I'm all for helping nuclear but so what if a bunch of places have rules against investing in nuclear? As long as it's genuinely profitable someone else will be happy to invest and make the money. At least in the first world we have robust capital markets that mean this really shouldn't make a difference.
The real issue is and always has been regulatory. In the US the fact that the NRC isn't allowed to weigh cost vs safety nor target a specific safety level guarantees a lack of profit because any cost savings always make some other safety mechanism viable. More generally, it's clear that most western governments would prefer it if no nuclear plants were built even if they want to be seen as not standing in the way and that means the industry faces regulatory risk/uncertainty.
Also published today: "Open Letter to Ajay Banga, President of The World Bank", calling out the bank's willful ignorance in blacklisting nuclear power for developing nations.
Yes the US is very much for this. They signed the 3x pledge and have been offering DOE technical advice. They haven’t yet been aggressive about it, so I’m hoping they start to press more.
If you are accusing me of ignoring or boycotting other tech, you clearly don’t know anything about me or my work. I think we’re done here. You’re welcome to unsubscribe.
You seem to be misunderstanding my comment. The bias is in the sample (of a whopping 3 which is not exactly a sample) that you are using as evidence that I am not engaging in thoughtful discussion of nuclear’s pros and cons. That’s a lol. What I am witnessing is that lots of countries are seriously considering nuclear, I see evidence they are taking real steps, and we should be sure that availability of finance is not (another) ex ante barrier. If the costs aren’t competitive with equivalent services, then it won’t take off and other tech will. But we shouldn’t decide that now. And neither should the WBG.
The kernel of truth in your comment is that the impact of nuclear power now is an order of magnitude less than it would have been if there had never been an anti-nuclear movement. If the 3% growth rate that the industry had settled into in the 70s and 80s had never been arrested and then reversed, but instead continued, the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 (now about 250 gigatons) would have been tripled. And ongoing emissions would have been about 30% down from what they are now (assuming same population and levels of development), so the rate of accumulation would be slower (this is not pure speculation - it's all easily modellable). In other words, there would be no emissions emergency - by anyone's definition. But that's not the same as saying we don't need nuclear now. I'm a YIMBY - as James Lovelock (preeminent early Green, co-author of the Gaia hypothesis) said, I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back garden than a wind turbine (not that I am against wind!) and would happily wear a badge or T-shirt. As about ten people here in Germany say... "Atomkraft? Ja, bitte!"
Thank you so much for these thoughtful and practical analyses.
I keep trying, too https://www.mattball.org/2023/08/net-zero-in-practice-is-war-on-poor.html
Just downloaded your book. Looking forward to reading it :-)
I'm all for helping nuclear but so what if a bunch of places have rules against investing in nuclear? As long as it's genuinely profitable someone else will be happy to invest and make the money. At least in the first world we have robust capital markets that mean this really shouldn't make a difference.
The real issue is and always has been regulatory. In the US the fact that the NRC isn't allowed to weigh cost vs safety nor target a specific safety level guarantees a lack of profit because any cost savings always make some other safety mechanism viable. More generally, it's clear that most western governments would prefer it if no nuclear plants were built even if they want to be seen as not standing in the way and that means the industry faces regulatory risk/uncertainty.
Also published today: "Open Letter to Ajay Banga, President of The World Bank", calling out the bank's willful ignorance in blacklisting nuclear power for developing nations.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/09/09/open_letter_to_ajay_banga_president_of_the_world_bank_1057151.html
Let's saturate the media with stories of World Bank incompetence in the energy sector.
I do not think this can happen w/o a strong push from the US Is even the US position there?
Yes the US is very much for this. They signed the 3x pledge and have been offering DOE technical advice. They haven’t yet been aggressive about it, so I’m hoping they start to press more.
Agree. Except I'd love a wind turbine in my yard.
If you are accusing me of ignoring or boycotting other tech, you clearly don’t know anything about me or my work. I think we’re done here. You’re welcome to unsubscribe.
You seem to be misunderstanding my comment. The bias is in the sample (of a whopping 3 which is not exactly a sample) that you are using as evidence that I am not engaging in thoughtful discussion of nuclear’s pros and cons. That’s a lol. What I am witnessing is that lots of countries are seriously considering nuclear, I see evidence they are taking real steps, and we should be sure that availability of finance is not (another) ex ante barrier. If the costs aren’t competitive with equivalent services, then it won’t take off and other tech will. But we shouldn’t decide that now. And neither should the WBG.
What's your cleaner, better, cheaper energy?
Well, what Substack doesn’t have sample bias in the comments. lol.
Nuclear seems to be needed more than ever IMO.
The kernel of truth in your comment is that the impact of nuclear power now is an order of magnitude less than it would have been if there had never been an anti-nuclear movement. If the 3% growth rate that the industry had settled into in the 70s and 80s had never been arrested and then reversed, but instead continued, the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 (now about 250 gigatons) would have been tripled. And ongoing emissions would have been about 30% down from what they are now (assuming same population and levels of development), so the rate of accumulation would be slower (this is not pure speculation - it's all easily modellable). In other words, there would be no emissions emergency - by anyone's definition. But that's not the same as saying we don't need nuclear now. I'm a YIMBY - as James Lovelock (preeminent early Green, co-author of the Gaia hypothesis) said, I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back garden than a wind turbine (not that I am against wind!) and would happily wear a badge or T-shirt. As about ten people here in Germany say... "Atomkraft? Ja, bitte!"