Affordable, reliable, continuous, and emissions free electricity would benefit billions on this planet.
Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
.
Oliver Hemmers has a Doctorate in Physics from the Institute of Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany. He was a Researcher in Physics, the Executive Director of UNLV’s Harry Reid Center and C- level executive.
.
Steve Curtis has a Master’s degree in Health Physics from UNLV. He has spent decades studying spent fuel issues in Nevada and worked as a technical field team leader for nuclear search and characterization missions for the Department of Energy. He is currently engaged in education, speaking, and writing in favor of nuclear power returning to the United States, especially from recycling spent nuclear fuel in fast reactors.
Co-authored by Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers, andSteve Curtis
Published October 14, 2024, in America Out Loud NEWS
Delivery of affordable, abundant, reliable, available, and clean, electricity to customers is paramount to modern quality of life. Recent announcements of the proliferation of data centers demanding double, and even triple the electricity supply will stress the current infrastructure. It’s time to stimulate conversations about unlimited electricity generation that is reliable, continuous, uninterruptable, and emissions free, to meet the needs of the end users.
Supplying such growth in demand for electricity is threatened by a vulnerable grid and the intermittency of low-density wind and solar electricity generation methods. The proven technology of nuclear power production is our only practical hope to keep up with the rapidly approaching demand.
Nuclear power has been providing electricity to the US Navy, France, and others around the world for almost 70 years. The technology is well-understood, and it boasts the best safety record of any industry (based on injury and death). The material left over from the current fleet of light-water reactors can be recycled to attain 30 times the electricity produced in the first time through. Such an advantage can provide energy security for billions around the world, greatly increase their quality of life, and relieve the fear of not having reliable and continuous electricity for all.
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) continues to advocate nuclear power to provide dispatchable electricity at the lowest cost for consumers.
The recent September 2024 report from the DOE, “The Pathways to Commercial Liftoff report” summarizes advanced nuclear that includes a range of proven and innovative technologies, and defines three size categories (large, small, and micro) for reactor designs:
- Large: Fast breeder and Light Water reactors (generally ~1000 MW) are essential for bulk electricity production.
- Small modular reactors (SMRs) are generally considered ~50 to ~350 MW provide choices for individual customers.
- Microreactors could serve a variety of use cases where reliability, transportability, and compactness are highly valued.
Nuclear generated electricity is proliferating around the world:
- France has more than 50 nuclear power reactors producing more than 70% of France’s electricity.
- Today, about 440 nuclear power reactors are in operation in 32 countries and Taiwan, with 62 new reactors under construction. As of August 1, 2023, the United States had 54 nuclear power plants with 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors in 28 states. These plants generate about 20% of the country’s electricity. Nuclear power has the competitive advantage of being the only baseload power source that can accommodate the desired expansion of a clean electricity supply to the end users that is emission free, continuous, and uninterruptible and timely.
- The nuclear power systems developed for the Navy have functioned well for over seven decades. All U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered. Other military services are now getting on board. The Navy’s seven-decade safety track record with nuclear generated electricity to support national security began before the formulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and all its regulatory roadblocks.
- Today, about 60 reactors are under construction across the world. A further 110 are planned. Most reactors under construction or planned are in China.
Filmmaker Oliver Stone released a movie called Nuclear Now. The movie is educational and entertaining. Oliver Stone points out several additional reasons for Nuclear Now:
- The Navy’s 40+ nuclear powered submarines can stay submerged for months and travel thousands of miles without refueling.
- During a 70+ year run, the Navy’s nuclear reactors have accumulated the equivalent of more than 6,000 years of nuclear reactor safety.
- Nuclear is the safest way to generate emission free electricity. Using the official internationally recognized death statistics for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the combined loss of lives from the three major nuclear accidents is at most 32 people. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the combined effects of outdoor and household air pollution cause about 7 million premature deaths each year.
Nuclear power currently produces the least expensive electricity available today, considering that folks pay extra taxes in subsidies for coal and natural gas electricity production and as much as 100 times more subsidies for wind and solar power than we do in subsidies for nuclear power.
Rather than pursue renewables of wind and solar that require huge land footprints, huge taxpayer subsidies, and even then, only generate electricity occasionally, we must focus technology resources on our nuclear power production industry that has the best industrial safety record among all companies and a track record of producing the cheapest non-subsidized zero-emissions electricity.
Our government has struggled for almost 45 years to fulfill their responsibility to “dispose” of our “nuclear waste”. Since this “waste” can be recycled, it is a valuable asset, so let’s call it slightly used nuclear fuel (SUNF) since only about 3% of the electricity potential is realized from this fuel. We are on the cusp of a revolutionary innovation in electricity production, held back only by our Federal Government.
The recycling technology is called “fast reactor recycling”, or “fast breeder reactors”. Surprisingly, this technology has been around since before the current light water reactor technology existed. It has worked well, has produced extremely low-cost electricity, and promises even better safety features than the existing fleet.
Meanwhile, despite the DOE’s continuous support of the movement toward nuclear, the United States remains delighted to keep its head in the sand while France and other countries use nuclear generated electricity that is reliable, dispatchable, and zero-emission. The USA seems focused on wind and solar generated electricity that is the most expensive (without subsidies), unreliable, and NON-dispatchable! It also requires new expensive transmission lines at additional costs to the ratepayers.
A “New Nuclear Posture” for the US, via recycling Fast Breeder reactors for large demands and SMRs, that offer competition to lower costs, for smaller demands, offers electricity that is emissions free, continuous, and uninterruptible. This seems to be more practical than ever before to enhance the quality of life of more than 6 billion on this planet in developing countries, as well as for reliable power for military remote sites around the world and various power hungry industries. If the US will not take the lead, our adversaries will.
Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.
Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A Google search on “decommissioned nuclear power plants in us” turns up:
As of 2017, 10 commercial nuclear reactors in the United States have
been decommissioned. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
reports that 22 commercial nuclear power reactors at 18 sites are currently
in various stages of decommissioning.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that something is wrong and CO2
emissions have nothing to do with it.
A little context is probably called for. Most of the fully decommissioned commercial plants were “Generation 1” designs. They were just past the research stage. Much like early automobiles from a century ago, they weren’t going to last long and weren’t expected to.
In terms of “various stages of decommissioning,” it is important to note that when “decommissioning” a nuclear plant (a term that comes from the Navy and recalls the US Navy’s involvement in developing nuclear technology) time is on your side. The convenient thing about radioactive materials is that they decay — that is, they go away with time, and the more radioactive it is, the sooner it is gone. (Compare that with, say, mercury, which lasts forever.) Therefore, by simply waiting to dismantle a plant, a lot of the “pollution” goes away, which makes the process easier and cheaper. Plus, the funds set aside for the “cleanup” can be invested and appreciate with time. Economically, this is just common sense.
‘ (Compare that with, say, mercury, which lasts forever.)’
well ACTUALLY…..
‘a current estimate of the half-life of a proton is ……… 1.67×10^34 years.’
and mercury does have protons in its nucleus.
source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/672896/does-every-element-have-a-half-life
you alarmarists and your ‘we’re gonna live forever’ malarky are going to get us all killed. Shame
Do humans have a half-life? At 1.67×10^34 years, I suppose my protons will last longer than I will. When I reach ambient temperature, the little buggers will have to find a new host. 😉
…And 10^34 years is how long?
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years
We simply need to forget anything other that the last 50 years
Thanks for all of that (-:
A Google Search on, “new nuclear power plants in the us” Turns up the following:
There are currently no new nuclear power plants being built in the United States,
but several projects are underway:
Vogtle Unit 4
The newest nuclear reactor in the United States, which began commercial operation
in April 2024 at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia. Vogtle
Units 3 and 4 were years behind schedule and billions over budget.
And pretty much the same comment from above.
Thank you for sharing this information. Recommend @MiningAtoms and @Dr_Keefer
The usual railing about how climate change is a hoax and El Niño probably won’t suffice boys. Up your game.
When it comes to energy security I would argue that in this bonkers net zero paradigm you have to make your own.
“”Google to buy power for AI needs from small modular nuclear reactor company Kairos
“We feel like nuclear can play an important role in helping to meet our demand … cleanly in a way that’s more around the clock,” Michael Terrell, senior director for energy and climate at Google, told reporters on a call.””
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/google-buy-power-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-company-kairos-ai-needs-2024-10-14/
The UK Government has other ideas.
CCS – doomed to fail even with £20 odd billion thrown at it.
Flywheels – used to smooth out frequencies; not as an energy store…
“”Giant flywheels are to be installed around the UK to minimise the risk of blackouts as the power system goes carbon-free. Flywheels are energy storage systems that use surplus electricity to accelerate a massive metal “wheel”, thereby turning it into mechanical energy. To avoid energy losses, the wheels are kept in a frictionless vacuum.””
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/02/giant-flywheels-to-be-installed-in-britains-grid-blackouts/
Full marks to the Telegraph for swallowing that one hook, line, sinker – and copy of the Angling Times.
The list of harebrained schemes just goes on.
No mention of vaporware technologies thorium or molten solids.
Heh. No “woo-woo” allowed … (nothing anyone would want to defend, anyway.)
No “woo-woo” allowed…
True talent in the arts appears to be able to use various forms of substances, but the wannabes are something else. How can they channel what little creativity they have?
“”Gail Bradbrook has said she was moved to form Extinction Rebellion after going on a psychedelic retreat. The group’s co-founder, who lives in Stroud, took the drugs ayahuasca and iboga while in Costa Rica in 2016.
Both the drugs are traditionally used for spiritual practice and have hallucinogenic properties. Dr Brabrook credits the retreat as ‘part of the birth of the movement’ she had been trying to start for years. “The consistent experiences of people who work with psychedelic medicines is that they make a connection with something bigger than themselves””
https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/19253004.extinction-rebellions-gail-bradbrook-taking-psychedelics/
Thorium is not quite “vaporware.” In the US, it has been used in such plants as Indian Point and Fort St. Vrain. It has been used in other countries such as in Germany. Uranium is plentiful enough to be the preferred nuclear fuel so far, but thorium is a proven technology that has produced many MWh of electricity.
Saying thorium is a proven technology is at best about 70% true.
Whilst it is almost certain that with enough time and money spent on it thorium can and eventually will become a viable fission technology,.. that doesn’t mean that we have a catalogue of proven successful thorium reactors ready to order from Amazon…for delivery tomorrow.
The previous reactors would not meet today’s safety standards, and there are no safety standards for thorium reactors, with U 233 – the ultimate product of thorium transmutation, being a thoroughly nasty material .
Thorium is at least 10 years an $100bn away from being an off the shelf technology with supply chains and waste disposal systems in place. I think we should invest in it, but anyone who thinks we can’t do the job better faster and cheaper with uranium fission right now needs their heads examining.
Everything is in place for Uranium 235/8. We have supply chains. The plutonium by product is relatively benign and can be recycled back into the fuel chain. We have off the shelf large reactors of proven worth just waiting for investment, and modified reactors to make SMRs coming onstream at a massive rate.
We dont need thorium at the moment, It would be a distraction. Like trying to develop a diesel engine when there were already 50 designs of petrol ones.
‘Green light’ given for first thorium molten salt nuclear reactor in China (interestingengineering.com)
A good summary of the need to advance nuclear power right now. As a geologist (and past President of a uranium exploration company) I would give the advice to choose the site you wish to permit for a nuclear power plant with some consideration to stability and security from natural disasters. Go Nuclear!
Is Jane Fonda dead yet? Because she was in a movie that said nuclear energy was bad. As we all know, Hollywood knows best.
The China Syndrome.
Science fiction, worse than Barbarella.
re: “Delivery of …”
Equally, “Generation of, on site, locally …” could have been written.
The man assumes ‘central gen’ (electrical generation at central ‘super sites’ as is done now will continue unabated going forward, and always will) has a future … this, of course, is straight-line projection into a ‘future’ which is in no way ‘guaranteed’ to take a particular course. As always, “Past performance is NO guarantee of future results.” There are those that will/may argue, but, you are arguing futilely.
Not sure of your point exactly, but I think it’s safe to say that there is going to be a need for centralized power generation for some time, certainly for the life of the next few nuclear plants. Distributed systems are fine, as are large power users’ stand alone systems, but for most of us, it’s nice to be able to simply hook up to the grid. If our leaders will let us hook up to a system with reliable power, we can hook up and forget about it.
I’ve been thinking a lot, and there is a lot to be said against multi gigawatt power stations.
Microgeneration is probably not going to be cost effective.
It’s really a question of not having any stupid general maxims ‘big is better’ ‘small is beautiful’ but rather a team of engineers costing out the alternatives and weighing the pros and cons of cost, profit, reliability, availability and resilience and safety of the various ways to skin the nuclear grid cat, and having a range of solutions available to construct it with, not all of which need be the same.
Dispersed rural communities probably need not more than a few hundred megawatts per station with as short transmission lines as possible. Tornadoes love overhead lines. But the massive conurbations like California, or Houston, probably merit more than one multi gigawatt installation..
The modified 1200 MW AP1000 design used at Vogtle 3 & 4 can be used as a basis for cookie-cutter duplicates at new-build US reactor sites. This option would greatly reduce the time needed for NRC approval of large 1200 MW new-build reactors.
However, the problem with that specific option is the same one that plagued the Vogtle 3 & 4 project in the last half of its construction, after the project’s very serious management problems had been solved.
The costs for almost every industrial commodity needed from the nuclear supply chain began to rise sharply due to a variety of factors, the most important being worldwide competition for nuclear-grade systems and components.
Here in North America, regulatory approval issues are no longer the largest impediment to new-build nuclear power. Supply chain issues and their associated costs are now the largest roadblock to a nuclear expansion.
For one example, here on the North American continent, we no longer have a source of supply for the large reactor vessels used in a 1200 MW reactor system. These must come from Japan, Korea, or China; and you have to be put on a waiting list to get one.
The province of Ontario in Canada is now setting itself up to be the go-to supplier in North America for SMR nuclear systems and components. Ontario Power Generation is using the BWRX-300 design as the foundation for installing four 300 MW reactors at their Darlington site.
Why use four 300 MW reactors at a reactor site as opposed to one 1200 MW reactor?
Quality Assurance requirements for nuclear grade systems and components have a large impact on their costs. The closer you are to where those systems and components are being manufactured, these easier it is to maintain a tight end-to-end control over Quality Assurance processes.
As opposed to basic nuclear safety requirements, ALARA requirements, and LNT radiation exposure requirements — many of which are now a target for streamlining and reduction — the nuclear system Quality Assurance requirements will never go away or be reduced.
The BWRX-300 nuclear systems and components will be manufactured mostly in Ontario, thus allowing the OPG project managers to maintain tight end-to-end control over their fabrication and installation.
In addition to allowing for tighter control of costs, the other reason that OPG chose a 300 MW design is that it is about the right size for use at dispersed locations in less densely populated areas.
Did anyone sign up to deliver any item at a fixed cost between 2018 and 2022 and NOT regret?
Yes, the UAE had a four-reactor station built for them at Barakah. It was delivered ahead of schedule and under budget, entering service between 2020 and 2024.
Search Thorium Liquid Salts Cooled Reactors…..it’s a wonderful thing.
So…. is a bacon sandwich. geddit!
At least bacon butties are currently available, especially at our house.
So are wombat turds.
But for some reason no one is using them for generating electricity.
‘Green light’ given for first thorium molten salt nuclear reactor in China (interestingengineering.com)
If it works, expect to see a quick expansion of the type.
Who controls most of the uranium supply? Is it that Dictator War Criminal Putin?
Nope. Although almost half the worlds uranium is currently sourced from Khazakstan, that isn’t actually in the Russian federation any more, It is at least nominally independent.
For the USA Canada is the second biggest uranium miner, and for the far east Australia is third.
USA has plenty of it but chose to get out of the uranium mining game.
Probably anywhere that has had a gold mine has uranium nerby
Tonnes of it in the sea as well. It’s very common stuff.
So…..you are gonna mine the sea?…..get that gold and plastic while you’re racking up uranium from the sea….but thorium is more abundant than uranium?
It’s gloating time with Professor Ian Plimer-
Leading offshore wind developer ‘abandoned’ plans to build wind farm (msn.com)
The industry is chickening out with those 107 metre long blades they’ve needed to make offshore platforms reasonably stack up and there isn’t anywhere near enough taxpayer slushfunding around to entice them to risk bankruptcy.
From the above article’s third paragraph:
“The material left over from the current fleet of light-water reactors can be recycled to attain 30 times the electricity produced in the first time through.”
Ummmm . . . got any evidence—any scientific/engineering evidence at all—to support that statement???
My understanding is that today’s best “spent nuclear fuel” reprocessing facilities (probably those in France, reference their La Hague facility) stop at about the second pass of recycling due to progressive buildup of nuclear reaction “poisoning” impurities that cannot be feasibly/economically removed.
No, the statement is entirely correct.Neutron absorbing istopes can always be removed through reprocessing.
Really??? . . . all the neutron absorbing isotopes always . . . who knew?
For your information, both U-238 (at 97-95%) and U-235 (at 3-5%), the main components of “enriched uranium” fuel used in fission reactors, are considered by physicists to be “neutron absorbing isotopes”.
What’s left?
BTW, still waiting on that scientific/engineering reference regarding recycling spent nuclear fuel 30 times.
This article is nuclear power cheerleading with too much nuclear dreaming about new technology that could happen.
It assumes emission free electricity is very important which rules out gas and coal. I challenge that claim.
This pro-nuclear propaganda is topped by the following false claim:
“Nuclear power currently produces the least expensive electricity available today”
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE
If that statement was true, there would be a lot more than one nuclear power plant under construction in the US today.
The youngest U.S. nuclear power reactors, at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, were years behind schedule and billions over budget when they entered commercial operation in 2023 and 2024.
Only ONE new U.S. nuclear plants is currently being built. Natrium reactor
Construction began in June 2024 on this advanced reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming. The reactor will be cooled by sodium instead of water and will be able to generate enough energy to power 400,000 homes, it is claimed.
One of the big problems with nuclear power is the enormous upfront cost. These reactors are extremely expensive to build. It can sometimes take decades to recoup initial costs. Therefore it is difficult to get private investors to fund new plants or even new reactors. Some tech companies have been intereste in funding SMRs for their personal use but NOT shared with the general public.
Capital cost of energy production in the U.S. 2023, by technology. Nuclear energy has the highest estimated capital costs of any energy technology used in the United States. As of 2023, capital costs for nuclear power plants ranged between 8,475 and 13,925 U.S. dollars per kilowatt.
,
Negative votes again… but where is he wrong?
Nuclear power has huge capital costs, which is the primary reason its one of the most expensive methods of generating electricity by any measure. But it is cost-competitive in locations that don’t have direct access to fossil fuels. It doesn’t have to be so expensive. The regulatory burden and the cost of frivolous lawsuits filed by anti-nuclear activists are one factor that may be difficult to overcome. But another major drawback that could be overcome is the fact that every power plant is a custom build. Small modular reactors (SMR) that can be built on an assembly line and shipped to the site could potentially reduce costs significantly. Research and development of SMRs is expensive and the technology is in its infancy. It’s also complicated by large companies (Westinghouse, Rolls Royce, etc.) getting in on the government subsidies for SMR development by claiming that scaled-down versions of their large reactors are small modular reactors. They are not. They’re still custom builds, which defies the major goal of SMRs; to be small enough to be built on an assembly line to benefit from its huge construction efficiencies.
Agreed. The real problem that nuclear power is meant to deal with is if coal is unavailable for local power generation. Coal is hugely expensive to transport especially if sea transport in not available. Hence most of the world’s reactors are built where coal cannot be supplied. This is particularly true in China, India, parts of Canada and the United States, France, Sweden and Japan.It was also the reason for the location of all of Germany’s former nuclear power plants.
Very nice. Hats off to Ronald, Oliver and Steve. The only thing holding us back is ignorance and unwarranted fear.
This statement is pure nonsense. Subsidies are a very large cost. They in no way reduce the expense of wind and solar.
We no longer have the labor force to build large nuclear plants in the US at a rate of more than perhaps two per year. The industry has been under siege for years, the workforce has aged/retired/died and young people would rather create internet content. And good luck getting new people to pass the drug/alcohol testing, psychological screening and background/financial checks to staff them.
If Bill Gates or any of the other techies think they’re going to get their reactor concepts built like Musk develops his rockets they’re delusional
More than that. Western nations such as the US, Canada, Britain, France no longer have the ability to do large project engineering. The people who built and designed the world’s nuclear fleets originated out of the large-scale industrial design demands that came out of WW2 and the Cold War.As you noted, they have all long since died or retired.
The US is on a very short list of countries where nuclear energy isn’t an obvious huge win.
Our immense and low cost natural gas is cheaper and faster to build. Without a price on carbon or subsidies, every new plant would be fueled by gas.
We need MUCH more nuclear energy than now.