First off John, just want to say thank you for your variety of topics and interests, they seem to overlap closely with mine. I guess it should be of no surprise that the most sensible man on Substack is a farmer, go figure!
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said,
“Hollywood may have to shift its Armageddon themes to climate change, nasty pathogens, or alien invasions; its honeymoon with atomic horror movies has largely ended.”
I think the consensus of what will cause an apocalypse is a tool of fear often wielded by those in power (see Climate change, mast pathogens and alien invasions) My hypothesis is that making the connection between nuclear weapons, a completely legitimate fear of apocalypse, something every human should work to avoid, and nuclear power, was an overt psychological operation of DoD and D o State because of the fear of weapons proliferation that would accompany nuclear energy development. My understanding is that the new SMR tech being developed by NuScale and Copenhagen Atomics has no ability to be diverted for weapons, mainly because they utilize lower quality radioactive inputs (I think this is true of Thorium as well, but a different tech I believe) which are not capable of being developed into high grade refined plutonium. Meaning: nuclear power was an offshoot of nuclear weapons with high grade refined plutonium as the premium input, but future scalable and cost effective fission power has no ability to develop high grade radioactive inputs in its supply chain because the one of the main factors of the price point of SMRs is that their input material is more cost effective.
I think the fear of meltdowns at traditional nuclear power plants has often been hyperbolized by popular culture (aka the CIA owned Hollywood) and media coverage (aka the CIA owned MSM). Chernobyl has surprisingly few long term consequences, the long term cancer rates are orders of magnitude lower than they predicted. Even at Fukushima the long term consequences are minimal. And these are poorly managed large power plants with the maximum ability to inflict harm. East Palestine is a much worse environmental disaster than 3 mile island and we are not beginning to discuss outlawing PVC (chemicals in the PVC manufacturing process spilled). AND, the new SMR tech (especially that from Copenhagen Atomics because they use molten salt cooling systems that are fail safe) basically prevents any of the meltdown problems (because they are too small and have fail safe designs) and waste problems (they can use much lower grade radioactive material which means they recycle degraded uranium much more readily). The SMR tech is the size of a shipping container so it could power global shipping, remote Arctic outposts, or an entire city. This could go years without needing input material for remote communities who currently rely on diesel delivery year round for power and heat.
"but future scalable and cost effective fission power has no ability to develop high grade radioactive inputs in its supply." I think you are correct, though many tech people tell me it is scalable.
Looks like Germany is coming to the same conclusion to help with energy independence. Didn't German officials laugh at Trump when he warned of dependent on Russia for energy during his first term?
Think bigger. The ultimate source of power is the sun. The only thing stopping us from using it exclusively for our energy needs is storage/battery technology. What we need is a "genesis" type project for 1) Dramatically improving storage technology by a factor of 1000x and 2) Improving solar panel efficiency, production and re usability by a factor of 10x.
Solve these (entirely solvable) problems and you have unlimited low-cost, sustainable power forever without the sour aftertaste of nuclear. Efficient, energy-dense power storage would also dramatically improve many other domains - cars, planes, electronics, robotics, mass transit etc. Put Elon on it and we'll have workable solutions within 5-10 years. He's already improving all these things incrementally with all his successful businesses.
If we were to return to nuclear, it would be only useful as a stop-gap measure until we have harnessed the sun. But nuclear reactors (even MSR's) would take so long to get up and running, I don't think it makes sense to pursue. We already have a perfectly usable grid powered by a combination of fossil fuels and gen-1 renewables that will bridge the gap until we are entirely solar-powered.
I agree, but they have been barking up the battery tree for a long time. I am sure we will make improvements in energy density / kg but getting a much better energy density / $$ is the issue. Our view on the price of solar and battery tech is distorted because of massive Chinese subsidies (and why no American company can produce solar panels at cost effective scale despite American subsidies). I think battery is a great thing to invest in, but honestly hydrogen fuel cells may be the better tech for portable energy storage than EVs on batteries (the ceo of Toyota is still bearish on long term mass EV adoption because of fixed costs in manufacturing the battery : minerals - Tesla is only profitable because of subsidies and Ford loses over 60k on every EV they sell) Look into the new SMR tech by Copenhagen Atomics. If the regulators can get out of the way I really do think that is the best way forward. I am a libertarian environmentalist crazy and the externalities of solar are massive. My opinion (as I don’t think anyone really knows) is that due to the inherent energy density in radioactive decay it will have the least amount of net externalities as an energy system (least amount of mining, of acreage of space used for energy). Now I think if you live in a rural area and/or a place that gets loads of sun, Solar is awesome, and I would love to see a better, more cost effective battery. If the future is coming the way the techno utopians see it, we are going to need gangbusters of power, including coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar. I would love for the government(s) to get out of the way so that the market can decide what is more efficient and cost effective. I like RFKs vision of having a free and open market for energy production, but the government regulates the transmission, this way a cornucopia of small energy providers can compete to provide cheap and reliable energy. Right now energy companies and the local, state and federal government are largely synergized and that is why we see all sorts of non-market consequences (such as blackouts and high energy prices).
I know Elon is working on it -- that's why I've written we should hit "pause" om solar panels until they achieve greater efficiency. But 100x the battery storage efficiency, and 10X solar panels? If solar panels are already at 20%, are you proposing a 200% efficiency? LOL I agree there are great problems with nuclear implementation, yet I think the failures of renewables have garnered a second look at the future here. As to all our futures, I'm not sure we can hold off the dike while Elon & co rescue us....
There is a theoretical maximum usable energy of the amount of energy landing on a given area of the earth's surface but that theoretical maximum is so much more enormous than we could ever use, it is practically irrelevant. 100% efficient panels are not needed, nor even 50%. More gains are needed in panel production and re-usability, which is where my 10x off-the-cuff suggestion comes from. The biggest improvements needed are in storage (efficiency, capacity, production and re-usability.) We don't know what that looks like yet. It will likely involve many technologies - new and old - depending on the application, including chemical batteries and mechanical. The largest "battery" in the world isn't chemical. It's a pumped-hydro battery in Bath County, VA, rated at 24GWh- enough to power over 3,000 homes for a whole year.
The best power generation is like the best food - hyperlocal. But nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant, no matter how small and safe it is. Most people wouldn't object to a solar roof and 30-day energy storage in their garage.
We need to invest into reliable energy-dense on-shore power solutions instead of the bat, eagle, whale, clam and horseshoe crab killing eco-disaster of wind that is not even 40% reliable. Subsidies for such unworkable and ecologically disastrous 'solutions' need to end immediately.
WHAT HAPPENED TO GOOD OLE MAN POWER? UNITE WITH GOD
I use these muscles a lot! :)
YEA I USE MY NUCLEAR MUSCLES A LOT
We have a perfect location for a next generation nuclear power plant - all the transmission is in place. The VT Yankee site in Vernon.
:) I think it would hold four or five units.... LOL
First off John, just want to say thank you for your variety of topics and interests, they seem to overlap closely with mine. I guess it should be of no surprise that the most sensible man on Substack is a farmer, go figure!
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said,
“Hollywood may have to shift its Armageddon themes to climate change, nasty pathogens, or alien invasions; its honeymoon with atomic horror movies has largely ended.”
I think the consensus of what will cause an apocalypse is a tool of fear often wielded by those in power (see Climate change, mast pathogens and alien invasions) My hypothesis is that making the connection between nuclear weapons, a completely legitimate fear of apocalypse, something every human should work to avoid, and nuclear power, was an overt psychological operation of DoD and D o State because of the fear of weapons proliferation that would accompany nuclear energy development. My understanding is that the new SMR tech being developed by NuScale and Copenhagen Atomics has no ability to be diverted for weapons, mainly because they utilize lower quality radioactive inputs (I think this is true of Thorium as well, but a different tech I believe) which are not capable of being developed into high grade refined plutonium. Meaning: nuclear power was an offshoot of nuclear weapons with high grade refined plutonium as the premium input, but future scalable and cost effective fission power has no ability to develop high grade radioactive inputs in its supply chain because the one of the main factors of the price point of SMRs is that their input material is more cost effective.
I think the fear of meltdowns at traditional nuclear power plants has often been hyperbolized by popular culture (aka the CIA owned Hollywood) and media coverage (aka the CIA owned MSM). Chernobyl has surprisingly few long term consequences, the long term cancer rates are orders of magnitude lower than they predicted. Even at Fukushima the long term consequences are minimal. And these are poorly managed large power plants with the maximum ability to inflict harm. East Palestine is a much worse environmental disaster than 3 mile island and we are not beginning to discuss outlawing PVC (chemicals in the PVC manufacturing process spilled). AND, the new SMR tech (especially that from Copenhagen Atomics because they use molten salt cooling systems that are fail safe) basically prevents any of the meltdown problems (because they are too small and have fail safe designs) and waste problems (they can use much lower grade radioactive material which means they recycle degraded uranium much more readily). The SMR tech is the size of a shipping container so it could power global shipping, remote Arctic outposts, or an entire city. This could go years without needing input material for remote communities who currently rely on diesel delivery year round for power and heat.
"but future scalable and cost effective fission power has no ability to develop high grade radioactive inputs in its supply." I think you are correct, though many tech people tell me it is scalable.
Looks like Germany is coming to the same conclusion to help with energy independence. Didn't German officials laugh at Trump when he warned of dependent on Russia for energy during his first term?
Yes, I think it was Merkel who smirked at him.... :)
Less smirking now.
Think bigger. The ultimate source of power is the sun. The only thing stopping us from using it exclusively for our energy needs is storage/battery technology. What we need is a "genesis" type project for 1) Dramatically improving storage technology by a factor of 1000x and 2) Improving solar panel efficiency, production and re usability by a factor of 10x.
Solve these (entirely solvable) problems and you have unlimited low-cost, sustainable power forever without the sour aftertaste of nuclear. Efficient, energy-dense power storage would also dramatically improve many other domains - cars, planes, electronics, robotics, mass transit etc. Put Elon on it and we'll have workable solutions within 5-10 years. He's already improving all these things incrementally with all his successful businesses.
If we were to return to nuclear, it would be only useful as a stop-gap measure until we have harnessed the sun. But nuclear reactors (even MSR's) would take so long to get up and running, I don't think it makes sense to pursue. We already have a perfectly usable grid powered by a combination of fossil fuels and gen-1 renewables that will bridge the gap until we are entirely solar-powered.
I agree, but they have been barking up the battery tree for a long time. I am sure we will make improvements in energy density / kg but getting a much better energy density / $$ is the issue. Our view on the price of solar and battery tech is distorted because of massive Chinese subsidies (and why no American company can produce solar panels at cost effective scale despite American subsidies). I think battery is a great thing to invest in, but honestly hydrogen fuel cells may be the better tech for portable energy storage than EVs on batteries (the ceo of Toyota is still bearish on long term mass EV adoption because of fixed costs in manufacturing the battery : minerals - Tesla is only profitable because of subsidies and Ford loses over 60k on every EV they sell) Look into the new SMR tech by Copenhagen Atomics. If the regulators can get out of the way I really do think that is the best way forward. I am a libertarian environmentalist crazy and the externalities of solar are massive. My opinion (as I don’t think anyone really knows) is that due to the inherent energy density in radioactive decay it will have the least amount of net externalities as an energy system (least amount of mining, of acreage of space used for energy). Now I think if you live in a rural area and/or a place that gets loads of sun, Solar is awesome, and I would love to see a better, more cost effective battery. If the future is coming the way the techno utopians see it, we are going to need gangbusters of power, including coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar. I would love for the government(s) to get out of the way so that the market can decide what is more efficient and cost effective. I like RFKs vision of having a free and open market for energy production, but the government regulates the transmission, this way a cornucopia of small energy providers can compete to provide cheap and reliable energy. Right now energy companies and the local, state and federal government are largely synergized and that is why we see all sorts of non-market consequences (such as blackouts and high energy prices).
I know Elon is working on it -- that's why I've written we should hit "pause" om solar panels until they achieve greater efficiency. But 100x the battery storage efficiency, and 10X solar panels? If solar panels are already at 20%, are you proposing a 200% efficiency? LOL I agree there are great problems with nuclear implementation, yet I think the failures of renewables have garnered a second look at the future here. As to all our futures, I'm not sure we can hold off the dike while Elon & co rescue us....
There is a theoretical maximum usable energy of the amount of energy landing on a given area of the earth's surface but that theoretical maximum is so much more enormous than we could ever use, it is practically irrelevant. 100% efficient panels are not needed, nor even 50%. More gains are needed in panel production and re-usability, which is where my 10x off-the-cuff suggestion comes from. The biggest improvements needed are in storage (efficiency, capacity, production and re-usability.) We don't know what that looks like yet. It will likely involve many technologies - new and old - depending on the application, including chemical batteries and mechanical. The largest "battery" in the world isn't chemical. It's a pumped-hydro battery in Bath County, VA, rated at 24GWh- enough to power over 3,000 homes for a whole year.
The best power generation is like the best food - hyperlocal. But nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant, no matter how small and safe it is. Most people wouldn't object to a solar roof and 30-day energy storage in their garage.
We need to invest into reliable energy-dense on-shore power solutions instead of the bat, eagle, whale, clam and horseshoe crab killing eco-disaster of wind that is not even 40% reliable. Subsidies for such unworkable and ecologically disastrous 'solutions' need to end immediately.
Amen! I fully agree.
This is an exciting concept along with natural gas being let out of the gulag.