Current nuclear

Nuclear power generation has had its ups and downs over the last few decades. At this time, there's somewhat of a global movement to approve it as a reliable source of non-fossil fuel energy. It comes after a dip in production and public approval due to safety and climate scares. The world total (image) has stabilized and seems likely to increase.

France, Sweden, Finland are all pressing forward. New variations of nuclear power plants are being researched and tried. 

Germany, however, is an exception to all this. Their goal for many years was to eliminate their nuclear power plants. That ill-advised goal was achieved in 2023 when they phased out the last three. Now they depend on oil imported from Russia, solar and wind arrays, and liquid natural gas . . and they pay a high price for power.

from Our World in Data

Nuclear & NASA

It's not only tech companies that invest in new applications of nuclear power. NASA (American Space and Aeronautics Agency) is researching how to make nuclear energy our reliable power source for use on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Getting astronauts there is not the entire challenge. When they get there, they'll need power for living and exploring. There won't be a back-up electrical grid using natural gas or coal or any fossil fuel. A nuclear plant will have to support the Artemis mission's goal, a sustainable human presence on the Moon.

It's called the fission surface power project. The fission reactor will have to be relatively lightweight, self-contained, and small compared to what we have on earth. How powerful must it be? At least 40 kilowatts. In earth terms, it could "continuously run 30 households for ten years."

from NASA

(cont'd tomorrow)

AI & Nuclear 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

"Staggering" amounts of energy are needed for the coming build-out of artificial intelligence. Here's a comparison from the CNBC video below to illustrate it: just one ChatGPT query takes about 10x the power required for an ordinary Google search.

Even when new power plants come online, either public or privately owned by a tech company, our electricity grid is a concern. The average transformer is 38 years old.

Even water becomes a challenge. It's often used to cool down the servers so they can operate 24/7. One alternative is to use big air conditioning units instead of water.

It all adds up to huge consumption of resources.

AI & nuclear 1

Remember the "Metaverse," that virtual reality envisioned by Mark Zuckerberg? After billions of dollars of investment, there was enormous loss. The Metaverse virtual reality platforms still exist, but not as the company's primary focus. 

Instead, Meta has turned to artificial intelligence. Their new superintelligence research lab will be led by the founder of Scale AI (they paid $14.3 billion dollars for a 49% share in his company).

As MIT commented, building out AI will require "staggering" amounts of energy. So they're actively looking for nuclear developers with whom they can partner (read: invest $) to produce new power. That could include either big conventional plants, or the emerging SMR's (small modular reactors).

But of course fusion (instead of current fission) nuclear would be the breakthrough solution if the theory ever becomes practical. Meta has an agreement with Helion, as does Microsoft, for the delivery of fusion-produced nuclear power by 2028. 

Can Helion do it? It remains to be seen. We're hopeful. They've started on Microsoft's nuclear fusion plant:

Nuclear now 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

And why is nuclear power a concern for AI builders? Because artificial intelligence is being developed fast, and it's going to require much more power very soon. 

Last February the U.S. president and OpenAI announced the "Stargate" initiative, a collaboration between private companies and the government to develop artificial intelligence and the data centers that will power it. 

Running AI is energy-intensive. MIT says, "The energy resources required to power this artificial intelligence revolution are staggering . . ."

What sort of plants will supply the power? It's less likely to be coal, windmills or solar. Even relatively clean natural gas, being a fossil fuel, is considered somewhat "dirty." Both "Meta and Microsoft are working to fire up new nuclear power plants." 

More nuclear looks to be a common, clean choice (image).

from Technology Review

Nuclear now 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Isabelle used to worry about the environment, but changed her mind to believing that humans can solve the problem. Now she's excited about becoming an "influencer" to promote nuclear power on social media (image) . . using her cool factor as a model.

Can she get the attention of other cultural influencers? Maybe so: actress Gwyneth Paltrow helped launch her new book (which came out last week), Rad Future, in The Hamptons. 

Isabelle created on online persona, Isodope. You can see her social media posts there and some of them here on Youtube.

Silicon Valley leaders are really interested in nuclear power, she says, because of AI. The connection is in tomorrow's post.

from "The Brazilian Model Who Wants America to Go Nuclear"

(cont'd tomorrow)

Nuclear now

It's easy to make a rational case in favor of nuclear power, and people have been making that case for some time. 

No fossil fuels are burned, so nuclear power plants don't emit carbon, so they're "green" -- a big issue in today's cultural climate. They don't depend on wind or sunshine, so they're always reliably providing power. 

But there's a problem with the public's perception. A model and new author puts it this way: "For an entire generation, when they hear the word nuclear, the first thing that comes to their mind is mushroom clouds."

There it is, an image that holds the imagination of not only Gen Z but of many millennials and boomers as well.  Rational or not, fear of nuclear power holds us back.

This author is on a mission to change that. Here's her TED talk of 2022:

from "The Brazilian Model Who Wants America to Go Nuclear"

(cont'd tomorrow)

France nuclear

Another European country is giving the green light to nuclear power. Finland, Sweden, and Poland have either opened new plants or they plan to.

Now, France moved to speed up the construction of new nuclear plants three months ago. This reverses their course set in 2014 to back off from nuclear. Political opposition came from the Greens, the radical left, and some Communists.

photo

The bill cut about two years from the process by simplifying administrative procedures and documentation that precedes construction. But construction still won't begin until 2027.

"Energy Transition Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher assured left-wing [opposed] MPs that “voting against renewable energy and nuclear power is voting for fossil fuels. It is a vote for global warming.”

from Euractiv

Going nuclear

Sweden is taking a different path to its future in energy than some other European Union members. They decided last week to return to nuclear energy, in contrast for example to Germany's complete shut-down of nuclear. 

According to Sweden's Finance Minister, “We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.” They seem to share this approach with their neighboring country, Finland.

image

from Western Standard

Fusion hope

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

"Cheap, clean and plentiful" -- that's the power derived from nuclear fusion, the benefits that will make this new and hoped-for technology worth all the hard work that it's taking to get the business model into production.

It works differently from our current nuclear power plant model. Today's nuclear fission plants split an atom of uranium (U-235) to create power. "Fusion" nuclear power plants will fuse two hydrogen nuclei to create power. That's what the stars do.

image

It's clean because carbon emissions are near-zero, with no radioactive waste to dispose of. It's plentiful because its fuel is hydrogen, common in the universe and common on earth.

But can Helion deliver on that purchase agreement with Microsoft by 2028? Some doubt it can be done by then because of the problems yet to be solved. 

In the words of a University of Chicago theoretical physicist: “I would say it’s the most audacious thing I’ve ever heard . . . But it would be astonishing if they succeed.”

from Eng8

Green Finland

Nuclear plants are expensive to build. Once they're built, they require a long time to test and certify. There haven't been many new ones lately, but Europe has one that just went into daily production of energy. 

Finland's new nuclear (very low carbon emissions) power plant started up just last month, while Germany was shutting down its last three and increasing their coal mining. 

map

Europe's "most powerful reactor" will help Finland reach the European Union's goals toward  renewable energy. Back in 2021, renewable sources provided only 22% of the 27-member EU's power consumption. They are talking about setting a new, ambitious goal 0f 42.5% by the year 2030.

Fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) have long been imported from Russia, which became even more of a problem for the EU when Russia started its war with Ukraine. They would very much like to eliminate that energy source, and hope to do so by 2027.

Cost rises 45%

Follow-up to these posts

Germany's last three nuclear power plants are closed, a goal set by the government years ago and finally accomplished. They've replaced nuclear power plants, which emit no CO2, with coal mines, the dirtiest sort of energy. 

There will literally be a price to pay.  Energy prices will spike 45% for some customers. The three nuclear plants served about 10 million households.

A number of scientists sent a letter pleading for the power plants to keep operating. An organization advocating for nuclear power put out this video to make their argument against the decision for political reasons. Germany shuts down nuclear plants while continuing to pay Russia for oil while Russia wars against Ukraine. It's complicated.

from Human Events

Next nuclear 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Smaller, modular nuclear fission reactors are being built now by several companies - modular meaning that parts can be bought off-the-shelf and then assembled on-site. 

That's what a 36-year-old is working on. In 2017 he devoted his life to fighting climate change. His company, Last Energy, has a deal with Poland to deliver ten of them by 2025. 

image

He figures it will cost $100 million per reactor, each one producing 20,000 megawatts of power (enough for 20,000 families). Still expensive to build, but not like a normal $6 billion reactor.

And what about the safety factor? Even if multiple cooling mechanisms fail, the underground portion of the reactor is surrounded by 550 tons of steel to dissipate heat.

from Forbes

Next nuclear

A disaster in Chernobyl in 1986 poisoned public perception of nuclear power plants from that time on, only to later be compounded by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Fear of meltdown, fear of radioactive waste became very present in our imaginations. 

If there's any future for nuclear power, questions of safety must be fully addressed with believable safeguards. The image of serious danger is probably at the root of Germany's total rejection of nuclear power.

Funding of plant construction is problematic too, the cost of a new nuclear plant from design to operation is an average of $6 billion U.S. dollars. That's up front money - before it is actually selling energy to customers and generating some income.

image

But in spite of these challenges, nuclear research goes on because of the big advantages: consistent, dependable energy and no carbon emissions. (Michael Shellenberger summarizes the situation here.)

Tons of money is being spent to solve the issues of safety and cost. Fusion instead of fission, small modular reactors, molten salt reactors, all have potential. Tomorrow's post is about another effort that looks like it might succeed.

(cont'd tomorrow)

Best option 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

So solar/wind power are not the solution to climate change concerns of environmental activist Michael Shellenberger. To summarize his TED Talk posted yesterday, that's because:

• they require very large land masses and transmission lines
• they are dangerous to large birds and other endangered species
• electricity is generated only 10-30% of the time
• they are expensive
• they require 17x more materials to construct than nuclear plants

Safety and waste disposal are the biggest worries about nuclear power. But compared with all other power sources over time, nuclear has caused the fewest deaths per unit of electricity. Nuclear waste is the only waste product of power generation that is safely contained.

image

Both governments and companies are returning to nuclear. British jet engine maker Rolls-Royce is working on reactors. Bill Gates is partnering with a South Korean company. The U.S. government this year awarded $60 to various different nuclear projects. 

Go here to get caught up on innovations for nuclear power -  SMR's (small modular reactors) and thorium-based reactors. It's not your grandpa's nuclear reactor anymore.

from Bloomberg

Best option?

Nuclear was so "yesterday," according to some people. But today . . it's that negative attitude which is so "yesterday," so out of touch with today's realities. Nuclear energy has big, new support from surprising sources.

Michael Shellenberger dedicated himself to environmental causes in his thirties, and he has the credentials. In this TED Talk, he explains why wind and solar power are not the solution he thought a few years ago. They won't produce the environmental benefits he wants to see.

(cont'd tomorrow)

Small nuclear 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to come up with innovative designs for nuclear power generating plants. Much of this money came from private investors who see "green" energy (no carbon emissions) as important to the growing global need for power.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) partners with these investors to fund research. 

One company working on their own design (a light water reactor) is NuScale in Oregon. About the size of two school buses vertically stacked, one hundred of them could fit in the containment chamber of a large conventional reactor. 

image

One of the new safety features is that it can stand in an underground pool of water. If the reactor leaks, heat is slowly diffused into the water.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, understandably, has to approve it. NuScale submitted a long 12,000-page application which is still under review by the Commission. But the good news is that NuScale might start supplying power to western states by 2026.

Small new reactors like this might be the only chance nuclear power generation can survive.

(from Wired)

Small nuclear 1

During the last century, most of America's electricity came from coal. But today coal plays a smaller role, replaced by cleaner natural gas. Over the last several decades, the other major source of our power has been nuclear, coming in at about 20%.

image

Nuclear power has no carbon emissions and, unlike wind and solar, doesn't vary its production according to the weather. But new nuclear plants take years to build, with costs running into billions of dollars. And about half our nuclear plants are over 40 years old.

Since so many plants are aging, with only one new one going live since 1996, there's concern that this vital segment of our energy production is in decline.

So . . what if we could build a nuclear power plant that was cheaper, smaller, safer? 

"Dozens of nuclear startups are popping up around the country, aiming to solve the well-known problems with nuclear power . . " 

Cont'd tomorrow - one of those new innovations

MSR 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

"[I]f we could somehow harvest all the thorium in the Earth's crust and use it in this way, we could power civilization for tens of billions of years." 

"The technology is viable, the science has been demonstrated."

It's clear that this efficient, reliable, safe, inexpensive energy source does work. Two prototypes of molten-salt reactors were built in the 1960's - and then closed.

Today in America certain entrepreneurs have the faith to make a big investment in this technology. Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer, believes that thorium-powered MSR's will bring revolutionary change to the world's energy needs.

He started Flibe Energy to get this technology into production because  . . 

"We Stand at the Dawn of the Thorium Age"

Here is Sorensen's TED Talk:

MSR 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

This "new" power source is a nuclear reactor that uses thorium for fuel instead of uranium. It requires much less pressure, which means less danger of explosion. A "meltdown" can't happen, which means much less fear of radioactive accident. In short, it is safer by far than most other energy sources.

photo: http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

This fuel, thorium, is 3x more abundant than uranium. It produces very little waste, which breaks down much faster than nuclear waste today.

Sounds like the energy source our world needs. So who is doing something about this? That's tomorrow's post.

(taken from businessinsider.com, "A forgotten war technology could safely power Earth for millions of years. Here's why we aren't using it," Feb. 25, 2017)

(cont'd tomorrow)