Trump doesn’t understand economics, what’s new. Biden was not much better with the IRA. Nuclear will thrive if the regulatory stranglehold is removed and carbon is priced to match its impact. Unfortunately I can’t see it happening, but on the positive side the need is so great that I am sure Terrapower and some of the other innovators will find a market.
I'm a used to be meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, now electronic instrumentation guy. I actually personally collected a small part of the temperature record as part of the job I had once.
Out of residual professional interest I have followed the climate change debate since its inception and well remember Steven Schneider writing that we were about to enter a new ice age back in 1976 or 77. For more than the last 20 years I have followed more closely. I am aware that many people have claimed all sorts of things caused by the little extra CO2 in the atmosphere but if you remove the "mights", "coulds", "in 10/20/50/100 years" you will find that there is NOTHING going on that is unusual in the current, so far, 11000 year interglacial. The ice will be back soon enough.
The ONLY thing that can be attributed to the extra CO2 with reasonable likelihood is that the planet is greening, including in former desert areas. I've seen numbers like of the order of 15% extra green stuff. Hence my comment about a positive impact which includes crops growing better with less water (plants make fewer and smaller stomata in response to higher CO2 which reduces water loss).
There are many good REAL reasons the go to nuclear electricity and I'm happy to use the fears of the CO2 hysterics to encourage this but catering to irrational fears it isn't a good way to run a technological civilization.
There are so many missing details. My understanding, which is almost certainly incomplete and partially wrong, is as follows: I wrote about this a few weeks ago.
Under Trump's Japan "trade deal," the US and Japan agreed to economic cooperation.
1) The US will select projects if $1 billion or more through the recently created "Economic Accelerator." Basically, a panel picks and chooses infrastructure projects and uses every lever available to expedite permits.
2) The US asks Japan to fund it through government-sponsored banks or loan guarantees (exactly how I am unclear).
3) If the Japanese side agrees, they must transfer the money or support within 45 business days. The US sets up a Special Investment Vehicle to receive the funds, and Japanese vendors get priority for related contracts.
4) Once complete, the Japanese get 50 percent of the after-tax cash flow of the investment vehicle until the loan is repaid, with interest. Then, the Japanese still get 10 percent of cash flows in perpetuity.
While interesting, it also doesn't sound very "America first" when you think about it. Japanese firms are getting contracts, they are getting loans repaid, with interest, and continued cash flows even after the loan terms are satisfied.
My sources are all second hand: what's being reported in the press, which is not a comfortable positionto be in. For our purposes, the essential point is $80 billion of public funds goign to Westinghouse. I can't tell if the convertible loan has actually been committed to.
I think it's the same "deal". The basic process is outlined in the text of the US/Japan trade deal, which I read a few weeks back. A subsequent communique from Japan lists funding for Westinghouse reactors up to $100 billion, as one of the top items. Still, it's not very clear to me how this works or why the US govt needs a stake in Westinghouse.
This is so true it hurts. The problem that inhibits development of nuclear power (which is an absolute necessity for future prosperity) is not need for public (AKA gov't) funding. It is reluctance of power companies to invest in nuclear plants because the NRC will financially destroy them. The NRC (a monstrosity created by the Carter administration because Carter assumed he was smarter than anyone else about nuclear power, and hated it) empowered the NRC to ruin anyone who would have the temerity to build an affordable power plant with nuclear heat source. His plan worked. The NRC required changes during construction, then penalized the power companies/contractors for not keeping up with endless "as-built" documentation of changes as they were dictated.
Let the market work, and we will have affordable power which will bring us future prosperity.
A great deal of the jump in US costs was between 1970 and 1974 prior to the NRC. The NRC just kept up the trajectory that the regulatory side of the AEC was already on. The core problem is misdirected, autocratic regualtor. We had that before the NRC.
The NRC was established by the Energy ReorganizationAct of 1974, which was passed in the Nixon administration and wouldhave been signed by Nixon, but he ahd to resign. It was actually signed by President Ford. All this was prior toCarter.
Everybody pls check yr facts before making claims like this.
Jack, thank you for this, great contrubution as ever. Please is there a chance to access the Ford 1982 study you are referring to and learn more about the changes mentioned? Generally, is there more accessible material on details of these changes at other plants and how exactly they, one by one, lifted the cost? So far, I have have been struggling with this. Thank you.
That example was from Ford's book, The Cult of the Atom. Usually, there's a PDF of the substack pieces at the GKG website https://gordianknotbook.com/
The PDF's are much better referenced and often have material that the substack poss do not. You can get to the PDF's thru the Site Directory on the substack Nav Bar. But right now I have fallen behind in keeping the directory up to date.
AFAIK, There is no single source for all the changes that AEC/NRC regs required. But you can start with the We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again book. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F32KLXRJ
The problem goes much deeper than a list of changes. It's has to do with the way the regulatory system changes everybody's incentive from build cheaper/better or die, to how do we best play a misdirected regulator's game, a totally different talent. I've never been able to articulate this in a satisfactory manner.
Trump doesn’t understand economics, what’s new. Biden was not much better with the IRA. Nuclear will thrive if the regulatory stranglehold is removed and carbon is priced to match its impact. Unfortunately I can’t see it happening, but on the positive side the need is so great that I am sure Terrapower and some of the other innovators will find a market.
Carbon (actually CO2) doesn't need to be priced as its impact is negligible to slightly positive.
Mike,
Anyone who claims to know what the social cost of CO2 is either a liar or a fool.
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/thinking-quantitatively-about-co2
You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, but opinion is not fact.
Jack,
I'm a used to be meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, now electronic instrumentation guy. I actually personally collected a small part of the temperature record as part of the job I had once.
Out of residual professional interest I have followed the climate change debate since its inception and well remember Steven Schneider writing that we were about to enter a new ice age back in 1976 or 77. For more than the last 20 years I have followed more closely. I am aware that many people have claimed all sorts of things caused by the little extra CO2 in the atmosphere but if you remove the "mights", "coulds", "in 10/20/50/100 years" you will find that there is NOTHING going on that is unusual in the current, so far, 11000 year interglacial. The ice will be back soon enough.
The ONLY thing that can be attributed to the extra CO2 with reasonable likelihood is that the planet is greening, including in former desert areas. I've seen numbers like of the order of 15% extra green stuff. Hence my comment about a positive impact which includes crops growing better with less water (plants make fewer and smaller stomata in response to higher CO2 which reduces water loss).
There are many good REAL reasons the go to nuclear electricity and I'm happy to use the fears of the CO2 hysterics to encourage this but catering to irrational fears it isn't a good way to run a technological civilization.
There are so many missing details. My understanding, which is almost certainly incomplete and partially wrong, is as follows: I wrote about this a few weeks ago.
Under Trump's Japan "trade deal," the US and Japan agreed to economic cooperation.
1) The US will select projects if $1 billion or more through the recently created "Economic Accelerator." Basically, a panel picks and chooses infrastructure projects and uses every lever available to expedite permits.
2) The US asks Japan to fund it through government-sponsored banks or loan guarantees (exactly how I am unclear).
3) If the Japanese side agrees, they must transfer the money or support within 45 business days. The US sets up a Special Investment Vehicle to receive the funds, and Japanese vendors get priority for related contracts.
4) Once complete, the Japanese get 50 percent of the after-tax cash flow of the investment vehicle until the loan is repaid, with interest. Then, the Japanese still get 10 percent of cash flows in perpetuity.
While interesting, it also doesn't sound very "America first" when you think about it. Japanese firms are getting contracts, they are getting loans repaid, with interest, and continued cash flows even after the loan terms are satisfied.
JK
Almost sounds like a different deal.
My sources are all second hand: what's being reported in the press, which is not a comfortable positionto be in. For our purposes, the essential point is $80 billion of public funds goign to Westinghouse. I can't tell if the convertible loan has actually been committed to.
I think it's the same "deal". The basic process is outlined in the text of the US/Japan trade deal, which I read a few weeks back. A subsequent communique from Japan lists funding for Westinghouse reactors up to $100 billion, as one of the top items. Still, it's not very clear to me how this works or why the US govt needs a stake in Westinghouse.
Looks like this was published a few days ago: https://www.csis.org/analysis/trade-deals-and-new-chapter-american-nuclear
This is so true it hurts. The problem that inhibits development of nuclear power (which is an absolute necessity for future prosperity) is not need for public (AKA gov't) funding. It is reluctance of power companies to invest in nuclear plants because the NRC will financially destroy them. The NRC (a monstrosity created by the Carter administration because Carter assumed he was smarter than anyone else about nuclear power, and hated it) empowered the NRC to ruin anyone who would have the temerity to build an affordable power plant with nuclear heat source. His plan worked. The NRC required changes during construction, then penalized the power companies/contractors for not keeping up with endless "as-built" documentation of changes as they were dictated.
Let the market work, and we will have affordable power which will bring us future prosperity.
Dave,
A great deal of the jump in US costs was between 1970 and 1974 prior to the NRC. The NRC just kept up the trajectory that the regulatory side of the AEC was already on. The core problem is misdirected, autocratic regualtor. We had that before the NRC.
The NRC was established by the Energy ReorganizationAct of 1974, which was passed in the Nixon administration and wouldhave been signed by Nixon, but he ahd to resign. It was actually signed by President Ford. All this was prior toCarter.
Everybody pls check yr facts before making claims like this.
For video commentary on the deal see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovPPGW96fE4
Jack, thank you for this, great contrubution as ever. Please is there a chance to access the Ford 1982 study you are referring to and learn more about the changes mentioned? Generally, is there more accessible material on details of these changes at other plants and how exactly they, one by one, lifted the cost? So far, I have have been struggling with this. Thank you.
Peter
That example was from Ford's book, The Cult of the Atom. Usually, there's a PDF of the substack pieces at the GKG website https://gordianknotbook.com/
The PDF's are much better referenced and often have material that the substack poss do not. You can get to the PDF's thru the Site Directory on the substack Nav Bar. But right now I have fallen behind in keeping the directory up to date.
AFAIK, There is no single source for all the changes that AEC/NRC regs required. But you can start with the We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again book. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F32KLXRJ
The problem goes much deeper than a list of changes. It's has to do with the way the regulatory system changes everybody's incentive from build cheaper/better or die, to how do we best play a misdirected regulator's game, a totally different talent. I've never been able to articulate this in a satisfactory manner.