The dawn of a new age for nuclear power?
I’ve long been in favor of nuclear power. Maybe more of the world is now going in that direction, having discovered that the green alternatives don’t work very well.
Over the past few days, the politics and policies around nuclear energy have shifted faster than at any other period in the post-Chernobyl era. Here are a few examples:
Germany, the world’s long-time anti-nuclear poster child, just did a screeching U-turn. Under its new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, Germany will cooperate with France and treat nuclear as a “green” power source under EU regulations. The move comes just 25 months after Germany took its last three nuclear plants offline. As one German official said, the move is a “sea-change policy shift.”
The announcement from Berlin came just days after Belgium’s federal parliament voted by a large majority to repeal a 2003 law mandating the phase out of nuclear energy and banning the construction of new reactors.
The article lists more in that vein.
Plus of course we have Trump, who yesterday issued a new EO on the subject:
Instead of efficiently promoting safe, abundant nuclear energy, the NRC has instead tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion. The NRC utilizes safety models that posit there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure and that harm is directly proportional to the amount of exposure. …
Recent events in Europe, such as the nationwide blackouts in Spain and Portugal, underscore the importance of my Administration’s focus on dispatchable power generation –including nuclear power — over intermittent power. Beginning today, my Administration will reform the NRC, including its structure, personnel, regulations, and basic operations. In so doing, we will produce lasting American dominance in the global nuclear energy market, create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, and generate American-led prosperity and resilience.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to:
(a) Reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy;
(b) Facilitate increased deployment of new nuclear reactor technologies, such as Generation III+ and IV reactors, modular reactors, and microreactors, including by lowering regulatory and cost barriers to entry;
(c) Facilitate the expansion of American nuclear energy capacity from approximately 100 GW in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050;
(d) Employ emerging technologies to safely accelerate the modeling, simulation, testing, and approval of new reactor designs;
(e) Support the continued operation of, and facilitate appropriate operational extensions for, the current nuclear fleet, as well as the reactivation of prematurely shuttered or partially completed nuclear facilities; and
(f) Maintain the United States’ leading reputation for nuclear safety.
Much more at the link.
When I’ve discussed these issues for the past few decades with Democrat friends and family members, two patterns have emerged. One is of the non-scientifically-inclined person who is afraid of nuclear power and has exaggerated the bad effects of nuclear accidents in the past, and does not credit safety advances since – for example – Chernobyl. The other is of the scientifically-inclined person who is in favor of nuclear power, considering it a relatively “green” form of energy that could solve some of the problems of fossil fuels.
The buzz is that the tech globalists are backing away from the “Green Agenda,” having discovered that AI and data centers will require massive amounts of energy. The failure of “green energy” in Europe may be a more immediate factor in the change.
In 2026, I’m running for a director’s seat on the Omaha Public Power District.
OPPD has closed and mostly dismantled its former nuke plant north of Omaha. It got flooded and shut down a few years back.
The OPPD board has “replaced” the most MW from the nuke plant with mostly unreliable wind and a tiny bit of solar. Just recently, some natgas stations were built.
I’m very much interested in nuclear; especially since the wait time on natgas is so long.
Omaha-based Kiewit construction company is building 4 SMR in Canada.
I hope this trend goes somewhere. Fingers crossed.
There is a fungi at Chernobyl that has evolved to utilize the radiation.
The radiation-eating fungi found at Chernobyl are radiotrophic fungi, notably Cladosporium sphaerospermum, Cryptococcus neoformans, and Wangiella dermatitidis. These fungi thrive in the high-radiation environment of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, particularly around the damaged Reactor 4, where they were first observed in 1991. They use melanin, a pigment also found in human skin, to perform radiosynthesis—a process analogous to photosynthesis—converting gamma radiation into chemical energy for growth. This ability, termed radiotropism, allows them to grow toward radiation sources, such as radioactive graphite, rather than merely surviving
I WAS all for nukes, but since the greens and further aided by Obama, shut down Yucca Mtn, the waste issue is a huge problem. The shutdown was purely political with no basis in science, especially the geology. Now, the waste is stored mainly on site for the plant…dangerous for the local community and just begging for a terrorist attack.
This issue must be solved before going ahead with more fission reactors. And there will always be waste….2nd Law again.
Chuck, that doesn’t seem plausible, gamma rays are even more penetrating and destructive than xrays. Reference?
Paul: McNamara, N. P., Black, H. I. J., Beresford, N. A., & Parekh, N. R. (2007). “Radiotrophic fungi found at Chernobyl.” PLOS ONE, 2(5), e457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000457
The fungi has also been tested on the ISS.
Even here in CO they are starting to talk about Nuclear power. Don’t think it will happen, too many enviros here.
We did have one, but it never got fully operational. Converted it to NG.
When electricity was first being developed for commercial/industrial/residential use back in the 1880s, it was not uncommon for people to get electrocuted – workers mostly but not all. To use electricity – to be near it – was dangerous and possibly fatal. Poor insulation and a lack of understanding even by those doing the development (Edison, et al) were the main contributors. Today it is rare for the electrical plant or electrical appliances to be hazardous in and of themselves. I have antique 1920s electrical equipment I’d be … a bit nervous … about plugging in and I’m in the biz. Much less so with 2020s appliances
Way back when, I worked “nukes”. Had a hat that said “A little nukie never hurt anyone”. Somewhat facetious for its day, but consider the safety record of the Navy’s “mini-nukes” on ships and submarines … even on spacecraft where “human safety” is not much of an issue (except during pre-launch situations).
I see the biggest drawback will be the power companies themselves. They are organized with the assumption of large centralized power plants and would have to give up the gravy train if small, distributed, semi-modular nuke plants became prevalent.
Few people recall that the original power plants were local. (and DC rather than AC). Economies of scale suggested larger more centralized plants but centralization of political power also preferred large centralized plants.
“Economies of scale” is not the only measure of efficiency; a more diverse centralized system of power has many benefits and mini-nuke stations will provide that.
OK, off my soapbox now.
Physicsguy:
the Yucca Mtn region is thick with fault lines. Unless it’s changed, Yucca Mtn is deep into “forbidden” territory; it would be very difficult for a terrorist to 1) penetrate the region, 2) do any significant damage if they did manage #1. Any “local community” are site workers. I believe Beatty is the nearest town (20 miles line of site – but not by road). People are in more danger from the US Ecology site along US95 nearby
DT,
You misunderstand when I said “on site”. I meant the nuclear plant itself, not Yucca. For example, the Millstone plant in Waterford CT has holding ponds on site for the waste rods as there’s no place to ship them.
I also think the geological faults of Yucca have been greatly exaggerated. Not that the faults don’t exist, but their “instability ” was questioned beyond any reason. I seem to remember that 50000yrs was somehow not a long enough stability timeline…ridiculous. The greens used that to help shut it down.
Again, the basic question is what to do with the waste? Everyone here is ignoring the issue.
The AI race to Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) is existential. Therefore, we will play all our energy cards, including nuclear.
John McCarthy is one of the Grand Old Men of AI. He also devoted some of his later years arguing for nuclear power. He changed my mind on the subject. He is one of my heroes.
His writings are maintained at stanford.edu. Here’s a good start on what he had to say about nuclear power:
https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
McCarthy wished to combat pessimism about the human future by arguing for the sustainability of human progress.
________________________________
With the development of nuclear energy, it became possible to show that there are no apparent obstacles even to billion year sustainability. A billion years is unimaginably far in the future.
–John McCarthy, “PROGRESS AND ITS SUSTAINABILITY”
https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html
________________________________
John McCarthy (1927-2011) RIP.
Article in the WSJ about various groups trying to shut down gas lines…and, of course, there are also always challenges to electrical transmission lines…so if you’re planning a facility with a very large point load, such as an AI data center, an aluminum smelter, or an electric arc steel mill…an on-site or nearby nuclear plant might look pretty attractive. It will still be challenged, of course, but at least the challengers won’t extend over the hundreds of miles that they might with a feed from the grid or a gas line to an on-site gas generation facility.
Physicsguy the spent nuclear fuel can be processed and large parts of it reused. See this article from the international atomic energy agency. IAEA
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn
“With 58 nuclear power reactors producing nearly 72% of France’s electricity in 2018, France is one of the countries with the highest share of nuclear power in its energy production. Along with this energy, however, France’s nuclear fleet is also responsible for producing a significant amount of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
The strength of France’s national spent fuel policy, in addition to tight legislation and a strong regulatory body, can be attributed to the standardization of its nuclear fleet and the policy of recycling its spent fuel, French experts have said. This leads to an efficient and secure supply and a reduced radioactive waste burden.
In France, all operating units are pressurized water reactors of just three standard types, all designed by Framatome: three-loop 900 MWe (34 reactors), four-loop 1300 MWe (20 reactors) and four-loop 1450 MWe (4 reactors). French nuclear power reactors, therefore, have the highest degree of standardization among countries with large nuclear fleets. This also translates into a standardized approach when dealing with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, which involves spent fuel and waste management, decommissioning, and environmental remediation.
…
The recycling of spent fuel is a major element of the strategy of the French nuclear sector, which has more than 30 years of industrial experience,” says Denis Lépée, Senior Vice President and Head of the Nuclear Fuel Division at EDF, the French electric utility company that operates the country’s nuclear power plants.
“This makes it possible to limit the volume of materials and to minimize waste, while conditioning it in a safe way. This strategy, which is an important pillar of France’s overall nuclear electricity production, makes a significant contribution to the country’s energy independence.”
It’s my understanding that the choice to not reprocess our nuclear fuel was a political one, and that this choice has implications in the design of our current nuclear plants. See, for example, the distinction with ‘breeder’ reactors that are designed to produce more (and, admittedly, different) fissionables than they consume.
Which doesn’t mean that the used fuel rods sitting in ponds at nuclear plants can’t be reprocessed, just that if the reactors had been designed with that in mind it’d be more useful.
To the best of my knowledge, the ‘nuclear’ power sources in spacecraft are all of the ‘use heat from the decay of a radioactive chunk of metal to make electricity.’ Not a nuclear reaction as generally understood, and certainly not a nuclear reactor.
About the energy needs for AI advances, see the Hudson Institute talk linked a couple of days ago, specifically Bernard Haykels’ remarks therein, “Trump and the Gulf“: https://www.youtube.com/live/ZDvxrZTthhA
AI…
Looks like we’re all Dave now…
“Anthropic’s Latest AI Model Threatened Engineers With Blackmail To Avoid Shutdown”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/anthropics-latest-ai-model-threatened-engineers-blackmail-avoid-shutdown
…Or soon to be….