I'd join any real movement to shift from conventional NRC-style regulation with a single agency given the monopoly on reactor licensing and operating approvals, especially when operating under an ALARA principle that effectively requires a never ending effort to reduce radiation doses.
But for now, my efforts and support are directed towards forcing NRC to improve and regulate with the presumption that nuclear energy is beneficial, especially compared to all other alternatives. I also like the idea of giving the NRC some competition by exercising DOE and DOD authorities.
As an investor, I'm also taking advantage of the international competition that the NRC already faces.
Like you, I like cheap nuclear power and believe we need to do everything we can to achieve the should cost level.
A final, slightly off topic comment, do you think that the oil and gas industry is any LESS greedy or willing to suppress competition than the established nuclear industry?
What do you consider is "unreal" about this regulatory system?
It's basically the same system by which we regulate other beneficial and potentially hazardous activities?
Fossil fuel people are the same as any other people. But the culture is quite different from nuclear, and does result in different behavior and importantly a different type of person rising to the top. In my experience, Oil patch executives are far more willing to think out of the box and to think ahead than government employees. In the issue in question, Big Oil's response to nuclear in the 1960's and 1970's, these executives, very much concerned about Peak Oil, decided to jump on the nuclear bandwagon. They made an enormous investment in nuclear and took a massive hit when nuclear flopped.
Jack - I might have miscommunicated. I'm not denying the value and existence of UCert. The movement I want to join is one that is advocating a shift from NRC-style regulation to something more like UCert. (I don't want to lead the movement or even be a founding member. I just want to jump on a moving bandwagon.)
Oil patch executives are only a small portion of "fossil fuel interests." They generally have a reactionary relationship with the global energy market. The best support for that statement is the repeated cycles of boom and bust that have affected the patch ever since Spindletop started gushing. Banks, traders, certain governments, pipeline companies, railroads, coal interests, combustion equipment manufacturers... are other portions, but that is not a comprehensive list.
I don't agree that Big Oil made an "enormous" investment in nuclear. It was a tiny portion of their CAPEX and more like dipping their toes in.
If they had really been interested, they would have recognized the energy density value and figured out how to use their valuable skills to make a real, successful go of the enterprise.
If CO2 is one's priority, one should only investigate solutions that can become the cheapest solutions. Poor countries will develop.
The desired solutions have to win without subsidies, incentives, mandates, or regulations - because no rich countries will actually dedicate sufficient resources to donate to poor countries and no poor countries will choose to stay poor just because rich countries complain about the pollution. International law has very limited power, mostly serving to name and shame rather than regulate - and even if you could, would you want to sue poor countries to keep them poor in the name of CO2 emissions? Save them from climate by killing them with poverty?
China and India today continue to increase their coal use. So will the poor countries as they recover from being colonized and become stable enough to do so unless cheaper solutions with at least the same performance becomes available.
If you can't beat coal plants with no emissions controls, don't bother.
I rarely compliment the choir, but I do want to give a shout out to the choristers for whom nuclear's main attraction is its low CO2. For them, this was a very tough sermon. It was a call to change focus, metanoeite if you will, from what nuclear can do for the climate to what nuclear can do for the poor, and for all humanity. That's not an easy switch. For one thing, it implies that costly nuclear is not good enough. It's immoral. We must have should-cost nuclear, and that will require a complete rethink about how we regulate nuclear.
I expected something like a 5% subscriber cancellation rate. Instead we lost 7 of 2900. I thought that was impressive.
Here's your reward. If and only if we push nuclear down to its should-cost, not only will nuclear push fossil fuel out of power generation except for a bit of peaking and backup fo r unplanned outages and do so automatically, not only will EV's now be very attractive economically, but now we can talk seriously about synfuels starting with synthetic methane.
I don't care in the least about nuclear's low CO2 -- except for the effect of that in getting climate catastrophists to support nuclear. For me, it's about safety, reliability, and low cost (when not overregulated).
I also hate costly nuclear.
I'd join any real movement to shift from conventional NRC-style regulation with a single agency given the monopoly on reactor licensing and operating approvals, especially when operating under an ALARA principle that effectively requires a never ending effort to reduce radiation doses.
But for now, my efforts and support are directed towards forcing NRC to improve and regulate with the presumption that nuclear energy is beneficial, especially compared to all other alternatives. I also like the idea of giving the NRC some competition by exercising DOE and DOD authorities.
As an investor, I'm also taking advantage of the international competition that the NRC already faces.
Like you, I like cheap nuclear power and believe we need to do everything we can to achieve the should cost level.
A final, slightly off topic comment, do you think that the oil and gas industry is any LESS greedy or willing to suppress competition than the established nuclear industry?
Rod,
"I'd join any real movement". Have you read the UCert Manual?
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/underwriter-certification-of-nuclear-power
What do you consider is "unreal" about this regulatory system?
It's basically the same system by which we regulate other beneficial and potentially hazardous activities?
Fossil fuel people are the same as any other people. But the culture is quite different from nuclear, and does result in different behavior and importantly a different type of person rising to the top. In my experience, Oil patch executives are far more willing to think out of the box and to think ahead than government employees. In the issue in question, Big Oil's response to nuclear in the 1960's and 1970's, these executives, very much concerned about Peak Oil, decided to jump on the nuclear bandwagon. They made an enormous investment in nuclear and took a massive hit when nuclear flopped.
Jack - I might have miscommunicated. I'm not denying the value and existence of UCert. The movement I want to join is one that is advocating a shift from NRC-style regulation to something more like UCert. (I don't want to lead the movement or even be a founding member. I just want to jump on a moving bandwagon.)
Oil patch executives are only a small portion of "fossil fuel interests." They generally have a reactionary relationship with the global energy market. The best support for that statement is the repeated cycles of boom and bust that have affected the patch ever since Spindletop started gushing. Banks, traders, certain governments, pipeline companies, railroads, coal interests, combustion equipment manufacturers... are other portions, but that is not a comprehensive list.
I don't agree that Big Oil made an "enormous" investment in nuclear. It was a tiny portion of their CAPEX and more like dipping their toes in.
If they had really been interested, they would have recognized the energy density value and figured out how to use their valuable skills to make a real, successful go of the enterprise.
If CO2 is one's priority, one should only investigate solutions that can become the cheapest solutions. Poor countries will develop.
The desired solutions have to win without subsidies, incentives, mandates, or regulations - because no rich countries will actually dedicate sufficient resources to donate to poor countries and no poor countries will choose to stay poor just because rich countries complain about the pollution. International law has very limited power, mostly serving to name and shame rather than regulate - and even if you could, would you want to sue poor countries to keep them poor in the name of CO2 emissions? Save them from climate by killing them with poverty?
China and India today continue to increase their coal use. So will the poor countries as they recover from being colonized and become stable enough to do so unless cheaper solutions with at least the same performance becomes available.
If you can't beat coal plants with no emissions controls, don't bother.
Thank you for actually caring about human suffering, rather than the Dogma of Doom.
Make Nuclear Cheap Again!
I rarely compliment the choir, but I do want to give a shout out to the choristers for whom nuclear's main attraction is its low CO2. For them, this was a very tough sermon. It was a call to change focus, metanoeite if you will, from what nuclear can do for the climate to what nuclear can do for the poor, and for all humanity. That's not an easy switch. For one thing, it implies that costly nuclear is not good enough. It's immoral. We must have should-cost nuclear, and that will require a complete rethink about how we regulate nuclear.
I expected something like a 5% subscriber cancellation rate. Instead we lost 7 of 2900. I thought that was impressive.
Here's your reward. If and only if we push nuclear down to its should-cost, not only will nuclear push fossil fuel out of power generation except for a bit of peaking and backup fo r unplanned outages and do so automatically, not only will EV's now be very attractive economically, but now we can talk seriously about synfuels starting with synthetic methane.
I don't care in the least about nuclear's low CO2 -- except for the effect of that in getting climate catastrophists to support nuclear. For me, it's about safety, reliability, and low cost (when not overregulated).