Roger that. We actually edited out a brief mention of LNT as a factor. Others have written extensively about the concept/issue. We're not experts in the field.
But, we liken LNT to the Prevarication Principle wrt "climate change" (The Precautionary Principle). Same deal. Apply the standard to your daily life, no human activity would occur.
Aug 17, 2023·edited Aug 18, 2023Liked by environMENTAL
environMENTAL - Excellent article about newclear energy. I like your optimistic conclusion.
My pronuclear colleagues will testify to the fact that I rarely pass up an opportunity to mention how nuclear energy's muscular competitors have played a role in creating public fears. The Malthusians were not alone in working to discourage nuclear energy development.
Competitors in coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar and biomass continue to work, sometimes even openly, to discourage the use of nuclear fission in order to create increased demand and higher prices for their products.
Just started reading your report. Find your work interesting.
4 members of our team share some of Anthony's passions (bio pic on OG's website). In fact, 2 of us will be doing same out West next week. Thanks for turning us on to your work. Energy, resources, commodities, environmental, economics, demographics, geopolitics. We live in interesting times.
Thank you. It's an amazing turaround in 13 years there. We're sure Dr. Keefer wasn't the only one responsible, same with C4NE. But, what they demonstrated and changed is a step change for Ontario. And hopefully for western nuclear power.
Can you elaborate on the main suppliers for enriched uranium? Isn’t Russia controlling around 50%? A nuclear plant needs fuels and being dependent on your enemy for it doesn’t spell security....
But, this is a political choice, a legacy of the shameful abandonment of U.S. nuclear and the generational decay of supply chain, design, fabrication, construction expertise, etc. we noted in the piece.
It would not take a herculean effort - nothing even close to a Manhattan project-level effort - to change that. And, we will. Just not overnight.
To your point, the High Assay Low Enrichment Uranium (HALEU) fuel assemblies that are increasingly common in advanced nuclear designs are nearly 100% produced overseas. Another reason why spending ~$5 trillion on "climate change" (mostly wind and solar) without proper support for nuclear has put us 20 years behind the curve.
Excellent article, environMENTAL! Please see my comments to Barry Butterfield below. These comments extend on the themes you discussed in your article. I was fortunate to have a personal connection to the late A. David Rossin, Ph.D.. I provide several relevant web links.
This is the website of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, or SARI.
Many articles are available which cover the wide literature on radiation and the untenable regulation and induced radiophobia that make nuclear power so expensive.
Human perception of risk vs. reality. Hard thing to tame. Fear and hyperbole and the internet certainly do not help overcome the gap. Thx for the link.
Danielle Smith, current premier of Alberta, has made some statements regarding using small nuclear reactors as part of future power generation in Alberta as well. Maybe Alberta will be one of those islands of sanity as well.
We've covered that superb country, and SK and southern MB, too. From northern Peace River country (been through Jordan Peterson's home town, 3 times...) through central SK, to Delta Marsh Manitoba. Some of our favorite people on earth.
There is no doubt AB's and SK's uranium, oil, and gas deposits are being constrained by Canada's current PM and his merry band of Eco-Statists. His reasons for doing so are why we started this publication. There is no reason AB shouldn't pursue nuclear energy. Candu reactors work everywhere in Canada.
Outstanding post. One of your best yet. Thank you. Readers are suggested to look at some of the writings of A. David Rossin regarding the Carter Administration's decision on reprocessing and TMI
(we struggle constantly .... should the piece be more narrative or more data/numbers? 8 months in, we won't pretend we've got it right yet. but, because of our wonderful subscribers and your feedback, we have a genuine desire to improve. thanks for being along for the ride!)
I and my wife had the good fortune to meet Dr. Rossin at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in 2007 in connection with the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee. I corresponded with him after our meeting. This meeting began my advocacy for extended DCPP operations. Per https://www.ans.org/about/presidents/arossin/ Rossin died in 2020.
See also: Federal Judge Sylvia Rambo's ruling regarding the lack of evidence connecting claimed harms and the small release of radiation at Three Mile Island in 1979.
Excellent article. I lived through the Ontario debacle, seeing very early drafts of the “feed in tariffs” then seeing how they more than doubled my power bill from 2009-2015 as the subsidies started to fade. This scheme was also the direct cause of killing the automotive industry in Ontario. And now I get to live through it all over again in California !
Aug 15, 2023·edited Aug 15, 2023Liked by environMENTAL
Nice touch, that 'newclear future' ending really says it all - bury the irrational nonsense and nuclear power as our primary energy source will win, hands down.
While innumerable numbers of people hold a paralyzing level of fear of radiation poisoning, selling the idea of powering the world with the most energy dense means ever discovered evades us. It truly is tragic that so few people can see how misplaced that fear really is.
Losing unit 2 at Three Mile Island was an economic blow. The unit had just been started and the core melt left it unusable. That said its brother, unit 1, operated successfully for 40 more years with the operating and maintenance staff never suffering any radioactive contamination despite the contaminated unit next door.
The same is true of Chernobyl, where unit 4 exploded and 28 people did lose their lives in fighting the fires, but the remaining 3 units continued to operate and produce electricity for 13 more years. The final unit closing was a Ukrainian political commitment after the fragmentation of the Soviet ended that totalitarian state, a state that in the words of Petr Beckmann, "...placing a greater value on saving concrete than citizens lives "as Chernobyl's nucs were graphite cored and uncontained, a disaster waiting to happen.
Fukushima Daiichi is a story of poorly sited reactors and inappropriately located secondary power generation for core cooling water pumps. No lives lost to radiation, but the evacuation due to again, a misplaced fear of radiation, was significant. To paraphrase Edward Teller, "protecting people from what scares them rather than what can harm them." Assuredly, Fukushima was a financial disaster but it was not a human disaster.
Some day, if our society really starts thinking clearly, we will harvest the bounty of inexpensive nuclear energy.
Once we get advanced nations past the irrational fear and accepting nuclear power, those concerned about CO2 emissions are still going to have to reckon with transport, process heat, etc. Nuclear can be part of that, but the last 25-50% of the transportation nut is going to be hard to crack.
is those possibly Spain’s Germany moment? https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/29/iberdrola-to-install-spains-first-hybrid-hydroelectric-solar-plant/
The history of the attack on nuclear is the story of LNT, linear no threshold.
If that standard applied to everything we do no human activity could occur.
There would be no lithium batteries, nor the rare earths needed for “green” tech as it all produces some negatives.
Roger that. We actually edited out a brief mention of LNT as a factor. Others have written extensively about the concept/issue. We're not experts in the field.
But, we liken LNT to the Prevarication Principle wrt "climate change" (The Precautionary Principle). Same deal. Apply the standard to your daily life, no human activity would occur.
Thanks for being a regular here.
I take seriously my position of “opinionated arsehat on the internet”.
🤪
environMENTAL - Excellent article about newclear energy. I like your optimistic conclusion.
My pronuclear colleagues will testify to the fact that I rarely pass up an opportunity to mention how nuclear energy's muscular competitors have played a role in creating public fears. The Malthusians were not alone in working to discourage nuclear energy development.
https://atomicinsights.com/how-did-leaders-of-the-hydrocarbon-establishment-build-the-foundation-for-radiation-fears/
Competitors in coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar and biomass continue to work, sometimes even openly, to discourage the use of nuclear fission in order to create increased demand and higher prices for their products.
https://atomicinsights.com/above-board-competition-in-energy-markets-finally-emerging/
As I told Oliver Stone during my interview for his film "Nuclear Now" this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's just business.
Thanks!
Energy, economics, environmental - nobody said it was going to be pretty or simple.
Fear and hyperbole are a recipe for bad policy. Always, everywhere.
The laws of physics and economics do not yield to ideology.
Good timing 🙌 we just released this today (nuclear power seems to be getting a lot of love these days!)
We suggest SMRs will be a critical part of global energy mix in next few decades with the current political and investment momentum behind it.
https://theoregongroup.substack.com/p/are-nuclear-small-modular-reactors
Just started reading your report. Find your work interesting.
4 members of our team share some of Anthony's passions (bio pic on OG's website). In fact, 2 of us will be doing same out West next week. Thanks for turning us on to your work. Energy, resources, commodities, environmental, economics, demographics, geopolitics. We live in interesting times.
Tight lines and bent rods out West 🎣 !
This has been a long time coming. I figure nuclear could cover 80% of the base load with a smattering of wind/solar and natural gas for peak usages
Something in that range. And, advanced designs will have process heat and hopefully some day economically derived syn fuels.
It's a new day. If we'll just let it be so.
Great piece. Ontario is bucking the trend on nuclear and we will be better off for it. Thanks!
They got rid of their Liberal progressives.
Alberta narrowly rejected the NDP in May and now we are starting to see sensible moves there too
Thank you. It's an amazing turaround in 13 years there. We're sure Dr. Keefer wasn't the only one responsible, same with C4NE. But, what they demonstrated and changed is a step change for Ontario. And hopefully for western nuclear power.
Can you elaborate on the main suppliers for enriched uranium? Isn’t Russia controlling around 50%? A nuclear plant needs fuels and being dependent on your enemy for it doesn’t spell security....
35-50%, depending on how one counts. Correct.
But, this is a political choice, a legacy of the shameful abandonment of U.S. nuclear and the generational decay of supply chain, design, fabrication, construction expertise, etc. we noted in the piece.
It would not take a herculean effort - nothing even close to a Manhattan project-level effort - to change that. And, we will. Just not overnight.
To your point, the High Assay Low Enrichment Uranium (HALEU) fuel assemblies that are increasingly common in advanced nuclear designs are nearly 100% produced overseas. Another reason why spending ~$5 trillion on "climate change" (mostly wind and solar) without proper support for nuclear has put us 20 years behind the curve.
It will take a while to design and build the new plants
In the same timeframe we will rebuild the fuel stock supply chain
https://youtu.be/FssWyldTXWQ
Excellent article, environMENTAL! Please see my comments to Barry Butterfield below. These comments extend on the themes you discussed in your article. I was fortunate to have a personal connection to the late A. David Rossin, Ph.D.. I provide several relevant web links.
He's the type of expert we'd have enjoyed meeting. Thanks for the links.
For amore detailed rebuttal of the perceived danger of nuclear power and radiation in general, (using scientific means) please see
radiationeffects.org.
This is the website of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, or SARI.
Many articles are available which cover the wide literature on radiation and the untenable regulation and induced radiophobia that make nuclear power so expensive.
Human perception of risk vs. reality. Hard thing to tame. Fear and hyperbole and the internet certainly do not help overcome the gap. Thx for the link.
Danielle Smith, current premier of Alberta, has made some statements regarding using small nuclear reactors as part of future power generation in Alberta as well. Maybe Alberta will be one of those islands of sanity as well.
We've covered that superb country, and SK and southern MB, too. From northern Peace River country (been through Jordan Peterson's home town, 3 times...) through central SK, to Delta Marsh Manitoba. Some of our favorite people on earth.
There is no doubt AB's and SK's uranium, oil, and gas deposits are being constrained by Canada's current PM and his merry band of Eco-Statists. His reasons for doing so are why we started this publication. There is no reason AB shouldn't pursue nuclear energy. Candu reactors work everywhere in Canada.
Great Article.
Also see this take on Putin's Ploy :
Putin's Ploy Achieved: Final Shut Down of Germany's Nuclear Power Plants
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/putins-ploy-achieved-final-shut-down
Thanks!
(re: Putin, give 'em an opening and expect him to exploit it)
Outstanding post. One of your best yet. Thank you. Readers are suggested to look at some of the writings of A. David Rossin regarding the Carter Administration's decision on reprocessing and TMI
Thanks!
(we struggle constantly .... should the piece be more narrative or more data/numbers? 8 months in, we won't pretend we've got it right yet. but, because of our wonderful subscribers and your feedback, we have a genuine desire to improve. thanks for being along for the ride!)
Here's some relevant readings from April, 1997 via the PBS Frontline website. They examined several issues connected with nuclear power. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/
I recommend the spent fuel reprocessing analysis by A. David Rossin, Ph.D. at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html
I and my wife had the good fortune to meet Dr. Rossin at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in 2007 in connection with the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee. I corresponded with him after our meeting. This meeting began my advocacy for extended DCPP operations. Per https://www.ans.org/about/presidents/arossin/ Rossin died in 2020.
See also: Federal Judge Sylvia Rambo's ruling regarding the lack of evidence connecting claimed harms and the small release of radiation at Three Mile Island in 1979.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
and Why the French like nuclear energy:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
Always grateful for the comments and links, Dr. Nelson. Thank you.
We are rooting for you and those working in CA to try and change it there.
Excellent article. I lived through the Ontario debacle, seeing very early drafts of the “feed in tariffs” then seeing how they more than doubled my power bill from 2009-2015 as the subsidies started to fade. This scheme was also the direct cause of killing the automotive industry in Ontario. And now I get to live through it all over again in California !
Thank you. If sane energy policy is an element of your choice of where to live, you might want to go back to Ontario!
Nice touch, that 'newclear future' ending really says it all - bury the irrational nonsense and nuclear power as our primary energy source will win, hands down.
While innumerable numbers of people hold a paralyzing level of fear of radiation poisoning, selling the idea of powering the world with the most energy dense means ever discovered evades us. It truly is tragic that so few people can see how misplaced that fear really is.
Losing unit 2 at Three Mile Island was an economic blow. The unit had just been started and the core melt left it unusable. That said its brother, unit 1, operated successfully for 40 more years with the operating and maintenance staff never suffering any radioactive contamination despite the contaminated unit next door.
The same is true of Chernobyl, where unit 4 exploded and 28 people did lose their lives in fighting the fires, but the remaining 3 units continued to operate and produce electricity for 13 more years. The final unit closing was a Ukrainian political commitment after the fragmentation of the Soviet ended that totalitarian state, a state that in the words of Petr Beckmann, "...placing a greater value on saving concrete than citizens lives "as Chernobyl's nucs were graphite cored and uncontained, a disaster waiting to happen.
Fukushima Daiichi is a story of poorly sited reactors and inappropriately located secondary power generation for core cooling water pumps. No lives lost to radiation, but the evacuation due to again, a misplaced fear of radiation, was significant. To paraphrase Edward Teller, "protecting people from what scares them rather than what can harm them." Assuredly, Fukushima was a financial disaster but it was not a human disaster.
Some day, if our society really starts thinking clearly, we will harvest the bounty of inexpensive nuclear energy.
Once we get advanced nations past the irrational fear and accepting nuclear power, those concerned about CO2 emissions are still going to have to reckon with transport, process heat, etc. Nuclear can be part of that, but the last 25-50% of the transportation nut is going to be hard to crack.
Most excellent write-up, EM. Thanks so much for making it public!
All our content is public for all of 2023.
And, into 2024 for a period of time as well.
Thanks for being here and contributing to the effort.
Great article - love the history lesson!
Thank you!