Hey ChatGPT. Rewrite all my stuff in the style of Packy McCormick.
If you read this whole article and absorb it and it's references, then I think you know enough about Nuclear Energy to deserve a Masters Degree.
Happy to see Nucleation Capital's Valerie Gardner, provided key support.
I'm against death. Lovely to see you mention nuclear saves lives from air pollution deaths. See http://GotNuclear.net for how many, and where. At least a million Americans lives were saved. Over 300,000 Japanese.
Now Fukushima Daiichi's accident did kill about 20,000 people, by air pollution in Germany after that nation panicked and replaced nuclear power with dirty coal.
I'm against war, especially nuclear war. RIP Dr. Thomas Neff who scored the biggest victory against nuclear weapons ever-- by going on a small crusade to get the USA to buy 20,000 weapons worth of leftover weapons grade material from the former USSR, instead of letting random nefarious people buy it. That material downgraded in the "Megatons to Megawatts" program, provided 10% of USA's electricity for 20 years! https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/07/23/thomas-neff-dead/
The real cause of nuclear war is likely to be...war. And almost all wars back to WWII were fought over fossil fuel resources... which we don't need at all anymore.
There can never be a cartel of Uranium, or Thorium. Uranium is abundant, and can even be collected using polymer fission-fuel-fishing nets that absorb it from flowing seawater. Today that would be somewhat more expensive than traditional sources-- but the point is, no one can ever constrain the supply of Uranium. Which is bad for rent-seeking business interests, and fantastic for national security. Imagine no wars over oil or energy. Soldiers would have to be retrained to be tourists.
The problem has never been with the tech, or the engineers and scientists. They know how to make energy abundant. The problem has been the business model. "We can't afford that-- It's too cheap!". The engine of Capitalism hits dead-stop on no money. Utilities only want nuclear if it's the same price as coal- not cheaper- or they would have to write off stranded assets, and reduce rates, and make less money. Which is why it's crucial to understand J paradox... If you make it cheaper, we buy more.
The right goal is to make industrial quality energy 10x cheaper, and sell 20x more. Then the energy suppliers make 2x in revenue. And the people get to FULLY recycle all waste. End energy poverty. Air condition India and the US South, beset by climate change. Provide abundant fresh water. And even power AI data centers, why not. Oh, and make synthetic net-zero gasoline and kerosene so transportation is decarbonized. Nearly all the "difficult to decarbonize" problems become bone-head simple if you just make the energy supply 10x cheaper. You don't have to be smart if you're energetic!
Expanding on your statement about utilities not wanting nuclear that is cheaper than coal - imagine how oil and gas companies feel about abundant energy that makes their high margin products worth far less when there is no actual or perceived scarcity.
I'm old enough to have watched nuclear fall out of favor as oil and gas suppliers became so wealthy that sheiks would fly entourages around the world and spend millions on a short family vacation.
Thanks so much for what is really a relatively comprehensive review of the issues related to nuclear power generation and how thinking out of the box, liberates us to generate new designs to solve what seem like impossibly difficult problems. There is so much in this piece that you need to read it several times to get it all. Thanks the piece and look forward to the next edition. SC
This is engaging and informative, seamlessly blending technical details with the broader vision of Radiant. I particularly appreciated how you conveyed the ambitious goals of developing nuclear power for Earth and Mars, making complex concepts accessible to me. Thank you
Such an amazing deep dive. Thank you for the brilliant storytelling. On a side note, the one thing makes me incredibly depressed and frustrated; how have we had so many brilliant people working on it for 30 years more than half a century ago and yet it still represents only 10% of power generation? Where did we go so wrong that we are risking the only planet we have with the unabated burnup of hydrocarbons, when the alternative has been staring at us in the face for half a century? I feel multiple books could be written on this damning fact. Why has there been so much delay? In any case, the future looks bright (and clean) for new reactor designs and as soon as they have approval I hope the gobble market share faster than Space-X did. Cheers.
There are many contributing factors that combined to produce our current situation of unabated use of hydrocarbons when we have such a capable alternative.
My minority view is that most of those factors would have been overcome had it not been for the fact that people and institutions (including governments) who profit from Hydrocarbon Economy are so powerful. Abundant nuclear energy eliminates the energy scarcity that has always driven profits from the fuels themselves while the machinery (diesel and gasoline engines and natural gas turbines) and delivery systems (think pipelines, railroads, tanker trucks, ships, etc) used in the hydrocarbon economy are not the same as the machinery and delivery systems used in nuclear fission.
There has also been increasingly powerful opposition from those who own and manufacture wind turbines and solar panels.
We are finally approaching a place, however, where the needs of the many are beginning to overcome the interests of the fewer but more powerful.
Packy - I'm a little late to the party, but thank you very much for your incredibly informative and optimistic piece. Valerie and I have long been supporters of Doug Bernauer and the team he is building at Radiant, but I still learned some new bits of information from you.
The changes being made at the NRC should help Radiant and the other fission startups you have been covering. We live in exciting times among innovative giants who will help us leave a better world for future generations.
Thanks for being one of them and for telling the rest of us about others who qualify.
Hey ChatGPT. Rewrite all my stuff in the style of Packy McCormick.
If you read this whole article and absorb it and it's references, then I think you know enough about Nuclear Energy to deserve a Masters Degree.
Happy to see Nucleation Capital's Valerie Gardner, provided key support.
I'm against death. Lovely to see you mention nuclear saves lives from air pollution deaths. See http://GotNuclear.net for how many, and where. At least a million Americans lives were saved. Over 300,000 Japanese.
Now Fukushima Daiichi's accident did kill about 20,000 people, by air pollution in Germany after that nation panicked and replaced nuclear power with dirty coal.
I'm against war, especially nuclear war. RIP Dr. Thomas Neff who scored the biggest victory against nuclear weapons ever-- by going on a small crusade to get the USA to buy 20,000 weapons worth of leftover weapons grade material from the former USSR, instead of letting random nefarious people buy it. That material downgraded in the "Megatons to Megawatts" program, provided 10% of USA's electricity for 20 years! https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/07/23/thomas-neff-dead/
The real cause of nuclear war is likely to be...war. And almost all wars back to WWII were fought over fossil fuel resources... which we don't need at all anymore.
There can never be a cartel of Uranium, or Thorium. Uranium is abundant, and can even be collected using polymer fission-fuel-fishing nets that absorb it from flowing seawater. Today that would be somewhat more expensive than traditional sources-- but the point is, no one can ever constrain the supply of Uranium. Which is bad for rent-seeking business interests, and fantastic for national security. Imagine no wars over oil or energy. Soldiers would have to be retrained to be tourists.
The problem has never been with the tech, or the engineers and scientists. They know how to make energy abundant. The problem has been the business model. "We can't afford that-- It's too cheap!". The engine of Capitalism hits dead-stop on no money. Utilities only want nuclear if it's the same price as coal- not cheaper- or they would have to write off stranded assets, and reduce rates, and make less money. Which is why it's crucial to understand J paradox... If you make it cheaper, we buy more.
The right goal is to make industrial quality energy 10x cheaper, and sell 20x more. Then the energy suppliers make 2x in revenue. And the people get to FULLY recycle all waste. End energy poverty. Air condition India and the US South, beset by climate change. Provide abundant fresh water. And even power AI data centers, why not. Oh, and make synthetic net-zero gasoline and kerosene so transportation is decarbonized. Nearly all the "difficult to decarbonize" problems become bone-head simple if you just make the energy supply 10x cheaper. You don't have to be smart if you're energetic!
Expanding on your statement about utilities not wanting nuclear that is cheaper than coal - imagine how oil and gas companies feel about abundant energy that makes their high margin products worth far less when there is no actual or perceived scarcity.
I'm old enough to have watched nuclear fall out of favor as oil and gas suppliers became so wealthy that sheiks would fly entourages around the world and spend millions on a short family vacation.
Thanks so much for what is really a relatively comprehensive review of the issues related to nuclear power generation and how thinking out of the box, liberates us to generate new designs to solve what seem like impossibly difficult problems. There is so much in this piece that you need to read it several times to get it all. Thanks the piece and look forward to the next edition. SC
This is engaging and informative, seamlessly blending technical details with the broader vision of Radiant. I particularly appreciated how you conveyed the ambitious goals of developing nuclear power for Earth and Mars, making complex concepts accessible to me. Thank you
Great piece!! Big fan of Radiant! ⚡️
Thanks Molly! Loved your convo with Doug.
Really great piece. Loved the Age of Miracles and this was an important follow up.
I particularly liked the shout out to VTT the Finnish Technical Research organisation.
They have developed such important tech over the years and are veritable "gold mind" of deep tech ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTT_Technical_Research_Centre_of_Finland
Very exciting stuff, can't wait to see this on Mars!
Such an amazing deep dive. Thank you for the brilliant storytelling. On a side note, the one thing makes me incredibly depressed and frustrated; how have we had so many brilliant people working on it for 30 years more than half a century ago and yet it still represents only 10% of power generation? Where did we go so wrong that we are risking the only planet we have with the unabated burnup of hydrocarbons, when the alternative has been staring at us in the face for half a century? I feel multiple books could be written on this damning fact. Why has there been so much delay? In any case, the future looks bright (and clean) for new reactor designs and as soon as they have approval I hope the gobble market share faster than Space-X did. Cheers.
There are many contributing factors that combined to produce our current situation of unabated use of hydrocarbons when we have such a capable alternative.
My minority view is that most of those factors would have been overcome had it not been for the fact that people and institutions (including governments) who profit from Hydrocarbon Economy are so powerful. Abundant nuclear energy eliminates the energy scarcity that has always driven profits from the fuels themselves while the machinery (diesel and gasoline engines and natural gas turbines) and delivery systems (think pipelines, railroads, tanker trucks, ships, etc) used in the hydrocarbon economy are not the same as the machinery and delivery systems used in nuclear fission.
There has also been increasingly powerful opposition from those who own and manufacture wind turbines and solar panels.
We are finally approaching a place, however, where the needs of the many are beginning to overcome the interests of the fewer but more powerful.
This essay injected techno-opitimist fuel right into my veins.
Packy - I'm a little late to the party, but thank you very much for your incredibly informative and optimistic piece. Valerie and I have long been supporters of Doug Bernauer and the team he is building at Radiant, but I still learned some new bits of information from you.
The changes being made at the NRC should help Radiant and the other fission startups you have been covering. We live in exciting times among innovative giants who will help us leave a better world for future generations.
Thanks for being one of them and for telling the rest of us about others who qualify.
Rod Adams
Managing Partner, Nucleation Capital
stellar read!
Wow, what a read! I'm not an avid reader of long form content, but I can't get enough of your deepdives.
https://idlewords.com