Fantastic analysis! I work in the White H2 industry and am constantly having to point out that the believers have a fundamental dissonance between their dreams and good intentions and the hard practicalities which make it impossible in the timeframes they talk about!! Carbon neutral by 2030? No, 2050 no as well. If you’re lucky maybe it could be 2075 but the extremists make it impossible!

I'm Proud to part of 2014 to 2021 BNPP

51:30 there really are people who develop this naive perspective.

Excellent!!!!

What makes sense is chloride molten salt fast neutron reactors. These can burn nuclear waste directly. Just dissolve the pellets in molten salt and add. Yes these reactors shutdown with heat so passively safe. Hopefully more interest in this type of reactors.

Trump’s answer to climate change: drill baby drill.

You can not beat nuke submarine in any operational environment or spectrum. Even in shallow water. Nuke sub has non-magnetic alloy steel too, even soviet used Titanium to circumvent MAD in shallow water. Snorkeling time for recharging in coventional submarines are the most dangerous phase in any sub ops. Nuke sub has no problem with it. Japanese was starved because of submarines

Now do Vox Day and see if you can play chicken with YT monetization.

The issue that I have with the pro-nuclear crowd is that as soon as someone makes the assertion that light water reactors are by design relatively unsafe and we should pursue new designs that fact based conversation seems to evaporate from the conversation. For example the moment I mention Thorium and LFTR designs I get replies from people who refuse to accept that LFTR designs may have many benefits over light water reactors. I don't understand how these people have consciously made the decision to simply ignore reality and dispute the research and proven facts with regard to Thorium based liquid fluoride reactors. As soon as someone makes a suggestion that maybe we should look into alternate designs and consider that many of the unsafe issues with nuclear power stem from the light water reactor designs and can be remedied by implementing already researched alternatives it becomes a conversation that is based on opinion and familiarity rather than fact. Where does this biased resistance come from?

We cannot get upset looking at the differences between the US and Japan. We are talking about decentralization vs centralization. Different cultures and social institutions. The USA's functionalism and positivism, which makes the USA great, it is not the best tool to say "in Japan is too easy to do A, B, C" and "in the US is too complicated". This is the tradeoff between different social fundamentals. Having said that, it would be great to find solutions for each specific social configuration, even if we talk about the same tech, in this case nuclear. This sounds obvious, but I rarely see this type of reflection from intellectuals in all industries and professions. More common sense is desirable, even when we try to promote what we do best. The solution is in front of our eyes.

Fun fact, (dare I say it) take CO2 as a warming factor out of the conversation for a moment and do some research related to the fireball of plasma in our sky. That is the only reasons we are here. The sun goes through cycles where it changes its magnetic field polarity every 11 years then back for a total cycle of 22 yrs. This cycle has caused historically significant changes in sunspot activity and solar irradiance output causing both significant drops in temp and significant increases in temps. Not only is CO2 higher now than in the 19th century - but so is solar irradiance. When solar output was much lower during the Maunder Minimum it dropped 1.5C colder. We are entering a Modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020-2050) so time will tell but since low solar activity is expected, that will mean a reduction of ozone being produced in the atmosphere. This impact on ozone is very important. It is been researched and there is correlation between low ozone and planetary atmosphere waves and wiggles in the jet stream. That can, in turn, effect the North Atlantic Oscillation which has a history of changing the climate significantly. During the GSM, we could see a 1.0C change in global temps just due to the sun from 2030-2043. My perspective is that we only care about CO2 because we can (try to) blame humans. But if we endeavor to reduce CO2 and temperature on this planet, THEN it drops a further 1.0C just because the sun is doing sun things, we will all suffer. Important implications for growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating costs planet-wide will gives us a whole other problem to "solve". Cold related deaths world-wide are 9-10 times greater than heat related deaths. I didn't even get into decadal changes in Earth's orbit that such as Milankovitch cycles with eccentricity variations, gravitational influence from Jupiter and Saturn, obliquity etc. that also impact climate patterns and significant contributors to climate change. Bottom line, NOBODY even thinks about this or talks about this - but it matters. You can't run our lives on a single human cause such as CO2 and change our future without making these "climate scientists" look at the really big picture. Scrap the current climate doomsday models and factor in everything instead of ignoring other important facts.

- 2 years for BREST-OD-300. The PERFECT fast breeder reactor. IFR also would be almost as good, but Clinton killed it in 1994.

I'm as pro-nuclear as they come but we are currently on track to do exactly the thing the guest is aiming to avoid - a nuclear reneissance when almost nothing gets built. We should be building "boring" AP1000s en masse rather than throw money at small and micro reactor science projects. We don't need new designs we need to get faster, cheaper, better at constructing existing designs. EDIT: Having said that, Jeff seems to be a very down-to-earth, pragmatic guy and the project seems the same. Good luck to them!

This “opportunity cost” statement is ridiculous.

Discussion of price drops is clearly wrong. Prices are demonstrably falling by large amounts in the major markets and by the better makers. Battery price drops are undeniable. I’m not sure if I can finish a thing something so utterly wrong on this point. Don’t talk to libertarians. They are ideological fanatics. This is like talking to a fundamentalist about cosmology.

Thank you, I known this but lack the detail talking to those in oil I got only part of this picture. This conversation filled in many gaps.

Australia's Defence Policy Explained Says it all ... all the way with USA. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZjWoZ6um9CGas0

Climate tipping points terrify me. We've at best chosen to forge forward and live with "limited" climate change. But we have really no idea what we're playing with.

The main question remains how come it takes 5-7 years to build a Chinese/Russian nuclear reactor where there is not a single nuclear plant built in west in less than 15 years and in budget. It does boil to corruption and that’s not the authoritarian states but the Indian democracies that we are running in western side

USS Scorpion was caused by a hydrogen explosion in the battery compartment, likely caused by static electricity from a crew during charging. Since then, USN changed their procedures after that in the engine room, and there's no more accident related to the battery compartment on both submarine and surface vessels.

The biggest load of BS I have heard in a long while! Sounds like a male Greta Thunberg! Wow, degrowth, the economy going backwards, is actually a good thing! And guess what? The govt can just print as much money as needed to solve all our problems and increasing debt is nothing to worry about. Our biggest problem is that we don’t have authoritarian dictators running our lives. And despite climate change models consistently overstating the rate of warming, we might end up in a Mad Max like apocalypse in as little as 10 years! How, you ask, you see there will be these mysterious ‘tipping points’ OMG the sky is falling!! And finally despite replacement fertility rates being well below replacement in more and more countries that’s not reducing the population quick enough for this guy - perhaps he can volunteer to help and do us all a favour! 🙏

TRISO fuel at 2,400C?! That’s wild.

Happy to see economists challenging climate change only due to human actions. Also, talking about human actions, you don't need to be an economist to talk about economics. Ludwig von Mises in this book "Human Action" (1949) said ""Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices, nor left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man's existence."

I should have known this was going to turn out to be pro nuke shill propaganda. Here's your friendly daily reminder that nuclear power is the only electrical producing technology with the potential to render the northern hemisphere permanently uninhabitable and that's according to a US military study on the vulnerability of spent nuclear fuel cooling ponds. Here's a reminder that the primary source of radio nucleides at a nuclear power plant is not in the reactor but in the spent fuel cooling pond. For example at Fukushima reactor number four pose the greatest threat yet that reactor was in cold shutdown, three other reactors had gone into full blown meltdown with corium in the bottom of the reactor vessels and containment facility Yet Raptor 4 which was completely shut down was the biggest concern, that's because the spent fuel cooling pond above reactor 4 was storing the vast majority of the facilities spent nuclear fuel, the cooling pumps and backup generators had been destroyed by the tsunami and the water in the pool have begin to boil dry and uncover the spent nuclear fuel. In case you didn't know spent nuclear fuel is the most radioactive substance known to man. Exposure to a single spent fuel pellet for more than a few seconds will result in a lethal dose of radiation. And that's just one pellet there are several hundred thousand pellets in each fuel bundle and multiple fuel bundles in each refueling. Spent nuclear fuel needs to be handled and stored under 30 ft of water for 6 to 10 years before the fission products have decayed to the point where they're safe to be transferred to a stainless steel lined Cask 3 ft thick in concrete.. If those fuel bundles are exposed to air they will undergo a chemical reaction that will release large amounts of hydrogen, the fuel rods themselves will exceed the 1200 degrees Celsius maximum temperature of the Zircon cladding and explosion will occur and the rods will begin to burn releasing huge amounts of heavily contaminated smoke, we're talking smoke contaminated with strontium 90 cesium 137 iodine 129. This isn't like getting an x-ray this is the equivalent of tens of thousands of the world's largest dirty bombs being detonated simultaneously over North America. The United States is currently storing 200,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in highly vulnerable spent fuel cooling ponds were a single spent fuel cooling Pond could result in the deaths of over 10 million people and that might good friends is based on a US military assessment of the vulnerabilities of spent fuel cooling bonds. A single drone or RPG attack on a spent fuel cooling Pond would result in a catastrophic loss of coolant because spent fuel cooling ponds are not inside the reinforced reactor domes but rather outside the reactor Dome with very little protection quite often nothing more than a thin piece of sheet metal is standing between an RPG and a spent fuel cooling pond holding tons of the most radioactive substance known to man. These cooling ponds require active cooling 24/7 365 days a year spent fuel needs to spend 6 to 10 years in the pond before it's cool enough to be removed during this time this fuel is extremely dangerous and that's what happened at Chernobyl reactor number four. The generators and cooling pumps for the spent fuel cooling Pond were damaged the water was boiling dry in the tops of the fuel rods exposed, the radiation levels were lethal they used robotic equipment in an attempt to keep the fuel rods submerged. But God was with us that day the wind was blowing in the right direction, the spent fuel had caught fire but by the grace of God the smoke was blown offshore and ended up in the ocean had the wind been blowing the other direction everything between Fukushima and including Tokyo would have been rendered permanently uninhabitable. Computer models have shown that had the contents of the reactor number for spent fuel cooling pond become fully engulfed but the entire northern hemisphere the planet would have experienced a nuclear contamination of global catastrophic proportions. The computer models predicted that the entire northern hemisphere of the planet would have been rendered uninhabitable the United States, Canada, Central America South America would have had to be evacuated hundreds of millions of people displaced. That was the computer model prediction of a single spent fuel cooling Pond fire at reactor 4 in Fukushima, again the United States is storing over 200,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in nearly identical facilities. So I'd ask this good doctor what he thinks the result would be of taking 200,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel pellets crushing it up into fine powder and evenly Distributing it over the northern hemisphere. I'm curious what his assessment of the cancer risks would be. Because that's the exact same scenario when I spent a few cooling Pond catches fire. This is something we were assured could never happen yet it happened multiple times in Fukushima reactor 4. What would happen in the United States if there was a coordinated drone attack on a dozen or more spent fuel cooling ponds? Once again nuclear energy based on the uranium fuel cycle is the only electrical producing technology with the potential to render half the planet uninhabitable, the risk is small but it's still there and the only thing standing between it and you is a single terrorist attack. Once again this is all based on a US military study much of what has been redacted. Probably because they don't want the public to panic

Great interview!! Thank you!

What about Thorium ???

Please give us a bill of materials for some likely reactors if you would. What is needed: pipe, welding, pumps, controls, gauges, interconnecting wiring, power, vessel, generators, power grid, building(s) roads, real estate, roads. staff.

Lots of great information, I hope more public officials and policy makers start paying attention and understanding this sort of knowledge

So kinda weird finding this now seeing as it’s being mentioned in connection with the drone mystery

I love the possibility of micro reactors, but after 40 years of being a nuclear fan boy, I've finally had to admit commercial micros cannot happen. There's just way too many problems and challenges to overcome and the more research that's done, the bigger and more numerous these challenges become. We've thrown SO much money at this fantasy, we've come so far, the problems should be diminishing, but they're multiplying instead. The permanent long term solution to our energy needs is renewables with good battery storage. Even if commercial micros existed and were viable, they'd still only ever be a stop gap, temporary solution to our energy needs, renewables will always be the ultimate best solution. If all the money we're pissing away verifying what we already know, that commercial micros aren't going to work, were spent on battery research and production development, I suspect we'd either already have the ultimate battery or be very close. The current mindless frenzy over micros reminds me of the Madison Avenue (advertising industry) dictum, "sell the sizzle, not the steak." Micros are all sizzle, no steak. They are a wonderful, beautiful fantasy, it would be fantastic if we could realize the dream they promise but they are all promise, no potential reality. And it's not because we just haven't gotten around to building one yet, they don't have a "reality" in the first place, as in, when all the scores of billions of dollars we're fire hosing at micros has been spent, all the promising avenues of development followed to their end, when all the searches are exhausted, everyone involved will have to admit "micros were a nice idea, a beautiful, magnificent, seductive fantasy but they cannot be brought to reality." Lots of people in the micros fantasy industrial complex know this but they are making SO much money selling the sizzle, the promise of micros, they would be a fool to tell the truth.

Your talents are wasted in government

Great great interview, Chris. Steve réserves a Nobel, and likely he'll get it... When it's too late. Again, a nice Christmas gift for your listeners, thanks a lot! Merry Christmas & all thé best in 2025!

What a great episode! They're all excellent, of course -- you're doing great work, doctor -- but this one, with the leapfrogging of "paper reactors" into real physical reality, was really encouraging. Hope for the future.

Awesome job as always. Thank you for all you do!

If SpaceX did nuclear, the Musk philosophy of the best part is no part would drive its design. Build a reactor that doesn't need a nuclear-grade forged reactor vessel, one that doesn't require a gigantic containment structure, one that doesn't need nuclear-grade power conversion equipment that only specialized labor could build, one that has online refueling, one that is high-efficiency, one that also produces industrial grade process heat, one that doesn't need giant cooling towers, and finally one that doesn't need to be a giant government boondoggle to get built.

Rusatom pumps out industrial-strength floating power plants like Zoom issues SW updates - so I don’t understand guest dismissing Russian production when your own conversation here began with the complete lack in America output across recent decades. What else do we need to check out for his voracity?

Fantastic episode . . . real work - Dr Waksman is a superlative representative for DoD, and kudos to you both for making this happen ! 💯

11:45 containment not mentioned!

Micro reactors will be a game changer in the Arctic. We dont need much power but we do need a lot of heat. We could build large hangars to store planes. We could keep large jet fuel tanks warm. We could build nice housing to make life better for the people that work up there and we could keep large greenhouses warm enough to grow food all year using grow lights.

This is kind of a fantasy of mine, but wouldn't it be great if Congress in the US government passed the bill reforming the nuclear regulatory commission to the point that an emergency prototyping license could be issued to companies that are coming forward and working through the department of energy and the NRC with new designs. If a company is in the process right now, and they've passed around or two of reviews and they are working with department of energy labs to develop the technology, they be granted an emergency license to take their design to the prototyping stage. This would be something similar to the experimental reactor and developmental reactor stages under the old AEC. This might cut the timeline of development and free up private financing for the development of these 21st century designs.

Sorry i dont buy catastrophic climate change. If Freeman Dyson doesnt some bloke you never heard of wont convince me.

I just don't buy it. The energy that is necessary to continue indus civ as we currently experience is that which can be extracted, produced, refined, stored, transported, etc...Whatever source you care to mention there are associated infrastructure costs that depend on other forms. Further oil extreaction and transport requires steel for production of pipes, transport of pipes, construction, or production of trucks, etc...The human enterprise now uses a vast array of all sources of energy including large amts of wood. There has been no transition- just more exploitation. Net zero is a pipe dream. Even if we manage complete electrification of the transport sector via wind and solar all of these first generation solar panels and wind mills will all have to be replaced in 20-25 yrs. We will exploit all resources until all are consumed and the planet is a wasteland.

The situation is hopeless at this point. Limits to Growth suggested many decades ago 3 billion might be sustainable w/ modest life styles indefinitely. We have exceeded all possibility of reclaiming a sustainable future for our children and the tipping points will trip us into a hellscape of crop failures, drought, and fishery collapses. Only reasonable question at this point is to decide what form of civilizational collapse you prefer: MAD MAX TOTAL CHAOS or something like ELYSIUM or Blade Runner 2049. All future scenarios are bad at this point.

A question this raises with me is: what are the consequences of realizing this for climate policies. The outcome that the transition will fail is not going to be acceptable for most politicians. If the current approach to reach a transition does not work then we need an alternative policy to reach our goals. I think the main conclusion is that stimulating renewable energy production in order to consequently get a transition is going to fail. There may be shifts in how and where those fossil fuels will be used, but it is unlikely to lead to lower fossil fuel consumption. So we need to focus on restricting/discouraging the use of fossil fuels and/or the emissions resulting from fossil fuel use. So no more stimulation of renewable energy; the reduction in fossil fuel consumption will create demand for renewable energy. At present we already see both approaches being applied. That is interesting as it implies that politicians already (perhaps subconsciously) realize that a policy that depends on a transition taking place as a result of stimulating renewable energy doesn't work. So politicians are forcibly closing coal thermal plants and taxing fossil energy.

They are small enough to fit in a submarine!

This is a truly excellent channel. Thank you for your excellent guests.

There is not a Nobel prize in economics. Alfred Nobel never had that in his testament. It was the Swedish centralbanks prize in economic science Nordhaus got.

Spending25 billion to bury used candu nuclear fuel is a stupid idea, moltex terrestrial, flibe,can use it

22:40 - Wikipedia - Richard Cantillon (1680s - May 1734) an Irish-French economist & author of Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général (Essay on the Nature of Trade in General), a book considered by William Stanley Jevons to be the "cradle of political economy". Although little information exists on Cantillon's life, it is known that he became a successful banker and merchant at an early age.

22:07 - That's where Adam Smith comes in