Is Regulation Strangling Nuclear Energy?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Is overzealous regulation the root cause of the contemporary crisis in deployment of nuclear reactors in the USA? James Krellenstein argues that Nuclear Regulatory Commission critics are trapped in the 1980’s and that the spectre haunting today’s deployments are not primarily regulatory. Due to simplified systems and lower material costs modern NRC approved passive reactors should be cheaper than complex Gen 2 reactors. In addition there are 17 licensed sites with combined construction and operating licenses in the USA ready to go. All that and more on this week’s episode.
Listen to Decouple on:
• Spotify: open.spotify.c...
• Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
• Overcast: overcast.fm/it...
• Podcket Casts: pca.st/ehbfrn44
• RSS: anchor.fm/s/23...
Learn more about Decouple Media: www.decoupleme...
This guy knows his stuff. FSAR, Tech Specs, USAR, PSAR and all the various regulations - Good thing there's somebody that takes an avid interest in that kind of thing.
He knows acronyms? He doesn’t deal w Nordhouse, and he hand waives instead of dealing w the results of NRC at Vogtle.
@1:03:42, James asks what are the regulations that could be eliminated that would make NPPs cheaper. Chris was not prepared for this question. How about the regulations that prevent the release of radioactive gases if there is a meltdown. These gases are far less dangerous than the exhaust from coal plants and would prevent an explosion that would release a lot more radioactive material. Bret Kugelmass called this a safety regulation that makes NPPs less safe.
"Self-licking ice cream cone". That metaphor does not get nearly enough dramatic pause it deserves.
This guy is a great example of how the nuclear industry keeps sabotaging itself. He is clearly very bright and highly educated in the space. He is effortlessly shooting anecdotes and relevant examples like a Browning machine gun, to support his position. And yet... he completely fails to make a clear, concise, convincing, practical, actionable argument that viewers, policymakers, and the industry itself can understand, accept, and act on. Analysis paralysis, overengineering, all analysis, no synthesis.... If a policymaker who's on the fence regarding nuclear energy listens to this podcast, they are more likely than not gonna end up concluding that it's a confusing mess and a lost cause. Is this really the outcome James is aiming for?
The nuclear industry badly needs more pragmatic, entrepreneurial minds with multidisciplinary engineering background, who can communicate well and understand normal people, and fewer of the hardcore academic types who happily tie themselves in overintellectualized knots for fun
Well, I already know I'm gonna be listening to this podcast a couple more times. It's an understatement to say "I learned a lot listening to your Q&A, and comment on Nuclear regulation.
17 GW of permitted new build capacity. What do we need to do to get those machines built and in operation? I know there are several rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric cooperatives around the country, have them band together and buy up all this capacity for their use and distribution for their citizen members. That spreads the risk and extra cost of the first several units and the development of a North American supply chain. I think it's the quickest way to catch up with the Chinese. I know I've been talking to Mike or electric cooperative I'm gonna go back in this next week After a little bit of study and re-watching this fine video excellent work, Dr. Chris
It’s not true there is 17GW of COL permits out there ready for pick up. There are preliminary permits, design type permits. And there is no permit to stop the NRC from demanding changes in the design after completion of engineering, as it did w Vogtle. Reform the NRC, replace it, as the AEC was once replaced.
Keep adding "nauseum", the next fleet is unfinished. Awesomly Great Commentary! "Rome wasn't built in a day", but it worked for a thousand years, and we're only looking at 8-9 decades so far if we can get the Holographic Principle nucleation chemical bonding circuit adjusted for purpose.
ABWR, my beloved
The root cause is the principles behind a LWR. High-pressure/low-temperature. To keep a high-pressure reactor from melting down and containing hydrogen explosions is inherently expensive. Then you have an overzealous regulator that makes the construction tolerances next to impossible to meet. Then you have the nuclear-rated low-temperature power conversion equipment. Combine those with an inefficient use of fuel and you get a really expensive power plant no matter what.
How might this be solved, Hmmmmmm?
Maybe, just maybe by building low-pressure/high-temperature reactors that don't need any of those expensive protections and work with off-the -shelf power conversion equipment. Combine that with very high efficiency and process heat and you get a cheap power plant and cheap industrial heat.
Now if there were just some companies developing such a reactor. Hmmmmmm maybe someone like TerraPower, Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, Seaborg, Dual Fuel, Exodys Energy, Copenhagen Atomics, Thorcon, or Oklo, or, or, or.
All it takes is one of them to be successful and no one ever builds another PWR ever again.
Nuclear is, has been, and can be cheap. It used to be as cheap as coal power in the US. We don't have the luxury of waiting ten+ years for someone to maybe get a gen 4 reactor prototyped and licensed. By all means, we should cheer on and support those companies but today, we should be building as many gen3+ reactors as we can sustainably manage. Because they are a proven design and are ready to go right now.
@@ninefox344 Nuclear has never been cheap, even in the good old AEC days but it's always been better than coal.
Until nuclear is cheaper than both coal and NG, developing countries will power themselves out of poverty with coal. 2023 was a global record for burning coal and 2024 will beat that. (as it should) Nuclear has to be simple and cheap and PWRs will never be either. Only Gen IV can beat coal.
The energy transition hasn't even begun, there is plenty of time. A realistic timeline for near-zero is 2120. A little sooner if we abandoned "renewables" tomorrow.
@@chapter4travels Nuclear was in fact both better and cheaper than coal in the US. "In 1971 Komano estimates nuclear CAPEX at 366 1979 dollars per kW, coal without scrubbers at $346/kW" p20 C Komanoff Power Plant Cost Escalation 1981. Once you add in the fuel costs (which are much higher for coal) nuclear was cheaper per kWh.
Like I said, by all means please work on getting us these awesome new gen 4 reactors but don't get in the way of building real reactors that exist and produce clean power today.
@@ninefox344 That was before the NRC and reactor designs you can't build today anywhere in the world. Rowanda will build a gen. IV long before it ever builds an AP1000. Only rich countries who don't need it can build those.
There are 3 billion people on this planet who live in energy poverty and they will power themselves into prosperity with coal unless there is something cheaper. Not western coal plants with expensive scrubbers, the straight up dirty kind. No PWR can do that by their very nature. Only low-pressure/high-temperature reactor technology can. And again, there is plenty of time.
@@chapter4travels Most of that sounds like an opinion to me dawg. Show me a cheap working gen 4 and I will gladly change my mind. I want that more than anything. Until then it's all just the same decades old promises. And no, we don't have plenty of time.
Excellent program. I think just the right amount of detail. James is really wonderful at providing the relevant history.
I am also interested in the topic of advanced reactors because I believe a (future) reactor design that produces more economical power than coal is key to adoption in 3rd world countries, and to greenhouse gas reduction. Any chance of a future podcast on that topic?
Why is this guy yelling? Jeesh!
My reading is that it's been a combination of factors. Irrational fearmongering, misaligned incentives in the industry, loss of industrial capacity and poorly directed regulation have all played their part. The persistence of bad science around LNT has not helped matters either.
The fact of the US Senate recently passing legislative - with a highly bi-partisan vote - to reframe and refresh the NRC has to tell us that regulatory evolution has been necessary.
Although I accept that the loss of experienced and capable people in the industry is probably the most critical problem at the moment. Maybe the US should consider poaching a few good Rosatom people with very high pay.
This type of info/show is what the schools should be showing to the kids now, instead of the cnn 10 bullshit that they see now
"instead of the cnn " - CNN triggers you?
CNN is not a terribly good source of information. @@TheDanEdwards
Thank you for the valuable discussion Sirs! Mr. Krellenstein is extremely knowledgeable, highly intelligent, and rhetorically-adept, but speaking as a plain layman, I'm still unable to support nuclear because of the basic, apparently unsolved problem of waste disposal/storage/management. Also, general safety and pollution risks, plus insane financial construction costs seem like legitimate causes for precaution when considering expansion of the nuclear energy (and armament) industry in this day and age.
Yes. Over regulation is the problem. NRC has had clearly malevolent actors. Now do something about it, and enough w the hand waiving about a better reactor, hand holding finance, etc.
Yes. Over regulation is the problem. NRC has had clearly malevolent actors. Now do something about it, and enough w the hand waiving about a better reactor, hand holding finance, etc.
The cases like mentioned Shoreham set the precedence on high risk of the projects. Active enough opposition effectively being able to torpedo giant investment is a terrible case to see for any company/state willing to decarbonise. Organising such opposition is also incredibly cheap perspective for if it benefits multibillion NatGas corporation long time interests. System of regulations which enables that is wrong. Only strong support of well informed population which would not be swinged by cheap fear-mongering could oppose it(?)
Getting to be the Krellenstein-NRC podcast. Where’s Ted Nordhaus?
They should allow building npps with regular grade concrete
Nice interview.
1:07:15 "The AP1000 utilized 342 modules..."
Awesome episode. I always learn a ton from James!
Where’s Nordhouse?
Another excellent show with James. I'd be interested in hearing what James thinks pro nuclear community should be focusing on if not regulation.
Well, I already know I'm gonna be listening to this podcast a couple more times. It's an understatement to say "I learned a lot listening to your Q&A, and comment on Nuclear regulation.
Wrong thinking can waste decades and national wealth. 🤔
Well I've listened to the whole thing and still missed exactly what Krellenstein really thinks the 'rate limiting step' actually is. And while standardisation is obviously desirable, it stands in eternal tension with innovation.
I think he is saying that the AP1000 took so long to build because the complete design and supply chain were not in place. He points out that the six new CAP1000s in China are progressing much faster. He wants to build more AP1000s here rather than focusing on regulation reform, which he thinks is no longer the limiting factor. He has a wealth of information which unfortunately clouds his main point.
@@mhirasuna Yeah I can see the merit of focusing on AP1000's. After all the pain in getting the design and supply chain mature it would be insane to loose it all now. I agree there needs to be more orders to keep the ecosystem alive over the next decade or so.
At the same time the development of advanced Gen 4 needs to be nurtured. Surely we can walk and chew gum.
I agree though - Krellenstein always seems right on the crux of saying something really interesting here - and then he slides away.
Yes. I work in nuclear and the regulation is strangling the industry.
"Yes. I work in nuclear and the regulation is strangling the industry." - did you listen to the interview? The guest is making it quite clear that blaming the problems of the industry on regulation is just wrong.
@@TheDanEdwards Do you work in nuclear too?
@@Rawdiswar please explain in more detail
Strangling the nuclear industry is indeed one of the goals of the NRC.
No. It’s trying to avoid millennia of ecological disasters...!
Blind pursuit of profits will be our doom.
Also an example of the same ruclips.net/video/eBz6936CqUk/видео.htmlsi=nLVWBtCX-BBlO21R
I think I understand this, but Simon Michaux has said that the reason we use uranium is to mask our nuclear weapons buildup.
He thinks thorium is a better choice, but we were in a cold war when the program took off, so we used the more volatile option.
No one (so far as I know) has a currently working thorium reactor. That doesn't mean that I believe we shouldn't be working toward thorium reactors. But until we get some up and working (yes I know there was one built and working in the USA, but so far as I know it was shut down a long time ago) let's continue to build what we know works now. These machines have minimum (so long as there's no outside interference) life spans of forty years.
I have listened to your videos and acknowledge your support for nuclear. While I am not anti-nuclear, I support what one could call containment. In other words there are places that nuclear could be helpful. Given the accelerating deployment and technical development of WWS (Wind, Water, Solar) for baseload, for that nuclear is becoming obsolete. My fear is that nuclear will receive greater profit seeking capital investments' by using political means.
You mention a declining standard of living. In my opinions a WWS based world has greater potential. Issues of population, environmental degradation. sustainable food production and wealth distribution seem lacking in your discussions. As I have mentioned, fossil fuels are finite and are the cause of climate warming. Step outside, the sunshine, flowing waters, and wind are free.
Wind and solar cannot have anything to do with reliable power service. They are *_obsolete,_* and can't be made *_non-obsolete._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 I am making the assumption that your position is that nuclear power plants ought to be the primary electrical power source, just like France. You fail to realize that the war is already over and for nuclear has lost. Eighty prevent of new scheduled electrical generation are solar and wind renewables. The market has made it's choice. The only question is how many token nuclear power plants will be built.
When you have batteries that can cost effectively store two days worth of energy from undependable (intermittent) power sources you can make all the plans you want.
If you want an example of how much BS is associated with wind, look at the UK and the Economist's review of the wind power's subsidy scam.
@@chrisconklin2981 I'm sure the market will react well to having an intermittent power supply. Wind and solar are NOT cheap. You know what costs infinity dollars? Electricity that doesn't exist.
@@kowalityjesus Intermittency is a red herring. Yes, there are times when a given solar or wind site will be unable to produce, but studies have demonstrated that overall renewable electrical generation is available. It has come to the point that many sites at times are producing at 150% of needed load. Battery storage soaks up that surplus. Yes, there is a concern about deep base load and traditionary nuclear has filled that need. My bet is that renewables will be able to provide 100%. Just incase, advanced deep geothermal generation could replace nuclear. Lazard LCOE cost estimates show solar and wind at $40 and nuclear at $175.
If you are open to thinking, you must understand that the national electrical grid does the job of getting electricity to the millions of customers.
The national grid is a $TRILLIONS infrastructure investment and must have cash flow.
Electricity is dirt cheap to generate. Even nuclear is promising to match coal fired electricity costs.
Australian generation price is 5cents kWh and grid electricity is 50cents kWh.
The grid makes electricity expensive.
With 20 million vehicles in 20 years being battery vehicles and parked 23 hours every day, then 20 million big vehicle batteries will be FREE to the customers to power the homes and buildings at night and most of the day with dirt cheap rooftop electricity and no grid costs.
Both sides of politics can agree on this.
Agree on this as it is dirt cheap.
The grid can be energised by the 20million buildings rooftop solar PV and 20million Battery vehicles.
We don't mine and refine enough materials to build out your suggested solar grid
@scottmedwid1818 same for bigger grid capacity.
The existing national electric grid, our first of this size, can only handle 600gWh daily maximum if we are lucky.
The all electric future needs 7 times more grid capacity.
That is a lot of mining and refining and smelting and rolling and galvanising and manufacturing and fabrication and construction and CO2 emissions.
AND electric vehicles with big batteries.
We have a problem.
Australia has CO2 emissions climate change from worldwide CO2 emissions.
Worldwide, electric grid capacity expansion is insane.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 all the more reason we need to start building new Nuclear ASAP. I'm going to help noodle out how to get this 14 1/2 GW that are already licensed and permitted built..
14.5 GW of permitted and licensed new nuclear power capacity is something to work on getting going ASAP.
14.5 GW of permitted and licensed new nuclear power capacity is something to work on getting going ASAP.
Oh, and I like the plants in the background !