Only LOW COST nuclear power will impact our future.
Article has good insights into the practicality of dual AP1000 nuclear power plants at existing plant sites but not much optimism on cost. I'm a co-founder of Thorcon, developing molten salt reactor power plants for Indonesia and SE Asia markets. The rich tech firms don't have the same incentive we do -- energy cheaper than from coal. This essay explains the importance of LOW COST CO2-emission-free, 24x7 power and describes our design choices to generate electricity cheaper than from burning coal or LNG. https://mailchi.mp/86906e15dcd6/only-low-cost-nuclear-power-will-impact-our-future?e=0bd4c20197 Visit thorconpower.com for more.
This is an interesting article, but if the goal is fast construction of cheap, low-carbon electricity generation in North America, Combined Cycle Gas Turbines are by far the best option.
"Today we deep dive fracking and shale, the energy source that put Peak Oil concerns on the back burner for a decade and a half. According to recent analysis by Goehring and Rozencwajg Shale field production is showing signs of sliding down the backside of Hubbert’s curve. What are the geopolitical and economic ramifications? Are there more shale booms on the horizon overseas? What are the implications for nuclear which has been sidelined in deregulated markets by cheap abundant gas? Leigh Goehring joins me for a detailed discussion"
The End of Abundant Energy: Shale Production and Hubbert's Peak:
If the Gas supply crunch happens again in the US as it did in the 1970's, this time it will be even more devastating to industry, the economy and the health and wellbeing of Americans. Governments who ignore Energy Supply Diversity put their own nation in peril.
I seriously doubt it. These are the same experts who never thought it could happen in the first place.
Skeptics have been saying that Shale gas will soon peak for the last 20 years, and there are plenty of energy experts who take the opposite position. Given that the Shale boom is so far almost exclusively an American phenomenon, I think it is barely getting started.
Plus CCGT is so cheap to construct that even if we run out of natural gas in 10 years, which is extremely unlikely, it is still a smart choice. It typically takes 10 years to construct a nuclear reactor. CCGT takes 1 year. If you want to think of it as a transition to nuclear, go for it, but my guess is that transition will take an awfully long time.
It takes 10 years in the USA due to bad regulation and having blockaded nuclear for 40yrs. You think you can ramp up nuclear by sitting on your hands for ten years? Whatcha gonna due in ten years? Let everyone starve to death? Where you gonna turn? They're shutting down coal also. Who is going to build Coal power plants?
By 1974 the US was completing one NPP/month, with two on order. At that rate the US would have been 100% zero emissions nuclear by the early 1990s. With much cheaper electricity than gas currently produces. That's without even using modern factory production methods. It takes time to rebuild the supply chain and skilled workforce/contractors.
CCGT can easily substitute for coal plants as well. And I never said that supporting nuclear should wait 10 years, only that it will take that much time once the decision is made. I am both pro-nuclear and pro-natural gas.
Oh, and I forget to mention, our leaders are screaming at us everyday "Climate change, climate change, global boiling, the world is on fire, existential threat...". And spending $trillions on wind & solar, supposedly because of that. Somehow nuclear doesn't qualify, though unlike wind & solar, is proven to seriously reduce emissions.
8yrs @ $4.3B/GWe is a big difference from 10yrs @ $15.5B/GWe. That's in a barely industrialized tiny nation with zero nuclear expertise. Almost no manufacturing sector.
And avg time of the installation was 3yrs/unit which is what happens when you build in parallel.
CCGT is substituting for coal, and nuclear. So in the US, reliable power is all going gas, greenwashed by wind & solar. One fuel source, single point of failure just waiting to happen.
How well did a reliance on gas work out in Europe? China is sticking with coal, ramping up nuclear. In spite of having a large, low cost gas supply available from Russia, which no longer has the European market. Apparently they ain't confident that their friend & neighbor is a secure supply. Good foresight. Something you lack.
I'm pro-NG too, I just know what is being done now is extraordinarily dangerous. A cynic might just figure we are being setup for deindustrialization and totalitarianism. "Ok, plebes, the sun is shining so you can have some power or too bad plebes, the wind isn't blowing, so no power for you today, be thankful your carbon footprint will be low today".
G&R ain't skeptics. They did advanced analysis of Shale Gas fields, neural net analysis, and concluded that is coming. They are investor driven energy specialists.
You can just as well say cheerleaders (including the EIA) proclaimed that Conventional Gas would be plentiful for a long time back in 1970, until it wasn't.
Putting the economy and human lives at major risk by wishful thinking is a fool's errand.
If that's the attitude we should take, we could easily solve the Nuclear problem with the stroke of the pen. Lets just get rid of all Nuclear regulators and regulations.
I am not “ Putting the economy and human lives at major risk.” That is pure hyperbole.
You are banking your entire theory on a prediction of the future which may or may not be true. And on predictions that have been wrong for the last 20 years. Technological breakthroughs are happening constantly in the shale oil and gas industry.
The major energy producers clearly disagree with G&R as they are buying up land in the shale gas fields like crazy. Maybe they are wrong, but I am not alone among my opinion. I personally know many petroleum geologists.
Well, we will just see whose prediction of the future turns out to be more accurate. As for now CCGT is far superior to nuclear in North America by almost every criteria.
That's not how depletion works. You are still drilling, still buying leases, you may even get increased revenue, but once the field is in decline, nothing you do will stop that.
CCGT is superior due to corruption, imposed upon Nuclear but the exact opposite on gas. Try banning fracking, shutdown the gas industry for 40yrs and then decide, hey, let's frack for gas again and see how fast and cost effective it is. No trained personnel, no supply chain, no contractors, timid investors.
It is clearly not true that once production in a field declines, it does not come back. Technological innovations are constantly giving access to previously uneconomic and unproductive fields. Shale gas companies are constantly reopening old fields. I seriously question your basic knowledge of the shale gas industry.
No, CCGT is not superior to all other electricity sources due to corruption. That is a ridiculous argument.
That is a bizarre statement from someone who claims to be pro-natural gas.
" Notably, both designs utilize Triso fuel, simplifying what is arguably the most complicated supply chain issue."
GE/Hitachi PRISM uses metallic fuel, which is simple to fabricate. To learn the significant safety advantages, and simple fabrication, read "Plentiful Energy" by Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang. High thermal conductivity means the fuel operates at only about 700°C, which in turn means there's far less Doppler reactivity.
" arguments are largely based upon the economics of simply building smaller versions of large light water reactors"
GE/Hitachi PRISM is a metal-fueled sodium-cooled fast-neutron reactor based on EBR-II. In 1986, EBR-II was proven to an invited international audience to be "walk-away" safe. Look for articles by David Baurac at http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Nuclear.html . For more details of why it's inherently safe, read "Plentiful Energy" by Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang. The "reactor" part of the Natrium project at Kemmerer is a 345 MWe PRISM. It's coupled to a 500 MWh molten-salt thermal store that can cycle output rapidly to cope with variability of solar and wind. "Natrium" is the Latin word for "Salt." Of course, for a data center, the load would be roughly constant, so they wouldn't need the thermal store. GE/Hitachi also offer a 150 MWe PRISM. PRISM designs were certified by NRC many years ago.
Large reactors operate at the same core temperature as small ones, except gas-cooled reactors operate at much higher temperatures. Large reactors contain more radioactive material, but less per watt of capacity.
One site that should have gotten new reactors was San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, but the Navy and Marine Corps want their 84 acres of otherwise useless land back as part of Pendleton Marine Corps 125,000 acre base..
Thank you for this well researched and argued perspective. Natural gas is coming up in these comments. I agree it will be used to power data centers. But it seems the just-in-time aspect of that fuel might be unsettling to data center owner/operators, much like dependence on an electrical grid as energy gets scarce. I’d want my power generation close, independent, and reliable without any inputs required for very long stretches. I think about a data center and the overwhelming appetite for electrical energy is all I can think of.
Wind fanatics blamed the winter failure in Texas on the gas companies failing to deliver gas to the turbines. Why did that happen? Geniuses decided that gas companies had to use electric pumps for their pipelines, instead of natural gas-powered diesel pumps. When the wind failed, so did the pipelines.
Kairos and X-Energy have not yet deployed any reactors, but GE/Hitachi are beginning construction of a 345 MWe PRISM at Kemmerer, WY. PRISM is a sodium-cooled metal-fueled fast-neutron reactor that is an up-scaled version of EBR-II, which was proven in 1986 to an invited international audience to be "walk-away" safe (and then the Cliton administration destroyed it in 1994). PRISM means "Power Reactor Innovative Small Modular" (although I also like "Power Reactor Inherently Safe Modular"). GE/Hitachi also offer a 150 MWe version. PRISM designs were approved by NRC many years ago.
The Kemmerer plant will include a 500 MWh molten-salt thermal store to provide rapid load following. The plant's name is "Natrium" -- the Latin word for "salt." Bill Gaes's Terrapower is a partner.
The main attraction of big reactors is that they need less fissionables per watt of capacity. Big and small both burn uranium at the rate of 989 kg/GWe-yr, but neutron economy is better in a big reactor because the surface-to-volume ratio is smaller.
There are real and very substantial societal benefits to spreading the largess of the deployment of nuclear power plants far and wide. Those wonderful, highest quality jobs enliven communities, build out facilities, healthcare, education and much more. In the UK, we call it 'Levelling Up':
And, there is also a genuine prospect of transmission and distribution costs being substantially reduced, along with minimising environmental impact and reducing the restrictions the impending, inexorable Copper-Crunch will have on all sectors of energy supply.
Thanks for this. I have seen tons of “AP1000 is the only way” material lately. While I agree we should be building more of them, they clearly cannot do all the work that needs to be done and going that path would be ruinous.
The energy industry is tens of trillions per year up for grabs in the future, so we need to invest in a lot of different options rather than only push to standardize on a nice optimized design from 1990. Fortunately or unfortunately the “tech bros” are the only ones with a vision far enough into the future to see this.
Excellent article. You note in passing that the use of Triso fuel would simplify supply chain problems, but there is currently no commercial supply of this next generation fuel. I would love to hear more about this specific challenge.
A firm order book is a nice trigger for people interested in building a supply chain. It will take effort but Kairos, X- Energy and others are working on it as part of their projects.
To SmithFS -- How childish. Poor little SmithFS -- someone told you the truth.
A simple point as to "which one is better" -- which doesn't matter - except to you -- and if that's your thing -- so what.
Point in fact though: --First: can you tell this forum that EC President Ursula von der Leyen has officially requested the Rossi E-Cat, which was invented in Europe -- to apply for funding through the EC Horizon Europe?
I received an official request for just that -- to apply for funding -- for Europe -- because I sent her information through the former Commissioner for Energy - and Engineers - not little boys yelling and screaming - realizing it's proven, 124 year old technology - requested that it be "sent upstairs".
I have nothing against your "fave", the E-Cat: -- because it seems to work - and that's great.
But when you stack it up against the proven 124 year track record of the Tesla based "POD MOD" technology - which is "one-in-the-same" - "you" -- not the E-Cat technology - are the "hot air".
Reform the NRC? That's less likely than reforming the equally corrupt FBI, CIA, CDC, FDA, NIH, DHS. Vivek Ramaswamy has the best idea, eliminate the NRC, other existing agencies are quite capable of taking over its function, with more safety, far lower cost, far faster in licensing. The NRC is corrupt, that is the central issue and without solving that all these new policy ideas will be ineffective.
How about this? Turn over nuclear regulation to the States who can do so much more efficiently. Each State will have to compete with each other for nuclear power. States with NRC clone dysfunctional regulators will build no reactors. States with rational AEC based regulators, will be building NPPs, selling power to and taking jobs from the NRC-sychophant states. And they will look bad. Embarrassingly bad.
Many countries run less NPPs and have lower populations than typical US states and have well run regulators that make the NRC look like a sick joke. No reason that US states can't do just as well, or better.
Another good idea is replacing the regulator with Underwriter Certification of NPPs:
As an aside, the Centralization of Power has been an overall failure. Dismal failure. That's just led to Regulator Capture (the NRC is a captured regulator but unlike the FDA, CDC, NIH etc it is not captured by the industry it regulates but the competitors to the industry it regulates.). A much better model is to have a central cooperatively run administration & research center that only supplies information & advice to the decentralized state level regulators who actually make the laws and enforce compliance.
Only LOW COST nuclear power will impact our future.
Article has good insights into the practicality of dual AP1000 nuclear power plants at existing plant sites but not much optimism on cost. I'm a co-founder of Thorcon, developing molten salt reactor power plants for Indonesia and SE Asia markets. The rich tech firms don't have the same incentive we do -- energy cheaper than from coal. This essay explains the importance of LOW COST CO2-emission-free, 24x7 power and describes our design choices to generate electricity cheaper than from burning coal or LNG. https://mailchi.mp/86906e15dcd6/only-low-cost-nuclear-power-will-impact-our-future?e=0bd4c20197 Visit thorconpower.com for more.
This is an interesting article, but if the goal is fast construction of cheap, low-carbon electricity generation in North America, Combined Cycle Gas Turbines are by far the best option.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
That may be true at the moment but maybe you should read what Industry Experts G&R say about gas:
Have We Reached Peak Shale?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzWGnbI9nw
"Today we deep dive fracking and shale, the energy source that put Peak Oil concerns on the back burner for a decade and a half. According to recent analysis by Goehring and Rozencwajg Shale field production is showing signs of sliding down the backside of Hubbert’s curve. What are the geopolitical and economic ramifications? Are there more shale booms on the horizon overseas? What are the implications for nuclear which has been sidelined in deregulated markets by cheap abundant gas? Leigh Goehring joins me for a detailed discussion"
The End of Abundant Energy: Shale Production and Hubbert's Peak:
https://info.gorozen.com/2022-q4-commentary-peak-oil
If the Gas supply crunch happens again in the US as it did in the 1970's, this time it will be even more devastating to industry, the economy and the health and wellbeing of Americans. Governments who ignore Energy Supply Diversity put their own nation in peril.
I seriously doubt it. These are the same experts who never thought it could happen in the first place.
Skeptics have been saying that Shale gas will soon peak for the last 20 years, and there are plenty of energy experts who take the opposite position. Given that the Shale boom is so far almost exclusively an American phenomenon, I think it is barely getting started.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-greens-should-love-fracking
Plus CCGT is so cheap to construct that even if we run out of natural gas in 10 years, which is extremely unlikely, it is still a smart choice. It typically takes 10 years to construct a nuclear reactor. CCGT takes 1 year. If you want to think of it as a transition to nuclear, go for it, but my guess is that transition will take an awfully long time.
It takes 10 years in the USA due to bad regulation and having blockaded nuclear for 40yrs. You think you can ramp up nuclear by sitting on your hands for ten years? Whatcha gonna due in ten years? Let everyone starve to death? Where you gonna turn? They're shutting down coal also. Who is going to build Coal power plants?
By 1974 the US was completing one NPP/month, with two on order. At that rate the US would have been 100% zero emissions nuclear by the early 1990s. With much cheaper electricity than gas currently produces. That's without even using modern factory production methods. It takes time to rebuild the supply chain and skilled workforce/contractors.
I never said anything about “sitting on our hands.” I am also pro-nuclear and hydro.
No, it not just slow in USA. The new South Korean APR-1400 reactors constructed in UAE took just about the same time period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400#United_Arab_Emirates
CCGT can easily substitute for coal plants as well. And I never said that supporting nuclear should wait 10 years, only that it will take that much time once the decision is made. I am both pro-nuclear and pro-natural gas.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-simple-and-cost-effective-plan
Oh, and I forget to mention, our leaders are screaming at us everyday "Climate change, climate change, global boiling, the world is on fire, existential threat...". And spending $trillions on wind & solar, supposedly because of that. Somehow nuclear doesn't qualify, though unlike wind & solar, is proven to seriously reduce emissions.
So then why the fuck are you arguing against me instead of them?
8yrs @ $4.3B/GWe is a big difference from 10yrs @ $15.5B/GWe. That's in a barely industrialized tiny nation with zero nuclear expertise. Almost no manufacturing sector.
And avg time of the installation was 3yrs/unit which is what happens when you build in parallel.
CCGT is substituting for coal, and nuclear. So in the US, reliable power is all going gas, greenwashed by wind & solar. One fuel source, single point of failure just waiting to happen.
How well did a reliance on gas work out in Europe? China is sticking with coal, ramping up nuclear. In spite of having a large, low cost gas supply available from Russia, which no longer has the European market. Apparently they ain't confident that their friend & neighbor is a secure supply. Good foresight. Something you lack.
I'm pro-NG too, I just know what is being done now is extraordinarily dangerous. A cynic might just figure we are being setup for deindustrialization and totalitarianism. "Ok, plebes, the sun is shining so you can have some power or too bad plebes, the wind isn't blowing, so no power for you today, be thankful your carbon footprint will be low today".
So if you are pro-NG, why the hell are you spending so much time disagreeing with my comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The nuclear plant in question was built by the South Koreans who are an industrialized nation with lots of manufacturing.
Sorry, increasing natural gas production is not extremely dangerous.
I am not advocating for CGGT replacing nuclear.
Europe got into trouble exactly because they refused to drill in domestic shale fields.
G&R ain't skeptics. They did advanced analysis of Shale Gas fields, neural net analysis, and concluded that is coming. They are investor driven energy specialists.
You can just as well say cheerleaders (including the EIA) proclaimed that Conventional Gas would be plentiful for a long time back in 1970, until it wasn't.
Putting the economy and human lives at major risk by wishful thinking is a fool's errand.
If that's the attitude we should take, we could easily solve the Nuclear problem with the stroke of the pen. Lets just get rid of all Nuclear regulators and regulations.
I am not “ Putting the economy and human lives at major risk.” That is pure hyperbole.
You are banking your entire theory on a prediction of the future which may or may not be true. And on predictions that have been wrong for the last 20 years. Technological breakthroughs are happening constantly in the shale oil and gas industry.
The major energy producers clearly disagree with G&R as they are buying up land in the shale gas fields like crazy. Maybe they are wrong, but I am not alone among my opinion. I personally know many petroleum geologists.
Well, we will just see whose prediction of the future turns out to be more accurate. As for now CCGT is far superior to nuclear in North America by almost every criteria.
That's not how depletion works. You are still drilling, still buying leases, you may even get increased revenue, but once the field is in decline, nothing you do will stop that.
CCGT is superior due to corruption, imposed upon Nuclear but the exact opposite on gas. Try banning fracking, shutdown the gas industry for 40yrs and then decide, hey, let's frack for gas again and see how fast and cost effective it is. No trained personnel, no supply chain, no contractors, timid investors.
I honestly have no idea what you are saying….
It is clearly not true that once production in a field declines, it does not come back. Technological innovations are constantly giving access to previously uneconomic and unproductive fields. Shale gas companies are constantly reopening old fields. I seriously question your basic knowledge of the shale gas industry.
No, CCGT is not superior to all other electricity sources due to corruption. That is a ridiculous argument.
That is a bizarre statement from someone who claims to be pro-natural gas.
" Notably, both designs utilize Triso fuel, simplifying what is arguably the most complicated supply chain issue."
GE/Hitachi PRISM uses metallic fuel, which is simple to fabricate. To learn the significant safety advantages, and simple fabrication, read "Plentiful Energy" by Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang. High thermal conductivity means the fuel operates at only about 700°C, which in turn means there's far less Doppler reactivity.
" arguments are largely based upon the economics of simply building smaller versions of large light water reactors"
GE/Hitachi PRISM is a metal-fueled sodium-cooled fast-neutron reactor based on EBR-II. In 1986, EBR-II was proven to an invited international audience to be "walk-away" safe. Look for articles by David Baurac at http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Nuclear.html . For more details of why it's inherently safe, read "Plentiful Energy" by Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang. The "reactor" part of the Natrium project at Kemmerer is a 345 MWe PRISM. It's coupled to a 500 MWh molten-salt thermal store that can cycle output rapidly to cope with variability of solar and wind. "Natrium" is the Latin word for "Salt." Of course, for a data center, the load would be roughly constant, so they wouldn't need the thermal store. GE/Hitachi also offer a 150 MWe PRISM. PRISM designs were certified by NRC many years ago.
Large reactors operate at the same core temperature as small ones, except gas-cooled reactors operate at much higher temperatures. Large reactors contain more radioactive material, but less per watt of capacity.
One site that should have gotten new reactors was San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, but the Navy and Marine Corps want their 84 acres of otherwise useless land back as part of Pendleton Marine Corps 125,000 acre base..
Thank you for this well researched and argued perspective. Natural gas is coming up in these comments. I agree it will be used to power data centers. But it seems the just-in-time aspect of that fuel might be unsettling to data center owner/operators, much like dependence on an electrical grid as energy gets scarce. I’d want my power generation close, independent, and reliable without any inputs required for very long stretches. I think about a data center and the overwhelming appetite for electrical energy is all I can think of.
Wind fanatics blamed the winter failure in Texas on the gas companies failing to deliver gas to the turbines. Why did that happen? Geniuses decided that gas companies had to use electric pumps for their pipelines, instead of natural gas-powered diesel pumps. When the wind failed, so did the pipelines.
That is a useful piece of information. Thank you.
Kairos and X-Energy have not yet deployed any reactors, but GE/Hitachi are beginning construction of a 345 MWe PRISM at Kemmerer, WY. PRISM is a sodium-cooled metal-fueled fast-neutron reactor that is an up-scaled version of EBR-II, which was proven in 1986 to an invited international audience to be "walk-away" safe (and then the Cliton administration destroyed it in 1994). PRISM means "Power Reactor Innovative Small Modular" (although I also like "Power Reactor Inherently Safe Modular"). GE/Hitachi also offer a 150 MWe version. PRISM designs were approved by NRC many years ago.
The Kemmerer plant will include a 500 MWh molten-salt thermal store to provide rapid load following. The plant's name is "Natrium" -- the Latin word for "salt." Bill Gaes's Terrapower is a partner.
The main attraction of big reactors is that they need less fissionables per watt of capacity. Big and small both burn uranium at the rate of 989 kg/GWe-yr, but neutron economy is better in a big reactor because the surface-to-volume ratio is smaller.
There are real and very substantial societal benefits to spreading the largess of the deployment of nuclear power plants far and wide. Those wonderful, highest quality jobs enliven communities, build out facilities, healthcare, education and much more. In the UK, we call it 'Levelling Up':
https://colinmegson.substack.com/p/spread-the-largess-of-smr-deployment
And, there is also a genuine prospect of transmission and distribution costs being substantially reduced, along with minimising environmental impact and reducing the restrictions the impending, inexorable Copper-Crunch will have on all sectors of energy supply.
Thanks for this. I have seen tons of “AP1000 is the only way” material lately. While I agree we should be building more of them, they clearly cannot do all the work that needs to be done and going that path would be ruinous.
The energy industry is tens of trillions per year up for grabs in the future, so we need to invest in a lot of different options rather than only push to standardize on a nice optimized design from 1990. Fortunately or unfortunately the “tech bros” are the only ones with a vision far enough into the future to see this.
China is building scaled-up ripped-off Westinghouse technology, calling it CAP1400. They have CAP1700 on the drawing board in Shanghai.
Excellent article. You note in passing that the use of Triso fuel would simplify supply chain problems, but there is currently no commercial supply of this next generation fuel. I would love to hear more about this specific challenge.
A firm order book is a nice trigger for people interested in building a supply chain. It will take effort but Kairos, X- Energy and others are working on it as part of their projects.
To SmithFS -- How childish. Poor little SmithFS -- someone told you the truth.
A simple point as to "which one is better" -- which doesn't matter - except to you -- and if that's your thing -- so what.
Point in fact though: --First: can you tell this forum that EC President Ursula von der Leyen has officially requested the Rossi E-Cat, which was invented in Europe -- to apply for funding through the EC Horizon Europe?
I received an official request for just that -- to apply for funding -- for Europe -- because I sent her information through the former Commissioner for Energy - and Engineers - not little boys yelling and screaming - realizing it's proven, 124 year old technology - requested that it be "sent upstairs".
I have nothing against your "fave", the E-Cat: -- because it seems to work - and that's great.
But when you stack it up against the proven 124 year track record of the Tesla based "POD MOD" technology - which is "one-in-the-same" - "you" -- not the E-Cat technology - are the "hot air".
Ursula von der Leyen, figures:
MEP Cristian Terhes Calls Out von der Leyen for her Globalist Deindustrialization Program, Impoverishing Europe:
https://www.europereloaded.com/ursula-von-der-leyen-is-directly-responsible-for-the-increase-in-food-energy-prices-in-the-eu/
Reform the NRC? That's less likely than reforming the equally corrupt FBI, CIA, CDC, FDA, NIH, DHS. Vivek Ramaswamy has the best idea, eliminate the NRC, other existing agencies are quite capable of taking over its function, with more safety, far lower cost, far faster in licensing. The NRC is corrupt, that is the central issue and without solving that all these new policy ideas will be ineffective.
How about this? Turn over nuclear regulation to the States who can do so much more efficiently. Each State will have to compete with each other for nuclear power. States with NRC clone dysfunctional regulators will build no reactors. States with rational AEC based regulators, will be building NPPs, selling power to and taking jobs from the NRC-sychophant states. And they will look bad. Embarrassingly bad.
Many countries run less NPPs and have lower populations than typical US states and have well run regulators that make the NRC look like a sick joke. No reason that US states can't do just as well, or better.
Another good idea is replacing the regulator with Underwriter Certification of NPPs:
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/underwriter-certification-of-nuclear-4fe
As an aside, the Centralization of Power has been an overall failure. Dismal failure. That's just led to Regulator Capture (the NRC is a captured regulator but unlike the FDA, CDC, NIH etc it is not captured by the industry it regulates but the competitors to the industry it regulates.). A much better model is to have a central cooperatively run administration & research center that only supplies information & advice to the decentralized state level regulators who actually make the laws and enforce compliance.
To Mr. Norhaus and Mr. Stein -- you can't make the case -- because the POD MOD technology beats any nuke - on space needed / cost / and longevity .
Sorry Guys -- your whippin' a dead horse.
The MOD POD can't even compete with Rossi's E-Cat. Which tells you all you need to know.