Science

America's Nuclear Reluctance

The first innovative nuclear reactors designed by American companies may well begin operation in Eastern Europe before they get built in Idaho.

|

On February 14, 2022, Oregon's NuScale Power signed an agreement with the Polish mining and processing firm KGHM to deploy NuScale's innovative small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in Poland by 2029. At the U.N.'s Glasgow Climate Change Conference in November, NuScale contracted with a Romanian energy company to deploy its SMR technology in that country by 2028. NuScale has signed similar memoranda of understanding with electric power companies in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Ukraine.

This kind of advanced energy technology will likely be powering homes and businesses in Europe before the first reactor is completed in the United States. That's because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is in no hurry to help.

NuScale's SMR technology did receive an NRC staff "standard design approval" in September 2020. But that happened largely because NuScale's -technology employs a smaller-scale version of the light-water reactors that the NRC -bureaucracy has been (over-)regulating for decades.

Even with that step out of the way, NuScale has been working with the NRC for years and remains stymied by bureaucratic obstacles. The company began its pre-application meetings with the NRC in 2008 and formally submitted its design certification application in 2016. NuScale is now waiting for the NRC commissioners to issue a "standard design certification," which the company hopes to receive later this year.

There are more steps after that. Nu‑ Scale has contracted with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) to build a six-module SMR project generating 462 megawatts at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls. UAMPS must also receive NRC approval. It plans to submit, by 2024, its combined license application seeking authorization to construct and operate a nuclear power plant at the Idaho site. If approved, the plant could be completed by 2030, having survived 22 years of regulatory inertia before the first electron reaches the first customer.

This is how the process plays out for a nuclear reactor design that the NRC already knows how to regulate. NuScale's innovation is that the reactor modules are much smaller (77 megawatts) than -traditional reactors (around 1,000 megawatts). The modules are assembled at the factory, shipped by truck, and slotted together on-site in a below-grade water-filled reactor pool.

When it comes to truly novel nuclear technology, the NRC is even stodgier. In January, it rejected California-based Oklo Power's application to build and operate the company's Aurora compact fast -reactor in Idaho. Oklo Power ran into the NRC roadblock largely because its sodium-cooled fast reactor technology has never previously been evaluated and approved by the agency's bureaucrats. Its microreactor would generate just 1.5 megawatts of electricity, fueled essentially by nuclear waste.

Oklo foresees selling its reactors to utility companies, industrial sites, large companies, and college and university campuses. Assembled at a factory, its Aurora reactors will generate power for 20 years without having to refuel and won't require any human operators. Despite its setback with the NRC, the company still plans to have an operating Aurora reactor at the Idaho site by 2025.

Under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act of 2019, the NRC is supposed to promulgate a streamlined framework for evaluating and approving new commercial advanced nuclear reactor licenses by December 31, 2027. "The rulemaking will not be finalized by the time many leading advanced reactor vendors, such as TerraPower, X-energy, Westinghouse, and others, are set to file their NRC license applications," observed a December 2021 report from the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a pro-nuclear nonprofit think tank.

In a February 2022 report, the pro-renewables Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis described the NuScale/UAMPS collaboration as "too late, too expensive, too risky and too uncertain." While the report cited data showing significant construction delays for large plants, NuScale's factory-built SMRs aim to avoid those problems. The report did acknowledge that "delays experienced during NuScale's NRC licensing process will push the SMR's in-service date even further into the future."

The same can be said for other advanced reactor designs wrapped in the NRC's red tape.

At the NRC's stately pace of regulatory reform, the first innovative nuclear reactors designed by American companies may well begin operation in Eastern Europe before they get built in Idaho.

NEXT: Brickbat: Excuse Me While I Whip This Out

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I want one. Just sayin'.

    1. Sounds like if I bury one in my pond I’d be good to go.

      1. Or submerge.

        1. Sounds like a pretty tragic boating accident either way.

  2. Europe is destroying their nuclear reactors with no viable backup plan (green energy is a fantasy).

    https://tritorch.com/suicide

    1. Europe knows better than us. They are civilized far better than us hicks in the new world.

      Forget WW 1&2. They learned a lot since then.

      1. Sure they do...

        https://tritorch.com/occult

        The European Union is jammed packed with wall to wall unelected, unaccountable, out of touch, elitist bureaucrat scum.

        1. I should have added a /s to my statement. I like Europe but I do not live there and can see its many faults.

          1. +1, except: Years ago, a friend mentioned that it was a shame Europe was populated by Europeans. Can't disagree.

    2. Russian gas was the backup plan. Woops.

  3. Nuclear is inevitable and the sooner the better. Political opposition is not very deep as even Obama came out in favor while in office. Like being against GMOs and preparing for climate change, it's a mostly emotional argument with the science way past it.

    1. "Preparing for climate change..."

      You're still religious.

      1. It's science sarcasmic and it's ignorant to pick which science to accept because of your political ideas. That's putting the cart before the horse. I'm a democrat but I don't therefore reject GMO's and nuclear power because it hurts my feelings. Follow the science - it's technical knowledge. If your political ideas don't conform, there's something wrong with your politics.

        1. It's science

          Pronoun antecedent fail. What is "it?"

          1. Sounds pretty racist, doesn’t it?

    2. I agree and think there is a real need to link advancing nuclear power with climate change reductions. That mean supporting renewables like solar and wind, but also point out need for nuclear to have a truly workable system.

      1. "link advancing nuclear power with climate change reductions."

        That is also a good political argument for nukes.

      2. but also point out need for nuclear to have a truly workable system

        And then point out that with the nukes, we don't need the solar and wind.

        Sort of like the healthy breakfast that can include Lucky Charms, if it also includes fruit, whole grains and protein "to have
        a truly workable system."

        1. Clearly you are not interested in solutions. Question I have is what are the Lucky Charms? The renewables or the nuclear, because people can make the case for either.

      3. That mean supporting renewables like solar and wind

        Do you still support CFL bulbs?

      4. AGW is socialist boogeythey/them bullshit, but building new nuke plants makes good sense. Perhaps if we assured the progtards that the nuke plants identify as solar farms they might support it

      5. We wouldn't have renewables if it weren't for subsidies.
        Solar and wind are not solutions at any scale.

        1. Indeed they are not. Solar has some small scale uses at the household level. Or as a supplement if you’re off the grid.

    3. Holy shit! A Joe Asshole comment which is not a lie!
      Put and axe-head into the wall; it'll never happen often enough to cause any real damage.
      Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
      Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
      Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
      Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.

    4. The status of climate change is a scientific question, but what should be done about it or how best to prepare for it is not. It is a political and sociological one. Science can't tell you what you should do, only what is likely to happen if you do one thing or another.

      1. Actually actually, these days - - given the penchant for computer modeling - - it is at best statistics telling you that. And the basis for the stats is only as good as the assumptions built into the model.

  4. Another Federal alphabet agency that can't get anything done.

    1. They are very efficient when it comes to soaking up taxpayer money, providing sinecures, and generating excuses for why one cannot proceed w/ a project, venture, et cetera. Notably, as conservative as the bureaucracies are, and the think tanks seem to be, they are all deeply partisan, contributing 70% or more to democrat, social 'justice' candidates.

  5. Government is not a help, but a hindrance.

  6. The same people who are afraid of GMOs, while demanding that everyone be vaccinated against everything (monkeypox, anyone?), are the folks against nuclear energy.

    1. Bullshit Jerry. because of the science I am for GMO's nuclear power, vaccines, and the threat of climate change. You're just another flavor of ignorant if you don't agree with those facts.

      1. Now do economics.

      2. because of the science I am for . . . the threat of climate change

        ?

      3. Not to be overly presumptuous, but I don't think you consist of all of "the same people" Jerry B is referring to.

        You might have been able to shed the political tribal allegiance in this matter, but many on the left have not.

      4. I am for ... the threat of climate change.

        *breaks eye contact and sheepishly touches edge of face*

        Your, uh, mask is, uh, slipping.

      5. -Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
        Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
        Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
        Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
        Eat shit and die.

      6. It amuses me when zealots with a fraction of my intellect, knowledge and education rave about ignorance. For you, ignorance is a warm security blanket. Something for you to cling to when your safe space is invaded by the harsh cold light of facts and knowledge.

        At least you’re in the right track with nuclear energy.

  7. Maybe they should try making baby formula instead..

    1. ...by the time the first cans rolled off the line the infants would be voting.

  8. Anti-nuclear activists destroyed Nuclear energy the same way they destroyed many other industries: By turning tradeoffs between local industries and its neighbors into questions of existential threats.

    Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, were all localized disasters. I am not downplaying that. They were disasters. But they were localized. Fears of radioactive clouds over europe amounted to nothing. Fears of radioactive sea water amounted to nothing. Seriously, go out and look at actual DETECTED damage from these disasters, and you will find that it is all very local, unless you are looking at models that are unverified.

    Silent Spring used shoddy science to turn local pesticide spraying into global threats, and China Syndrome made a nuclear accident into a global threat (the name comes from a Melt Down that burns down to the core of earth). This takes away all incentive to make trade offs and instead has people thousands of miles away judging risk/reward payoffs. This in turn makes environmental law even MORE tendencious because the people in a locality (correctly) don't believe bureaucrats and reporters in Capital City have their interests at heart.

    Nuclear Energy has risks. Some of them serious. But then so does farm machinery. The best people to judge whether the risks are worth the reward are the people living in these locations. Which is why environmentalists always lie and make shit up to turn these into global threats.

    1. I'd also argue that Chernobyl was due to a terribly designed reactor and Fukushima required an earthquake AND tidal wave. The two biggest problems in the history of nuclear energy (well, there was that incident in the USSR in the 1950's) required some unusual circumstances.

      1. "The two biggest problems in the history of nuclear energy (well, there was that incident in the USSR in the 1950's) required some unusual circumstances."

        When human beings are involved in something, unusual circumstances are inevitable. And they can't be foreseen or planned for.

        1. So we should do nothing. Back to the caves!

          1. Unusual circumstances happen when people are involved. Moving into a cave isn't going to stop that.

            1. But it would so so green and sustainable.

              1. Never again would you have to worry about having a roof over your head.

                1. or, in your case, would you have to be concerned regarding your constant bullshit.

      2. And if we didn't have so many stupid regulations making it so difficult to build new reactors, Fukushima wouldn't have still been in use by the time that event happened. And more modern reactors (which have been built in other locations) wouldn't have had the same problems. Pretty much 100% an own goal.

        1. These stupid regulations are often implemented as the result of an accident, and are designed to prevent their re-occurrence. This idea of yours that regulations must be rescinded is the heighth of idiocy, and refusal to learn from mistakes.

          1. These stupid regulations are often implemented as the result of an accident, and are designed to prevent their re-occurrence.

            And yet they just wind up preventing the replacement of aging systems, which then tend to have more accidents that aren't exactly the same as the one that happened before that the regulation was made in response to.

            1. Aging farm machinery is also more accident prone. No lack of regulation will change that.

              1. Nor will regulation.

                1. Regulations could help to prevent accidents. Construction standards should be maintained in any case. I understand the motive for using substandard materials and cutting corners, it's money in the pockets of contractors. But the consequences of accidents are dire. Chernobyl for example. It affected millions over a large area and it's still a concern even today.

                  1. "...Chernobyl for example..."
                    Eat shit and die, asshole. Chernobyl was an example of what you love.

              2. A lack of regulations that keeps newer and safer equipment from coming to market would help. And that's what is needed for nuclear.

                1. "And that's what is needed for nuclear."

                  Look at where nuclear power is thriving. Places with authoritarian governments who don't tolerate public opposition. Like China or North Korea. It's conceivable that their equipment is more modern and less accident prone, but I doubt it. Their operators, engineers, contractors, and designers are every bit as untrustworthy as their American counterparts.

                  And arguing for rolling back safety regulations to make reactor construction more attractive and profitable in the US is the heighth of idiocy.

            2. Oil pipelines are like that. The safest pipeline is the newest pipeline. Yet democratkind are against new pipelines.

            3. Yeah, if Fukushima was a 20 year newer design, it would have been fine. There are designs that are completely immune from what happened there. Hell, even putting backup generators on higher ground probably would have saved it.

              1. "Hell, even putting backup generators on higher ground probably would have saved it."

                Japan doesn't have a lot of space. And what space they have is expensive.

                " There are designs that are completely immune from what happened there. "

                Wind farms, you mean? The tsunami would have likely destroyed them too, albeit without all that radiation.

      3. Don't forget Windscale--but weapons reactors are very different from electrical power reactors, like formula 1 racers are different from the station wagons the government banned. Alternatively we could surrender like France, or go to conventional World War as often as before nukes. That would be 1914, 1939, 1964, 1989, 2014. At 20 million a pop that's 100 million dead. Buck Turgidson would be horrified at the lack of nuclear weapons.

        1. Really? Maybe next you can regale us with what civil war reconstruction was like for you.

    2. “Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, were all localized disasters. I am not downplaying that. They were disasters. But they were localized.”

      As evidence, see coverage of the threat of Russia using a tactical nuke in Ukrainian. I’m not sure the difference in fallout from a reactor accident versus a bomb, but it’s telling they admit that it wouldn’t be much of a concern to Russia to nuke a neighboring country.

      1. You are assuming Putin gives a shit about Russian people.

        1. He's also assuming Putin could come up with a working tactical nuke. Given the poor state of readiness of the rest of Russia's military, it is not a given that Russia has useable nukes.

      2. Can we talk about what constitutes a disaster?
        Three Mile Island:
        According to the Rogovin report, the vast majority of the radioisotopes released were noble gases xenon and krypton resulting in an average dose of 1.4 mrem (14 μSv) to the two million people near the plant. In comparison, a patient receives 3.2 mrem (32 μSv) from a chest X-ray—more than twice the average dose of those received near the plant.
        So you are saying a chest x-ray is two disasters?

        1. The destruction of a nuclear reactor is a disaster. They are expensive and take much time and effort to replace.

    3. "Nuclear Energy has risks. Some of them serious. But then so does farm machinery."

      It's an interesting observation. The similarity between accidents involving farm equipment and nuclear reactors is that they are almost always down to their human operators. Operators who are tired, poorly trained, drunk, showing off in front of their peers, distracted, or second guessing the conditions they face. The difference of course is the scale of the consequences. An accident involving a piece of farm equipment may injure or kill the operator, but a nuclear accident, like Chernobyl, can devastate a large area over many years, affecting the lives of millions.

      1. That must explain all of the nuclear meltdowns in the navy's submarine force over the past 60 years.

        1. Military personnel are also subject to human error. It's part of being human. The accidental firing of a nuclear warhead was caused by an overworked enlisted man accidentally dropping a wrench.

          http://library.lol/main/A4BE1E3D2E3355E1676668EDA6591230

          1. I believe that the Three Mile Island operators were originally trained in the US navy. I think this is pretty common, or at least was common in the past. The error here is that familiarity with the small reactors on a sub, doesn't prepare you for the enormous complexity of a commercial reactor.

            1. Now do coal plants.

              1. Do humans operate coal plants? If yes then accidents are inevitable.

                1. Then why the pretense that nuclear presents a unique threat?

                  1. Radiaton sickness. Genetic mutation. Again why they pretence?

                    1. In terms of radiation emission to the surrounding environment, coal fired power plants are worse than nuclear power plants.

                      https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf

                      The fly ash emitted from burning coal for electricity by a power plant carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. This paper presents the information of studies on the radiological impact from airborne routine discharge of coal-fired power plants.

                    2. Last I checked Chernobyl is a nuclear power plants, and radioactivity is still dangerously high.

                    3. No surprise that the asshole trueman is, as always,
                      Full.
                      Of.
                      Shit.:
                      "With the caveat that no loss of human life should be considered acceptable, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that 31 people died in the three months following the Chernobyl accident. Two of these deaths were due to the initial explosion, while the remaining 29 were first responders who succumbed to acute radiation sickness (ARS).As for the Fukushima accident—while the flood and earthquake claimed 20,000 lives, only one person is officially recognized to have died because of radiation exposure. That said, an additional 573 indirect deaths are attributed to the disaster, mostly due to evacuation stress.And what about the deaths at Three Mile Island? Zero."
                      https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

                    4. "Last I checked Chernobyl is a nuclear power plants, and radioactivity is still dangerously high."

                      So what?
                      Last I checked, trueman is a mendacious piece of shit.

                    5. And it's not an easy search as it's not 'popular', but every year, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki show up to proclaim how Japan should never have started the war with the US!
                      Well, not really. That radiation was so horrific that survivors 77 years later proclaim how the US should not have saved millions of lives with those bombs.
                      77 years after exposure to that horrible radiation!
                      Perhaps it is shown once more that trueman is
                      Full.
                      Of.
                      Shit.

                    6. It’s a waste of time to discuss things with Tru-tru. You can’t take an AGW eco warrior seriously if they are against nuclear.

      2. Chernobyl wasn't an accident. It was a terrible design combined with Soviet incompetence. It's not even the only Soviet nuclear disaster.

        There's Kyshtym: https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-10-the-worst-nuclear-disaster-youve-never-heard-of-celebrates-its-60th-birthday

        The explosion in 1957 itself is underrated in severity, being considered the 3rd worst nuclear disaster (after Chernobyl and Fukushima), even though Fukushima will likely result in 0 premature deaths (according to the best scientific estimates).

        And as the article notes, it wasn't just a singular event, as they've continued dumping radioactive material into the river and nearby lake since then. (At one point, the lake dried up and winds blew radioactive dust over a lot of territory). And then they never evacuated most of the population that would be effected. That's more than just error - that's a gross indifference to the consequences. All told, Kyshtym is probably already responsible for more premature deaths than all other nuclear 'disasters' combined.

        1. Also killed far fewer than other Soviet industrial disasters.

      3. IF
        you follow the science
        there is no reason to oppose nuclear.
        BUT
        Covid taught us that people who cry "follow the science!" - pretty much don't.
        The NRC exists because of irrationality. Starting with Bill Clinton, the Feds have been anti-nuclear, but cannot explain why.

  9. Our reluctance to use nuclear and our inability to approve it in any kind of normal timeframe would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

    1. California is knocking down dams during a drought and electricity shortage.

      1. ...and shutting down the few reactors that remain. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. Hey, they are fixing existential threats. You are NOT wise enough to understand. Your still alive, right? Thank the government. Dammit!

          1. Nobody needs 23 kind of energy. Or food.

            1. Sad that even that's being generous. You can cook and drive your way out of CA before you die of starvation. Fortunately, leaders in CA don't think you need 23 different kinds of cars, cooking appliances, or sources of water either.

        2. While mandating electric cars and semis.

      2. He he he. That's a shame...

    2. Yeah, democrats shit on everything. Glad you finally admit that.

  10. Thanks for your sharing! The information your share is very useful to me and many people are looking for them just like me! Also visit here for vitamins for childrens

  11. Where are the crowds of climate change protestors marching in the streets and chanting "Nuclear Power! When Do We Want It? NOW!?"

    1. Don't expect it any time soon. Plutonium is scarier than carbon dioxide.

      1. And don't even get me started on dihydrogen monoxide.

        1. The dangerous qualities of plutonium are well documented.

          1. So are the dangerous qualities of dihydrogen monoxide.

            1. Water is absolutely essential to human life. Indeed all life on the planet. Not so with plutonium. Once that's understood, you should be able to understand the trepidation people have about things nuclear. Personally, I think we should be putting our efforts into controlled fusion. No problems with fuel, waste or proliferation.

              1. Now do CO2.

                1. Heat trapping gas. Not known to cause genetic mutations or radiation sickness. Not quite so scary.

                  1. Heat-trapping gas, without which the earth might actually be uninhabitable. Also, without which, all plants would die, followed by most animals, bacteria, and fungi.

                    But let's keep teaching the average American moron that CO2 is bad.

                    1. You've stumbled onto another reason why people demonstrate against plutonium but not carbon dioxide which we rely on, heat trapping notwithstanding. We also rely on water so no demonstrations for that either.

                    2. Oh, Tru-tru, you really turn being willfully obtuse into an art form.

              2. More people die from drowning every year in the US than have died total worldwide from nuclear power since it was first implemented.

                Fusion power, like true communism, is always 5 years down the road. We'll be lucky if it is generating power, at any scale, by 2040.

                1. "More people die from drowning every year in the US than have died total worldwide from nuclear power since it was first implemented."

                  You misunderstand the point. There are demonstrations against plutonium. Not water, which people tend to approve of, drownings notwithstanding.

                  "We'll be lucky if it is generating power, at any scale, by 2040."

                  That would be great. You have a problem with that?

                  1. There are people who will demonstrate against anything. That doesn't mean we have to take their concerns seriously.

                    People demonstrate against nuclear power and not 5 gallon buckets or pools because they have been lied to about the risk of nukes.

                    1. Move to China if you want an active nuclear program and a public that is not consulted.

                    2. Nuclear Power is supported a by clear majority of the US population.

                    3. Tru-tru, you would be very at home in China.

                    4. "you would be very at home in China"

                      I'm afraid I'm what is called 'persona non grata' there. The highlands of Taiwan would be a better bet. What the Japanese called Niitaka, almost 4000 meters, and home to Taiwan's most diverse ecosystem. Incidentally, 'Climb Mount Niitaka,' 新高山登れ, was the Imperial Japanese Navy's code word broadcast to prepare for war. Another code, 'Tiger, tiger, tiger,' 虎,虎,虎, initiated the attack on Pearl Harbor.

                      Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

                    5. No, you love Marxism. The ChiComs are your people.

              3. Are being this dense willfully?

                1. I'm wondering what your point is. The reason why there are not crowds of people demanding nuclear power seems clear and simple enough to me, and I've tried to explain it.

                  1. So, yes.

                    1. You're the one pretending not understand the public's concern over things nuclear. Why the pose?

              4. Yep, that is called distraction. "we should be putting our efforts into controlled fusion" because we aren't spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that NOW. (But we are)

                How about we implement the solutions we have? And people are petrified of plutonium because people like you stir panic to make sure they are.

                The total radiation emitted by nuclear power in the US is orders of magnitude less that the radiation emitted by coal. Wrap your mind around that. Three Mile Island was a valve failure that the automatic systems tried to shut down and operators overrode the system, until it reached the final level of autoshutdown and the system overrode the operators.

                The systems eventually made up for human error and FAILED SAFE. It mostly ruined the equipment and junked the site rather than spread widespread contamination.

                If you claim to be serious about reducing fossil fuel use and are not supportive of nuclear power you are either a fool, or disingenuous about your objectives.

                1. If you claim to be serious about reducing fossil fuel use and are not supportive of nuclear power you are either a fool, or disingenuous about your objectives.

                  ^

                2. We'll probably have to spend a lot more if controlled fusion is to become a reality. Is it the expense involved that makes you oppose it?

                  1. Is it the expense involved that makes you oppose it?

                    It's that it doesn't currently exist, while nuclear currently does.

                    "Crisis" - remember?

                    1. I support research into controlled fusion despite the fact it doesn't exist and research is costly.

                  2. By ‘we’ I’m assuming you mean a government program with lots and lots of funding.

                    1. You have anyone else in mind?

                    2. Leave the private sector alone to invent the shit.

          2. No one uses Plutonium for reactor fuel. Never have. It's only ever been used for weapons.

            1. It's still a health hazard and people are concerned about it. That accounts for the demonstrations.

              1. No, the demonstrations are driven by political bias and deliberate ignorance.

                1. The powers typically ignore them. You can rest easy.

                  1. Eat shit and die, lefty pile of shit.

                  2. Dirty hippies should always be ignored, and frequently beaten.

                    1. A career in government service awaits you.

                    2. No, it’s more appropriate for private citizens to beat hippies. Who must learn their place in civilized society. Their place is back under their rocks. Living in fear.

      2. And trueman is a steaming pile of lefty shit willing to pimp any left cause.

    2. I'm thinking of making a sign and joining an environmental protest.

        FRACK THE NRC
      BUILD NUKES NOW

      I'm sure I will be... very popular... 😀

      1. It'll be a great day when nuclear power has all the money it needs and schools have to hold bake sales to sexualize children.

        1. Damn. You are as old as I am.

    3. In Houston, only they already have four reactors that chuckle in the face of hurricanes with never the tiniest nuclear mishap. The STNP's 25th anniversary was just a few years ago.

      1. "they already have four reactors that chuckle in the face of hurricanes"

        Thank the good lord for the 2nd amendment.

  12. I lived 600 feet away from two nuclear reactors for months at a time. Never had a problem. In college I read a report that stated Three Mile Island was testament to how safe nuclear reactors were. During the incident, almost everything that was done was wrong and if it wasn't for one error all of the radiation would have been contained.

    1. I grew up only a few miles from San Onofre, and in a high school science class, a physicist from the plant came in and explained to us exactly how it all worked and why it wasn't any more dangerous than a coal plant, and in fact was considerably safer and producing less toxic waste.

      The 22-year-old teacher waited until the next day, when he was gone, to tell us that in her advanced opinion, everything he said was 'bullshit.'

      Even at 15 it was pretty clear to me who knew what they were talking about, and it wasn't the teacher.

      1. How can you say that? Which one was an earnest, caring, unionized, Democratic voter with a utopian plan for society?

    2. According to the Rogovin report, the vast majority of the radioisotopes released were noble gases xenon and krypton resulting in an average dose of 1.4 mrem (14 μSv) to the two million people near the plant.[60] In comparison, a patient receives 3.2 mrem (32 μSv) from a chest X-ray—more than twice the average dose of those received near the plant.[

  13. "testament to how safe nuclear reactors were."

    Nuclear reactors are safe, at least within the limits imposed by their design and budget. The problem is that pretty much every nuclear accident since the 1940s has been human error, As long as humans are operating the reactors, an accident is a potential, regardless of the safety of the reactors. It's the human element where the danger comes in.

    1. The Homer Simpson effect?

      1. D’oh!

    2. Not just human error, but political error. A few dumbwits have managed to kill themselves and some others with their independent dumbwittery, but usually it's the political pressure or political environment that lead to the accidents.

      And while it's easy to point at Soviet Union's communism as the cause of Chernobyl, that doesn't explain accidents like RL-1, Three Mile Island, or Fukashima. All three were caused by the politics.

      Accidents will happen, but building a plant without redundant failsafes after 1950 was a decision driven by political considerations. Sort of like launching the Challenger mission with known defective o-rings.

      1. All the hiccups Luddites dirty their drawers over caused zero casualties--in earthquake and tidal wave locations no less. Reason's former boardmember Petr Beckmann wrote "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" and several articles subscribers can find at Reason. People who cannot spell Fukushima or say how many millisieverts are absorbed on a flight from LA to Tokyo could dispel some ignorance there. Fred Hoyle wrote "Common Sense in Nuclear Energy". It explains the actual volume of nuclear wastes generated by a lifetime of electrical power consumption.

    3. "...As long as humans are operating the reactors, an accident is a potential, regardless of the safety of the reactors. It's the human element where the danger comes in..."

      Look at that pile of bullshit and consider it.
      Does the asshole trueman assume the reactors can be run by space aliens who we immediately trust?
      Does the asshole trueman assume the reactors can be run by software which is not resultant from human activity?
      Is the asshole trueman that stupid?
      Why, yes. Yes the asshole trueman IS that stupid.

    4. BTW, asshole, thanks for once again proving your idiocy; this comment is saved to slap it back in your face at every opportunity.

  14. Chernobyl was the result of politics. The Soviet Union demanded a nuclear showcase, a nuclear city, to prove to the world that it was superior. So it cut corners and pressured plant operations. And it was the result of human error from people living under that political system. Untrained personnel assigned to work there not based on merit. Many were poorly trained. Managers had the same stupid soviet quotas to meet. The test that blew was inherently dangerous, and performed by untrained and tired people because they had to make their check-offs. And it was a poorly designed plant. Even back then it was known as a poorly designed plant. There were no failsafes built in. Running the plant at low power was paradoxically dangerous.

    It was politics. And this failure of politics ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. (No, it wasn't the Velvet Underground, though they did grease the slide).

    There is a serious of video articles on nuclear accidents by Kyle Hill. Very good videos that explore exactly why the accidents occurred. From RL-1 to Chernobyl to Fukashima. The worst ones were invariably politically based.

    https://www.youtube.com/c/KyleHillScience/

    1. "And it was the result of human error from people living under that political system."

      Same could be said of Fukushima. The reactor was budgeted and designed to withstand an earthquake of a magnitude of 8.6 on the scale, as seismologists assured us, anything larger was impossible. The disaster occurred as a result of a 9.1 earthquake.

      "So it cut corners and pressured plant operations. "

      There was more to Chernobyl than you are letting on. One of the causes was secrecy, the kind of secrecy one expects in an enterprise so closely related to the military. Before Chernobyl there were similar conditions at a reactor in Leningrad, if memory serves, yet the operators, instead of warning other operators, chose to hush it up, dooming us to an unnecessary repeat and deadly performance.

      http://library.lol/main/5D2F3E3D5C11639C011FC9060F9D0661
      (A comprehensive study of pretty much all nuclear accidents by a pro-nuke insider.)

      1. There were a continuous stream of improvements released for the GE reactor design at Fukashima. Those revisions were implemented at every US plant using that design and NONE of them were implemented at Fukashima. Fukashima is in no way representative of how US nuclear power plants are maintained or operated.

        1. And despite that, there will be zero deaths attributable to the Fukushima disaster. Coal plants are more dangerous.

          1. Coal is polluting too. And coal mining is dangerous.

            1. Don't be alarmed but emerging data suggests that every live human birth leads to death.

              1. Water and farm implements?

                1. Not nearly as dangerous as he stupidity you show..
                  Eat shit and die, asshole.

        2. It was the design of Fukushima that was at fault rather than its operation or maintenance. Cutting corners to save in construction costs will get you in the end.

    2. Ever notice the huge radar antennae at Chernobyl? Outgoing radar power falls off as the inverse square, like the surface of an expanding sphere. Reflected radar signals do the same, so the power requirements increase as the fourth power of the distance. Cheap graphite-moderated reactors with no containment structures looked like just the thing to force-initiating socialist dictators unable to differentiate a constant. Surprised?

  15. "Oklo foresees selling its reactors to ... college and university campuses."

    Have they been to a US college campus since 1950?

    1. Any campus or just the ones that have built their own reactors since the 1950s?

  16. or you could wait another 20 years for fusion. Not. I worked on inertial laser fusion back in the mid 80's as an undergrad and after as a research scientist. My view then is the same as now..the physics is such that commercially viable fusion is a pipe dream. It is a fools errand.

    As for fission, the cost is much higher (capital, NRE, and operating) than a conventional (coal or natural gas) plant per megawatts. And has the problem of how humans give more weight to low probability events with high negative results. Humans will deal with a refinery explosion that kills 20 or 30 workers but a radioactive level in the air or water from a containment breach scare the hell out of people.
    The issue is you don't many more places to go for electric production do you? Coal, Oil, Gas bad? Wind/Solar is much more expensive, and generation is not predictable or storable economically. Leaves fission. Or Zero Point energy... (kidding)

    1. The sole obstacle to going with nuclear fission power plants is public brainwashing motivated by the desire of financial oligarchs to smash sovereign national governments that are responsive to the needs and legitimate aspirations of common people. Contamination of air and water with radioactive material is no more dangerous than contamination with any of myriad other toxins, both man-made and natural, from automobile exhaust to cigarette smoke to mold to viruses to fart gas. The estimated death toll from nuclear accidents cited by opponents of nuclear power is based on the ridiculous assumption that any dose, however small, is harmful, and in proportion to the dose, aka Linear No-Threshold, and is cumulative for one's entire life and even beyond, with genetic damage propagating to future generations, with no capacity for recovery and repair. Apply that same standard to all the aforementioned hazards and we would be compelled to ban all human life, and all life, if we were capable of doing so! The oligarchs fear nuclear fission power because it supports human life on a far higher level than any other presently available power source, exposing the fraud and wickedness in all of Malthus' proposals. The same oligarchs also fear serious fusion research, and fear that unrestricted use of fission will enable more such research, by eliminating poverty now.

  17. The safety difference in deaths per GW year between nuclear and anything else capable of lighting a city is so large that America would be better off defunding the Nuclear Regulatory Collective and deporting the lot of them to someplace that has no reactors. The recent freezing blackouts--unlike any U.S. reactor accident ever-- caused numerous deaths. Our reactor death toll since the 1940s is three. That's a quarter the deaths on an average day in the Kleptocracy's invasion of Vietnam.

  18. Its on the filthy sheltered limeys to give the first fk about the Ukraine.

    You wanna draft the make population to go play who makes tge best patch of glowing glass for a bag of fagot homos and whore misandrists, go for it.

    Junky fgt obiden can go ahead and draft the 6% lgbt core constituency to go fight putin with imaginary guns for all male america could care.

    Tell the fgt monkey n chief butt pirate we got the unsolicited diplomatic pouches ready if he thinks he has room to send anyone other than that.

  19. Every matriarchy in history only ever emerged after a masive killoff of their male population.

    No one is even slightly confused what junky fgt co has planned here.

  20. Greens that are not nuclear power advocates are not serious about their Green position.

    1. Glowing greenness....

      1. Incredible Hulks!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.