The issue that I have with the pro-nuclear crowd is that as soon as someone makes the assertion that light water reactors are by design relatively unsafe and we should pursue new designs that fact based conversation seems to evaporate from the conversation. For example the moment I mention Thorium and LFTR designs I get replies from people who refuse to accept that LFTR designs may have many benefits over light water reactors. I don't understand how these people have consciously made the decision to simply ignore reality and dispute the research and proven facts with regard to Thorium based liquid fluoride reactors. As soon as someone makes a suggestion that maybe we should look into alternate designs and consider that many of the unsafe issues with nuclear power stem from the light water reactor designs and can be remedied by implementing already researched alternatives it becomes a conversation that is based on opinion and familiarity rather than fact. Where does this biased resistance come from?
What a great episode! They're all excellent, of course -- you're doing great work, doctor -- but this one, with the leapfrogging of "paper reactors" into real physical reality, was really encouraging. Hope for the future.
This is kind of a fantasy of mine, but wouldn't it be great if Congress in the US government passed the bill reforming the nuclear regulatory commission to the point that an emergency prototyping license could be issued to companies that are coming forward and working through the department of energy and the NRC with new designs. If a company is in the process right now, and they've passed around or two of reviews and they are working with department of energy labs to develop the technology, they be granted an emergency license to take their design to the prototyping stage. This would be something similar to the experimental reactor and developmental reactor stages under the old AEC. This might cut the timeline of development and free up private financing for the development of these 21st century designs.
The bureaucracy is incapable of actually doing anything today. It's full of activist women who will dig up your 15 year old Xanga posts looking for Microagressions. There have been nuclear power plants which had millions of dollars spent on their construction, they could not make it through the paperwork monster. America is not able to build. Not like the 1960s.
Vivek Ramaswamy of DOGE fame talked about doing this when he was running for president in the primary. With a little luck (ok, a lot of luck) they will do this in the next 4 years.
Rusatom pumps out industrial-strength floating power plants like Zoom issues SW updates - so I don’t understand guest dismissing Russian production when your own conversation here began with the complete lack in America output across recent decades. What else do we need to check out for his voracity?
Yes Russia is far ahead in production capability and its nuclear ice breaker fleet but "pumping out" like zoom updates, is hardly an apt description for having built a single nuclear reactor power ship over the last decade.
Please give us a bill of materials for some likely reactors if you would. What is needed: pipe, welding, pumps, controls, gauges, interconnecting wiring, power, vessel, generators, power grid, building(s) roads, real estate, roads. staff.
I'm as pro-nuclear as they come but we are currently on track to do exactly the thing the guest is aiming to avoid - a nuclear reneissance when almost nothing gets built. We should be building "boring" AP1000s en masse rather than throw money at small and micro reactor science projects. We don't need new designs we need to get faster, cheaper, better at constructing existing designs. EDIT: Having said that, Jeff seems to be a very down-to-earth, pragmatic guy and the project seems the same. Good luck to them!
Micro reactors will be a game changer in the Arctic. We dont need much power but we do need a lot of heat. We could build large hangars to store planes. We could keep large jet fuel tanks warm. We could build nice housing to make life better for the people that work up there and we could keep large greenhouses warm enough to grow food all year using grow lights.
@@SubvertTheStateCamp Century was just the Cover for a weapons deployment system called Project Iceworm. That's where the real drive and funding was coming from. When it was apparent that Submarines just did this better in every way..... Guess where the funding and maintenance discipline went?
The main question remains how come it takes 5-7 years to build a Chinese/Russian nuclear reactor where there is not a single nuclear plant built in west in less than 15 years and in budget. It does boil to corruption and that’s not the authoritarian states but the Indian democracies that we are running in western side
I love the possibility of micro reactors, but after 40 years of being a nuclear fan boy, I've finally had to admit commercial micros cannot happen. There's just way too many problems and challenges to overcome and the more research that's done, the bigger and more numerous these challenges become. We've thrown SO much money at this fantasy, we've come so far, the problems should be diminishing, but they're multiplying instead. The permanent long term solution to our energy needs is renewables with good battery storage. Even if commercial micros existed and were viable, they'd still only ever be a stop gap, temporary solution to our energy needs, renewables will always be the ultimate best solution. If all the money we're pissing away verifying what we already know, that commercial micros aren't going to work, were spent on battery research and production development, I suspect we'd either already have the ultimate battery or be very close. The current mindless frenzy over micros reminds me of the Madison Avenue (advertising industry) dictum, "sell the sizzle, not the steak." Micros are all sizzle, no steak. They are a wonderful, beautiful fantasy, it would be fantastic if we could realize the dream they promise but they are all promise, no potential reality. And it's not because we just haven't gotten around to building one yet, they don't have a "reality" in the first place, as in, when all the scores of billions of dollars we're fire hosing at micros has been spent, all the promising avenues of development followed to their end, when all the searches are exhausted, everyone involved will have to admit "micros were a nice idea, a beautiful, magnificent, seductive fantasy but they cannot be brought to reality." Lots of people in the micros fantasy industrial complex know this but they are making SO much money selling the sizzle, the promise of micros, they would be a fool to tell the truth.
Only thing more sketchy than commercial micro nuclear is … large scale “good batteries”. Replaced every 15 years, still $1000/kwh residential installed? Not going to happen. Has not happened, anywhere. If that was possible there would be waves of people and new housing going off grid, when the truth is off grid is a stunt, almost non existent in any nation.
Not needed in a non-water reactor. If there is no possible phase change, there are no outward forces to contain. Just one more reason to move beyond PWRs.
If SpaceX did nuclear, the Musk philosophy of the best part is no part would drive its design. Build a reactor that doesn't need a nuclear-grade forged reactor vessel, one that doesn't require a gigantic containment structure, one that doesn't need nuclear-grade power conversion equipment that only specialized labor could build, one that has online refueling, one that is high-efficiency, one that also produces industrial grade process heat, one that doesn't need giant cooling towers, and finally one that doesn't need to be a giant government boondoggle to get built.
Also, if SpaceX built it like they build rockets. They would build, test, fail, learn, and repeat. If the failure part involved leaks, it would not be politically acceptable nowadays. Even at the Idaho test station, which was built for this purpose.
@@ProfessorOfAnarchy The US has millions of acres in the desert SW where they test all sorts of military munitions. We could give a tiny fraction of this for testing and iteration. Then require the senior staff and top investors to be on-site during any milestone test. Will this be politically acceptable? No. Will the NRC approve like this? No. Will the NRC approve any low-pressure/high-temperature advanced reactor? No So, let's stick with gigawatt scale water reactor and nuclear will never get beyond the current 20% of electricity (only) level.
Yes buying a president will certainly line Musks pockets with spaceX, that will drain billions from the public purse .. Musk has never built or invented anything .. he buys the company then puts it into chaos and have the peons do the hard work under not great working conditions
All these alternatives were looked at rapidly by 1955, 70 years ago. And yet today, world wide, light water reactors still rule. You think all those hard chargers like Rickover were clowns who just needed Musk to do it right? Why would you think all that work goes out the window because you cite SpaceX? SpaceX didn’t spend a second on crank rocketry like SStO, ram jets, ion drives, anti-matter. Congrats to SpaceX for innovation like retro landings, better engines, high density O2, hot stage, etc, but they still use the same basic rocket, 2 stage, lox and liquid fuel w turbo pumps, heat shield orbital re-entry like 1960.
The issue that I have with the pro-nuclear crowd is that as soon as someone makes the assertion that light water reactors are by design relatively unsafe and we should pursue new designs that fact based conversation seems to evaporate from the conversation. For example the moment I mention Thorium and LFTR designs I get replies from people who refuse to accept that LFTR designs may have many benefits over light water reactors. I don't understand how these people have consciously made the decision to simply ignore reality and dispute the research and proven facts with regard to Thorium based liquid fluoride reactors. As soon as someone makes a suggestion that maybe we should look into alternate designs and consider that many of the unsafe issues with nuclear power stem from the light water reactor designs and can be remedied by implementing already researched alternatives it becomes a conversation that is based on opinion and familiarity rather than fact. Where does this biased resistance come from?
What a great episode! They're all excellent, of course -- you're doing great work, doctor -- but this one, with the leapfrogging of "paper reactors" into real physical reality, was really encouraging. Hope for the future.
Lots of great information, I hope more public officials and policy makers start paying attention and understanding this sort of knowledge
Fantastic episode . . . real work - Dr Waksman is a superlative representative for DoD, and kudos to you both for making this happen ! 💯
This is kind of a fantasy of mine, but wouldn't it be great if Congress in the US government passed the bill reforming the nuclear regulatory commission to the point that an emergency prototyping license could be issued to companies that are coming forward and working through the department of energy and the NRC with new designs. If a company is in the process right now, and they've passed around or two of reviews and they are working with department of energy labs to develop the technology, they be granted an emergency license to take their design to the prototyping stage. This would be something similar to the experimental reactor and developmental reactor stages under the old AEC. This might cut the timeline of development and free up private financing for the development of these 21st century designs.
The bureaucracy is incapable of actually doing anything today. It's full of activist women who will dig up your 15 year old Xanga posts looking for Microagressions.
There have been nuclear power plants which had millions of dollars spent on their construction, they could not make it through the paperwork monster.
America is not able to build.
Not like the 1960s.
Vivek Ramaswamy of DOGE fame talked about doing this when he was running for president in the primary. With a little luck (ok, a lot of luck) they will do this in the next 4 years.
@@chapter4travels "DOGE"
@@TheDanEdwards I think it's better to keep TDS away from nuclear.
@@chapter4travels "TDS "
Rusatom pumps out industrial-strength floating power plants like Zoom issues SW updates - so I don’t understand guest dismissing Russian production when your own conversation here began with the complete lack in America output across recent decades. What else do we need to check out for his voracity?
Yes Russia is far ahead in production capability and its nuclear ice breaker fleet but "pumping out" like zoom updates, is hardly an apt description for having built a single nuclear reactor power ship over the last decade.
Floating Russian reactors are not micro. They’re dozens or a hundred MW, and so light water shielding and turbines are economic.
Great interview!! Thank you!
Awesome job as always. Thank you for all you do!
Please give us a bill of materials for some likely reactors if you would. What is needed: pipe, welding, pumps, controls, gauges, interconnecting wiring, power, vessel, generators, power grid, building(s) roads, real estate, roads. staff.
Might as well ask for the blueprint.😊
I'm as pro-nuclear as they come but we are currently on track to do exactly the thing the guest is aiming to avoid - a nuclear reneissance when almost nothing gets built. We should be building "boring" AP1000s en masse rather than throw money at small and micro reactor science projects. We don't need new designs we need to get faster, cheaper, better at constructing existing designs.
EDIT: Having said that, Jeff seems to be a very down-to-earth, pragmatic guy and the project seems the same. Good luck to them!
Micro reactors will be a game changer in the Arctic. We dont need much power but we do need a lot of heat. We could build large hangars to store planes. We could keep large jet fuel tanks warm. We could build nice housing to make life better for the people that work up there and we could keep large greenhouses warm enough to grow food all year using grow lights.
Look up Camp Century. Massive failure. Although building above ground probably would've been better.
@@SubvertTheStateCamp Century was just the Cover for a weapons deployment system called Project Iceworm.
That's where the real drive and funding was coming from.
When it was apparent that Submarines just did this better in every way..... Guess where the funding and maintenance discipline went?
Can’t shield them. Tried. Failed.
The main question remains how come it takes 5-7 years to build a Chinese/Russian nuclear reactor where there is not a single nuclear plant built in west in less than 15 years and in budget. It does boil to corruption and that’s not the authoritarian states but the Indian democracies that we are running in western side
What about Thorium ???
Needs a breeder reactor. Fast reactors are even harder to minaturize.
@@lukacsnemeth1652 LFTRs don't require a breeder reactor because they are by design a breeder.
I love the possibility of micro reactors, but after 40 years of being a nuclear fan boy, I've finally had to admit commercial micros cannot happen. There's just way too many problems and challenges to overcome and the more research that's done, the bigger and more numerous these challenges become. We've thrown SO much money at this fantasy, we've come so far, the problems should be diminishing, but they're multiplying instead. The permanent long term solution to our energy needs is renewables with good battery storage. Even if commercial micros existed and were viable, they'd still only ever be a stop gap, temporary solution to our energy needs, renewables will always be the ultimate best solution. If all the money we're pissing away verifying what we already know, that commercial micros aren't going to work, were spent on battery research and production development, I suspect we'd either already have the ultimate battery or be very close. The current mindless frenzy over micros reminds me of the Madison Avenue (advertising industry) dictum, "sell the sizzle, not the steak." Micros are all sizzle, no steak. They are a wonderful, beautiful fantasy, it would be fantastic if we could realize the dream they promise but they are all promise, no potential reality. And it's not because we just haven't gotten around to building one yet, they don't have a "reality" in the first place, as in, when all the scores of billions of dollars we're fire hosing at micros has been spent, all the promising avenues of development followed to their end, when all the searches are exhausted, everyone involved will have to admit "micros were a nice idea, a beautiful, magnificent, seductive fantasy but they cannot be brought to reality." Lots of people in the micros fantasy industrial complex know this but they are making SO much money selling the sizzle, the promise of micros, they would be a fool to tell the truth.
Only thing more sketchy than commercial micro nuclear is … large scale “good batteries”. Replaced every 15 years, still $1000/kwh residential installed? Not going to happen. Has not happened, anywhere. If that was possible there would be waves of people and new housing going off grid, when the truth is off grid is a stunt, almost non existent in any nation.
TRISO fuel at 2,400C?! That’s wild.
11:45 containment not mentioned!
Not needed in a non-water reactor. If there is no possible phase change, there are no outward forces to contain. Just one more reason to move beyond PWRs.
If SpaceX did nuclear, the Musk philosophy of the best part is no part would drive its design. Build a reactor that doesn't need a nuclear-grade forged reactor vessel, one that doesn't require a gigantic containment structure, one that doesn't need nuclear-grade power conversion equipment that only specialized labor could build, one that has online refueling, one that is high-efficiency, one that also produces industrial grade process heat, one that doesn't need giant cooling towers, and finally one that doesn't need to be a giant government boondoggle to get built.
Also, if SpaceX built it like they build rockets. They would build, test, fail, learn, and repeat.
If the failure part involved leaks, it would not be politically acceptable nowadays. Even at the Idaho test station, which was built for this purpose.
Or develop an easy way to produce a nuclear-grade weld (See Sheffield Forgemasters)
@@ProfessorOfAnarchy The US has millions of acres in the desert SW where they test all sorts of military munitions. We could give a tiny fraction of this for testing and iteration. Then require the senior staff and top investors to be on-site during any milestone test.
Will this be politically acceptable? No.
Will the NRC approve like this? No.
Will the NRC approve any low-pressure/high-temperature advanced reactor? No
So, let's stick with gigawatt scale water reactor and nuclear will never get beyond the current 20% of electricity (only) level.
Yes buying a president will certainly line Musks pockets with spaceX, that will drain billions from the public purse .. Musk has never built or invented anything .. he buys the company then puts it into chaos and have the peons do the hard work under not great working conditions
All these alternatives were looked at rapidly by 1955, 70 years ago. And yet today, world wide, light water reactors still rule. You think all those hard chargers like Rickover were clowns who just needed Musk to do it right? Why would you think all that work goes out the window because you cite SpaceX? SpaceX didn’t spend a second on crank rocketry like SStO, ram jets, ion drives, anti-matter. Congrats to SpaceX for innovation like retro landings, better engines, high density O2, hot stage, etc, but they still use the same basic rocket, 2 stage, lox and liquid fuel w turbo pumps, heat shield orbital re-entry like 1960.
Your talents are wasted in government
uhm, you kinda missed the part where he says they can only do this with the military, so they avoid the NRC