Linking the effort to build out nuclear to the wave of cathedral building that swept Western Society, and the reasons given for it's success is sheer genius.
Good for this group to hear some hard truths about SMRs. First NuScale UAMPS, now 'Ultra Safe Nuclear Company'. I expect more to fold too. Is BWRX next?
A tech path that leads us to what we already have, Big Beautiful Reactors.
I like your idea of emphasizing the good effects that nuclear power plants have on community, especially the fact that these plants have the capability of lasting 100 years, maybe more - and the long term stability that lends to jobs and the whole surrounding area and economy. This argument should resonate with anyone, whether they are into climate change or energy density or not. Another point that should resonate with anyone is the comparatively small footprint of nuclear.
Nuclear plants cost a lot to build, but the 80-100 years of lower costs for electricity and industrial heat processes more than justifies the capital outlay. The money wouldn't be a problem if all the subsidies wasted on short-lived unrecycleable unreliables was re-allocated to long term nuclear.
I don’t think public opinion and government programs are about what is good 100 years in the future. People and governments are far more motivated by short-term costs.
I agree with eliminating Green energy subsidies and mandates, but natural gas will be the likely beneficiary, not nuclear.
Until the nuclear industry brings down costs, nothing else matters.
Nuclear will do great, too - if, as you say, we can get the costs down. Regulations and permitting hoops are overly strict. If SMRs can get standardized and approved and can scale up enough, they’ll do great too. But gas is already tried and proven, so it’s a natural - my first good pun all day.
Excellent, thoughtful essay. This point has grabbed my attention and raises interesting questions, "To build a nuclear power plant is to tell ourselves that we believe in our own excellence, that we believe in our own future." Is construction of this scale, be it nuclear or cathedral, mostly downstream of culture, an expression of a civilization's self understanding? Or can construction, a project of scale, shape the future of culture? Also, the debate within the advocate community between nuclear as large-scale infra vs nuclear as manufactured technology also takes on interesting dimensions when analyzed as competing expressions of cultural self-understanding.
You are right Emmet, but there is more ... Consider for example the CCP building nuclear plants all around China ... They are not building community, they are not thinking in excellence, they for sure hate (at least dismiss) cathedrals and all about western culture ... I would say OUR nuclear technology is only OUR because we were the first one creating it, and we should be the first advancing it ... to their limits!
I am not sure that the Industrial Cathedral argument is going to gain much traction either. Until nuclear power becomes cost-competitive with natural gas and coal in North America, I did not think it will be able to gain traction.
If nuclear power stations could be constructed in one year for $820/kWh then everyone would support nuclear power. Until it gets into that price range, I think it will be an uphill struggle.
I suggest the following:
1) Overhaul nuclear regulation and permitting.
2) Take 10 years to really drive down the price without significant declines in safety. Cooperating with South Korea might really help.
3) Only then really scale up production.
#1 is such a technical issue, that I really don’t think the public opinion matters, and #2 is really about design and prototyping and manufacturing within the industry. Public opinion only matters once the price gets down and production scales up in step #3.
Linking the effort to build out nuclear to the wave of cathedral building that swept Western Society, and the reasons given for it's success is sheer genius.
Great stuff as always. I love this “we do it because it is awesome and so are we” approach.
Big/small we need them all for electricity, heat, etc. and we can keep making them cheaper as we go.
Go off, king 👑.
Good for this group to hear some hard truths about SMRs. First NuScale UAMPS, now 'Ultra Safe Nuclear Company'. I expect more to fold too. Is BWRX next?
A tech path that leads us to what we already have, Big Beautiful Reactors.
Thanks for this compelling essay which reads like a primer on how to change people's minds.
I believe significantly lower cost of construction is the only thing that will change people’s minds.
I like your idea of emphasizing the good effects that nuclear power plants have on community, especially the fact that these plants have the capability of lasting 100 years, maybe more - and the long term stability that lends to jobs and the whole surrounding area and economy. This argument should resonate with anyone, whether they are into climate change or energy density or not. Another point that should resonate with anyone is the comparatively small footprint of nuclear.
Nuclear plants cost a lot to build, but the 80-100 years of lower costs for electricity and industrial heat processes more than justifies the capital outlay. The money wouldn't be a problem if all the subsidies wasted on short-lived unrecycleable unreliables was re-allocated to long term nuclear.
I don’t think public opinion and government programs are about what is good 100 years in the future. People and governments are far more motivated by short-term costs.
I agree with eliminating Green energy subsidies and mandates, but natural gas will be the likely beneficiary, not nuclear.
Until the nuclear industry brings down costs, nothing else matters.
I don’t disagree.
Natural gas will do great.
Nuclear will do great, too - if, as you say, we can get the costs down. Regulations and permitting hoops are overly strict. If SMRs can get standardized and approved and can scale up enough, they’ll do great too. But gas is already tried and proven, so it’s a natural - my first good pun all day.
Ha ha, I see what you did there!
Excellent, thoughtful essay. This point has grabbed my attention and raises interesting questions, "To build a nuclear power plant is to tell ourselves that we believe in our own excellence, that we believe in our own future." Is construction of this scale, be it nuclear or cathedral, mostly downstream of culture, an expression of a civilization's self understanding? Or can construction, a project of scale, shape the future of culture? Also, the debate within the advocate community between nuclear as large-scale infra vs nuclear as manufactured technology also takes on interesting dimensions when analyzed as competing expressions of cultural self-understanding.
You are right Emmet, but there is more ... Consider for example the CCP building nuclear plants all around China ... They are not building community, they are not thinking in excellence, they for sure hate (at least dismiss) cathedrals and all about western culture ... I would say OUR nuclear technology is only OUR because we were the first one creating it, and we should be the first advancing it ... to their limits!
so well put
I am not sure that the Industrial Cathedral argument is going to gain much traction either. Until nuclear power becomes cost-competitive with natural gas and coal in North America, I did not think it will be able to gain traction.
If nuclear power stations could be constructed in one year for $820/kWh then everyone would support nuclear power. Until it gets into that price range, I think it will be an uphill struggle.
I suggest the following:
1) Overhaul nuclear regulation and permitting.
2) Take 10 years to really drive down the price without significant declines in safety. Cooperating with South Korea might really help.
3) Only then really scale up production.
#1 is such a technical issue, that I really don’t think the public opinion matters, and #2 is really about design and prototyping and manufacturing within the industry. Public opinion only matters once the price gets down and production scales up in step #3.