Opposition to irradiated foods is generally rooted in ignorance. It’s a great way to extend shelf life, reduce illness, and reduce food waste while leaving no trace. And it avoids the need for chemicals on the food which you can end up ingesting.
Misunderstandings about uranium mining are rampant. It's important to note that energy density of what you mine is pretty important in reducing how much you need to mine. Keep that in mind with uranium, which has a massive energy density advantage.
This should be a lesson for all journalists covering nuclear.
You're not being even handed when you include uninformed commentators who are expressly against a technology, regardless of the facts, and are repeatedly proven wrong by the facts.
"Yet if the roughly $3.5 trillion invested in renewable power since 2000 had all backed fission, I believe the advances in that technology would have led all remaining coal- and oil-fired power plants to have disappeared from the face of the Earth by now."
If you see Ed Lyman quoted in an article about nuclear it's most likely he is wrong on most or all accounts. He is anti-nuclear, has little technical credibility, and should not be given a platform as an expert by media organizations. Please do better journalists!
MIT report highlights a key point: nuclear is needed for decarbonisation. Also points out important policy options, but as often found in these types of studies, it discounts the potential that broad innovations in deployment models, and the associated changes in culture have.
Important to keep these things in mind. Novels designs alone are not a guarantor of success. It takes a lot of focused, dedicated work, and a good perspective on lessons already learned.
We have been vocal advocates for a fast test reactor, we need that capability in this country to support innovation and advance material and fuel technologies for the future of nuclear power.
When a regulator makes it prohibitively difficult to bring new technologies to market that improve safety, that regulator is failing their job to ensure safety, especially in the face of replacing obsolescence
The government needs to think beyond funding the payroll of nuclear companies, they need to invest in closing the cross-cutting infrastructure gaps that we need address so we can realize the potential of these technologies.
Students should pay attention to Will's articles and posts. They are often more informative about nuclear plant engineering than you can find in class. Will enhance your education dramatically!
Good for the climate, bad for the U.S. We need to be building these reactors, and exporting reactors to the world to help lift people out of poverty, reduce emissions, and enhance global security.
Students - if you are applying to grad schools because you want to work at a nuclear startup, you're doing it wrong. Skip grad school and apply to the companies!
New England was dependent on Russian gas for a period of time this winter. Unless they get smart about what they are doing, they will become even more dependent on such fuel sources in the future.
I'm happy to say, as chair of the industry Fast Reactor Working Group, that the fast reactor developer community is healthy and growing with diverse and innovative approaches to tapping into this technology
Maybe this will help others realize we need all of the tools at our disposal, and we shouldn’t shelve one of the most impactful fuels we have - the atom
Startups are super tough, and I appreciate the work by each that move the ball forward. It takes a huge amount of effort and passion. Thank you to those that get in the game and try!
What does it say about an industry that has conferences or meetings nearly every week, often with the same people, but with little actually being built?
It seems like much of the nuclear industry's goals are to get government funding to pay for their technology R&D, instead of actually building stuff. These are generally misplaced goals and incentives.
1/ Liebreich piece misses key points on nuclear:
1) there are successful projects installing nuclear competitively, looked at UAE
2) advanced nuclear has delivered at 3 c/kWh (from a test reactor in US!) very doable commercially
Thankfully some at DOE really do want to help advanced reactor commercialization, but it makes you wonder how serious they are when they don’t support crucial databases containing legacy data necessary to support advanced reactor licensing.
One of the moral hazards of DOE FOAs for industry is that they solicit proposals from groups that aren't serious enough to pursue ideas if the government doesn't fund them. This dilutes meaningful proposals from serious groups and invites fickle projects with tenuous commitment.
Interesting to listen to former public figures talk on nuclear policy points, make some wonder what former NASA officials were saying about private space in the early 2000s...