-time anti-nuclear campaigner, environmental activist and author Mark Lynas, who has said that he “grew up hating nuclear power” has now said that “continuing to oppose nuclear was a mistake….it’s extraordinarily safe….and we must learn to love nuclear power”.

griff
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 25, 2021 2:48 am

It is still part of UK govt planning.

There are 2 UK nuclear plants which should have been built by now: Wylfa and Moorside. In both cases the developers (more than one set) pulled out because they couldn’t be financed in an affordable way to provide a return on investment.

The same will likely apply to the Chinese firms wanting to build Bradwell and Sizewell – and there is also another issue there…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:09 am

Lefties do everything in their power to make nuclear expensive, then use the fact that it’s expensive as an excuse to oppose it.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 3:49 am

The nuclear regulations in the UK haven’t changed in a decade or more.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 8:07 am

One of the “return on investment” issues for ALL power infrastructure that is actually useful (so OTHER THAN wind and solar) is that government mandates, subsidies and tax credits for worse-than-useless wind and solar MAKE building the useful power plants uneconomic.

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
August 26, 2021 11:16 am

Here’s a good and detailed report on “The Myth of Expensive Nuclear Power” From a different source, the same Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor costs about twice as much in the US as it does in China.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Myth-Of-Expensive-Nuclear-Power.html

Peta of Newark
August 25, 2021 12:25 am

Quote:”The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late”

Thank you Dick Dixon.
We did actually know all those things – it is actually and your ilk causing all of them.

It is your paranoid, illogical, incoherent, unscientific, Luddite and religious ravings that are also causing Climate Change – it exists nowhere else than inside your quite dysfunctional and deranged head/mind/thinking

Sadly, the rest of us are now blessed by socially dysfunctional (**), technical & scientific illiterates posing as our ‘elders/betters/leaders’ and hailing from exactly the same school of self fulfilling doom & gloom prophecies.
While regarding the very people who voted them into power as dumb, stupid and greedy Planet Destroyers
The ironing is simply Off The <expletive> Scale

Will you be happy when you have perfectly trashed Planet Earth?
Something tells me No, because and as age/experience tells me about folks (##) possessed by your kind of thinking, Everything Is Never Enough

** Witness Joe Biden’s grotesque handling of Afghanistan

## Our very own Princess Nut Nuts being a perfect exemplar, also the (grasping climbing totally selfish and less than) lovely Duchess of Sussex being another

Last edited 25 days ago by Peta of Newark
Coeur De Lion
August 25, 2021 12:35 am

Good idea to keep clear of COP26. It’s going to be a disaster. Impoverished Guinea will field 400 attenders. Risible

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Coeur De Lion
August 25, 2021 7:41 am

They are expecting up to 30,000 people to attend although ‘only’ around 4000 will be directly involved in the negotiations!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Dave Andrews
August 25, 2021 2:09 pm

And given the typical quality of the average ‘escort’ in Glasgow, they will probably have to ship in a few thousand ‘escorts’ of higher quality.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dave Andrews
August 25, 2021 3:17 pm

My god, there can’t be that many whores in all of Scotland. How are they ever going to allocate them equitably? Some kind of lottery system?

Climate believer
August 25, 2021 12:49 am

We all know who these people are, the rebranded failed Socialists of the past, trying yet again to impose their delusional ideas on us by means of a bright green Trojan horse.

They have convinced the proles by incessant propaganda for many years that the planet is on fire, and they are here to save us all….except… they have no intention of doing anything of the sort.

Their plan, which has been the lefts plan forever, is to end capitalism and create a utopian society run by giant governmental institutions telling you exactly what you can and can’t do.

The China virus has shown them just how scared and malleable modern western man is at the moment, a shadow of his former self, suffering from a crisis of confidence and willing to resign himself to the most draconian policing of his life, unconceivable just a few months prior.

The “climate crisis™” is a smokescreen, it’s obvious by their continued lack of effective solutions to solve it, and their resistance to real pragmatic solutions such as nuclear power.

If you were serious about reducing CO² in the atmosphere, why wouldn’t you want countries to be powered by a non CO² producing, non weather reliant, nuclear power source such has been proven to work for decades in France?

Carbon Intensity EU.png
griff
Reply to  Climate believer
August 25, 2021 2:45 am

why wouldn’t you? Well perhaps because

The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late. 

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 5:35 am

So why is French power so much cheaper?

griff
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
August 26, 2021 3:45 am

It is cheaper when demand is low and they can’t switch off the nukes so they have to ‘dump’ the power.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:10 am

One of these days, griff will be given a new lie to tell.
Unfortunately, today is not that day.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 3:45 am

Sigh. I still wait for an actual fact based argument/refutation from you.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 10:02 am

Dicky Dixon is a hypocrite, as are all these socialist university types, as I said they can’t help themselves, he once said quote:

“Climate change has been created by the unrestrained pursuit of profit”

They want the end of capitalism, the market, even profit offends them.

His critique of the nuclear industry has more holes in it than a Gruyere cheese.

In France’s case I guarantee he doesn’t care about the 20 billion we save each year by not importing gas and coal, that the nuclear industry generates a turnover of 46 billion euros including 14 billion in added value, that the sector also devotes € 1.8 billion to R&D activities, which places it in 4th position among the most innovative industries in the world.

No, unsurprisingly the old CND socialist doesn’t give a toss about all that or the climate. He’s always hated nuclear.

The fact that French households pay for their electricity 22% cheaper than the European average and twice as cheap as Germans, you would think that would be a good thing, nuclear electricity is around € 59 per megawatt hour.

In comparison, (in France), to produce one MWh, it takes around 80 € for wind power, 100 € for photovoltaic, 100 € for coal or gas power, and 15 to 20 € for hydroelectricity.

Richard Dixon is no friend of the Earth.

griff
Reply to  Climate believer
August 26, 2021 3:47 am

Now look at the escalating maintenance costs from old reactors, the substantial shut downs in recent years from safety issues, the near bankrupting of EDF and the completely unfunded massive costs of end of life dismantling looming on the horizon.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 10:12 am

Most Nuclear Power Plants are fairly unique with some standard externalities like cooling towers. This acts to drive up the costs as does Environmentalist protests.
A standardized design would eliminate much of the costs much like…
Buying a one of a kind Prototype Automobile at a cost of millions vs buying a production line model at a few tens of thousands.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2021 1:10 pm

One problem with trying to come up with a standardized design is that the regulations change so frequently that what was OK a few years ago has to be redesigned to meet the new requirements.

Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 11:45 am

The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late. 

Griff
The 2GW that the UK almost continually import from France is mostly nuclear.
It is not expensive and it is on time, all the time.

Last edited 25 days ago by Hatter Eggburn
Editor
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 12:09 pm

I don’t know…the plants can run for 80 years at a fairly high capacity factor, and without market distortions from, for example, renewable subsidies, compete reasonably well with other energy sources such as NG.

The issue with commercial nukes currently is that the cost and complexity of the construction project is not enticing to investors who have “better” alternative investments with shorter payback periods. Certainly cost overruns and schedule delays have impacted the appetite to invest in additional units, but I don’t think it’s fair to blame “nuclear power” solely for this. There are other factors, such as the regulator, that are equally culpable.

In my personal opinion, Gen 3(+) reactors like Vogtle don’t have a terribly bright future. Sure, they’re fine (maybe even great) once built, but the future is advanced reactor technology. Mid-term, we’re looking at modular reactors using iterations of various proven designs, but longer term expect the sodium cooled, high temp gas, pebble bed, fast, etc etc, to be deployed.

The technology is sound, the fuel supply is vast, and the power is stable. Nuclear’s a no brainer…and will be the long term energy play for humanity…at least once we’ve figured out the remaining engineering details for these advanced designs.

For now, we have quite few reactors left online that are running well, and are being serviced to go for extended runtimes. Those, plus the abundance of natural gas available is a pretty strong signal that the costly and unreliable “renewables” are nothing more than a political fashion accessory for virtue signaling states/localities.

rip

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 1:08 pm

This member of the griff consortium believes that if it repeats the same lie enough times, people will get tired of refuting it.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 3:48 am

And again with the insults.

Any evidence, argument of fact you’d like to point to as contradicting me?

Kiwi Gary
August 25, 2021 1:02 am

There is a massive problem for the anti-nukes coming up rapidly over the horizon. There are reputedly 67 nuclear power plants “on the books” for construction. Of these, 38 are on Rostaom’s standard design book and are already in serial production. 3 for internal build and the remainder for export, mainly to developing world countries who are insufficiently stupid to believe that their desires for a better life will be met by sunbeams and gentle breezes. e.g. Bangaldesh has completed the foundations for 2 off 1200 MW units and machinery delivery is under way.

Editor
August 25, 2021 1:18 am

Essentially it is the intention of “The Greens” to deny and then ration energy to us. They are interested only in shutting down power generation not with replacing it with something else that works at scale. The renewables are just a distraction that enriches a few insiders and political gatekeepers while they advance their deindustrialisation project.

As with the ludicrous Biden farrago they have the media firmly on sides and so, given the propensity of the public at large to be fooled by authority, The Greens will prevail. We will be reduced to saying “I told you so” while the lights go out.

I am not an optimist.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Keitho
August 25, 2021 2:01 am

The Russians are building floating nuclear power stations – sail them into a port and hook up. Clearly they can see a way around the endless red tape to get a reactor built anywhere in the West.

https://www.power-technology.com/news/russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/

Imagine a city (like San Francisco) running out of power and having to constantly ration its citizens – guess who’s not getting voted for come next election.

With the best will in the world you will be unable to build a power station overnight – but you can get the Russians to sail one in relatively quickly.

This process literally allows them to sail around any red tape, bureaucracy, legal challenges, protest action etc. etc. as it will be implemented as an emergency measure. My guess is it will never sail away and become a permanent feature.

The Russians will be only too happy to profit from our energy shortcomings and as consequence extend their sphere of influence and have us lose our energy independence to them.

In a similar vein, Turkey is also building oil and gas fired floating power stations – an emerging market segment is becoming apparent.

https://www.businessinsider.co.za/take-a-look-floating-power-stations-coming-to-saldanha-richards-bay-and-gqeberha-2021-3

South Africa has signed up already.

Last edited 25 days ago by Ken Irwin
Editor
Reply to  Ken Irwin
August 25, 2021 12:11 pm

US aircraft carriers are designed for similar “disaster relief” missions. Given the cost of seismic requirements and concrete, it’s not clear to me why we wouldn’t also deploy these in the US. <insert shrug emoji>

griff
Reply to  Keitho
August 25, 2021 2:44 am

A ludicrous assertion. Conspiracy theory.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2021 6:11 am

griff’s answer to any argument that he can’t refute.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 3:44 am

Conspiracy theory is by its nature unrefutable, since it is founded on no evidence.

any argument made on this site is undermined so long as the likes of you don’t challenge ludicrous and politically based arguments, especially conspiracy theory based ones.

Ken
August 25, 2021 3:16 am

counteracting the presence of particular vested interests 

that is….censoring.

Geoff Sherrington
August 25, 2021 3:47 am

In the good old day, we Aussies had legal devices like The Trade Practices Act 1974 which could be used against illegal devices like these the Scots are pulling here.
These days here, the regulation of restrictive practices in Australia primarily arises under state and territory disability services and mental health legislation.
Goodness, free enterprise has really been forced underwater to drown. Geoff S

It doesn't add up...
August 25, 2021 5:26 am

Glasgow, innit? And the private jets will come in to Prestwick, over Troon Golf Course. With a fine view of Hunterston nuclear power station as they make the final approach. That may be what they rely on to keep the lights on if it’s not windy while they’re in town.

Earthling2
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
August 25, 2021 6:48 am

Reality is ironic, in that the very thing they oppose, will be contributing to the base load that makes their visit in Glasgow in December possible. Such hypocrisy by the green shirts. But not surprising. This is O’Biden type stupidity.

CaptainChris
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
August 25, 2021 9:50 am

Hypocrites. All

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
August 25, 2021 2:15 pm

I can see a Josh cartoon in that image…

Last edited 25 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
griff
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
August 26, 2021 3:42 am

The soon to close Hunterston

Operated by EDF Energy, the plant was originally estimated to continue operating until 2023 but defuelling will now occur no later than 7 January 2022. Its two reactors were already shut down from 2018 to 2019 due to safety concerns*, with one of them resuming operations from August to December last year.

*(It has cracks in graphite blocks)

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
August 26, 2021 7:06 am

Yes but the plant has been operating since 1976 so its lasted twice as long as most wind farms will.

Stephen Skinner
August 25, 2021 5:33 am

One of my favourite environmental stickers was the ‘Nuclear Power? No Thanks’ with a big smiley Sun in the middle.
It represents a strange kind of articulate and ‘educated’ ignorance.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
August 25, 2021 8:18 am

We need a “Solar and Wind Power? No Thanks!” Sticker with a shivering person outlined in the dark with just white eyes.

Last edited 25 days ago by AGW is Not Science
Stephen Skinner
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 25, 2021 10:20 am

That makes more sense and is logical.

Brian
August 25, 2021 7:05 am

“Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized.”

Stopped reading at this. This idiot doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Please stop spreading oil-industry propaganda.

Editor
Reply to  Brian
August 25, 2021 12:12 pm

Agreed. This is ignorant beyond belief. Like, just plain wrong.

rip

Dan DeLong
Reply to  ripshin
August 26, 2021 11:27 am

Bill Gates was one of the founders of TerraPower, where he is still chairman of the board. He has also helped fund other nuclear startups.
https://www.terrapower.com/our-people/

Coach Springer
August 25, 2021 7:39 am

This peace is all over the place. I guess it’s intended as a mirror?

CaptainChris
August 25, 2021 9:05 am

To exclude nuclear from COP26 just shows that the organisers have no intention of proposing a logical and obvious solution to provide the world population with energy to live. Nuclear provides clean safe and long term energy at scale and is the only common sense solution.

CD in Wisconsin
August 25, 2021 9:11 am

“Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized.”

Indeed he is. It was announced back in early June, and the project will be built in Wyoming. Warren Buffet is on board with it as well.

https://tinyurl.com/6skwbp3b

“The project features a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system, which would produce enough power for roughly 250,000 homes. The storage technology is also able to boost output to 500 megawatts of power for about five and a half hours, which is equivalent to the energy needed to power around 400,000 homes, according to TerraPower.”

I acknowledge that it is way to early to tell whether this project will be the beginning of a successful 4th generation nuclear technology industry — which includes molten salt reactors. Fourth generation advocates are attempting to address the issues with current generation nuclear, including the cost and time it takes to build out 3rd generation reactors.

If the solar and wind energy industries are going to die the death they deserve, something like 4th gen nuclear might do it. We will just have to wait and see what happens in the years and decades ahead. Banning nuclear energy exhibits from COP26 is ignorant, and it reflects how the environmental movement has the U.N. and the governments of the West wrapped around its little pinkie.

Glen
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 25, 2021 12:26 pm

RIP Buffet

Beta Blocker
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 25, 2021 4:29 pm

I’ve looked closely at TerraPower’s high level schedule for their Wyoming project, which has their plant going operational in late 2026.

The timeline they’ve published is not only highly optimistic, I think it is all but impossible to achieve given where they are right now in the design and technology development phase.

2035 would be more realistic given how much work must be done on the regulatory approval side, and how far TerraPower still has to go in creating a manufacturing infrastructure for initial deployment of their technology.

My opinion still remains that NuScale is ahead of TerraPower and also every other 4th Gen nuclear development team in getting America’s first SMR into commercial operation. Their first SMR plant is slated to go online in eastern Idaho in 2029.

Beta Blocker
August 25, 2021 10:32 am

The nuclear industry in the United States is hampered by three large issues:

1) A power marketplace warped by renewable energy mandates: Our legacy nuclear plants are designed and operated for continuous baseload operation 24/7/365. Giving subsidized wind and solar preferred access to the power grid eliminates the economic benefits of baseload generation resources with the effect that these resources appear to have higher operating costs in comparison with wind and solar.  

2) Stiff competition from natural gas: Going with wind, solar, and nuclear is strictly a public policy decision. In the absence of renewable energy mandates, the power marketplace would shift decisively towards gas-fired generation. It offers the best combination of load following capability, lowest capital cost, least overall cost to the energy consumer, and greatest profit potential for investors.

3) Keeping capital construction costs under control: 

Let’s examine this issue in greater detail:

* The VC Summer and Vogtle 3 & 4 AP1000 Construction Projects *

The cancellation of the VC Summer AP1000 nuclear project, and the delayed completion of the Vogtle 3 & 4 AP1000 project after the estimated construction cost doubled from 12 billion dollars to 28 billion dollars, demonstrate that getting nuclear power’s capital costs under control is the paramount task facing the nuclear construction industry in the United States.

Many nuclear advocates take the easy way out and blame nuclear’s cost issues on excessive government regulation. 

The fact of the matter is that the American public demands strong regulatory oversight over the nuclear industry. And with good reason. Doing things nuclear demands a highly professional approach in every facet of design, manufacture, installation, and operation. Corporate managers have demonstrated time and time again that without the presence of a strong regulatory body, they will not fulfill their obligation to the public to do a professional job in managing their nuclear projects.     

It cannot be emphasized enough that the original estimates of 12 billion dollars for two AP1000’s when onsite construction at VC Summer and at Vogtle 3 & 4 began in 2012 included the expected costs of full compliance with NRC regulations, plus the added costs of passing through the nuclear construction learning curve for a second time. These estimates also assumed that all the difficult lessons learned from the nuclear projects of the 1970’s and 1980’s would be diligently applied to the latest projects as these were being initiated and while they were in progress.

* Why the VC Summer and Vogtle 3 & 4 Projects Blew their Cost & Schedule Targets *

Those of us who have been in the belly of the beast of a nuclear construction project recognized early on that neither the VC Summer project nor the Vogtle 3 & 4 project were being properly managed. These issues were obvious to us as early as 2013:

— The original contractor teams lacked a strong track record as nuclear Engineer/Procure/Construct (EPC) organizations. (Vogtle’s team has since been replaced.)
— Those original teams also lacked prior experience in managing complex, first of a kind nuclear projects.
— The contractor teams had an unjustified confidence in their project performance based on their past success in managing non-nuclear construction projects. But nuclear is different, and it will always be different.
— Feasibility cost and schedule estimates ignored the lack of a strong American nuclear industrial base.
— Baseline hard-target cost and schedule estimates were overly optimistic and did not include large portions of the project’s true scope of work.
— Systems and components with safety implications lacked sufficient design maturity at the start of on-site construction activities. 
— The customer utilities relied on their contractor teams for monitoring the true state of their projects, with little attention being paid to independent oversight and verification.
— Both the customer utilities and the contractor teams lacked a commitment to maintaining project management effectiveness at all levels of their project organizations.
— The contractor team’s management control systems were deficient in the areas of progress tracking, cost and schedule control, quality assurance, design interface control, contractor interface control, and system configuration management.
— Managers at all levels of the project organizations lacked a commitment to honest monitoring and reporting of construction productivity and progress.

Nuclear-grade quality assurance along with tightly-controlled fabrication requirements for safety class components are a very significant part of the capital cost of a nuclear plant. The regulatory requirements now governing how we design a nuclear power plant will not, and should not, be reduced.

Moreover, the project management discipline needed to deliver nuclear-grade quality assurance is the same project management discipline needed to deliver all of the other key elements of any large-scale high technology construction project. 

* Small Modular Reactors — Our Path to Getting Capital Costs under Control *

Here in the United States, the oncoming Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology is the only practical pathway we have to get our nuclear capital costs under control.

Building a larger number of smaller size reactors and their supporting systems more or less continuously in factories, rather than building these systems as very large but very low production rate components, has great advantages over the legacy model of doing nuclear construction. SMR designs will allow the process of building nuclear power plants to become a repeatable process which keeps the nuclear supply chain tuned up and ready for the next reactor order.

For myself, I remain of the opinion that NuScale’s small modular reactor design will be the first SMR to reach commercial operation in the US. Their first plant will be a six-module facility targeted for completion in eastern Idaho in 2029 with a total capacity of 462 Mw.

For purposes of managing project risk, the technology of a nuclear power plant, and the project management approach used to deliver that power plant, are all One Thing.

In addition to managing their SMR development project with an exceptionally focused approach to project management discipline, the NuScale design philosophy controls capital costs by loading the most QA-dependent safety class components into the SMR module itself. The reactor core, the pressure vessel, the steam generator, and the containment vessel are all integrated into a single 77 MWe unit which can be fabricated offsite in a QA certified factory. 

Much work is now being done by NuScale and its major investor Fluor to reduce the upfront capital cost of a NuScale plant from the currently projected $5000/kw to $3500/kw. Compare this with the AP1000’s current capital cost at Vogtle 3 & 4 of $14,000/kw. IMHO, the future of new-build nuclear in the United States now depends on the success of NuScale, Fluor, UAMPS, and Energy Northwest in proving that a nuclear construction project can be delivered on schedule and on cost.

Last edited 25 days ago by Beta Blocker
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 25, 2021 2:22 pm

I thought Rolls Royce were already planning SMRs? I’d definitely trust them, since we already rely on them for most of our aircraft engines.

Last edited 25 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Beta Blocker
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 25, 2021 4:14 pm

Yes indeed, Rolls Royce is deep into SMR technology. As are some number of other SMR technology development teams, including the Russians and the Chinese.

And Rolls Royce may very well be the first to commission an SMR in Great Britain. But here in the US, NuScale is well ahead of the pack.

kzb
August 25, 2021 11:27 am

For heavens sake, you are at the beginning of a golden age of limitless cheap wind and solar energy and all you can do is complain.

Wind is forecast to be about 3 cents/kWh in only a few years’ time. Your EV will do 4 miles per kWh so you can go places for 0.75 cents per mile.

Nuclear at Hinkley Pt in the UK has a guaranteed price of over 10 pence (14 cents) per kWh for 35 years. Four to five times the price of wind. Any nuclear plants will be expensive white elephants, because no-one will buy their expensive electricity when wind power is for sale at one quarter the price !

MarkW
Reply to  kzb
August 25, 2021 1:14 pm

For heavens sake, you are at the beginning of a golden age of limitless cheap wind and solar energy and all you can do is complain.

You really do seem to believe whatever you are told to believe.

Wind and solar are already as cheap as they will ever be. The only change in the next few years will be the removing of the subsidies.

It is physically impossible for wind and solar to be limitless, because the wind doesn’t always blow and the wind doesn’t always shine.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  kzb
August 25, 2021 2:23 pm

You forgot the /sarc tag

niceguy
Reply to  kzb
August 25, 2021 2:39 pm

Cheap car travel?
ICE cars could be cheap.
comment image

Taxes in France (incl. tax on tax) are >61% of the price. IOW the price is taxed slightly more than 61/39 that is gas is taxed at 156% rate.

kzb
Reply to  niceguy
August 26, 2021 1:59 am

As EVs become more common, governments will have to replace the revenue they are losing on fuel taxes. That will be pay-per-mile road charging. So you will have to pay that on top of your fuel taxes.

ResourceGuy
August 25, 2021 11:37 am
August 25, 2021 11:48 am

“Environmentalists” who are anti-nuclear are lying about being concerned about CO2.
Being anti-nuclear means being an activist for more CO2 in the atmosphere.
At least with one of your faces.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
August 25, 2021 2:24 pm

If environmentalists weren’t two-faced, they wouldn’t have any face at all.

MarkW
August 25, 2021 12:57 pm

One of these days you are going to say something that actually makes sense.
Alas, today is not to be that day.

MarkW
August 25, 2021 12:58 pm

The mere fact that capitalism has created all of the wealth the people on this planet enjoy today, not withstanding.

August 25, 2021 1:05 pm

“A 97% consensus confirms that wind turbine blades are a Satanic symbol whose rotation summons up dangerous evil spirits from deep in the earth.
It is thus a regulatory requirement that beside every wind turbine tower, a monastery is constructed to accommodate 12 full time monks and/or nuns. These spiritual practitioners will pray, chant and intercede 24/7 to prevent the ascent from the earth of evil spirits in response to the rotating turbine blade that represent an effective occultic symbol. The operation of this monastery must be continuous for as long as the wind turbine blade-runes rotate.”

The above would be a regulatory requirement for the wind industry that would put it on an even par with the nature and severity of the regulatory regime under which nuclear electricity generation has to operate. It would be a direct analog in every sense.

The LNT – the linear no threshold “theory” of ionizing radiation carcinogenesis is a religious dogma in direct contradiction of a vast body of scientific data, and is the narrative that underlies the punitively restrictive and expensive regulatory and waste disposal regime that nuclear is forced to operate under. LNT is false and nonsensical.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
August 25, 2021 2:26 pm

The radiation limit for nuclear plant workers can be exceeded by eating two (2) bananas a day. True story.

niceguy
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 25, 2021 7:45 pm

I don’t think that’s right

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  niceguy
August 26, 2021 12:14 am

I don’t think that’s right

Well, it actually happened once at least. It took them a while to discover why the employee had tripped the quota.

BTW, the fact that bananas have a particular radiation effect is the root of the meme “banana for scale”, because the banana is actually employed as part of the radiation scale.

Last edited 24 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 26, 2021 6:54 am

Zigzag
I thought it was Brazil nuts.
They’re a lot more radioactive than bananas.

niceguy
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
August 25, 2021 2:41 pm

I would go as far as saying that there is no medical fact more robustly proven by statistical data than the fact LNT is wrong.

stinkerp
August 25, 2021 2:57 pm

Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized.

Not exactly. There are dozens of companies and alliances working on small modular reactors and other reactor technologies. Unless the current administration figures out how to stymie their efforts, the future looks promising. The emphasis on custom-built, massive pressurized water or boiling water reactors has doomed new construction but the new designs which can be built on assembly lines and shipped to the site bodes well for the continuing use of this extremely efficient, clean, safe, and emissionless technology.

Geoff Penfold
Reply to  stinkerp
August 25, 2021 9:16 pm

A valid reply. No one mentions Thorium and Molten Salt Reactors. These reactors can be the size of shipping containers. They use Thorium as an energy source which is available in large quantities in mineral sands located in many countries. Its radioactivity levels are low and it cannot be used for developing nuclear weapons. There are over 30 countries developing these reactors. The first of the Chinese and Indian reactors will soon be in operation.
The present massive reactors are cooled using high pressure water which introduces a risk factor. Molten Salt Reactors do not operate under pressure . They will be much easier, cheaper and faster to construct plus require little maintenance. Thorium differs from Uranium in that the Reactor uses up over 90% of the Thorium and therefore has very little waste, but Uranium is the reverse, it uses less than 10% with the the balance of the Uranium becoming waste that has to be buried. Finally, Canada Greens have apparently decided to support Nuclear.

griff
Reply to  Geoff Penfold
August 26, 2021 3:39 am

‘can be’. I think you mean ‘could be’. Because no commercial model or even prototype yet exists.

The earliest date I’ve seen for Chinese prototype is early 2030s.

PaulH
August 25, 2021 4:50 pm

How will they determine the source of the electricity they use during this COP shrimp-fest? At various times of the day the grid may be supplied by generators powered by nuclear, coal, natural gas or hydro. Even weather-dependent renewables add a small percentage. I assume these COPs will examine each electron to determine its parentage.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  PaulH
August 26, 2021 12:19 am

That’s easy. If there are usable amounts of continuous electricity, it’s not renewable!

griff
Reply to  PaulH
August 26, 2021 3:38 am

Well coal supplies less than 2% of UK electricity annually over last 2 years…

Neo
August 26, 2021 9:22 am

Shouldn’t it be called COPout26

Paul Nevins
August 26, 2021 11:11 am

This is how you know they don’t believe climate change from Carbon Dioxide is areal threat. If they did they could just stop lying about nuclear power. Emissions would drop and even their electric vehicle ideas would become far more practical

%d bloggers like this: