Cowtus is called El Salvador - they are going to deploy new nuclear in the next 18 months, and they will use it for Ports, Data Centers, Syn Fuel and electricity for all of central America - it will become the Dubai of Central America
We are leading the policy changes in El Salvador needed to deploy nuclear rapidly and cost effectively [ since the MSR is inherently safe and non-proliferating - we do not even bring that up ] - I would be delighted to speak to you about it. BTW - they have nothing to do with NRC, ExIm, or State - they do not want any entanglement there - but they are already fully compliant with IAEA, but will be realistic about deployment rapidly - just like UAE set its own rules when it came to IAEA . . . . etc etc - It is a great news story that has gotten almost no traction.
Great. Agree the IAEA recommendations (not rules) are quite general, mostly motherhood. It is how the locals interpret those recommendations that counts.
Usually that takes us down the NRC/goldstandard route under the ugly word "harmonization". I would love to hear more.
I thought Indonesia was the Cotwus for ThorCon. According to ThorCon's latest press release "The government of Indonesia is supporting a project to build a 500 MW nuclear fission power plant at Kelasa Island based ..." What is the holdup? Is there opposition within Indonesia?
What about Poland, or another East European country? Aren't they now ordering PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors? Seems like one of those countries would be an ideal location for a demo MSR.
My question is not about any particular vendor, but about the reason for delay outside of the USA. Are the "apparatchiks" at the IAEA able to stop progress in a country that is clearly NOT pursuing nuclear weapons, and agrees to their inspections? Why are there not more companies simply avoiding the anti-nuclear sentiment in the USA?
In any country, there will be conflicting interests including a group that will reflexively turn to the IAEA for "guidance". Most do not realize they don't have to.
The reason for avoiding the USA is not public sentiment, but the NRC.
If you were appointed to the NRC commission, and you had two of the five commissioners voting with you, could you redirect the organization without destroying it? Let the "apparatchiks" keep their jobs, but work with that 10% of the staff that is eager to move ahead.
Besides Underwriter Certification the Cotwus needs 24x7, CO2-free energy cheaper than from coal or LNG. In my new book, New Nuclear is Hot (seafuel.energy) I write...
Almost out of sight in the Green energy transition view are the developing nations, which don’t have as much energy use to transition from. Three billion people live in energy poverty, served with less electricity than your old refrigerator uses. One billion have no electricity at all. Developing nations need more energy to power industry and commerce for their citizens’ prosperity.
They are adding hundreds of new coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, increasing atmospheric CO2, contributing to global warming. The cost of fuel and electric energy is now increasing, restraining economies of nations rich or poor.
These poor nations have been servants of the rich nations, mining raw materials the rich nations protect, producing goods with cheap labor rich nations’ workers avoid. Now poor nations are suffering tariffs on exports of their products made using energy from burning fuels. Rich NGOs engage in shaming developing nations for CO2 emissions and lobby for legislation to tax CO2 and subsidize expensive intermittent wind and solar power, depressing economic productivity.
A positive view is that developing nations are poor and keenly rational about their clear need for affordable, reliable energy to improve industry, commerce, and lifestyles. As they realize that new nuclear power can provide electricity that is cheaper than from burning coal or natural gas, they will embrace new nuclear power. Cheap, reliable electric power will improve their economies and create international trade advantages in value-added goods rather than minerals and sweat-shop labor.
If electric energy is cheap, expansions of industry will take advantage of new industrial processes, such as electro-reduction of metals from ores. These emerging national powers may become leaders in the transition from fossil fuel burning to nuclei fissioning.
Why aren't these developing nations placing order NOW for new nuclear plants? What is the holdup? Financing? That can't be the root cause. The money would be there, if there was a clear path to success. Technology? Build a demo reactor to test for that 1% risk that the engineers missed something. Anti-nuclear organizations? Lars Jorgensen says they have no influence in these developing countries. What is the holdup?
Today our friends in El Salvador have signed further agreements and policy changes with the iaea in Brussels.
The second message is directly from our man naive bukele
who had the vision to start this process of advanced nuclear powered by thorium energy,
and they chose thorium energy Alliance to help them develop their strategy for deployment last year 2023.
Jack recently wrote about a magical country that chooses to go and do nuclear on their own without being encumbered to the United States of America and the NRC.
and I told him that there was such a country and it's called El Salvador
In a few years El Salvador will reap the rewards for taking this Brave New Direction,
They are going to make all their own electricity, all their own ammonia, and they will make a significant amount of their own transportation fuel all from over 3,000 megawatts of advanced high temp molten salt nuclear.
and they will be the Dubai of Central America.
I'm glad we have had a small part in making that happen.
El Salvador does not need any agreements with the IAEA. El Salvador just needs to allow the IAEA to inspect her nuclear program to confirm it is being used for peaceful purposes. Nothing more. Perhaps El Salvador needs to read the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I don't know what is in that agreement, but I find it very disturbing that El Salvador thought she needed any agreement. El Salvador will be our Cotwus, dare I say savior, only if she decides for herself how she will regulate nuclear power. In my view, only if she uses a form of Underwriter Certification will she be our savior. That would be anathema to the apparatchiks at IAEA.
Sad to say, my probability that El Salvador is our Cotwus dropped a lot with this announcement.
Hi Jack! - I believe it will make you gain confidence in their efforts to know they will deploy the first reactor ready to be turned on, the minute is ready to be turned on, they are not looking for permission slips from anyone.
However, since no one in the advanced reactor community can do anything near that right now - they are building their in-country human capacity. They are building their expertise in nuclear - and they are doing it on the IAEA dime - that is smart, and it keeps the regional 880 pound guerrilla at bay.
When there is a vendor, that builds a system out of more than paper and power points - when that vendor has a reactor ready and fueled - El salvador will be the ones to turn it on. ( That would have been a year ago, that would be today - it is the vendors that have failed to get the job done for the last 15 years+) , Let's get this done!
Cotwus need not and should not wait for an "advanced reactor" vendor. . Conventional LWR was 3 cents/kWh (2024 USD) in the 60's and can be again. Simply put out an RFP to everybody outlining how she will use Underwriter Certification. The Koreans among others will come knocking immediately. El Salvador needs to be talking to Lloyds, not the IAEA.
There are proliferation visuals that make LWR a problem
they also want a system that is inherently safe - they do not want to deal with boiling water / LWR and their inherent issues
Any LWR , including the Koreans would bring in the NRC - NRC claim primacy over all LWR tech - as you know. Korea won a suit about that, but no one wants to get the 800 pound gorilla to have any excuse to stick its nose in their business.
Sounds to me like you are telling the El Salvadoreans what they should want. Why should they be the least bit concerned about proliferation? Just abide by the NPT. The LWR is already too safe. If I'm a Cotwusean all I care about is getting the cheapest available. And right now that's almost certainly light water or maybe Candu. Put out the RFP to EVERYBODY and see what comes back.
1) there's nothing magic about thorium and no reason to drastically narrow the competitors by requiring it, (right now narrow means "almost none")
2) on proliferation, his only responsibility is to allow IAEA inspections. Nothing more.
Barakah is not good enough. Under the advice of their lawyers, the UAE set up a separate NRC-like licensing body. In an authoritarian government, the government (in this case the Ruling Family) can maintain some control over such a body. But not in a democracy, at least not for long. Barakah is a far cry form Underwriter Certification.
Most of it is about their particular new design of reactor, but the part that I think would interest you is just after 48 minutes in, where they talk about the issues regulatory of approval and say that the NRC told them that for many of the most onerous regulations NRC jurisdiction ends at the 12 mile limit. So a reactor 12.1 miles off shore with a submarine cable to bring the power to land would be much cheaper to get regulatory approval. They were already thinking of submarine reactors for their design.
1) His claim that a Construction License is much easier to get than an Operating License does not match what I know.
2) The US Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles offshore. The Feds regulate offshore oil platforms well beyond 12 miles. I doubt if teh NRC will accept that their writ stops at 12 miles and I expect the courts and congress will support them.
3) If if does, why does he need an NRC construction license?
And the whole thing is in a submarine????
There are two possibilities, both super long shots. One is to put a floating plant in Mexican waters just on the other side of the border. The other is to pu tthe plant in state waters and argue for state regualtion under the 10th Amendment.
Cowtus is called El Salvador - they are going to deploy new nuclear in the next 18 months, and they will use it for Ports, Data Centers, Syn Fuel and electricity for all of central America - it will become the Dubai of Central America
Carl.
I hope you are right, but El Salvador will be our Cotwus only if it renounces the Two Lies and NRC/IAEA style regulation.
We are leading the policy changes in El Salvador needed to deploy nuclear rapidly and cost effectively [ since the MSR is inherently safe and non-proliferating - we do not even bring that up ] - I would be delighted to speak to you about it. BTW - they have nothing to do with NRC, ExIm, or State - they do not want any entanglement there - but they are already fully compliant with IAEA, but will be realistic about deployment rapidly - just like UAE set its own rules when it came to IAEA . . . . etc etc - It is a great news story that has gotten almost no traction.
Great. Agree the IAEA recommendations (not rules) are quite general, mostly motherhood. It is how the locals interpret those recommendations that counts.
Usually that takes us down the NRC/goldstandard route under the ugly word "harmonization". I would love to hear more.
I thought Indonesia was the Cotwus for ThorCon. According to ThorCon's latest press release "The government of Indonesia is supporting a project to build a 500 MW nuclear fission power plant at Kelasa Island based ..." What is the holdup? Is there opposition within Indonesia?
What about Poland, or another East European country? Aren't they now ordering PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors? Seems like one of those countries would be an ideal location for a demo MSR.
This is not the venue to discuss ThorCon
My question is not about any particular vendor, but about the reason for delay outside of the USA. Are the "apparatchiks" at the IAEA able to stop progress in a country that is clearly NOT pursuing nuclear weapons, and agrees to their inspections? Why are there not more companies simply avoiding the anti-nuclear sentiment in the USA?
In any country, there will be conflicting interests including a group that will reflexively turn to the IAEA for "guidance". Most do not realize they don't have to.
The reason for avoiding the USA is not public sentiment, but the NRC.
If you were appointed to the NRC commission, and you had two of the five commissioners voting with you, could you redirect the organization without destroying it? Let the "apparatchiks" keep their jobs, but work with that 10% of the staff that is eager to move ahead.
No.
Besides Underwriter Certification the Cotwus needs 24x7, CO2-free energy cheaper than from coal or LNG. In my new book, New Nuclear is Hot (seafuel.energy) I write...
Almost out of sight in the Green energy transition view are the developing nations, which don’t have as much energy use to transition from. Three billion people live in energy poverty, served with less electricity than your old refrigerator uses. One billion have no electricity at all. Developing nations need more energy to power industry and commerce for their citizens’ prosperity.
They are adding hundreds of new coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, increasing atmospheric CO2, contributing to global warming. The cost of fuel and electric energy is now increasing, restraining economies of nations rich or poor.
These poor nations have been servants of the rich nations, mining raw materials the rich nations protect, producing goods with cheap labor rich nations’ workers avoid. Now poor nations are suffering tariffs on exports of their products made using energy from burning fuels. Rich NGOs engage in shaming developing nations for CO2 emissions and lobby for legislation to tax CO2 and subsidize expensive intermittent wind and solar power, depressing economic productivity.
A positive view is that developing nations are poor and keenly rational about their clear need for affordable, reliable energy to improve industry, commerce, and lifestyles. As they realize that new nuclear power can provide electricity that is cheaper than from burning coal or natural gas, they will embrace new nuclear power. Cheap, reliable electric power will improve their economies and create international trade advantages in value-added goods rather than minerals and sweat-shop labor.
If electric energy is cheap, expansions of industry will take advantage of new industrial processes, such as electro-reduction of metals from ores. These emerging national powers may become leaders in the transition from fossil fuel burning to nuclei fissioning.
Why aren't these developing nations placing order NOW for new nuclear plants? What is the holdup? Financing? That can't be the root cause. The money would be there, if there was a clear path to success. Technology? Build a demo reactor to test for that 1% risk that the engineers missed something. Anti-nuclear organizations? Lars Jorgensen says they have no influence in these developing countries. What is the holdup?
Follow your dreams.
Maybe Mileii’s Argentina? The whole scheme sounds very classical liberal. It will never happen in my SOE obsessed Mexico😟
Good way to start the weekend,
my folks down in El Salvador just had another ceremony confirming their progress towards becoming a nuclear country
second tweet is directly from president naib bukele
https://twitter.com/rafaelmgrossi/status/1771211319246508053?s=19
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1771289908230959445?s=19
Dear Jack Devanney,
And all you great folk interested in new nuclear,
Today our friends in El Salvador have signed further agreements and policy changes with the iaea in Brussels.
The second message is directly from our man naive bukele
who had the vision to start this process of advanced nuclear powered by thorium energy,
and they chose thorium energy Alliance to help them develop their strategy for deployment last year 2023.
Jack recently wrote about a magical country that chooses to go and do nuclear on their own without being encumbered to the United States of America and the NRC.
and I told him that there was such a country and it's called El Salvador
In a few years El Salvador will reap the rewards for taking this Brave New Direction,
They are going to make all their own electricity, all their own ammonia, and they will make a significant amount of their own transportation fuel all from over 3,000 megawatts of advanced high temp molten salt nuclear.
and they will be the Dubai of Central America.
I'm glad we have had a small part in making that happen.
John Kutsch
Thoriumenergyalliance@gmail.com
Carl,
El Salvador does not need any agreements with the IAEA. El Salvador just needs to allow the IAEA to inspect her nuclear program to confirm it is being used for peaceful purposes. Nothing more. Perhaps El Salvador needs to read the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I don't know what is in that agreement, but I find it very disturbing that El Salvador thought she needed any agreement. El Salvador will be our Cotwus, dare I say savior, only if she decides for herself how she will regulate nuclear power. In my view, only if she uses a form of Underwriter Certification will she be our savior. That would be anathema to the apparatchiks at IAEA.
Sad to say, my probability that El Salvador is our Cotwus dropped a lot with this announcement.
Hi Jack! - I believe it will make you gain confidence in their efforts to know they will deploy the first reactor ready to be turned on, the minute is ready to be turned on, they are not looking for permission slips from anyone.
However, since no one in the advanced reactor community can do anything near that right now - they are building their in-country human capacity. They are building their expertise in nuclear - and they are doing it on the IAEA dime - that is smart, and it keeps the regional 880 pound guerrilla at bay.
When there is a vendor, that builds a system out of more than paper and power points - when that vendor has a reactor ready and fueled - El salvador will be the ones to turn it on. ( That would have been a year ago, that would be today - it is the vendors that have failed to get the job done for the last 15 years+) , Let's get this done!
Carl,
Cotwus need not and should not wait for an "advanced reactor" vendor. . Conventional LWR was 3 cents/kWh (2024 USD) in the 60's and can be again. Simply put out an RFP to everybody outlining how she will use Underwriter Certification. The Koreans among others will come knocking immediately. El Salvador needs to be talking to Lloyds, not the IAEA.
Koreans are involved - so is lloyds
There are proliferation visuals that make LWR a problem
they also want a system that is inherently safe - they do not want to deal with boiling water / LWR and their inherent issues
Any LWR , including the Koreans would bring in the NRC - NRC claim primacy over all LWR tech - as you know. Korea won a suit about that, but no one wants to get the 800 pound gorilla to have any excuse to stick its nose in their business.
Sounds to me like you are telling the El Salvadoreans what they should want. Why should they be the least bit concerned about proliferation? Just abide by the NPT. The LWR is already too safe. If I'm a Cotwusean all I care about is getting the cheapest available. And right now that's almost certainly light water or maybe Candu. Put out the RFP to EVERYBODY and see what comes back.
No, we have been helping, but we do not promote vendors - the nonproliferation ( and preference for Thorium ) came directly from President Bukele
They are working with the same lawyers that UAE used to deploy Barakah 1 to 4 in record time and cost.
Korea would be a good vendor for sure - only western one I would trust.
Hopefully, they will tell Bukele:
1) there's nothing magic about thorium and no reason to drastically narrow the competitors by requiring it, (right now narrow means "almost none")
2) on proliferation, his only responsibility is to allow IAEA inspections. Nothing more.
Barakah is not good enough. Under the advice of their lawyers, the UAE set up a separate NRC-like licensing body. In an authoritarian government, the government (in this case the Ruling Family) can maintain some control over such a body. But not in a democracy, at least not for long. Barakah is a far cry form Underwriter Certification.
I recently listened to this
https://www.lastenergy.com/titansofnuclear/experts/brentfreezeandlexhuntsman
Most of it is about their particular new design of reactor, but the part that I think would interest you is just after 48 minutes in, where they talk about the issues regulatory of approval and say that the NRC told them that for many of the most onerous regulations NRC jurisdiction ends at the 12 mile limit. So a reactor 12.1 miles off shore with a submarine cable to bring the power to land would be much cheaper to get regulatory approval. They were already thinking of submarine reactors for their design.
Jim,
His story makes absolutely no sense to me.
1) His claim that a Construction License is much easier to get than an Operating License does not match what I know.
2) The US Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles offshore. The Feds regulate offshore oil platforms well beyond 12 miles. I doubt if teh NRC will accept that their writ stops at 12 miles and I expect the courts and congress will support them.
3) If if does, why does he need an NRC construction license?
And the whole thing is in a submarine????
There are two possibilities, both super long shots. One is to put a floating plant in Mexican waters just on the other side of the border. The other is to pu tthe plant in state waters and argue for state regualtion under the 10th Amendment.
Thanks.
It sounded odd to me, but it seemed worthwhile to run it by someone who has looked much more deeply into nuclear regulation than I have.