We really want these guys to succeed.
After all, if you have indeed solved all the problems associated with nuclear energy, ie no waste, no emissions, no accident risk, no weapons proliferation risk, and you can do it at a competitive price – who would be against that?
The thing a lot of the facile nuclear supporters don’t get is just how daunting the challenges are to get this party started.
What I tell my pro nuclear friends is:
You should support the rapid development of solar and wind energy, which is technology that exists right now and is economically viable – because there is no decarbonizing scenario that does not include a LOT of solar and wind.
What I tell my anti-nuclear friends is:
You should support the rapid development of solar and wind energy, which is technology that exists right now and is economically viable – because there is no decarbonizing scenario that does not include a LOT of solar and wind, and the projections indicate that it’s going to be a while before nuclear gets here, and in the meantime a LOT of innovation is going on that might very well make nuclear irrelevant – but don’t form circular firing squads against the large numbers of smart people who have funding and will be working on this.
Let’s just have the competition and get going, for God’s sake.
Uranium enrichment is getting underway this week at a facility in southern Ohio, a federally authorized demonstration project considered critical to produce the type of fuel needed for newer, more efficient nuclear reactors.
Bethesda, Maryland-based Centrus Energy Corp. will be producing the high-assay, low-enriched uranium at the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, about 68 miles (109 kilometers) south of Columbus. That form of uranium contains far more of the isotope U-235 than is typically found in current nuclear reactor fuel.
At an event on Wednesday, Centrus chief executive and president Daniel Poneman called it “the first launch of a new U.S. technology uranium enrichment plant to begin production in this country since 1954,” the Columbus Dispatch reported. He said it will fuel smaller and more efficient nuclear reactors that will have longer operating cycles as well as fuel for existing reactors.
The 3,800-acre (1,500 hectare) site was where uranium had been enriched until 2001 at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Poneman said the U.S. has since become the world’s biggest importer of enriched uranium. Cleanup and decontamination of the Portsmouth plant are continuing.
Centrus now has 125 workers there, but hundreds more may be added.
Jonathan Rauch in the Atlantic:
The Real Obstacle to Nuclear Power – it’s not environmentalists—it’s the nuclear-power industry itself.
And so environmentalists, I thought, were betraying the environment by stigmatizing nuclear power. But I had to revise my view. Even without green opposition, nuclear power as we knew it would have fizzled—today’s environmentalists are not the main obstacle to its wide adoption.
—
So, in this case, what happened is, the “new” nuclear industry has been struggling to get its footing for 20 years, finally looked like it was getting there, when Russia invaded Ukraine, and shut off natural gas to Europe, making clear it was going to use its energy resources as a weapon against global democracy.
At which point, key players in the US nuclear space went “Doh! Maybe relying on Russia to fuel our next generation of reactors is not a good idea!”
Cue a scramble to get most of a billion dollars into the Inflation Reduction Act, to jumpstart a US based industry to produce High Assay, Low Enrichment Uranium (HALEU), now playing out in Ohio, as described above.
More than 20 U.S. companies are developing advanced reactors that will completely change the way we think about the nuclear industry.
Most of these new reactor designs will be smaller, more flexible and less expensive to build and operate. Some of them may consume used nuclear fuel or help bring clean water and reliable power to communities never thought possible.
The majority of these designs will require a fuel that isn’t yet available at a commercial scale.
It’s what the industry calls high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU for short, and these companies can’t bring their reactors to life without it.
What is High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium?
Our existing fleet of reactors runs on uranium fuel that is enriched up to 5% with uranium-235—the main fissile isotope that produces energy during a chain reaction.
By definition, HALEU is enriched between 5% and 20% and is required for most U.S. advanced reactors to achieve smaller designs that get more power per unit of volume. HALEU will also allow developers to optimize their systems for longer life cores, increased efficiencies and better fuel utilization.
—
If the process works, and no reason to believe it won’t, new reactors should start coming on line in the 2030 time frame. Presumably any potential customers will want to see a bit of a demonstration before they dive in with big investments.
The nuclear industry is betting that renewable energy will somehow become a lot more costly than it is today, or that, there will be some kind of taxpayer funding to jumpstart enough production to gain the anticipated economies of scale – the whole rationale for the idea of assembly-line produced small reactors.
Below, Jon Ball, an executive with GE/Hitachi Nuclear, which has its own Small Modular Reactor (SMR) design, states that a Levelized Cost of Energy or 60$ MWhr from their technology is “achievable”. A recent poll of industry experts predicted such a price by 2050.
For comparison, see Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy numbers for 2021, below the vid.
Finally, Electrical engineer Arjun Makhijani PhD raises some questions about the high bar the industry has to get over to get rolling. You need mass manufacturing to get economies of scale, and you need economies of scale to get big orders (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) to bring that cost down, to where it’s attractive for customers to step up.
What you tell your friends is exactly what I’d tell my friends (if I had any).
FWIW, that Levelized Cost of Energy chart is from 2020.
I’ve come to realize that things are changing fast enough, both in terms of climate status and the energy market, that data ages very quickly.
Also, bear in mind that residential solar is as much about energy reliability as it is about energy cost, and not having to fire up a fossil fuel generator every time storms take out power lines in your area.
That Lazard chart leaves out the small print and footnotes – that operating nuclear plants’ mean cost of production is lower than the mean for any other power source. At $31/MWh, it’s exactly half the median for combined cycle gas, and would be even lower compared to the open cycle or reciprocating diesel gas plants that come in as peakers when solar flags. Also that the cost range for new nuclear is based solely on the Vogtle plant in Georgia, the first entirely new build in America for forty years. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Most of the front-runners in the SMR race use exactly the same fuel as current reactors – the GE/Hitachi and Westinghouse 300 MW designs, the Rolls Royce 470 MW proposal, and the Nuscale 77 MW unit. The large reactors could also benefit from slightly higher enrichment – Vogtle unit 2 has just been cleared to use fuel with up to 6% U235, which should allow longer full-power runs between refuelling outages.
There’s already an enrichment plant in New Mexico that has proposed making HALEU, but since it’s not US owned (Urenco is a UK/German/Dutch consortium) it wasn’t eligible for federal pork.
Let’s just have the competition and get going, for gods sake.
The Real Obstacle to Nuclear Power – it’s not environmentalists—it’s the nuclear-power industry itself.
The hell it’s not ‘environmentalists’! From construction, use, decommissioning to waste disposal, obstruction is automatic and constant. And based on the entertainment media not science.
This post includes an Associated Press article that refers to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and says, “Cleanup and decontamination of the Portsmouth plant are continuing.” The latest episode of the Nuclear Hotseat podcast contains an interview with Dr. Michael Ketterer, who discusses his measurements of the contamination from the Portsmouth plant.
Dr. Ketterer also discusses his measurements of plutonium contamination fallout in California from the nuclear bomb testing.
At the end of this podcast there is also discussion of the new film “SOS: San Onofre Syndrome,” which just had its world premiere at the Awareness Film Festival and won the top honor. When the podcast was recorded, there was some confusion about when the online streaming of this film would occur. It incorrectly said this would be Friday, Oct. 13. However, the correct date is SUNDAY, OCTOBER 15 at 5:00 PM Pacific Time. The web page for the podcast includes a link to where you can purchase a ticket for the online streaming. After you purchase a ticket, you should receive an email with info on how to view the film screening and also an intro to the filmmaking team and a live Q&A session after the screening. You can also hear an interview with the filmmakers on the earlier Nuclear Hotseat episode #640.
NH #642: RADIATION! Piketon, OH Demolition Releases, Nevada Test Site Fallout in E. California, RECA Implications – Dr. Michael Ketterer
https://nuclearhotseat.com/podcast/radiation-piketon-nevada-test-fallout-ca/
>
And immediately the obstruction is dug up, no attempt to find solutions. Just smug self righteousness while the world cooks.
You mistake protests for obstruction.
Anti-nuclear protests have accomplished very little compared to the failures and bloated costs of the nuclear industry itself. We are talking about roughly one hundred nuclear accidents including about two dozen core meltdowns. Nuclear reactors are expensive because they have to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
We are talking about cost overrun after cost overrun, delayed construction after delayed construction, and a finished cost for electricity that works out to at least five times higher than inherently safe technologies.
Protestors, indeed!
Protesting wind farms, solar farms, hydro dams and nuclear power. All consider themselves right, all are done to OBSTRUCT their construction and all are culpable in the ongoing destruction of our home exosphere.
Nukear is the safest conventional power by a mile, safer than wind, have seen no numbers for solar. Look it up.
Not cost effective to save the world is a argument I disagree with.
That whistling noise is my point going over your head. Nuclear has failed on its own merits exactly as I just described. The small number of anti-nuclear protesters had nothing to do with it.
You are not the first pro nuclear booster I have encountered to assert without evidence that nuclear’s failings should be ascribed to a few protestors. The assertion is preposterous in the face of cold hard facts:
1) Nuclear is expensive because it is hard to do without catastrophic failure.
2) Nuclear takes decades to build.
3) Nuclear is too expensive compared to wind, solar hydro, geothermal.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
The world is burning, wake up and smell the smoke
1) Nuclear is expensive because it is hard to do without catastrophic failure.
Is the safest, look up FACTS not hollywood. Again, not cost effective to save the world?
2) Nuclear takes decades to build.
Koreans just built 4 in 12 years. China building dozens, quickest in 31/2 years, median build time 41/2 years. France built dozens last bldy century. Has been done, Can be done except in 21st century west.
3) Nuclear is too expensive compared to wind,
solar hydro, geothermal.
Unfortunately wind solar cannot do it without backup. More hydro would be loverly but protesters stop new hydro. (Do you want to dispute that?) Geothermal is in the wishful thinking box till further notice.
You are not the first layperson I have encountered to be selective in choice of opinions.
A guy I follow called Jack Devanney reckons that today’s nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar – when intermittency is compensated for – but that’s still too expensive to save the climate. It has to be cheaper than coal and oil, or the developing countries will use those to get out of poverty.
He started out commissioning oil tankers (including some of the world’s largest) and claims reactors could be built using the same methods that South Korean shipyards use. His online book is ‘Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop’.