Everyone is trying to get everything opened for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics... Good luck with that! Hope it happens but that's a tight 4 year turnaround... Not impossible, just rare in America these days...
Being a high-temperature reactor the power conversion side of the plant is off-the-shelf equipment, not nuclear certified as needed in PWRs. This allows them to start construction before the nuclear side is licensed. This also cuts costs dramatically. However..... this assumes the NRC will give them a license. Starting without NRC approval is like spitting in their God-like faces. How dare they assume a license? The NRC is and has always been a hostile regulator and the recent Advance Act will not change that. Terra Power may never get a license from the NRC, no matter how good or safe it is.
The last construction license that NRC approved was for NuScale and their reactor was a simple scaled down version of the ones we already have and it took 4 years. This will take much longer. Operational by 2030 is not possible and they know it, so why begin a project where public support is critical, with a lie?
It is because Bill Gates has his hand out to the Government for taxpayer dollars. Hundreds of millions were spent on NuScale, more will be given to TerraPower. It is built on lies and is ignorant of renewables + storage.
@@chapter4travels You really don't pay much attention to facts and assume a lot. They are only preparing the land at this time. That means grading. In the future, they may install infrastructure and possibility secondary systems which do not require NRC approval. They will not build anything nuclear related without an NRC construction and operation permit. It should soon become apparent that they are not planning on using much of the old coal plant (that will be operating for a few more years), for reasons that I and many others have explained. So much for replacing a coal plant heat source with a nuclear one. NuScale's NRC approval took almost 5 years but that was a scaled down PWR while Natrium is completely new. Before you go down your typical conspiracy theory rabbit hole, realize that there are very few people with the necessary skill set to review a nuclear design against all regulatory requirements necessary for NRC approval. Many of those individuals reviewing the NuScale design were retirees rehired as subcontractors for buckets of $$$$$. I doubt many of them will return as they are now well in to their 70s. That is reality and I believe that if actually completed, Natrium will cost more per Mw capacity than the Vogtle project. Of course Terrapower is already saying this first one will be expensive but future ones will cost less. Never the less, It won't affect me as I am on the Vogtle grid and my rates have skyrocketed 25% already with more to follow. Let others across the U.S. enjoy the fruits of reliable power at a price they cannot afford. There are no other U.S. nuclear projects being seriously considered at this time.
This is a breeder reactor which is best at producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, rather than power for ratepayers. It takes fissile material and the 99.3% of natural Uranium, U238, and turns it into fissile Plutonium, and then more plutonium, the preferred material for bombs. How the U.S. Government's interest is served in subsidizing Nuclear proliferation is beyond me. India rapidly diverted it's Canadian CANDU reactor to breed plutonium bombs, quickly followed by Pakistan. Saudi Arabia wants the bomb, as do many developing nations. Sodium metal fast breeder reactors are nothing new, though they were abandoned as sodium metal explodes violently when exposed to water and the reactor is unreliable, and has much reduced reaction time to deal with problems, such as that experienced during the meltdown of Fermi 1. DTE still refuses reporters access to the site. Given a flood can cool a section of sodium coolant to form a blockage and explode another. Novel and proven safe are opposites. UAW leaders opposed Fermi 1 being next to a population center and were proven correct. It does, however promise to be the most expensive power for ratepayers. This is a dangerous proliferative technology that we should oppose vigorously.
Ferm1 was around 60 years ago. People had a far more caviler approach to safety back then, and didn't have the massive computer power we have today, to be able to mathematically model things to make sure they work before they're constructed. Given the US already has enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet several times over - I don't think the US has any motivation or need to direct plutonium from electricity generation to weapons. Last time I checked, Wyoming was in the US... so I don't quite follow how this project has anything to do with Pakistan ?? But yes, I'll give you that... if you have mal intentions a breeder can help you achieve them. Breeder reactors can also: massively reduce the need to mine new uranium, which is good for the planet. Will significantly reduce the nuclear waste produced. And, TerraPower are even hopeful that with time, their reactors can help to burn up some of the waste that has been produced by traditional plants. So in my book, they're good, and we'd be foolish to not use them.
@@nathshaw Saudi Arabia wants the bomb. Many other developing nations both in the area and around the world wish the same. Commercial reactors are largely designed for the export market and proprietary resources are readily diverted to nuclear weapon needs. This primary desire for reactors world wide is to fuel weapons programs, and plutonium from breeder reactors is ideal. For the public it is an expensive bait and switch. Many understandably oppose federal funding of research and development for later use in foreign nuclear weapons programs. You can't convince me Terra Power wouldn't like to profit from such export and development. While Breeder reactors can turn readily available U238 into energy, U238's availability makes the reactor type most desirable for producing nuclear weapons. Fast Breeder Sodium reactors have a long tarnished history: I mentioned Fermi I. The Superphenix in France had 80 physicists sign on against breeder reactors, and the public debate was cut short. The reactor was attacked during construction by public outcry, Molotov cocktails and even with an RPG. but after many delays and being over budget it produced sporadic power at enormous expense. It was shut down early and is viewed as a debacle. The BN-600 and BN-800 in Russia is the most successful. The BN-800 has been diverted from burning up plutonium to producing it as the U.S. pulled out of weapons limitation treaties. Nuclear power is inextricably linked to nuclear weapons, and the U.S has a $1 Trillion budget for more weapons, likely the greatest economic driver for development. Computer models have nothing on experience. Safety is a great cost concern for reactors, and there are huge sums being spent to lobby and remove current safeguards from novel reactors. TVA was fined after firing operators who raised safety concerns. Current proposals are removal of containment vessels in the design stage and much more. There are bribes to subsidize nuclear power as Ohio's senator Householder is now in Jail over a $60 Million bribe for a $1 Billion subsidy. Worse still, nations at war can be targeted as the shelling of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia power plant. A minor terrorist attack could use a well placed bomb to uncover the core and disable control rods resulting in catastrophic meltdown. Renewables + storage will be cheaper, faster, and much, much safer.
Kudos to Wyoming for switching from fossil fuels to nuclear and wind... Just like Alberta!
First of its kind in the nation. "When do we get started?" Today.
I look forward to this being fully operational in 5-10years. I have less than zero faith in the 36 month timeline.
Everyone is trying to get everything opened for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics... Good luck with that! Hope it happens but that's a tight 4 year turnaround... Not impossible, just rare in America these days...
There is no 36 month timeline, he said the plant would be operational by 2030.
Is easily when The Local Gobernant donate the land and when you have friends in The Federal Government y you got free money to done your proyect
Too little, not modular, not thorium... But you gotta start somewhere.
Being a high-temperature reactor the power conversion side of the plant is off-the-shelf equipment, not nuclear certified as needed in PWRs. This allows them to start construction before the nuclear side is licensed. This also cuts costs dramatically.
However..... this assumes the NRC will give them a license. Starting without NRC approval is like spitting in their God-like faces. How dare they assume a license? The NRC is and has always been a hostile regulator and the recent Advance Act will not change that. Terra Power may never get a license from the NRC, no matter how good or safe it is.
they can reuse the coal turbines
Yay bill gates, next era of stolen tech!
It wasn't stolen, the inventor gave it away to anyone who could develop it.
The last construction license that NRC approved was for NuScale and their reactor was a simple scaled down version of the ones we already have and it took 4 years. This will take much longer. Operational by 2030 is not possible and they know it, so why begin a project where public support is critical, with a lie?
It is because Bill Gates has his hand out to the Government for taxpayer dollars. Hundreds of millions were spent on NuScale, more will be given to TerraPower. It is built on lies and is ignorant of renewables + storage.
They started construction without NRC approval, that's like spitting in their face. They may never get a license, no matter how good or safe it is.
@@chapter4travels You really don't pay much attention to facts and assume a lot.
They are only preparing the land at this time. That means grading. In the future, they may install infrastructure and possibility secondary systems which do not require NRC approval. They will not build anything nuclear related without an NRC construction and operation permit.
It should soon become apparent that they are not planning on using much of the old coal plant (that will be operating for a few more years), for reasons that I and many others have explained. So much for replacing a coal plant heat source with a nuclear one.
NuScale's NRC approval took almost 5 years but that was a scaled down PWR while Natrium is completely new. Before you go down your typical conspiracy theory rabbit hole, realize that there are very few people with the necessary skill set to review a nuclear design against all regulatory requirements necessary for NRC approval. Many of those individuals reviewing the NuScale design were retirees rehired as subcontractors for buckets of $$$$$. I doubt many of them will return as they are now well in to their 70s.
That is reality and I believe that if actually completed, Natrium will cost more per Mw capacity than the Vogtle project. Of course Terrapower is already saying this first one will be expensive but future ones will cost less. Never the less, It won't affect me as I am on the Vogtle grid and my rates have skyrocketed 25% already with more to follow. Let others across the U.S. enjoy the fruits of reliable power at a price they cannot afford.
There are no other U.S. nuclear projects being seriously considered at this time.
@@chapter4travels Likely did it to get Fed Billion upfront and speculation income. Flash in the pan.
This is a breeder reactor which is best at producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, rather than power for ratepayers. It takes fissile material and the 99.3% of natural Uranium, U238, and turns it into fissile Plutonium, and then more plutonium, the preferred material for bombs. How the U.S. Government's interest is served in subsidizing Nuclear proliferation is beyond me. India rapidly diverted it's Canadian CANDU reactor to breed plutonium bombs, quickly followed by Pakistan. Saudi Arabia wants the bomb, as do many developing nations. Sodium metal fast breeder reactors are nothing new, though they were abandoned as sodium metal explodes violently when exposed to water and the reactor is unreliable, and has much reduced reaction time to deal with problems, such as that experienced during the meltdown of Fermi 1. DTE still refuses reporters access to the site. Given a flood can cool a section of sodium coolant to form a blockage and explode another. Novel and proven safe are opposites. UAW leaders opposed Fermi 1 being next to a population center and were proven correct. It does, however promise to be the most expensive power for ratepayers. This is a dangerous proliferative technology that we should oppose vigorously.
Ferm1 was around 60 years ago. People had a far more caviler approach to safety back then, and didn't have the massive computer power we have today, to be able to mathematically model things to make sure they work before they're constructed. Given the US already has enough nuclear bombs to destroy the planet several times over - I don't think the US has any motivation or need to direct plutonium from electricity generation to weapons. Last time I checked, Wyoming was in the US... so I don't quite follow how this project has anything to do with Pakistan ?? But yes, I'll give you that... if you have mal intentions a breeder can help you achieve them.
Breeder reactors can also: massively reduce the need to mine new uranium, which is good for the planet. Will significantly reduce the nuclear waste produced. And, TerraPower are even hopeful that with time, their reactors can help to burn up some of the waste that has been produced by traditional plants. So in my book, they're good, and we'd be foolish to not use them.
@@nathshaw Saudi Arabia wants the bomb. Many other developing nations both in the area and around the world wish the same. Commercial reactors are largely designed for the export market and proprietary resources are readily diverted to nuclear weapon needs. This primary desire for reactors world wide is to fuel weapons programs, and plutonium from breeder reactors is ideal. For the public it is an expensive bait and switch. Many understandably oppose federal funding of research and development for later use in foreign nuclear weapons programs. You can't convince me Terra Power wouldn't like to profit from such export and development.
While Breeder reactors can turn readily available U238 into energy, U238's availability makes the reactor type most desirable for producing nuclear weapons.
Fast Breeder Sodium reactors have a long tarnished history: I mentioned Fermi I. The Superphenix in France had 80 physicists sign on against breeder reactors, and the public debate was cut short. The reactor was attacked during construction by public outcry, Molotov cocktails and even with an RPG. but after many delays and being over budget it produced sporadic power at enormous expense. It was shut down early and is viewed as a debacle.
The BN-600 and BN-800 in Russia is the most successful. The BN-800 has been diverted from burning up plutonium to producing it as the U.S. pulled out of weapons limitation treaties. Nuclear power is inextricably linked to nuclear weapons, and the U.S has a $1 Trillion budget for more weapons, likely the greatest economic driver for development.
Computer models have nothing on experience. Safety is a great cost concern for reactors, and there are huge sums being spent to lobby and remove current safeguards from novel reactors. TVA was fined after firing operators who raised safety concerns. Current proposals are removal of containment vessels in the design stage and much more. There are bribes to subsidize nuclear power as Ohio's senator Householder is now in Jail over a $60 Million bribe for a $1 Billion subsidy. Worse still, nations at war can be targeted as the shelling of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia power plant. A minor terrorist attack could use a well placed bomb to uncover the core and disable control rods resulting in catastrophic meltdown. Renewables + storage will be cheaper, faster, and much, much safer.