I've been tracking nuclear since reading a book on fusion in 1961 -- Tokamaks were going to be ready to commercialize in about 10 years. The latest, biggest Tokamak, which will be nowhere near commercial, just got delayed until (I believe) 2034. These have been sucking up all the development money.
But for the last five years I've been seeing terrific progress in fission designs. They can now burn radioactive waste, they don't produce bomb grade material, and they don't run under super-high pressure, so they can't de-pressurize an melt down. But this has been done on shoestrings of private funding.
Even James Hansen, the #1 climate scientist for the environmental movement, has been saying nuclear is necessary for about 15 years. But most (not all) environmentalists have refused to listen to him.
This new bill could really turn things around. Not just for the US, but for the world.
I think it's the biggest climate news since I got into climate science almost 20 years ago.
Lots of "environmental" groups got in bed with fossil fuel people. Nuclear power is dangerous, Only to the fossil fuel lobby- it can replace them. NRDC & Sierra Club ran brilliant anti-coal campaigns, partly funded by the gas frackers. (They claim not-anymore.) Wiki "anti-nuclear movement" and you will see otherwise useful pro-nature groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE) who got their founding funding from Atlantic Richfield's head, Big Oil. So they were born anti-nuclear power. And they are preaching to their old base.
The gas industry loves "100% renewable wind and solar only" schemes - because that cements demand for more expensive gas. Gas would remain the essential fuel to keep the heat and lights on. Wind and solar provide cheap intermittent energy, so frack-Gas providers make more money, producing less gas. Gas burners and stockpilers reap high prices on the real time market thanks to renewable chaos.
This is a great post. More important than mine, which is up top. Give this a heart, I did. It is true however that replacing coal with gas reduced CO2 significantly. How/why did you learn all this?
Natural gas can be used in a similar way to coal, it is a dispoatchable fuel. When demand is highjer, you burn more of it to feed the grid. Since gas has a smaller carbon footprint, replacing coal with natural gas has led to reducing our emissions:
Actually natural gas is vastly more dispatchable than coal. But yes, I agree, "reduced CO2 significantly" means "a smaller carbon footprint." Newer gas turbines are almost the same as jet engines and can be started and ramped up in 10 minutes. Coal takes hours. They often run coal plants at a low level all night even when the price is negative, because it's cheaper than starting and stopping them. Coal is "base load" and gas turbines are "peakers"--used to serve peak load. Combined cycle gas is a little of both, can serve as baseload, and has the smallest "carbon footprint."
But again, Sue Jones' post is the best. So be sure to like it!!
great article. thanks for writing it! speaking as an energy innovator and industrial physicist, i think we have a clear choice between (i) absorbing, managing and dealing with the risks associated with nuclear power, or (ii) giving up, admitting total defeat and allowing the entire human project to collapse.
Churchill said something like Americans will always do the right thing but only after trying everything else. It’s the year 2024, and we’ve tried every other available technology while emissions continue to increase. Nuclear is the logical bridging technology.
I am not opposed to nuclear, but every time I talk to somebody about it, they can never tell me where the waste will go? Poor ol' Nevada again? Anything innovative on the waste disposal front?
Nuclear waste is stored in big, safe, multi layered containers. Store them underground and it will be fine. You could even crash a train on them and they won't leak
The problem of nuclear waste has been blown all out of proportion. All the high level waste, if stacked on a football field, would be about 30 ft high. We don’t want to do that, but the volume is clearly manageable. Activists quote tonnage because the numbers are scary. Nuclear waste is very dense.
Nuclear waste can be used to generate power with only minor reprocessing. Using it that way renders it much less dangerous.
Remember the wandering garbage barge nobody would accept? Nuclear waste is like that one barge; politicians don’t want to be seen with it.
This is great news, and an excellent article!
I've been tracking nuclear since reading a book on fusion in 1961 -- Tokamaks were going to be ready to commercialize in about 10 years. The latest, biggest Tokamak, which will be nowhere near commercial, just got delayed until (I believe) 2034. These have been sucking up all the development money.
But for the last five years I've been seeing terrific progress in fission designs. They can now burn radioactive waste, they don't produce bomb grade material, and they don't run under super-high pressure, so they can't de-pressurize an melt down. But this has been done on shoestrings of private funding.
Even James Hansen, the #1 climate scientist for the environmental movement, has been saying nuclear is necessary for about 15 years. But most (not all) environmentalists have refused to listen to him.
This new bill could really turn things around. Not just for the US, but for the world.
I think it's the biggest climate news since I got into climate science almost 20 years ago.
Lots of "environmental" groups got in bed with fossil fuel people. Nuclear power is dangerous, Only to the fossil fuel lobby- it can replace them. NRDC & Sierra Club ran brilliant anti-coal campaigns, partly funded by the gas frackers. (They claim not-anymore.) Wiki "anti-nuclear movement" and you will see otherwise useful pro-nature groups like Friends of the Earth (FOE) who got their founding funding from Atlantic Richfield's head, Big Oil. So they were born anti-nuclear power. And they are preaching to their old base.
The gas industry loves "100% renewable wind and solar only" schemes - because that cements demand for more expensive gas. Gas would remain the essential fuel to keep the heat and lights on. Wind and solar provide cheap intermittent energy, so frack-Gas providers make more money, producing less gas. Gas burners and stockpilers reap high prices on the real time market thanks to renewable chaos.
This is a great post. More important than mine, which is up top. Give this a heart, I did. It is true however that replacing coal with gas reduced CO2 significantly. How/why did you learn all this?
Natural gas can be used in a similar way to coal, it is a dispoatchable fuel. When demand is highjer, you burn more of it to feed the grid. Since gas has a smaller carbon footprint, replacing coal with natural gas has led to reducing our emissions:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296
Actually natural gas is vastly more dispatchable than coal. But yes, I agree, "reduced CO2 significantly" means "a smaller carbon footprint." Newer gas turbines are almost the same as jet engines and can be started and ramped up in 10 minutes. Coal takes hours. They often run coal plants at a low level all night even when the price is negative, because it's cheaper than starting and stopping them. Coal is "base load" and gas turbines are "peakers"--used to serve peak load. Combined cycle gas is a little of both, can serve as baseload, and has the smallest "carbon footprint."
But again, Sue Jones' post is the best. So be sure to like it!!
The anti nuclear activists are quite open about delaying projects expressly to make them uneconomic.
great article. thanks for writing it! speaking as an energy innovator and industrial physicist, i think we have a clear choice between (i) absorbing, managing and dealing with the risks associated with nuclear power, or (ii) giving up, admitting total defeat and allowing the entire human project to collapse.
Churchill said something like Americans will always do the right thing but only after trying everything else. It’s the year 2024, and we’ve tried every other available technology while emissions continue to increase. Nuclear is the logical bridging technology.
I am not opposed to nuclear, but every time I talk to somebody about it, they can never tell me where the waste will go? Poor ol' Nevada again? Anything innovative on the waste disposal front?
What exactly would be the problem with the waste in Nevada?
It could also be recycled to get more nuclear power https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html
Nuclear waste is stored in big, safe, multi layered containers. Store them underground and it will be fine. You could even crash a train on them and they won't leak
It’s like that famously wandering garbage barge. No politician wanted to be associated with it.
The problem of nuclear waste has been blown all out of proportion. All the high level waste, if stacked on a football field, would be about 30 ft high. We don’t want to do that, but the volume is clearly manageable. Activists quote tonnage because the numbers are scary. Nuclear waste is very dense.
Nuclear waste can be used to generate power with only minor reprocessing. Using it that way renders it much less dangerous.
Remember the wandering garbage barge nobody would accept? Nuclear waste is like that one barge; politicians don’t want to be seen with it.