Mental, brilliant article as usual. While reading your writing I thought to myself, "surely this must be an article out of The Onion." It seems only yesterday that the democratic politicians were vehemently against nuclear and now some are openly encouraging it. I suppose we can take solace in knowing we were pro-nuke, "before it was cool."
Keep banging out these insightful and educational pieces.
Please accept my apologies for being so late to this party. An excellent piece and up to your accustomed standards. Thank you.
Seeing the picture of Hanoi Jane got me to thinking. Since the release of China Syndrome and Jimmy Carter's headlong embrace of coal, the US has installed 107 GW of coal plants. (EIA, 2017). Collectively, these plants have produced over 17 TWH of energy over the years, and emitted quite a large number of tons of carbon dioxide, which Jane and her cronies believe have caused catastrophic weather extremes.
OK, now that the picture has been painted, a question: if California is suing Exxon Mobil for wreaking climate havoc, why aren't they suing Jane Fonda at the same time and for the same purpose? Her link to climate change is as palpable as any fossil fuel, if not more so for the fear and loathing her work perpetrated? It would be entirely appropriate to add Barry Commoner and Ralph Nader to that lawsuit (Bernie Sanders, AOC and Markey would be good add-ons as well). Have any of the academic climate modelers evaluated a "global warming scenario" where those 107 GW were instead nuclear, having essentially zero emissions?
We exist in an age where finger-pointing and scapegoating are accepted as legitimate forms of argument and where tactical science, as Roger Pielke, Jr. has labeled it, becomes standard practice. Ever being the contrarian, I'm simply asking, albeit sarcastically, what if rational thought would have prevailed in 1979? Of course, rational thought is as much a rarity these days as it was then, so perhaps I ask too much.
Yes, yes, yes...I know the saying "if pigs had wings they'd be eagles," but my question is more to the point of underscoring the consequences of a policy decision, and to reaffirm yet another "old saying:" the dildo of consequences seldom arrived lubed!
We're not so sure about her influence. Don't want to give her too much credit. Timing was fortuitous. Had the movie never been made, but TMI accident had occurred, it probably would have had the same effect. "Environmentalists" were already after nuclear hard, and the oil/gas/coal business wasn't apt to stand in their way or lend a hand to nuclear. So, her effect was limited in our view. Timing, on the other hand, did help (hurt?).
In our part of the world, we say "if pigs had wings they'd fly". But we don't go as far as saying they'd be eagles. ;)
The small modular reactors are the ones I'm the most excited about. When people ask about safety I just point out that we've got dozens of reactors floating around in navy ships with zero incidencts for hundreds of thousands of operational hours in combat zones.
It would be great if we could overcome our fear. Here's a complementary essay on the same topic.
Great promise. But, complicated. New fuels, different civil infrastructure designs/requirements. For some, the overnight capital cost per Mwe looks like it may be as high or higher than the large light water pressurized reactors like AP-1000s.
I apologize for my obvious ignorance, but in your first graph I initially cried "foul!" as I wondered how generation could possibly be greater than capacity. But then I saw that the former is measured in MWh while that latter is MW. Asking for your help to explain the difference. Thanks
One is capacity and the other is real power delivered. Watts is the rate of energy a machine is capable of either using or delivering. Watt.Hours integrates the total energy delivered over time.
I like "hard green". They acquire and optimize land for a specific set of species. And all of their projects benefit other species as well. Ducks Unlimited does a very nice job of this. I've been to their HQs in Memphis to discuss projects with them. There are many other examples of habitat preservation across wide landscapes having massive effects.
The groups I support are Trout, Unlimited and Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. I quit the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and several others.
Here is a real-life paper on the waste isolation pilot plant in NM. Also I worked on what we called Yucky Mountain Waste repository in Nevada. That was always political, never scientific. Then there's the nuclear power plant in NC. The is the media report on that follows. I neither trust the government (having worked for them), nor the media, but perhaps you do. It is no doubt easier to be cavalier about possible radiation exposure with cancer as a result if you don't have experience of it.
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- Wake County reported emergency sirens went off at the Duke Energy Harris Nuclear Plant in southwest Raleigh Monday morning.
There is no emergency, officials said, and the public needs no protective action.
A Duke Energy spokesperson told ABC11 the plant is operating safely.
My mother and sister died from cancers. They lived very close to TMI in York, PA. My husband died from 2 cancers. I have had cancer with a recurrence. We both worked for Los Alamos National Lab and visited the Nevada Test Site, he more often than I.
The government admits culpability with their EEOIC programs (energy employees occupational illness compensation). I want to post something from CCNS, a local group that monitors LANL nuclear activities. It's long. Maybe I'll post it as a note.
Sorry for your and the family's cancer bouts. Know how rough that is. Is the DOE/govt. paying any of those claims (medical bills, wage loss benefits) in relation to cancer claims as a result of the work/in the course of the work at those labs/test sites?
Oh, TMI neither paid for anything nor admitted culpability. I have to admit I haven't followed up closely to find out if there were statistically increased cancer deaths after the melt down. St George Utah in the path of the fallout from the Nevada Test Site had had statistically significant increases in cancers and deaths.
You may decide that everyone in my family gets cancer. My late husband and I moved away from PA in 1966. Two of my sisters moved away before TMI. Neither of them got cancer, FWIW. Of course, my husband and I are not related by blood, so that's not relevant either.
Thanks for the look at the history of nuclear over the last half century. Not being much of a moviegoer, I never watched "The China Syndrome" - didn't have any idea what it was about until now. Despite there still being lots of opposition to nuclear, I'm encouraged by recent signs of a trend toward bipartisanship. It would be great if a sensible relaxation of regulations and permitting led to lower costs and faster builds.
I’m not sure the pushback will amount to much. Nukes have been a forbidden topic all these years, but as soon as the big tech companies need power, it becomes ok? I realize that I’m in full conspiracy mode, but it’s no coincidence that when the “information managers” wanted to change the message, the message changed in an instant. This is separate from the point about whether nuclear is needed and safe (it is). But I’m not going to climb on board with these scoundrels just because I like the new message.
Fair enough. They give you good reason to be suspicious.
In this case, it could be as simple as the fact that no politician is going to survive an election when the lights go out to your house in order to provide juice to Big Tech/AI. So, AI had to figure something else out.
What they will figure out first is the low hanging fruit and the long-term solution to their growing power needs. The LHF are places like Palisades, TMI, etc. and nat gas. They all realize that there is zero chance of nonreliables ever providing the 8760 hours of high quality electricity the need each year. The Renewable Energy Certificates were a feel-good facade.
Unfortunately, with everything corrupt in the US government, there will be safety issues due to regulatory incompetence and lack of morality where self gain is valued above all else. Also, misinformation and disinformation censorship will prevent and checks and balances or accountability since in government results don’t matter (see the FEMA response to hurricane Helene).
If this nascent momentum ever actually takes hold, and if there are safety issues, it's not obvious to us government corruption will necessarily have anything to do with it. We're going to take the high road and assume the NRC will proceed with abundant caution (with no changes to applicable CFRs they won't be doing anything too dynamic).
Having actually finished only Vogtle 3&4 in the last couple decades in the U.S., we don't have the experienced labor force. Same with nuclear engineers. China's universities have hoards more nuclear and petroleum engineers than U.S. universities presently.
When you don't play golf for a long time, your ability is not as sharp. It won't take a conspiracy to cause safety issues necessarily. But, don't look for them. Look at the number of hours of safe operation across 94 operating reactors. We can do this.
Nice article. A ray of hope. You probably thought about this, but I believe the nuclear movement will also have another rich and powerful enemy in the green grifting mega companies that are developing solar and wind, much like the oil companies in the 60’s and 70’s.
Oh the spinning green crucifix and sun catcher companies will work hard to stop nuclear. But don't forget about natural gas. They want to badly be the stable base load and balancing for wind and solar. And with fracking, they'll do so a lot quicker than we'll license and build nuclear reactors for some time yet. Same goes for AI's electricity demand.
Well, I think the mega solar and wind companies will start backing off from new projects if the subsidies get reduced, and there's a groundswell of pressure building against those subsidies, coinciding with the groundswell of change toward favoring nuclear.
Oh, and with Jane Fonda I can confidently say it is from a place of ignorance. I don't think she has any idea what she is talking about or has taken an honest view of nuclear power and the associated risks. I thinks its all just gut reaction and unsubstantiated fear.
And just when I was beginning to give Hanoi Jane a bit of a break because of her current door to door campaigning for Harris | Walz, she again fails to exercise mature, well informed judgement.
If only the United States would have spent all their IRA money on nulcear (enrichment/conversion, fuel fabrication, reactors big and small), it would have been so much better than the reality we have today. I guess the good news about the IRA is that much of the grants/loans announced won't be spent because the projects they support won't reach FID/get built. Hopefully the government will be able to put that unspent money back into the treasury. But the tax incentives for the renewables will continue.
Lol, ok wrapping that up with "Hanoi" Jane was just too good. Makes one wonder what's in it for her? My guess is somehow she's benefitting from the Climate Industrial Complex.
Great article.
Can I get a source on that list of nuclear power stations that were canceled after 1980?
By the way, I also have an article about how Greens have increased carbon emissions:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-greens-increased-carbon-emissions
Mental, brilliant article as usual. While reading your writing I thought to myself, "surely this must be an article out of The Onion." It seems only yesterday that the democratic politicians were vehemently against nuclear and now some are openly encouraging it. I suppose we can take solace in knowing we were pro-nuke, "before it was cool."
Keep banging out these insightful and educational pieces.
Too kind. Thanks!
We are thoroughly enjoying it.
Bravo!
Thank you!
Please accept my apologies for being so late to this party. An excellent piece and up to your accustomed standards. Thank you.
Seeing the picture of Hanoi Jane got me to thinking. Since the release of China Syndrome and Jimmy Carter's headlong embrace of coal, the US has installed 107 GW of coal plants. (EIA, 2017). Collectively, these plants have produced over 17 TWH of energy over the years, and emitted quite a large number of tons of carbon dioxide, which Jane and her cronies believe have caused catastrophic weather extremes.
OK, now that the picture has been painted, a question: if California is suing Exxon Mobil for wreaking climate havoc, why aren't they suing Jane Fonda at the same time and for the same purpose? Her link to climate change is as palpable as any fossil fuel, if not more so for the fear and loathing her work perpetrated? It would be entirely appropriate to add Barry Commoner and Ralph Nader to that lawsuit (Bernie Sanders, AOC and Markey would be good add-ons as well). Have any of the academic climate modelers evaluated a "global warming scenario" where those 107 GW were instead nuclear, having essentially zero emissions?
We exist in an age where finger-pointing and scapegoating are accepted as legitimate forms of argument and where tactical science, as Roger Pielke, Jr. has labeled it, becomes standard practice. Ever being the contrarian, I'm simply asking, albeit sarcastically, what if rational thought would have prevailed in 1979? Of course, rational thought is as much a rarity these days as it was then, so perhaps I ask too much.
Yes, yes, yes...I know the saying "if pigs had wings they'd be eagles," but my question is more to the point of underscoring the consequences of a policy decision, and to reaffirm yet another "old saying:" the dildo of consequences seldom arrived lubed!
Thanks, Barry.
We're not so sure about her influence. Don't want to give her too much credit. Timing was fortuitous. Had the movie never been made, but TMI accident had occurred, it probably would have had the same effect. "Environmentalists" were already after nuclear hard, and the oil/gas/coal business wasn't apt to stand in their way or lend a hand to nuclear. So, her effect was limited in our view. Timing, on the other hand, did help (hurt?).
In our part of the world, we say "if pigs had wings they'd fly". But we don't go as far as saying they'd be eagles. ;)
The small modular reactors are the ones I'm the most excited about. When people ask about safety I just point out that we've got dozens of reactors floating around in navy ships with zero incidencts for hundreds of thousands of operational hours in combat zones.
It would be great if we could overcome our fear. Here's a complementary essay on the same topic.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/nuclear-meltdown
Great promise. But, complicated. New fuels, different civil infrastructure designs/requirements. For some, the overnight capital cost per Mwe looks like it may be as high or higher than the large light water pressurized reactors like AP-1000s.
I apologize for my obvious ignorance, but in your first graph I initially cried "foul!" as I wondered how generation could possibly be greater than capacity. But then I saw that the former is measured in MWh while that latter is MW. Asking for your help to explain the difference. Thanks
One is capacity and the other is real power delivered. Watts is the rate of energy a machine is capable of either using or delivering. Watt.Hours integrates the total energy delivered over time.
Thanks much
Why is the Bright Green Line … RED?
Are they Communist, like Red China?
Why is the GOP … RED?
Are they Communist, like Red China?
I'm red/green color blind. So maybe that's it?
I supported many "environmental" groups over the years. I became a big skeptic during covid. When you start from a flawed premise, you can't get a good solution. Here's this. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1131756865089046&set=a.607926074138797
Donning my tin foil hat, I submit this link.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-john-coleman-obit-20180121-story.htmll
And this. https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-believe-climate-crisis-has-speech-canceled-1815020
Anyone who believes that the "science is settled" is fooling himself.
I like "hard green". They acquire and optimize land for a specific set of species. And all of their projects benefit other species as well. Ducks Unlimited does a very nice job of this. I've been to their HQs in Memphis to discuss projects with them. There are many other examples of habitat preservation across wide landscapes having massive effects.
The groups I support are Trout, Unlimited and Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. I quit the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and several others.
Here is a real-life paper on the waste isolation pilot plant in NM. Also I worked on what we called Yucky Mountain Waste repository in Nevada. That was always political, never scientific. Then there's the nuclear power plant in NC. The is the media report on that follows. I neither trust the government (having worked for them), nor the media, but perhaps you do. It is no doubt easier to be cavalier about possible radiation exposure with cancer as a result if you don't have experience of it.
link for WIPP https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105057.pdf
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- Wake County reported emergency sirens went off at the Duke Energy Harris Nuclear Plant in southwest Raleigh Monday morning.
There is no emergency, officials said, and the public needs no protective action.
A Duke Energy spokesperson told ABC11 the plant is operating safely.
My mother and sister died from cancers. They lived very close to TMI in York, PA. My husband died from 2 cancers. I have had cancer with a recurrence. We both worked for Los Alamos National Lab and visited the Nevada Test Site, he more often than I.
The government admits culpability with their EEOIC programs (energy employees occupational illness compensation). I want to post something from CCNS, a local group that monitors LANL nuclear activities. It's long. Maybe I'll post it as a note.
Sorry for your and the family's cancer bouts. Know how rough that is. Is the DOE/govt. paying any of those claims (medical bills, wage loss benefits) in relation to cancer claims as a result of the work/in the course of the work at those labs/test sites?
Oh, TMI neither paid for anything nor admitted culpability. I have to admit I haven't followed up closely to find out if there were statistically increased cancer deaths after the melt down. St George Utah in the path of the fallout from the Nevada Test Site had had statistically significant increases in cancers and deaths.
I keep making typos. Time to go to bed.
Yes. They are huge programs. They pay out a sum, then they pay out for impairment, then they pay out for HHA and nurses. etc etc.
You may decide that everyone in my family gets cancer. My late husband and I moved away from PA in 1966. Two of my sisters moved away before TMI. Neither of them got cancer, FWIW. Of course, my husband and I are not related by blood, so that's not relevant either.
Thanks for the look at the history of nuclear over the last half century. Not being much of a moviegoer, I never watched "The China Syndrome" - didn't have any idea what it was about until now. Despite there still being lots of opposition to nuclear, I'm encouraged by recent signs of a trend toward bipartisanship. It would be great if a sensible relaxation of regulations and permitting led to lower costs and faster builds.
You bet. Fingers crossed.
I’m not sure the pushback will amount to much. Nukes have been a forbidden topic all these years, but as soon as the big tech companies need power, it becomes ok? I realize that I’m in full conspiracy mode, but it’s no coincidence that when the “information managers” wanted to change the message, the message changed in an instant. This is separate from the point about whether nuclear is needed and safe (it is). But I’m not going to climb on board with these scoundrels just because I like the new message.
Fair enough. They give you good reason to be suspicious.
In this case, it could be as simple as the fact that no politician is going to survive an election when the lights go out to your house in order to provide juice to Big Tech/AI. So, AI had to figure something else out.
What they will figure out first is the low hanging fruit and the long-term solution to their growing power needs. The LHF are places like Palisades, TMI, etc. and nat gas. They all realize that there is zero chance of nonreliables ever providing the 8760 hours of high quality electricity the need each year. The Renewable Energy Certificates were a feel-good facade.
Unfortunately, with everything corrupt in the US government, there will be safety issues due to regulatory incompetence and lack of morality where self gain is valued above all else. Also, misinformation and disinformation censorship will prevent and checks and balances or accountability since in government results don’t matter (see the FEMA response to hurricane Helene).
If this nascent momentum ever actually takes hold, and if there are safety issues, it's not obvious to us government corruption will necessarily have anything to do with it. We're going to take the high road and assume the NRC will proceed with abundant caution (with no changes to applicable CFRs they won't be doing anything too dynamic).
Having actually finished only Vogtle 3&4 in the last couple decades in the U.S., we don't have the experienced labor force. Same with nuclear engineers. China's universities have hoards more nuclear and petroleum engineers than U.S. universities presently.
When you don't play golf for a long time, your ability is not as sharp. It won't take a conspiracy to cause safety issues necessarily. But, don't look for them. Look at the number of hours of safe operation across 94 operating reactors. We can do this.
Yes, you are correct.
Nice article. A ray of hope. You probably thought about this, but I believe the nuclear movement will also have another rich and powerful enemy in the green grifting mega companies that are developing solar and wind, much like the oil companies in the 60’s and 70’s.
Lots of windmill remorse is starting to surface. I remain hopeful that I will be buying some very cheap, lightly used real estate very soon.
Oh the spinning green crucifix and sun catcher companies will work hard to stop nuclear. But don't forget about natural gas. They want to badly be the stable base load and balancing for wind and solar. And with fracking, they'll do so a lot quicker than we'll license and build nuclear reactors for some time yet. Same goes for AI's electricity demand.
Well, I think the mega solar and wind companies will start backing off from new projects if the subsidies get reduced, and there's a groundswell of pressure building against those subsidies, coinciding with the groundswell of change toward favoring nuclear.
Hope you are right, Al.
They're going to fight the loss of subsidies.
"If we die, you all die" kinda thing.
Oh, and with Jane Fonda I can confidently say it is from a place of ignorance. I don't think she has any idea what she is talking about or has taken an honest view of nuclear power and the associated risks. I thinks its all just gut reaction and unsubstantiated fear.
Fonda is the worst. She is a gold medalist at being on the wrong side of everything.
We tend to agree. A useful idiot at that.
And just when I was beginning to give Hanoi Jane a bit of a break because of her current door to door campaigning for Harris | Walz, she again fails to exercise mature, well informed judgement.
That’s two strikes against her
If only the United States would have spent all their IRA money on nulcear (enrichment/conversion, fuel fabrication, reactors big and small), it would have been so much better than the reality we have today. I guess the good news about the IRA is that much of the grants/loans announced won't be spent because the projects they support won't reach FID/get built. Hopefully the government will be able to put that unspent money back into the treasury. But the tax incentives for the renewables will continue.
They’ll manage to piss it all away!
Nuclear got nice tax incentives in the IRA. But maximizing them has strings (e.g. labor, site selection, procurement, etc.).
Tax incentives for nonreliables will continue. For now. The beatings will continue until morale improves!
A lot may depend on who wins in November.
Lol, ok wrapping that up with "Hanoi" Jane was just too good. Makes one wonder what's in it for her? My guess is somehow she's benefitting from the Climate Industrial Complex.
Could be nothing more than late life relevance crisis.