"1. (Almost) all have progressive or at least left leaning roots."
A counterexample: the Princeton alumni group Princeton Conservative Association is sponsoring a panel at the university's annual alumni gathering in May (a bash which involves some 30,000 alumni and families for 4 days, unlike the usual rubber-chicken dinners that pass for reunions at most colleges - in its heyday, it was Budweiser's 2nd biggest account of the year after the Indianapolis 500). The title is "Nuclear Power: Innovation or Revolution?" We intend to address exactly the issues you raised. The technology isn't the issue; the legal/regulatory environment is. One of our speakers is Jack Spencer of the Heritage Association, author of the 2024 book "Nuclear Revolution: Powering the Next Generation" whose point is that we don't need to and should not subsidize nuclear. We should take both the subsidies and the shackles off it and let it compete, and the same for renewables.
PS - thanks for the Greek lesson. I understood the French, but had to look up the other reference.
Yes, Change your mind. Well written, and exactly correct!
It is the regulatory system (world wide) that makes micro-reactor fuel hundreds of times more expensive than the same product, with just a few work hours less. (We cannot use material for a power reactor that in a different context could be used for a weapon, so we have to make it impossible to get, i.e. super expensive). I have been deeply frustrated by the "keep the regulations crowd" "You can't just blame the NRC." "The AP1000 problems were the vendors lack of preparation not the NRC environment." This last one had me almost screaming at a podcast that was comparing the progress of China on the same build, no NRC and yet they had the same delays as the USA. The person's conclusion was that the NRC was not to blame because China does not have an NRC. But the NRC and the attitude fostered by LNT is to blame because most of Westinghouse's lack of preparation for the AP1000 was due to the total context of no release of radiation at any time anywhere. The AP1000 was totally designed in the context of NRC regulations - and was OVER designed in an attempt to exceed those regulations. China built that design. That design! Yep, took them a long time because Westinghouse was not really ready. Westing house was not ready because with the constantly increasing requirements by the time you have a design, that design is no longer viable.
I have long desired cheap Nuclear power and I have not seen any technical reason why it should be expensive. I lived in the Philippines for many years and traveled to dozens of the islands who had a single 1000 watt generator they would start up when needed. I often visited Cebu City when the total generation for the city of nearly 1 million was only 500 MW or so. They opened a call center and the power needed for that ONE call center crashed the grid. If I could own some Last Energy 20MW plants in the PI, I would make bank and improve the poverty situation of one of the best groups of people in the world.
Yes, cheap nuclear is a challenge to every other form of energy production, wind, solar, natural gas, diesel, etc. for all kinds of reasons. One that I really like is with super cheap heat, synthetic fuels are very viable. You can run transportation on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as Bangkok has for many years. Synthetic fuels could take advantage of all our existing infrastructure and manufacturing base. A HUGE cost savings for the whole of society.
I like the fact that concerns over CO2 / climate change have led so many progressives to embrace Nuclear Power. The experience seems to change them deeply in many ways. Yet, their base trust in regulation and subsidies stop the show.
"1. (Almost) all have progressive or at least left leaning roots."
A counterexample: the Princeton alumni group Princeton Conservative Association is sponsoring a panel at the university's annual alumni gathering in May (a bash which involves some 30,000 alumni and families for 4 days, unlike the usual rubber-chicken dinners that pass for reunions at most colleges - in its heyday, it was Budweiser's 2nd biggest account of the year after the Indianapolis 500). The title is "Nuclear Power: Innovation or Revolution?" We intend to address exactly the issues you raised. The technology isn't the issue; the legal/regulatory environment is. One of our speakers is Jack Spencer of the Heritage Association, author of the 2024 book "Nuclear Revolution: Powering the Next Generation" whose point is that we don't need to and should not subsidize nuclear. We should take both the subsidies and the shackles off it and let it compete, and the same for renewables.
PS - thanks for the Greek lesson. I understood the French, but had to look up the other reference.
Yes, Change your mind. Well written, and exactly correct!
It is the regulatory system (world wide) that makes micro-reactor fuel hundreds of times more expensive than the same product, with just a few work hours less. (We cannot use material for a power reactor that in a different context could be used for a weapon, so we have to make it impossible to get, i.e. super expensive). I have been deeply frustrated by the "keep the regulations crowd" "You can't just blame the NRC." "The AP1000 problems were the vendors lack of preparation not the NRC environment." This last one had me almost screaming at a podcast that was comparing the progress of China on the same build, no NRC and yet they had the same delays as the USA. The person's conclusion was that the NRC was not to blame because China does not have an NRC. But the NRC and the attitude fostered by LNT is to blame because most of Westinghouse's lack of preparation for the AP1000 was due to the total context of no release of radiation at any time anywhere. The AP1000 was totally designed in the context of NRC regulations - and was OVER designed in an attempt to exceed those regulations. China built that design. That design! Yep, took them a long time because Westinghouse was not really ready. Westing house was not ready because with the constantly increasing requirements by the time you have a design, that design is no longer viable.
I have long desired cheap Nuclear power and I have not seen any technical reason why it should be expensive. I lived in the Philippines for many years and traveled to dozens of the islands who had a single 1000 watt generator they would start up when needed. I often visited Cebu City when the total generation for the city of nearly 1 million was only 500 MW or so. They opened a call center and the power needed for that ONE call center crashed the grid. If I could own some Last Energy 20MW plants in the PI, I would make bank and improve the poverty situation of one of the best groups of people in the world.
Yes, cheap nuclear is a challenge to every other form of energy production, wind, solar, natural gas, diesel, etc. for all kinds of reasons. One that I really like is with super cheap heat, synthetic fuels are very viable. You can run transportation on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as Bangkok has for many years. Synthetic fuels could take advantage of all our existing infrastructure and manufacturing base. A HUGE cost savings for the whole of society.
I like the fact that concerns over CO2 / climate change have led so many progressives to embrace Nuclear Power. The experience seems to change them deeply in many ways. Yet, their base trust in regulation and subsidies stop the show.