Dr. Kelvin Kemm
Nuclear power is not new. It has been in operation for over half a century, with an excellent record for providing reliable baseload electricity.
Not only has the electricity turned out to be reliable, but it is also the safest, greenest and most inexpensive electricity currently available to mankind. The proof exists.
But to judge from much of the barrage of anti-nuclear propaganda, which has been projected by anti-nuclear activists, people can be forgiven for doubting such claims. Let us consider the infamous Fukushima nuclear power incident in Japan. Not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation at Fukushima. Read that again. Not one single person!
Nuclear power stations run for very many years. Over their lifetime the electricity produced is inexpensive. The concept of ‘cost’ can be judged only over a life-cycle, not at initiation.
Ask whether a brand new Boeing or Airbus passenger aircraft cost a lot of money. It is wrong to look at the purchase price on the day of delivery You need to examine the situation at the end of the life of the aircraft, when you can then count the total passengers carried, tally operating costs, and then work out its profitability to the air carrier, and hence the actual operational ‘cost’. Don’t confuse the concepts of ‘purchase price’ and ‘cost’. They are very different.
Anti-nuclear activists go out of their way to induce public confusion with respect to this important distinction.
Nuclear power is highly profitable. Both airlines and nuclear power operators know how to calculate these cost figures very accurately. That is why both are confident in making a profit on a new investment in their respective fields of expertise.
Over the past half-century, nuclear power has proven itself to have been highly reliable and profitable. It will be even more reliable and more profitable in the future.
Many people do not seem to realise that nuclear technology has advanced dramatically during recent decades. Modern nuclear reactors are far more advanced now than ever before. Modern fabrication techniques, modern electronic systems, modern metal alloys, modern computer control, modern internet-based operating surveillance, modern robotics; the list goes on. All this means we now have ‘space-age’ nuclear reactors, compared to those built in the previous century.
As nuclear reactors developed over the first half-century of nuclear power, they became larger, and all were based on having a large body of water available, such as an ocean or major lake.
But this design concept had a built-in self-limiting barrier. They needed the water! However, many countries do not have a coastline. Many don’t even have major lakes or rivers. So the customer-base was limited.
Big and small nuclear
Africa is enormous. It is larger than the US, Europe, China, India and Japan added together. That means even some African countries which do have an ocean coast also have major areas very far from the ocean that need to be electrified. South Africa is a good example.
South Africa is the same size as the whole of Western Europe. The distance from South Africa’s inland capital, Pretoria, to Cape Town is the same as the distance from Rome to London. The world’s most southerly nuclear power station, Koeberg, is situated on the southern coast of South Africa, from where it serves the southern regions.
But major mining areas are 1000 km inland, in arid areas with no large water bodies, while South Africa’s vast coal deposits and coal-fired power stations are clustered in the far north east of the country. That means very long transmission lines are required to serve the country.
The nuclear power from Koeberg is South Africa’s cheapest and most reliable electricity.
Note that the length of the black line is the same as the distance from Rome to London
So during the last decade of the 20th Century, South African nuclear technologists decided to investigate building a small nuclear reactor which would not need water cooling. Its purpose was to serve large mining and industrial complexes, and arid inland regions.
There certainly is still a need for large nuclear power plants, but there is also a desperate need for much smaller ones too.
Initial design criteria for a new small reactor were that it should be easy to build, and easy to add more reactors to an existing complex. The idea of pursuing a ‘modular’ concept became a cornerstone of design. Another very important design constraint was that the electricity produced should not be more expensive than the current selling price of South Africa’s coal-fired electricity.
The Small Modular Reactor (SMR) had to be gas-cooled, so inert helium gas was chosen. Fuel had to be easy to load into the reactor, and easy to transport, so graphite-based fuel balls the size of cricket balls were chosen. The term ‘pebbles’ was adopted for the fuel.
Thus was born the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) Project.
The fuel was fabricated near Pretoria.
South African SMR development
This project developed steadily to the point at which the total staff complement was some 2 000 people. The Project advanced such that by 2008 the PBMR team was ready to construct the First Of A Kind (FOAK) prototype. The site had been selected and approved and all was ready for the starter’s pistol to fire.
Then fate intervened. The world 2008 financial crisis was initiated in the US, as a result of a foolish housing mortgage policy. This cascaded around the world. Big international banks which had become involved in the financing deals for the PBMR suddenly became bankrupt or unable to honour their pledges to the PBMR. At the same time South Africa had an unexpected change in government, with a new president and cabinet taking office. A number of major projects were then put on hold, the PBMR are being one of them. Nuclear technologists thought this ‘hold’ would last for a few months, but in fact it turned out to be years.
Further delay was induced due to the extreme green sentiment which started to rage around the World, with a prime target of the activists being energy. The targets included fossil fuels, nuclear power and even hydroelectric. Romantic visions of the world running on solar and wind power became the darling image for much of the media. The realities of physics and technological engineering were largely overlooked or ignored. Sound reasoning became a victim of the circumstances, as strange images appeared, such as a schoolgirl lecturing the United Nations on world energy policy.
A group of far-sighted SMR developers in Pretoria then formed a private company to develop a variant of the PBMR. It was financed by a cluster of companies and individuals who believed in the SMR concept.
Some careful review planning was done and important decisions taken. Primary among them were decisions to produce a small nuclear power plant which was inexpensive to design and build, and could be built rapidly.
This led to significant design decisions. The PBMR had been designed with a Brayton cooling system in which helium travels through the reactor core and then directly into the turbine; it then returns to the reactor. The reactor outlet temperature of the Helium was 940°C. This was an excellent design.
The HTMR-100 design
The new team embarked on a new SMR variant, named the HTMR-100. However two significant changes were introduced. The team decided to reduce the outlet gas temperature to 750°C, and pass the helium into a conventional water heat-exchanger, and not directly into the turbines, which meant the turbines would run on steam.
These were very important decisions for the ease of development, and for the consequent economics. The lower temperature reduced a great deal of complexity, with respect to the design and fabrication of the reactor.
Inserting a water heat-exchanger meant the turbines would be driven using conventional steam, and not helium. In turn this meant that everything ‘downline’ of the reactor itself could be purchased off-the-shelf, and therefore did not induce any financial uncertainty into these aspects of the design, or into the construction costs of all that portion of a power station. All this is standard equipment and is well understood in the engineering world.
Bearing in mind the ‘modular’ imperative in the SMR concept, this approach of the HTMR-100 is ideal for deployment into other African countries, and also anywhere where an identified construction site could be a challenge in terms of distance to transport and integrating large sub-assemblies.
The design and development of the HTMR-100 is far advanced, having been developed for over a decade.
Scale is 200m across the x-axis in the picture
The model shown in Figure 4 is the current 100-megawatt nuclear power station, built to scale from the engineering drawings. This model is not a futuristic concept; it is a real design that currently exists. The model shows placement in an arid area, in a typical South African mining town setting. There is no large body of water available, and since water is generally scarce in such environments, no extensive manicured gardens. This is the reality of a workhorse small nuclear power station in Africa.
The HTMR-100 is a Generation IV (Gen IV) reactor, which is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. It is a significant advance on the much lower temperature water-cooled reactors. The advanced technology that has been achieved is partly a result of the initial extensive design and development of the PBMR.
A massive amount of work went into the PBMR development, over a period of more than a decade. Not only was advanced science and engineering addressed, but also all the operational and safety procedures, system qualifications, and all the other paper-based nuclear processes that are so important to the functioning of a modern nuclear power station.
Few people realize that the PBMR project advanced as far as building demonstration systems, which all worked exactly as designed. In 2008 the PBMR team was ready to start construction.
Process heat applications
The PBMR was designed to produce electricity, but it did not take long to realise that the high temperature of the outlet gas offered significant potential applications for using the process heat, without needing to produce electricity first. So the HTMR-100 was designed to employ its 750°C outlet gas in a process-heat function, as well as producing electricity.
This means a high-temperature gas reactor has many more potential applications than conventional low-temperature reactors.
These range from mining frozen tar-sands in high-latitude Canada, to extract oil; to converting coal to petrol and diesel, as is done in South Africa. Many more process-heat applications will be developed, as high-temperature SMRs are deployed.
During the last couple years there has been a rapid worldwide increase in interest in the potential of nuclear power supplied by SMRs. Now we find that it is not only nuclear scientists and engineers who recognize the potential of Small Modular Reactors, but also politicians and business leaders.
Current world attitude
For decades internationally, an unreasonable anti-nuclear attitude has prevailed amongst many people. Part of this was a legacy of the nuclear bombings in Japan which finally ended World War II. Large portions of the international public were led to believe that a nuclear reactor could explode like a bomb. It can’t. So in many cases the public linked a ‘no nukes’ sentiment to weapons and nuclear reactors. This was very unfortunate, but slowly as decades passed the thinking sections of the public realised that reactors were not nuclear explosives.
But sadly some anti-nuclear political activists have tried to keep false nuclear reactor narratives alive. They also propagated the false story that nuclear radiation itself is so dangerous that even some minute amount is somehow deadly, or will lead to terrible long-term effects. Such assertions are far from the truth.
Thankfully, over the past two years the worldwide attitude toward nuclear power generally, and SMRs particularly, has been changing significantly in a positive manner.
Anti-nuclear activists still try to oppose the acceptance of nuclear power, but wisdom and an appreciation of reality have started to take hold among many people.
A contributing factor concerning negative sentiments about fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions has played a role in causing people in authority to declare that nuclear power emits no CO2 and is therefore accepted as ‘green’ in the context of the CO2 emissions argument. Operating reality has shown that romantic ideas about wind and solar power running countries are just not feasible.
Over the past two years there has been a rapid acceptance of the critical worldwide potential role of SMRs, in any society.
Previously, nuclear power was generally imagined to be large nuclear plants, which were the exclusive domain of a few wealthy, technologically advanced countries. Now with the SMR development advancing so rapidly, politicians and voters have realised that an SMR can be deployed in most countries of the world, should any country want one.
SMRs can be placed virtually anywhere they are needed, by any country. They can even be owned by private companies.
Types of SMR
The realisation of the extreme value of an SMR system has spawned significant international interest, and activity.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has defined SMRs as being 100 MW to 300 MW in output, in contrast to conventional large nuclear plants which can be of the order of 2000 MW to 4000 MW. That makes SMRs a completely different philosophy, compared to the past public understanding of nuclear power.
The IAEA also published a handbook listing many types of SMR currently being conceptualised or developed around the world. They range in nature considerably.
For example, in a molten salt design the uranium fuel is introduced into a salt that becomes liquid at a higher temperature, and then flows through the reactor.
The HTMR-100 uses ‘pebbles,’ which are graphite balls containing small grains of Uranium that in turn are coated with a thin protective shield of silicon carbide. That makes the Pebble fuel itself exceptionally safe from any leaks of radioactive particles, let alone the protective containment of the entire reactor itself.
The fuel balls are easily transported by road over long distances, making them ideal for African conditions. They are very robust and can withstand rough handling, in contrast to the fragile large metal fuel assemblies used in large nuclear reactors.
Taking an overall view, the HTMR-100 is an ideal nuclear reactor system to be deployed in any area, including arid and remote regions.
A significant quantity of fuel can be safely stockpiled in underground bunkers, so supplies covering months or years can be kept on site. Even if road or rail links are disrupted, reactor operation will not be affected.
Africans are proud that the Pebble Bed design and fuel were developed in South Africa, a pilot plant was built and fuel of an extremely high standard was produced. International tests verified all this.
Current development position
A nuclear development team is currently working on SMR development in South Africa. Unfortunately the team is small and very underfunded. There is no government funding. A significant number of nuclear professionals is available to rapidly expand the team if funds become available.
The development group is open to international funding. Being a private company, the HTMR-100 group is in a position to entertain a wide range of proposals. A number of approaches from interested parties have already been made, as the international favourable attitude toward SMR development advances.
Fortunately South Africa has an energy minister who appreciates the need and reality of providing a reliable supply of baseload electricity to the country. He has launched a program to build 2,500 megawatts of new nuclear power, to add to the existing nuclear power base, and has specifically stated his support for including SMRs.
So the government attitude towards SMR development and deployment in South Africa is positive. In addition, about a dozen other African countries have declared their intention of following a nuclear power path in the future. Some have already set up national nuclear bodies to advance their plans.
Clearly the potential exists for a network of SMRs in Africa. These can be in a number of African countries, but operating in collaboration such that operating experience, maintenance functions and general management experiences are shared for mutual benefit.
The creation of such an African network of SMR operators seems inevitable.
Industrial fabrication site – Kragbron
In South Africa a nuclear site for the construction of a prototype SMR nuclear reactor has been identified at the Pelindaba site of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), near Pretoria. It is close to where the HTMR-100 team is currently working.
In addition, another site in the Free State Province has been offered as a site for setting up facilities for fabricating multiple reactor components and assemblies, for national and international deployment.
This is the town of Kragbron, which is very close to the major industrial fabrication area of Vanderbijlpark, where many facilities provide heavy engineering, and thus not only expertise and experience for modern fabrication, but also industrial users for the electricity.
Suitable industrial buildings and an infrastructure also exist at Kragbron.
In fact the owners have already said that they would also like to build an operating commercial HTMR-100 there as soon as possible, to supply additional reliable electricity to the region.
The town of Kragbron is privately owned and available for any other related technology developments, so an entire fabrication industry could be built there for any applicable technology developments.
Small grids
The countries of Europe have such an interconnected electricity grid system that each one acts as a backup for the others. For example, when the UK is short of electricity it imports nuclear-based electricity from France and hydro-power from Norway, via undersea cables.
Within continental Europe, electricity trading across borders happens constantly, each country backing up its neighbours. In Africa this is not the case; trans-border electricity movement is minimal. African countries are so large that even within a single country moving electricity from one region to another can be a major challenge, requiring transmission cables hundreds of kilometers long.
However a huge advantage of an HTMR-100 is that the reactor can be placed anywhere. Furthermore, a single reactor can have it own electricity grid, not necessarily connected to the rest of the country. Thus, for example, a remote mining community could have one or two reactors serving its own dedicated grid which is only 10 or 20 km wide. This can then be integrated into a larger grid later when the authorities wish to do so.
Small nuclear reactors offer extensive flexibility, and they run continuously, independent of day or night, rain or sunshine, wind or no wind. They also do not need a system for delivering a continuous fuel supply; deliveries two or three times a year would be sufficient.
Nuclear power is the future. Within the near future, there will also be nuclear reactors on the moon and Mars. They almost certainly will be based on a gas-cooled SMR principle.
______________
Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, a project management company based in Pretoria. He is part of the Stratek Nuclear Consortium, which is developing the HTMR-100 nuclear reactor. He carries out business strategy development and project planning in a wide variety of fields.
“most inexpensive electricity “
That doesn’t sound a million miles from the old claim of it being too cheap to meter.
I’m not against nuclear, but that sort of hyperbole isn’t helpful.
lowest electricity rates I’ve ever paid were in Chicago-land which is surrounded by a ring of nuclear power plants.
Wait till you get UK prices
You’re on your way with gasoline.
UK prices are due to government. Both nuclear and gasoline.
ex power station cost of UK nuclear electricity is around 4p a unit.
The Hinkley point reactor built to ‘modern regulatins’ has been pegged at 9p a unit.
The reason why we pay 20p a unit is simply because renewables.
You don’t say
Give that dog a bone
is it cool or what that the democrats who run illinois didn’t do that with our electricity rates?
I live between two (downwind of one of them) nuclear power plants that keep our electric rates low. I sleep well at night.
“Too cheap to meter” refered to the variable cost of generating electrical power — the cost of the next kW of power generated. The variable cost is still very low but the cost of building and de-comissioning a reactor can be considerable, to some extent due to very strict (arguably too strict) regulations.
I laugh at the people who don’t like nuclear but for some reason think that burning trees doesn’t add CO2 to the atmosphere.
I’m guessing you live in the US somewhere?
I’m guessing you live in the US somewhere?
____________________________________
Snarky comment if there ever was one, but I’m at a loss to figure what Fretslider is trying to say.
Of what relevance is where he lives to what he said?
It’s not just the huge regulatory compliance costs – it’s also the cost of years of litigation brought by environmental activists and having to sue various governmental bodies to even get a permit. Who’s going to invest tens of millions in this process with a significant risk of failure? Heck, even if you win in court and get a permit a simple presidential executive order can kill the project (see e,g. XL Keystone).
“it’s also the cost of years of litigation brought by environmental activists and having to sue various governmental bodies to even get a permit.”
Many of these problems don’t exist in places like Africa and India. If they begin to make progress on these projects and they are seen to be cheap and effective, western governments will soon wake up.
Rolls Royce has 16 SMR’s planned in the north of the UK due to begin in 2030.
Having announced the UK as the Saudi Arabia of wind, when COP 26 was recognised as a failure before it had begun, Boris began chuntering about Nuclear. There are also some big political guns in the Conservative party who are not interested in NetZero.
Does this affect the rest of the world? Possibly not politically but there is a lot of money flowing through the City of London, the second largest financial centre in the world, and if there’s a sniff of changes in political will towards Nuclear, they are well placed to finance private endeavours.
Western governments are unlikely to wake up soon. They’re run by highly credentialed grifters “educated” at Top Universities, like Harvard and Yale.
There are 2 new SMR projects in the US, both to be sited at existing US federal nuclear facilities, one in Washington state and one in Idaho. I assume the siting was to avoid the leftist lawsuits.
NuScale in Idaho was approved under TRUMP!.
The one in Washington has just been approved, and given MUCH MORE federal funds, probably Democrat party connected.
They both will introduce off site factory manufacturing (mass production) to reactor vessels.
Really NOT surprising that MOST Americans know NOTHING of these projects.
Having property in Utah, the Idaho project in of great interest since it is contracted to provide power to Utah utilities.
These SMRs COULD (scientific term used in all climate fear mongering papers) provide 100% of US electrical power within 10 years! Of course the US would need to go on a WAR FOOTING (an AOC/Green new deal term) to achieve the 0% fossil fuel electricity goal.
“COULD (scientific term used in all climate fear mongering papers)”
That’s funny! 🙂 And true.
The site in Washington is owned by a public utility, not the federal government.
As far as I remember, “Too cheap to meter” was originally about the prospects of nuclear fusion, not fission. I may be wrong, however.
I think it was involved with the opening of the first commercial fission reactor in the UK (and world) by the Queen, around ’56 called Calder Hall and a BBC commentator used the phase.
I thought it was in the USA, but you may well be right.
Enrico Fermi built the first reactor pile in a squash court at the University of Chicago. It was proof of concept, but not a commercial venture.
Being that the phrase was coined a couple of years earlier (by Lewis Strauss) it’s entirely possible the phrase was repeated on October 17, 1956, when Queen Elizabeth II officiated the opening of Calder Hall.
My memory is somewhat different. “Too cheap to meter” was a phrase used by a reporter (or writer- the distinction is unclear) who saw nuclear power as the means to the future. It was NOT used by any member of the nuclear industry- yes, hyperbole, but by boosters of the project, not by any responsible person or group.
Yoiu are in fact correct
Correct. The phrase was coined by Lewis Strauss, from the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in a 1954 speech to the National Association of Science writers. It’s been claimed he was referring to a future time when nuclear fusion would be a power source, though he didn’t specifically mention fusion because AEC’s nuclear fusion Project Sherwood was still classified at the time.
“I laugh at the people who don’t like nuclear but for some reason think that burning trees doesn’t add CO2 to the atmosphere.”
I laugh at people who don’t understand the carbon cycle.
Keep laughing, Simon.
Coal is formed when dead plant matter decays into peat and is converted into coal by the heat and pressure of deep burial over millions of years. Vast deposits of coal originate in former wetlands—called coal forests—that covered much of the Earth’s tropical land areas during the late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) and Permian times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Carbon is the main component of biological compounds as well as a major component of many minerals such as limestone. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to make Earth capable of sustaining life. It describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere, as well as long-term processes of carbon sequestration to and release from carbon sinks. Carbon sinks in the land and the ocean each currently take up about one-quarter of anthropogenic carbon emissions each year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
I laughed when you called Trump a Xenophobe for stopping travel from China at the start of Covid.
Russia colluuuusion indeed 😉
Yes we all laugh at Simon on a regular basis.
I don’t always get to read all the comments, so I’m guessing that I must have missed where Simon apologized for being utterly wrong about Russian coluuuuuuuusion. Because Simon is an intellectually honest guy who wouldn’t want to be thought of as a lying socialist hack propagandist who is so biased that he continues to spread proven lies. It must have been touching to see his contrition as he acknowledged that it was actually the Hildebeast who was doing the coluuuuuuuuuuuuding.
If anybody saw it, please send a link.
Simon,
While a CO2 molecule only resides in the atmosphere an estimated 5 years, the half-life of the current anthropogenic pulse of CO2 is estimated by some to be about 50 years. The atmosphere doesn’t care (it is not a sentient being as some believe) whether the anthropogenic CO2 is from coal, gasoline, or trees. A tree that took decades to grow will release its CO2 in a matter of seconds or less when fed into an industrial power furnace. There aren’t enough trees on earth to provide a sustainable source of power at a scale that matters. Yields per acre per year are far too low, not to mention the ecological devastation that would result if we tried. (Mr. Zorzin, I understand that forest stewardship can incorporate wood burning, but not at a planetary power scale.) So Simon, it appears that you should look in the mirror and laugh at yourself and your own simpleminded understanding of the carbon cycle.
I never understood why the longevity of CO2 gets stretched into years and halflives, like it’s some kind of fallout. Every fall and winter there is an increase in CO2 of something like 8ppm and then starting mid northern spring it takes a sharp drop until the net gain is only 2ppm for the year. We are only 2ppm from net-zero. If that was really important to the powers that be, it can be attained without world wide energy poverty, or the more general kind that goes along with it. Plant the trees, reclaim the deserts, fertilize the oceans. Those will make a green feel really good inside, with no regrets that come from paving over nature with solar panels and wind turbines.
And for energy, build the most efficient type that’s suitable for your country.
Has Fauci given you the information on the carbon cycle? If not I can’t trust your data because only he represents science.
I just heard that on tv! I had no idea only Fauci represented Science.
Can you believe this guy? Answer: No. Now Fauci is saying it was the Wet Market. This from the guy that represents Science.
The original comment, plus a follow-up to it on “Meet the Press”, was made by Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss in a 1954 speech to a group of science writers. He was speculating on a future that might be, based on what had already taken place in a very short period of time.
The nascent nuclear power industry didn’t share his view, and were in fact quite irritated by it. They thought that not only was the time scale too short, but the implication of pretty much free electricity would invite a backlash when people got an electric bill of greater than zero dollars per kW-hr.
One year later, Strauss himself was not as optimistic. Part of the motivation for his remark is thought to have been (by people who knew him well, including his son) his knowledge of Project Sherwood, AEC’s classified fusion power program. He obviously couldn’t refer to it in his talk, or subsequent interviews. But he quickly found out that fusion wasn’t going to come anytime soon.
A good overview of this can be found at: https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2016/06/03/too-cheap-to-meter-a-history-of-the-phrase/
which also contains a link to the text of Strauss’ speech. It’s worth a read, and puts things in perspective.
Michael
I was also under the impression that the economics of nuclear in the 50s and 60s were ‘improved’ by the fact that the defence budgets (not always made entirely transparent) effectively provided a subsidy to nuclear power, because the power stations provided material (and, I guess, expertise) for nuclear weapons.
I also have seen it stated that the military requirements in UK, USA and France influenced the decision to discontinue work on Thorium reactors.
I don’t know if my “impressions” are factual or not.
I do know that those Beloved Leaders who are hastening us down the Net Zero Ruinable Energy path couldn’t be trusted to wire a three pin electric plug.
Thanks for this. History is interesting but most useful when well documented.
How about this hyperbole – Germany has the highest energy prices ever in history?
Add in Siemens saying wind is too cheap to pay for itself, and we go from hyperbole to paradox.
Glad to help out.
Siemens Gamesa is probably setting the stage to push up costs and pass them on to the customers. The same article mentioned that Siemens were against the idea that wind generation should be ‘too cheap’ and that many countries were removing renewable subsidies altogether. I think the main thrust of the article was that wind power companies should arrange much better price contracts in future (with better profit margins) rather than rely on government regulations to keep profits up and costs down.
Had it not been for the insane levels of regulation and constantly changing regulations, that claim probably would have been realized.
BTW, too cheap to meter meant you would be charged a flat rate, not that it would be free.
For most large scale electricity generating systems the variable cost i.e. the fuel, makes up only 10 – 15 % of the price that the consumer pays and the capital cost and fixed mainteneance costs of the plant and grid plus profit make up the rest that the consumer pays. But in a lot of places the bills reverse this by charging little to be connected but a lot for kwh used. Of course this keeps private solar generators happy because most of them don’t want to be disconnected from the grid.
Wrong. For coal and oil and gas the fuel cost dominates the equation.
For wind nuclear and solar the capital cost dominates the equation.
There is nothing so useless as a general maxim…
That is of course ex power station costs. The rest is all about subsidies for and dealing with renewable energy in form or another. More than half the cost of UK electricity is as a direct result of renewables on the grid.
The world has moved on by generations since the claim of ‘too cheap to meter’ was made.
Keep up.
The hyperbole surrounding fusion is almost at that giddy level. I can’t believe that so-called science reporters can be foolish enough to believe the claims of the grant-seeking fusion scientists, who have no understanding of economics or realistic timescales.
For the two or three still following this interesting and informative thread, there’s this …
What does nuclear power really cost?What is the economic cost of nuclear power? That turns out to be a very difficult question to answer.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/what-does-nuclear-power-really-cost/
And my favorite saying related to such things … “Prediction is hard … especially about the future,”
Informative. Thank you.
If only the world had invested in Nuclear energy development instead of in weather dependent and unreliable energy sources. The opportunity cost is enormous and the result may well be catastrophic as our western “leaders” trip all over themselves in their competition to see who can destroy their economies first. Putin and Xi are ROFL at western leaders stupidity and gullibility.
Not stupid or gullible, just bought and paid for.
But WAIT! You’re both right!
“A contributing factor concerning negative sentiments about fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions has played a role in causing people in authority to declare that nuclear power emits no CO2 and is therefore accepted as ‘green’ in the context of the CO2 emissions argument.”
Should people who don’t think CO2 emissions are a bad thing support nuclear if the cost is greater?
Yes.
When you look at, in the US, the rising price of natural gas due to its use for generating electrical power and realize it is best used for home heating, water heating, industrial processes, fertilizer production and cooking, etc. you should understand that replacing that generation with nuclear will be a net positive for society and actually probably be overall LESS EXPENSIVE for those who have natural gas to their homes.
I wish I could give you plus 100 for your comment! I have always thought that natural gas should have been reserved for home use, and utilities forced to use coal, nuclear and hydro, since the utilities have the resources to use those efficiently. And I always thought the green Nazis were evil and stupid for blocking natgas pipelines and lines to new housing- that was just making their transition dreams even harder by driving up electricity use before wind and solar even start to be built to catch and replace the current needs.
Shouldn’t we wait until after government gets it’s thumbs off the scales before we decide which is cheaper?
But it’s not just about the price – we have to account for all externalities and all uncounted benefits.
I agree, except , how long will that take?????
“Should people who don’t think CO2 emissions are a bad thing support nuclear if the cost is greater?”
We don’t know what the cost will ultimately be, but, yes, we should support nuclear power as this will allow us to extend our use of fossil fuels into the future for such things as fertilizer and all the other things made from fossil fuels.
Right- it’s good to have a mix- like the foods we eat, we never know what’s really good or bad for us. And as for the energy mix- that should include biomass! Certainly not to save the planet but because it’s part of good economics for good forestry.
Well a great idea… but will it ever get realised? and on what scale?
The UK RR plans are for prototype in 2031 and 5 reactors by 2035, delivering only 2GW of power (UK max demand is about 48GW these days)
solar still provides an immediate electricity supply to remote parts of Africa which currently have no power/grid…
“solar still provides an immediate electricity supply to remote parts of Africa”
Well, at night anyway.
“solar still provides an immediate electricity supply”
No. Solar, with battery backup, provides an immediate electricity supply. Solar may or may not be cheap. Batteries are not cheap.
Quite so. Nor are they safe.
Quote:” Batteries are not cheap.”
So very true.
What has been found to happen is that the ingenious folks reliant upon or using this battery electric realise they quite like it.
So they over-ride the battery management system (at night) so as to extract maximum juice
Result being that after just a few weeks, the batteries are entirely wrecked.
Then a few more resourceful peeps turn up, in the dark of night and ‘recycle them‘
Just a couple of puzzles>
1) At 940°C the station would have been 75% efficient yet at 750°C is 70%
OK, nuclear energy is cheap but Helium is not. Was that the problem, containg the stuff?
But, was something wrong with using (say) CO2 and putting it through a gas-turbine (jet engine) as happens in CCGT stations ‘most everywhere and retaining the higher (Carnot) efficiency?
2) Still with Carnot, where is the ‘exhaust’ from your sweet little power station?
Classically that would be in the form of cooling towers which, fair enough, you ain’t got any water for.
But you still need an ‘exhaust’ or a “Tc” to lose the energy coming off the far end of your turbines, whether they be steam or jet.
Without having the epic heat capacity of water, it could work but would need to be huuuuuge. Again = no problem as you keep saying how big everything is in SA.
But still, where is your power station’s exhaust?
Helium is a side product from petroleum extraction.
Of course this raises a huuuge issue – no biological process uses it so what is it doing in petroleum.
Cue the biogenesis lobby….
Helium in the ground comes from decay of radioactive elements.
From which element? The only one I know of is hydrogen. We don’t call that decaying.
Helium is a decay product of uranium and thorium.
Ah, I see, alpha decay.
No it isn’t. You may be confusing the American term gas or gasoline with the term gas. Helium is produced as a by-product of natural gas processing, especially in the USA where a lot of the natural gas deposits contain Helium.
Nope, I just do not like the term fossil fuel – that’s for dummies.
The company I worked for bundled gas and crude together in reports. Sweet and sour too.
Helium is not biogenic, it is a decay product. It is a nice side business.
Isn’t that part of the benefit, using the exhaust as another energy source?
By inserting a heat exchanger between the pebbles and the turbine enables separation of the turbine from the reactor. allows ‘almost’ normal maintenance on the turbine.
Yes, if the HTMR-100 employs steam turbines, there must be some way to condense the exhaust steam. I’m guessing that there is an ambient air cooling system, necessitating a back pressure steam turbine (unlike conventional sub-atmospheric pressures for typical condensing turbines. This means turbine exhaust steam at some modest pressure (gauge, not absolute) sufficiently high to be at a temperature significantly higher than ambient air temperatures so that there is a delta-T high enough that enormous heat exchange surfaces and massive fans/ducting are not required. The exhaust will then be fairly hot air. The design parameters will be a balance between thermodynamic efficiency, parasitic load (fans, compressors, etc) and capital costs. The possible use of exhaust hot air for industrial purposes will also be a factor, especially if process uses require temperatures higher than in the absence of a market for hot air.
It will get realised if the environmentalists get out of the way and allow Africa access to plentiful, reliable electricity
But they won’t, will they?
#ecocolonialism
That won’t happen. The environmentalists are the paid flunkies of the fossil fuel lobby.
I have noted that in 75 years since WW2 fossil fuel has largely NOT provided electricity for Africans, nor has the USA.
I was not aware that fossil fuels have the capacity to make decision.
FLOP26 was the ecocolonials last hurrah, ending not with a bang but a whimper – literally Sharma’s tears.
“solar still provides an immediate electricity supply to remote parts of Africa”
Assuming you don’t mind Chinese forced labour to produce the panels nice and cheaply for you.
We assume, from your logic griff, that you are a supporter of slavery………….
BTW at 2GW per 5 cheap SMR’s, it would only take 120 of them to produce, enough electricity for the whole of the UK for, probably, the next 50 years, day and night no matter what the weather was like.
The size and dispersal across the country would make any accident so small as to be inconsequential, and any concept of terrorist activity against one would be simply not worthwhile.
One terrorist group hijacking a modest ocean going vessel could cut swathes through offshore wind farms which would take years to recover from.
I expect you have a cell phone, containing elements mined by Congolese forced labour…
Completely wrong as usual griff.
You haven’t been to Africa have you Griff?
I expect there are a lot of places you haven’t been…
Well, I comment on places I have been to and lived in physically. That is a quality I have that you are lacking in.
One of the problems I see, is finding capable people in Africa to build and run the reactors.
South Africa is already doing that.
so SA can contract out those services- making a nice export industry?
Of course.
With a little help from EDF of France.
The Koeberg reactors were built when South Africa was run by whites. When the ANC took over, their operation degraded as well as the rest of the infrastructure.
Guest promoted identity politics – next CRT?
So bonbon, identity politics or just plain facts.
guest didn’t mention race, just a political party.
You are the race baiter apparently.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with reality today bonbon.
What’s the matter, did France lose another bid to build submarines?
Nah, he was just frustrated that he hadn’t yet managed to work in a reference to his man-crush. Mr. Carney, at the time he wrote that post.
Even the ANC recognise they need electricity to lift Africa from poverty.
If you want opportunity for your kids/grandkids/great grandkids, send them to Africa. It’s going to see enormous technological and cultural changes over the coming generations.
Have they ever found that next African Einstein?
Check out the BRICS – quite a bit of nuclear there.
China is playing a fast one. Their investment in Nuclear outstrips the rest of the world combined by an enormous amount.
Coal is a smokescreen, figuratively speaking, and will be gone completely in 50 years time when their Nuclear facilities are all up and running.
I am a South African. In my twilight years I taught Mining Engineers at the university of the Witwatersrand. I met many black students who performed better than the degenerate Scottish engineers I was forced to work with.
To my mind, the future of South Africa is bright with the crop of young bright graduates now entering the work force. And they did not drink the coffee at Robbeneiland. Once the old crop of the ANC comrades, and the comrades who were polluted by LSE thinking, die off, watch the country take off.
Musk is a South African. We do tend to breed out of the box thinkers.
He claims the black students outperformed the degenerate whites but when he singles out one person for praise, It’s the white Elon Musk who actually left South Africa.
Guest promoted identity politics – next CRT?
You have no idea what CRT is, do you?
If you read bonbon enough, you will discover that he rarely understands the words he uses.
Just add it to the long list of words bonbon uses that he doesn’t have a clue what they actually mean. But somehow, someway, you can bet his failure at understanding the meaning of words is all the fault of Mr Carney and the English banksters.
He didn’t say “degenerate whites” he said “degenerate Scottish engineers”.
There is a considerable difference which you distort to convey your own bigotry.
Exactly! The London School of Economics, LSE, von Hayek’s and Keynes’ sandbox, is the poison tea.
Quite a few here are rabid Hayekians, who adopted British citizenship and then infected the US for 20 years.
I wonder where current EU Commissioner van der Leyen got a degree?
I have no idea what that comment has to do with Jollygreenman’s comment?
Care to explain?
Every since France was out bid for that Australian sub contract, bonbon’s hatred of all things American and British has reached stratospheric proportions.
Did you not read his comment – see LSE right there? Any idea what that is? I just expanded it. He has got it exactly right.
Hayek was Prof. at LSE, and a certain monotonous anti big Gov’t troll here just repeats Hayek LSE boilerplate short sentences.
Anyone stupid enough to cram von Hayek and Keynes into the same box economically is too ignorant to form any kind or rational opinion on any subject.
Came here to say that. Hayek and Keynes represent totally different approaches to economics.
Hayek proposes that economic decisions be made at the individual level, away from central planning (i.e. government), whereas Keynes advocates for government spending to drive demand.
rip
Hayek and Keynes BOTH Profs at LSE, the TweedleDum and TweedleDee. As they explained to Alice, some families have 1 we have 2.
Rather amusing to see Americans taking sides in the London School of Economics circus. Chuckles at tea, Americans!
As a Jock, I recognise your frustration at dealing with us. I also believe that Africa is the nation of opportunity over the next century for anyone prepared to put their back into it.
Your challenges won’t be infrastructure, engineering or education, it will be the age old problem of ‘Colonialism’, exploitation and cultural integration.
Good luck mate. Your country will make it but not without difficulty.
Infrastructure is the extreme Africa challenge, and China in BRICS and BRI knows exactly that. Exactly what the old and neo-colonials prevent.
The New Paradigm is infrastructure on a scale never witnessed before in history.
Typical neo-colonialist attitude. Tell me, junior, just how many people were capable of building and operating power reactors anywhere in 1956? You seem to pretend that skills cannot be learned and are not transferrable. UAE proves that you lie.
Exactly.
And when JFK announced his 10 year plan for the Moon, neither the skills nor money existed. So discovery, accelerated by a mission is key. Discoveries of new principles, and replication, by anyone. JFK vowed to end all colonialism, as did FDR.
This is what neo-colonials, unholy off-spring from neo-cons with neo-libs, really fear.
Quite so. Walt Rostow was an advisor to the Kennedy and Johnston administrations. He proposed the economic takeoff theory which was the claimed foreign development philosophy of the US government. But in practice they intended to reinforce neo-colonialism through US industrial and patent control. None of them actually wanted the locals to develop their own economy. This is at least part of the reason why modern liberals are so upset at China beating them at their own game.
Your reference to the lunar program is entirely spot-on.
JFK was an explicit anti-colonial, as was FDR. Numerous speeches abound.
Why on earth would you grant a stupid comment the benefit of political insight?
Thanks for pointing out to provincial EU´ers the sheer scale – most map projections minimize Africa.
Meanwhile neighboring Botswana (in the news because of Covid 21 or Omicron) has 230 billion tons of coal, largely not tapped. The distance scales there are also vast. To export it needs rail to the coast.
Also surprised to hear diesel from coal is a major sector.
For Britain, the EU and Germany to demand Africa to ´exit coal´ is blatant colonialism all over again! They did not listen to Bismarck :
¨Your map of Africa is all very fine, but my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia and here is France, and we are in the middle; that is my map of Africa.
Bismarck on colonial policy to Eugen Wolf, 5 December 1888¨
“provincial EU´ers”
Who can they be?
Neo-Colonials, offspring of Neo-Cons with Neo-Liberals.
Oh, ok. For a moment there I thought you were just talking about the French.
In bonbon’s mind, the British people dream of re-establishing their empire, and probably add France to it.
I’m not sure how you read anyone else’s mind. Do tell.
Not reading his mind, just reading his words.
It’s not a matter of reading minds, it’s a matter of reading posts. bonbon is constantly going off about the “evil” British, particularly the “evil” British banksters and one “evil” Brit in particular (Marc Carney, who bonbon clearly has a crush on given how often he swoons over him).
I’m very glad you can understand what bonbon is driving at. I haven’t a clue to be honest.
See the reference below to the Scottish, if you dare.
Trust me, nobody wants France in an empire any more – even the EU is getting nervous.
Exactly so. The French also didn’t want one. Getting out of running a colonial empire was precisely the point of De Gaulle’s overthrow of the Fourth Republic in 1958.
I find it hard to believe that French leaders do not also back this EU policy.
Your hatred of all things British has caused you to see things that aren’t there, and not see other things that are there.
Too much Hayek tea there. Go easy on the ideology.
What tea do you drink?
Coffee. Lavazza preferably :
A wonderful roast!
In other words, you aren’t even going to attempt to defend the nonsense you spew, just spew even more nonsense.
“In other words, you aren’t even going to attempt to defend the nonsense you spew, just spew even more nonsense.”
Oh the irony….
At least, he isn’t a known liar such as yourself. Shame on you and your Russian colluuuusion
Oh look it’s Mr One Trick Pony…
No kidding, you come on here with your Trump Russia colluuuusion. You are a clown show indeed.
That’s one more trick then you have managed.
Poor Simon, he thinks he’s actually said something intelligent.
I usually defend the points I make. It’s just that after refuting the same lie 23 times, I don’t always bother.
Speaking of “oh the irony” for you of all people to pipe up, oh the irony indeed.
Seriously, do you prefer central planning to individual choice? What is you complaint with Hayek? Seems Europe would’ve learned its lesson regarding the dangers of giving too much power to government.
rip
The LSE circus of TweedleDum Hayek and TweedleDee Keynes with Americans (and Germans) dancing to the tune, is rather amusing in London clubs.
Just check how many of the EU Commission have LSE degrees, and it becomes clear how Brussells and D.C are ¨in-sync¨, a meme that turned up in the recent German election.
While amusing to watch them dance, it means the physical economy is left in tatters, not funny at all – the music stops!
We are still up against the attitude that having cheap and abundant power is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.
The green blob favors wind and solar because it will not work to sustain industrial society.
Fortunately, with wind and solar the idiot children will only be wielding banners.
Wished if the author had mentioned a cost estimate for x1, x5 and x10 turnkey units and the implementation timeframe. We could then compute net present value of the investment and if such investment would make sense compared to alternative investments.
This is therefore purely a business decision, yes political but still should be profitable.
If so, I am sure Musk would buy a couple of these units to energize his tesla charging network.
What do you think, how much would it cost?
Musk would likely buy from billionaire buddy Bill Gates, but the Trump admin apparently killed Terrapower. Anti-China jingoism again.
US bad, communists good.
Yea, we know the drill.
US admin inept, not bad, worse than that.
Firms are not getting funding – the budget is a joke for the entire planet to see.
Jingoism and catchy phrases from the McCarthy era (long thought to be a fossil) cannot hide the 600lb gorilla under the carpet. And that gorilla, Hayek to his friends, is unfortunately no illusion.
What, Salma Hayek? I’m extremely glad she’s no illusion thank you.
Prof. von Hayek of the London School of Economics, had no music hit as far as I know. His monotonic mumbling did rumble through the Chicago School, a kind of repetitive snoring sound.
He was awarded a Nobel in Economics, and you?
LOL!
WUWT discusses the Nobel Prizes regularly, dare to check?
So only funding source is government and once again anyone who criticizes China is evil.
You really do have a hatred for any economic system that actually works.
Works ? Ask Marc Carney, the UN Climate Finance czar who clearly, ruthlessly and relentlessly with focus, said it is a $150 TRILLION question. Do you call that working?
Carney actually let the demon out of the bag – the financial system is utterly and irredeemable bankrupt!
So much for Hayek and Greenspan’s magic of the markets – it is utter bunkum, humbug!
Left wing government spends records amount of money, and that proves that School of Chicago economics doesn’t work?
Are you even trying to make sense anymore?
Works – ask Marc Carney who needs immediately $150 TRILLION and only got Sharma’s tears?
Hayek uses simple repitition throughout his monotonic tomes. I suppose using Goebbels recipe of repetition, or vice versa.
Wow, clueless troll actually believes that repeating the same lies makes them not lies.
bonbon,
Please try actually elaborating a point clearly. What is this $150T point you are trying to make? And why would anyone care what an individual from the UN says?
To take this conversation a step further, the distorted markets of the world have very little to do with actual economic freedom, and in fact, represent one of the most atrocious forms of economics ever, crony-capitalism (or, corporatism, if you will). No one in their right mind would argue that this is good. But it’s made possible by governmental actors colluding with powerful corporate interests. NOT because we allow individuals to make their own economic choices. This really shouldn’t be all that controversial really.
rip
Unbelievable!
Bloomberg interviewed Carney at COP26 – he explained in detail.
The bill means the system desperately needs a huge green bubble. It is finished. What do you think the Davos Great Reset is all about? I do not expect Greta to even check, but …
Carney is the most powerful banker today. Ignore at your peril.
This is why Sharma wept!
This has been extensively noted here at WUWT during and after FLOP26.
Could be. Personally, I ignore most of that coverage cause it’s not in my area of interest. Plus, my available time to read all the posts is limited since I typically spend my time here on other functions.
As for Keynesian monetary supply problem…is the estimate $150T of new spending to keep the system afloat? If so, that’s an order of magnitude greater than I would’ve assumed. But not surprising. Finally, since this is so far and away removed from anything I have the ability to affect, it’s not worth wasting time worrying about.
But again, I would say, your style of posting comments makes it difficult to understand the actual point you’re making. Idk, maybe it’s just me though.
rip
Errr . . . Solyndra, the US solar energy start-up company that had so much hype for “addressing” green renewable energy, went bankrupt on Sept 1, 2011 . . . that would be under President Barack Obama.
Yeah, and?
And why your false claim that “the Trump admin apparently killed Terrapower”?
It did, and they tried to relocate. Look it up, simple.
Reason ? China bashing.
Why would Gates go to China? Simple – the transatlantic is COP26 impaired.
Even Wiki, yeah, :
However, in January 2019 it was announced that the project had been abandoned due to technology transfer limitations placed by the Trump administration.[4]
So a company that still exists, was killed by the Trump administration. Really.
They were forced obviously to act by government activism. Free-market anyone?
Still fission and fusion are not getting government funding and will be forced to look abroad. And why not?
Much better to start government fusion programs a la Manhatten Program style, no matter what tinpot Hayek mumbles.
One of these days you will make a post that is actually responsive to the post you are responding to. So far today has not been that day.
As near as I can tell, bonbon is claiming that government intrusion is proof that free market economics don’t work.
SMR fission IS being government funded in the US, moron.
You’re only telling half of the story. Terrapower is alive. My understanding is that though the technology transfer limitations prevented contracts with the CCP, the US DOE provided a grant to fund a demonstration reactor.
rip
ps Not sure why you’ve raised my ire today. This is, like, the 3rd or 4th comment I’ve had to make today to respond to your distortions.
The US DOE is Government – that was government activism. That is all noted in wiki.
Instead of petty geopolitics, the DOE must fund crash programs, not let it up simply to a few billionaires.
First, I don’t know the source of the information in Wiki, so I don’t trust it. I suggest you treat it as unreliable as well.
Having done business with the DOE, I’m quite aware that it’s “the government”. What’s not clear to me is what point you are attempting to make.
To take a step back, nuclear technology is potentially dangerous enough that we (society) have concluded it’s best left to strict governmental regulation. Thus, demonstration reactors, reactors required by the government in order to license commercial reactors, require some sort of government funding. This obviously creates a situation where the government is “picking winners and losers” and that’s a situation we all probably agree is not ideal, or even desired. Unfortunately, it’s the way things are. This is our reality.
Additionally, for better or worse, the CCP has a reputation when it comes to technology, and I believe that motivated the technology transfer limitations put in place by Trump. On the one hand, it’s unfortunate for the world that a potential avenue towards new energy technology was closed off. On the other hand, another avenue is open, and it’s undoubtedly less risky for Terrapower and the US (in general).
rip
Sorry to switch subjects.. but to your questioning 3-D printing of rockets capable of going to orbit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lDc1gxe8As
Sorry, YouTube is amongst the last sources I would visit for reliable, fact based information.
Nuclear power is highly profitable. Both airlines and nuclear power operators know how to calculate these cost figures very accurately. That is why both are confident in making a profit on a new investment in their respective fields of expertise.
______________________________________________
Same is true for wind farms, and as far as I know, they depend of subsidies to make it work. Drop the subsidies, and nobody would invest a nickel in them.
This has been done in Ontario. Eliminate the feed in tariffs, and the wind industry has imploded. Zero new project contracts or construction starts for the past four years.
As verified by Warren Buffett.
I would clarify that it’s apparent the wind/solar business cases were using a highly optimistic lifecycle cost. The early degradation of components, combined with their declining performance, has been an unfortunate surprise for communities that chose to invest in these technologies.
rip
I Like Seaborg.co’s approach building nuclear CMSR power barges in Korea in serial production not dissimilar to Space X’s continuous improvement.
The least impacting energy source on nature:
https://businessdevelopmentinternational.biz/seaborg-co/
Seaborg deep dive: https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/deep-dive-on-floating-nuclear-reactors
Seaborg, the father of nuke engines and small reactors of the navy. Easily adapted for power.
Also the NERVA nuke rocket pioneer, with mentor von Braun. JFK appointed Seaborg immediately to the AEC.
Look up Glenn Seaborg, people!
Did a search and did not find anything about navy nukes.
Have a look at this huge report :
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2013/08/f2/HewlettandDuncanNuclearNavyComplete.pdf
500 page book
https://thorconpower.com …..give Lars a call…he is ready to help now.
TerraPower in Wyoming …
Bill Gates’ TerraPower aims to build its first advanced nuclear reactor in a coal town in Wyominghttps://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html
Progress!
How did they get around Trumps’ admin killing it with anti-China jingoism?
Umm… I wasn’t killed?
Makes it really easy to get around an event that never happened.
It was stopped because of a McCarthy pogrom against China.
All over the internet, at least for now.
The entire world witnesses the US floundering – a rubber room is in order.
No fusion funding in the new infrastructure bill either – no wonder Gates et al have to look abroad.
The article above literally says it’s on-going, and is dated just 11 days ago.
You’re living in a fantasyland because it was evidently NEVER stopped – it’s still going on.
My point – how did Terrapower realign? Free trade, my a*ss.
How dare anyone disagree with a Communist country trying to take over it’s neighbors?
How could anyone disagree with the London School of Economics Prof. von Hayek, pray tell over a cuppa lukewarm tea?
London school works. Communism doesn’t.
Works – ask Marc Carney who needs immediately $150 TRILLION and only got Sharma’s tears?
Do you cut and paste your nonsense?
Politician spending lots of money proves that the free market doesn’t work. No wonder you like communism.
As usual, bonbon runs hard for the weeds rather than take the effort to actually make sense.
It’s a common problem with the conspiracy-addled brain, so it’s not surprising the our resident conspiracy theorist exhibits that trait.
You really do have a one track mind.
Pointing out the evil things the Chinese leaders are doing is just “anti-China jingoism”.
Funny how jingoism is only bad when the Americans and British do it.
McCarthy back from under the bed where Reds hide?
That’s a 78rmp shellack stuck on track 1.
Trouble is it kills the economy.
History proved McCarthy was right.
Hang it up [snip–since I’m here-ctm]
One thing I’ve found to be amazing is how so called actors whined and cried about the so called Hollywood black lists of the communists, once they got into power instituted even greater blacklists that banned anyone who wasn’t a communist.
BTW, they are shellack records? Is that some sort of French thing, or are you just so demented from being shellacked that you are no longer capable of making sense?
That was high tech in von Hayek’s time as Prof. of the London School of Economics. Scratchy sound, but Hayek’s snoring was likely filtered out.
The fact that the free market works and communism doesn’t, really bugs you.
Works – ask Marc Carney who needs immediately $150 TRILLION and only got Sharma’s tears?
Have you ever made any sense?
I know it was rhetorical, but the answer to your question is: Nope, bonbon has never made sense. He’s too busy fantasizing about Marc Carney is my guess.
bonbon asked, “How did they get around Trumps’ admin killing it with anti-China jingoism?”
TerraPower is a US company and Wyoming is in the US. Read and learn.
https://www.terrapower.com/about/
Hope to live long enough to see the PMR scaled down enough to put one in here on the ranch’ Of course, at 75, they are going to need to get moving on that.
Two things make nuclear energy expensive:
1) Regulations. Talk to anyone who has ever built or operated a nuclear plant. The stories they have about regulatory incompetence are hilarious.
2) Many plants are first of a kind projects. No matter what you are making, if you have done the exact same thing before the next one will be faster and easier.
If you want low cost energy, you choose one plant design and build them by the dozen. And hire competent regulators whose only mission is science-based safety of the public.
South Korea, France, Canada, and China have done this. Their nuclear power plants are very affordable.
Not so sure about EPRs.
The EPR has nothing to do with it. vboring is talking about the 50+ reactors built during the late 1970s to early 1990s, the N2 and N4 PWRs.
“Two things make nuclear energy expensive:
1) Regulations. Talk to anyone who has ever built or operated a nuclear plant. The stories they have about regulatory incompetence are hilarious.”
Are you saying that Japan had too little regulation or too much, since it’s not among your list of affordable nuclear powered nations?
My understanding of the cause of Fukushima’s exploding containment shells and the resulting fallout contamination is that it was due to inadequate maintenance and backup drills. The pressure relief systems on three reactor buildings failed to operate automatically as they were supposed to, AND the staff were not adequately trained/practiced to do the job manually in the time available, IIRC.
In your opinion, is this triple failure to contain the radioactivity, as designed by General Electric, due to too much regulation?
I would argue the opposite, with the caveat that regulations that are not observed and not enforced are worse than none at all!
And I would invite all the boosters of less regulation to consider what the chances would have been in China of some whistleblower drawing attention to neglect of maintenance or training at a nuclear power plant in a similar situation. Most jurisdictions in the world have far less effective regulation than either China or Japan, and even less protection for whistleblowers.
Keep in mind that distantly produced nuclear fallout doesn’t stay in place, it will eventually arrive at a place near you and likely enter your food chain,
It is not just social anti-nuclear activism, but look what happened to Bill Gates´ Terrapower – Trump’s admin killed it because it cooperated with China!
That is direct governmental nuclear activism, from the same country which started all this with Harry S Truman´s nuclear terrorism.
South Africa, a member of BRICS with lots of nuclear, is for sure targeted. Saying it is simply a teen tantrum is disingenuous.
Yes, Trump killed Terrapower, which is why Terrapower just selected its site for its first plant:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html
I guess perhaps you’re wrong? It wasn’t killed at all. Of course, when you talk about “nuclear terrorism” we understand where you’re coming from.
Ok, they were forced to go in the US, but why forced? There is no funding for nuclear in the new infrastructure bills?
What did McCarthy ever do for the economy.
And Harry S Truman is the only nuclear terrorist ever – that insane act is responsible for the entire anti-nuclear climate soap opera, a tragedy become farce.
Interesting attitude! So saving lives is now equated with terrorism?
Most military planners of the late Pacific Campaign were estimating about 1,000,000 Allied and 3 or 4 million Japanese casualties for an invasion of Japan! This was based on the what had already occurred at places like Iwo Jima, Pelelieu and Okinawa!
Perhaps you want to label doctors, nurses, and EMTs as terrorists as well! After all, they save lives every day at work!
Bull, as McCarthy clearly said – a 3 week blockade was enough. It’s the economy stupid!
The rest is a Truman nuclear terrorist apology – like ISIS are our terrorists.
So Harry S Truman, the single nuclear terrorist, brought the entire crazy anti-nuclear mem into play, as terrorists tend to do.
By the was no one knows what S means.
So one person’s opinion, from decades later outweighs all of the military experts at the time.
The US military had been blockading Japan completely for months, and partially for most of the war.
The military expert was McArthur, maybe you have more skin in the game?
It was a massive fight to get to blockade mode.
Like today’s military experts, who told Trump Syria was a gone bunny, and Afghan a sure thing – what a howler!
You said McCarthy. I would love to see a source for this quote. Sounds like another one of your made up fantasies.
“So one person’s opinion, from decades later outweighs all of the military experts at the time.”
I’m so pleased you think the military know what they are talking about…
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049222045/the-pentagon-says-climate-change-is-having-a-negative-impact-on-national-securit#:~:text=via%20Getty%20Images-,A%20military%20police%20officer%20walks%20near%20a%20destroyed%20gate%20in,is%20a%20national%20security%20concern.
I pay attention to what the military say when they are talking about military matters. When they speak outside their realm of expertise, there opinion is no better than anyone elses.
BTW, I find it amazing how Simon, who is famous for refusing to look at any data that disagrees with his religious convictions if it comes from someone who isn’t someone he recognizes as a climate scientist.
However if they do agree with him, everyone is promoted to the status of expert.
If Simon didn’t have double standards, he wouldn’t have any standards at all.
“I pay attention to what the military say when they are talking about military matters.”
I’ll translate that. Mark will listen to people when they agree with him. Hypocrite.
I guess you skipped the study of history as well! The Japanese chose to live in isolation for two CENTURIES!! Do you think that the fanatics that were ruling the country would have been worried about the civilian population? What about using Kamikazes to run the blockade?
Try and let go of your hate; you’ll feel better in the long run, and the world won’t seem quite so bleak for you! Does all that bitterness in your heart leave a sour taste in your mouth? It sounds like it does!
Do some homework. The Emperor could not control the military, rather like D.C. today with a runaway Military Industrial Complex that even President General Eisenhower warned about. The Meiji Restoration ended isolation, thanks to US ambassador Perry.
US War Plan Red military doctrine war well aware of the later threat.
Cut the woke psycho stuff – it is a joke.
It was the military in Japan who wanted to continue the war.
Is there anything you know that is actually true?
BTW, I’m still waiting for the sources for your made up quotes.
You talk like a terrorist yourself with your lack of concern for dying during a war! Do you really think more people died because of nuclear bombs than would have died in a continued conventional war. Estimates are from 10 to 50 times more would have perished from carpet fire bombing and invasion. Maybe you think the U.S. should have negoiated better!
Negotiations were already underway – the projected casualty bullshit was an early form of a climate Hockey Stick , a model . No wonder Mann et al get away with crap.
Negotiations were under way? Are you as ignorant as you sound?
There were no negotiations.
Bullshit – the negotiations via the Vatican were the settlement the Emperor agreed to later. Do some homework, Greta-lein!
Man, you will believe any fantasy so long as it paints either England or America as the villain.
Once again, provide a source to support your nonsense.
Even the Poodle search engine digs it up.
Search engines find anything put on the web. Not surprised that you are willing to take that as evidence.
If “even the Poodle search engine” can dig it up, then why are you so incapable of posting a single link? Should be easy peasy since, as you say, even the Poodle search engine” can dig it up.
Once again no sources for your made up claims.
WTF are you smoking?
Terrapower is Bill Gates. You know, American citizen, lives in Redmond, WA. Little company called Microsoft. That guy.
You were wrong it was killed, and you’re completely off-base about it being overseas.
The whole “Truman nuclear terrorist” thing is telling – you’re either high, delusional, or a shill. MUCH better to toss a million plus lives at an invasion than to end it with 1/10th the number of casualties.
If you want to talk terrorist – consider what the Japanese did in China. My wife’s grandmother survived through the Rape of Nanking – and the stories are horrific. And the stories of growing up under Mao are nearly as bad (and with Xi and the Uighurs, still as bad).
PS: having lived for 6 years (2005-2011) in Shanghai, and spending a ton of time in China since then – I would heartily WELCOME the plants and research being done in the US, where there’s at least an opportunity to be open and clean with it, and not squished under the thumb of the CCP.
Gates went overseas, and look what the admin did!
Everyone knows what Japan did especially in China, not everyone sees their weak point. McArthur did. How long would Japan or the USA survive even today with a total blockade – witness the container jam at L.A just for a taste.
McArthur said 3 weeks max. No need to invade or use nukes. He was right.
But terrorism was needed – Dresden was the original target for Fat Man (churchill’s pet name). Instead Dresden got firebombing, with the war over.
Bomber Harris is second in line to Harry S Truman.
So today we have an insane anti-nuke society, a trauma of nuclear terrorism. Suck it up!
Japan had been under a total embargo ever since the Philippines were taken back.
Between air cover and submarines, they had been under a near total embargo for years.
Not what someone on the ground, McArthur said. I take his experience as material. 3 weeks were needed, no massive invasion nor nuclear terrorism. Face it – the US has problems because of this historic inflection. Much to Britain’s entertainment.
Just because you believe something that’s insane, is not evidence that your insanity is reality.
Please provide sources.
I think you need to ignore him. If he’s not smoking something now, he has used some pretty serious drugs in the past, or he’s just plain pulling it out of the air. He is all fantasy even about Gate’s project. That is so easily refutable, yet he defends it. Clearly something is wrong with him. He’s making Griff look good.
The nuclear bombings saved at least a million lives. But since it was done by the US, it must have been bad.
And we get it. Any opposition to any communist anywhere is just McCarthyism.
Bull – the hockey stick casualty model was in fact the Mann template for now. To use a hockey stick, we all know here, is bad for health, then too.
I’m going out on a limb to guess that this made sense to you as you typed it. As a benefit for the non-delusional, would you please try again?
You benefit no-one.
Hockey stick models did not start with Mann, but the military.
In addition to having no contact with reality, apparently reading comprehension is beyond your limited abilities as well
No, the casualty estimates were based on the direct experience of Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. This use of actual experience has nothing to do with Mann’s nonsense of just making up methodologies which discard inconvenient data.