I'm glad that Texas is going big on this but with their profit centric utilities I highly doubt you'll get the $10 electric bill. I lived in Fort Worth for 14 years and only had "cheap" electric bills around 2006-2008. Ever since, Ercot has been gouging a place that should have ridiculously cheap energy considering it's massive oil, natural gas, solar, and wind resources (plus existing nuclear plants). I pay far less in NM these days, I wish they'd put the nuke's here.
This reminds me of the days when the San Onofre nuclear plant in CA was built--before regulations and environmental issues made the industry top heavy. Even then the promise of almost free energy never came to fruition (I remember this as a fifth grader whose class went on a field trip to tour the shiny new plant). Is it it because of unforeseen costs or too many greedy hands feeding at the trough?
The problem is that you over do and end up sounding like a shill for the nuclear industry. You're the flip side of the anti nuclear zealots. This was interesting information for sure but would have been much more credible if u had explored the pros and cons of this technology honestly
If there are no cons then why haven't the nuclear reactors used in submarines spread to other uses? I'm not convinced. Remember the prediction when what are now old nuclear reactors were new? That we would have electricity too cheap to meter? You show us hype instead of evidence.
The author addressed why they haven't spread. Because of the regulatory environment which is supported by the popular media-induced fear of nuclear. Ever today he speaks of having to install the initial units in places like the Philippines in order to embarrass US regulators into changing their tunes.
Being that conventional nuclear is a mature, well understood energy source, with its known downsides being cost, time and waste disposal, I think the author made a good job of addressing all three.
The article is optimistic and I like optimistic and the comments below are excellent, the pros and cons. I especially liked the cons, not because I am in the slightest against this technology but because I can get too optimistic and need some grounding so my eyes see reality, not dreams... thanks to all, above and below !!
I have evolved in my assessment and enthusiasm for nuclear energy. Without question, it is our best hope to sustain the exponential energy demands of AI. Billions have been poured into solar and wind, intermittent sources that depend on weather and require costly storage (massive batteries) and maintenance. Nuclear, like fossil fuels, provides a continuous, reliable power supply, making it far cheaper & efficient. It's exciting to see the innovation coming to nuclear energy.
Great article and who could argue against cheap, clean burning energy other than those who might see n erosion of profit margins. I guess my only fear is the proliferation of nuclear reactors combined with bad actor hackers. Can nuclear energy proliferation really be made foolproof safe? If so, I’m all in. As we’ve seen with Irans nuclear centrifuges, any system controlled by computers can be hacked.
I wish for nuclear’s success, but the problem not mentioned is that if every industrial plant has their own reactor, how do you monitor what they are doing with the waste?
Nuclear waste is minor technical issue. All high level waste in the US could be fit into a dozen football fields. THAT said, nuclear waste IS a major emotional issue.
IF (a big IF) a small nuclear reactor does not have to be refueled for 10+ years, replace it with a new one.
The old reactor is has waste that can then be processed.
Tic-toking your idea sounds plausible. Young people today believe climate change, not world hunger or geo—political events are our greatest threat. Help them understand this to enable a cleaner energy source.
You didn't mention why the industry is not using the proven nuclear power from ships on shore. Why the need for testing, prototypes etc.? Is there an issue that is preventing the existing technology being used on land?
I am all for the new nuclear renaissance. As an engineer officer on one of those nuclear-powered submarines and instructor at a cutting-edge prototype reactor in the distant past (1970's), I am a true believer in our ability to generate tremendous amount of safe energy with the nuclear technology. Safety was and is the bed rock of the Navy's use of nuclear power. New nuclear will flourish to the extent small reactors can not only ensure complete safety but convince a skeptical public. The good news is that this generation of "public" is learning from recent history and technology and not from past trauma.
Thank you, interesting article. The figure I never see is how much it would cost for the world's energy supply (or x% of its energy supply) to be powered by nuclear. Have you a figure?
I once took a tour of a nuclear reactor and they emphasized security from armed assailants. Those costs per watt should increase as plants get smaller.
I'm glad that Texas is going big on this but with their profit centric utilities I highly doubt you'll get the $10 electric bill. I lived in Fort Worth for 14 years and only had "cheap" electric bills around 2006-2008. Ever since, Ercot has been gouging a place that should have ridiculously cheap energy considering it's massive oil, natural gas, solar, and wind resources (plus existing nuclear plants). I pay far less in NM these days, I wish they'd put the nuke's here.
This reminds me of the days when the San Onofre nuclear plant in CA was built--before regulations and environmental issues made the industry top heavy. Even then the promise of almost free energy never came to fruition (I remember this as a fifth grader whose class went on a field trip to tour the shiny new plant). Is it it because of unforeseen costs or too many greedy hands feeding at the trough?
The problem is that you over do and end up sounding like a shill for the nuclear industry. You're the flip side of the anti nuclear zealots. This was interesting information for sure but would have been much more credible if u had explored the pros and cons of this technology honestly
There aren't any significant cons. That is the point - we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not embracing nuclear.
The only real con is the high cost of nuclear, but that is a result of the regulatory freeze, and very fixable.
If there are no cons then why haven't the nuclear reactors used in submarines spread to other uses? I'm not convinced. Remember the prediction when what are now old nuclear reactors were new? That we would have electricity too cheap to meter? You show us hype instead of evidence.
The author addressed why they haven't spread. Because of the regulatory environment which is supported by the popular media-induced fear of nuclear. Ever today he speaks of having to install the initial units in places like the Philippines in order to embarrass US regulators into changing their tunes.
Being that conventional nuclear is a mature, well understood energy source, with its known downsides being cost, time and waste disposal, I think the author made a good job of addressing all three.
Keep the positive news coming gentlemen.
I want my grandsons to grow up in a world of possibilities, not as the nay sayers in some of the commentors.
The article is optimistic and I like optimistic and the comments below are excellent, the pros and cons. I especially liked the cons, not because I am in the slightest against this technology but because I can get too optimistic and need some grounding so my eyes see reality, not dreams... thanks to all, above and below !!
I have evolved in my assessment and enthusiasm for nuclear energy. Without question, it is our best hope to sustain the exponential energy demands of AI. Billions have been poured into solar and wind, intermittent sources that depend on weather and require costly storage (massive batteries) and maintenance. Nuclear, like fossil fuels, provides a continuous, reliable power supply, making it far cheaper & efficient. It's exciting to see the innovation coming to nuclear energy.
Great article and who could argue against cheap, clean burning energy other than those who might see n erosion of profit margins. I guess my only fear is the proliferation of nuclear reactors combined with bad actor hackers. Can nuclear energy proliferation really be made foolproof safe? If so, I’m all in. As we’ve seen with Irans nuclear centrifuges, any system controlled by computers can be hacked.
Why no mention of breeder reactors that use nuclear waste instead of just burying it?
I wish for nuclear’s success, but the problem not mentioned is that if every industrial plant has their own reactor, how do you monitor what they are doing with the waste?
Nuclear waste is minor technical issue. All high level waste in the US could be fit into a dozen football fields. THAT said, nuclear waste IS a major emotional issue.
IF (a big IF) a small nuclear reactor does not have to be refueled for 10+ years, replace it with a new one.
The old reactor is has waste that can then be processed.
I hope so. I hadn’t thought that the whole reactor could be replaced when the fuel is spent, instead of having periodic removal of waste.
Tic-toking your idea sounds plausible. Young people today believe climate change, not world hunger or geo—political events are our greatest threat. Help them understand this to enable a cleaner energy source.
You didn't mention why the industry is not using the proven nuclear power from ships on shore. Why the need for testing, prototypes etc.? Is there an issue that is preventing the existing technology being used on land?
I am all for the new nuclear renaissance. As an engineer officer on one of those nuclear-powered submarines and instructor at a cutting-edge prototype reactor in the distant past (1970's), I am a true believer in our ability to generate tremendous amount of safe energy with the nuclear technology. Safety was and is the bed rock of the Navy's use of nuclear power. New nuclear will flourish to the extent small reactors can not only ensure complete safety but convince a skeptical public. The good news is that this generation of "public" is learning from recent history and technology and not from past trauma.
People are afraid of change. A lot of folks wanted to improve the horse.
Thank you, interesting article. The figure I never see is how much it would cost for the world's energy supply (or x% of its energy supply) to be powered by nuclear. Have you a figure?
I once took a tour of a nuclear reactor and they emphasized security from armed assailants. Those costs per watt should increase as plants get smaller.
You wrote, "America’s first liquid salt-fuelled reactor in Abilene, Texas.". Did you mean salt-fueled, or salt-cooled? Pretty sure you meant cooled.
Why not thorium reactors? From what I have read it is safer that uranium. Reports indicate that China has developed thorium reactor technology.