Jigar Shah: Breaking the Nuclear Stalemate

[@abcdef8915]

We do not have enough detailed and robust debate like this. Please invite Jigar on again. 👍

[@Nill757]

Shaw is a ridiculous Solar hack fanboy in love with himself, given a lot of powers, now pretending to objective about nuclear.

[@abcdef8915]

@@Nill757 that may be true but those who support nuclear need to seek out tough battles in the public space. If nuclear advocates can defend well against the best criticisms then that will help win the PR battle. Public perception is the number one problem with nuclear.

[@Nill757]

@@abcdef8915 Yes, public perception is a problem. I don’t think that improves by talking w Shaw and letting his bs go on challenged, then calling it a “robust debate”. Keefer has a podcast to run and he doesn’t really want fights, needs more guests. But that’s not the best forum for nuclear vs solar

[@ryccoh]

I mean Dr Keefer's opening was a bit harsh lol that may be what set the tone for the rest of the pod which was kind of unfortunate and uh tense

[@Nill757]

@@ryccoh Harsh to tell call facts? No. Here’s Harsh: Shah is a vainglorious hustler in charge of enormous sums of tax money.

[@GuyIncognito764]

Neat to see Jigar here. I met him my first day of work at his solar company in 2007 as a young engineer fresh out of school. He came over, said hi, and was excited that we both went to the same university. A genuinely good human and wicked smart.

[@Nill757]

Shaw is a self promoting, glad handing bs artist

[@brendancarney6276]

Way to hold your own Doc. Great conversation.

[@colinmegson7721]

Affordable electricity is the name of the game. Every extra penny on the price of electricity affects the poorest in society disproportionately. It's no big deal for well-healed energy gurus to say we need to build it all - that includes dysfunctional wind, solar and the concomitant gas plants - because all it means is a bit off their substantial disposable incomes and not having to choose between heating or eating. Hasn't he seen Mark P. Mills' graph showing the 1 to 1 correlation between a nation's wind and solar penetration and the cost of electricity? Can he somehow find a flaw in Mark P. Mills' postulation that the Energy-Transition is a delusion that will be broken on the wheel of the 'imminent' shortages of 'energy-minerals'? Does he not have the data that suggests a 'Copper Crunch' will manifest itself in the next 2 to 3 years, mainly due to the upsurge of demand from wind' solar and batteries? It's depressing and annoying to think that someone like Jigar Shah, in a position of power, with $300 billion 'at his disposal', could contemplate - at this time in history when the era of the SMR is underway - voicing such an opinion in the corridors of power. Bolstering these ridiculous technologies results in $s invested in them that could and should go the way of companies like GE Hitachi and their BWRX-300 SMR.

[@Nill757]

Because Shaw is a self promoting grifter who knows full well tons of money can be made milking solar subsidies.

[@mikepilley6611]

He also suggested increasing the production cost from .02 to .07 for an additional 15% output on hydro was a great idea because fish.

[@skonne7]

I was very confused at first until I realized Jigar's role and intent - and I think his points about creating and executing projects of a scale that can be managed by real organizations, now, is a great one. Ballooning megaprojects only cause hesitancy, fear, and delays from subsequent adopters. Great interview and good job moving the conversation through some important topics, fascinating stuff.

[@GmanJC]

I’m a proponent of nuclear, a subscriber of the decoupled podcast, and appreciate the amount of intellectual energy and focus you contribute. Additionally bringing on knowledgeable commentators regarding the nuclear topic is equally helpful. This particular interview was especially helpful and provided so much information. I appreciate Jigar’s perspective, and his adversarial approach was not immediately understood but after a second glance, I understood what he was conveying. I watched and listened to the video a few times to grasp everything you both were contributing. Often uranium advocates can be overly optimistic, however, it’s nice to hear about components of other energy sources and how everything should fit together. The DOE LPO loan application information for the 1703 and 1706 (retool, reposed, repurpose) programs was good intel for nuclear investors because now we know how nuclear projects have funding through a government mechanism. Private industry lead, government-enabled!

[@thomasd2444]

8 days ago g-man1811 commented : I’m a proponent of nuclear, a subscriber of the decoupled podcast, & appreciate the amount of intellectual energy & focus you contribute. Additionally bringing on knowledgeable commentators regarding the nuclear topic is equally helpful. This particular interview was especially helpful & provided so much information. I appreciate Jigar’s perspective, & his adversarial approach was not immediately understood but after a second glance, I understood what he was conveying. I watched & listened to the video a few times to grasp everything you both were contributing. Often uranium advocates can be overly optimistic, however, it’s nice to hear about components of other energy sources & how everything should fit together. The DOE LPO loan application information for the 1703 & 1706 (retool, reposed, repurpose) programs was good intel for nuclear investors because now we know how nuclear projects have funding through a government mechanism. Private industry lead, government-enabled!

[@Nill757]

You suddenly understood? You fell in w the propaganda from a solar grifter. All that verbage, not a single detail on nuclear or solar.

[@factnotfiction5915]

17:00 - Jigar Shah is correct, and Chris, you are wrong. Think of it this way, in an interview between Bret Kugelmass and several other nuclear vendors, the question was asked: What is the time to build? The other nuclear vendors stated '5-10 years' or something like that. Kugelmass stated: '18 months, because that is the time it takes to build a natural gas plant' - in other words, Kugelmass understands that if Last Energy CANNOT build in 18 months, they don't have an offering, and they shouldn't even attempt to make a sale. Likewise, Jigar is pointing out what the nuclear industry must achieve to be taken seriously. You can't hide from the bean counters, you need to address their concerns head-on. Yes, nuclear is great, but it won't get built if the NPP vendors cannot figure out construction times and financing models that make sense FROM THE CUSTOMER'S POINT OF VIEW (i.e. the utility or merchant generator). A harsh reality, and sure, maybe the vendors will take some time to get there, but they gotta make that leap, because it IS REALITY.

[@williamgrebenik8876]

Sorry Jigar, but show me one solar or wind project that is mandated by the regulators to withstand a direct hit by a commercial aircraft. These projects are not similar on any scale.

[@shanewilson2484]

A plane hits 2 large wind turbines ... nobody cares. A plane hits some solar panels ... nobody cares. Any one plane crash will only take out small MW of generating capacity and there is no radiation hazard.

[@8BitNaptime]

If a commercial aircraft hits a windmill, I don't think there's a cloud of radioactive debris that could occur.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

​@@8BitNaptimeThe radioactive debris from rare earth extraction for wind turbine permanent magnets was already dumped into a river in China. 🤗

[@jeryj3332]

You know what I really liked this guest. There is nothing wrong with being combative and pushing against our comfort zones. Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, batteries etc. need to all get in the game to help us decarbonize at a reasonable price.

[@fjdhaan]

Thinking this one over again, I have to say that he's not a very effective communicator, and he's either got weird blind spots or he should be clearer on why people building NPPs should be allowed to go with a "design as you go"-scheme at all. At the same time, he's very unclear on who he blames for that $400m not being spent up-front when it seems to me that's mainly on the utility, unless the industry encourages this (which may be the case given the stupid refusal to standardize designs)? Anyway, I quite agree that NPP production should be commoditized, and ideally the cost should be in the 5-10B range or lower, though that may be difficult to attain until they've got the process down to an "art". But why on earth can't he bring himself to say that a $400M design is itself silly expensive, and a "72-step program" perhaps a bit cumbersome?

[@MrElifire84]

I appreciate Chris’s deference but I wish he woulda called Jigar out on a few things more. At one point Jigar said “respect the 72 step process!” Are you kidding me? Do you even hear yourself? This is exactly why Nuclear struggles. Those designated by the powers that be to fund or promote it don’t realize the bureaucratic monster they are part of is actually tuned to kill it. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Nuclear’s problems are not physical realities but human contrivances.

[@AmurTiger]

Honestly I'm glad he let it be, he's a government official and there's going to be some things he literally can't say having a big argument wouldn't have really served anyone. The unseriousness of the approach the US is taking on this speaks for itself.

[@MrElifire84]

@@AmurTiger I thought some about Dr Keefer being strategic here too and I think your point is obviously correct. Loosing the war while winning the battle and all that. That being said, those in power need some pushback on this issue or they simply aren’t going to revamp. There needs to be a stronger groundswell to push these guys into action. Maybe that’s not Jigars role but he certainly sounded more sympathetic to the status quo on regulatory pathology.

[@lumpenstumper6151]

@@AmurTigerthe LPO has been authorized to loan up to half a trillion dollars to American companies working to improve our energy grid’s efficiency and reliability. That’s hardly “unserious”

[@AmurTiger]

@@lumpenstumper6151 What's the rate of return on improving reliability and efficiency? What's the interest rate charged under the LPO? There you'll find the bodies of any project that has the least amount of ambition to substantively improve the situation. PS while half a trillion may seem like a lot on a per capita basis that's less then what Ontario's put into the CANDU refurbs and that's an actualized project instead of a notional pool of loan money that's /available/ but may or may not actually be used.

[@lumpenstumper6151]

@@AmurTiger LPO is one of the few government offices that actually makes money with what they invest. The loans have a preferential rate (2%), with 98% historical repayment. You don’t need more than 500 billion when the companies are promising, they go to market and raise capital. Government enabled, private sector led

[@gseine]

Interesting .... nuclear needs to brag about their successes. Show where they make reliable power, hour after hour. Show where they generate power day after day. Their 95% uptime can't be matched by any other power generator.

[@dennis6693]

As an entrepreneur, Jigar scaled the solar market by creating a bankable model that the private sector could finance. Now he's the head of the DOER loan program and controls billions federal $, and he's an avid listener of your podcast. Then he correctly calls out the nuclear industry MO (endlessly criticizing other technologies and failing to deliver bankable models) and you can’t bear to hear it. Solar has grown 30% compounded annually for the past two decades and will continue that growth unabated. Relisten to yourself and learn from your reactions. Jigar called it like it is and you did exactly what he said the industry is guilty of - whining about how hard it is; how complex it is; how others have it easy even though their technologies don’t work; fail to present a viable nuclear option that even you can believe in. He's right. We need nuclear. But we need to face reality and step up to meet the challenges, not just complain about how unfair the market is.

[@Nill757]

Oh good grief. Why do solar advocates go on and on about market penetration, as if this was purely market driven, when I know, you know, everybody knows solar is backed w enormous subsidy and that’s not good enough, straight up mandates to install it. Last, comparing solar to any dispatched power is a red herring, when it’s always, always , solar plus. Plus gas. Plus coal, plus storage. Fossil fuel plant interests love solar. A watt of firming for every watt of PV. The result is increasing grid rates, which gets paydays to guys like Shaw.

[@hanshyde9108]

Bingo! And Jigar has been saying exactly the same thing for more than a decade, which is twice as long as Chris has been interested/advocating for nuclear. FFS he tries to bring up California or Germany which has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand... failure of US nuclear OEMs & EPCs to delivery a product while literally 1000s of GW of wind & solar have been deployed globally around the world in the same amount of time as either the US or French NPPs. He tries to claim the US grid has come close to collapse due to increased wind/solar penetrations, which as Jigar says, has absolutely no data/evidence to validate the claims. Chris tries to claim that nuclear builds are beyond comparison of any other mega-energy projects (something he's done in other podcasts too) yet 10s of multi-billion dollar O&G projects, LNG facilities, ethane crackers, etc., have been built in the US in the same timeframe as Vogtle/Summers and they were modularized, just like the AP1000s were... and they were all finished with equal or greater complexity as the nuclear projects. It's all a bunch of buts from nuclear advocacy. Meanwhile, Jigar literally has his thumbs on the scale for $100s of billions in funding for what.... new nuclear, and is in here telling the industry and its advocates what they need to do to get it... as we need it all, and they are yet again too f*cking stupid to take what he's saying seriously and get their own house in order.

[@witttravis]

Really good conversation! Mr. Shah's comment on how solar plants are on par with nuclear plants is baffling though.

[@davidwilkie9551]

If we did understand enough about financing to suspect that the capitalist program was not the (supposedly) social service provider government is elected to provide, but is actually preventing that idea and is dominated by Finance Capitalism, Insurance for Bankers and Real Estate passive income protection. A Generation system is all those FIRE characteristics of privatised profiteering if government regulations are negated, this is a very serious reason to question "Capitalism" that isn't a true investment in Services. Ie, myself personally have no clue, but the saga related to the world about how Richard Nixon twisted the industry completely out of shape should have taught us a losson?

[@shanewilson2484]

I used to watch GTM Jigar podcasts. It is fun seeing Jigar in his new role.

[@AntonOfTheWoods]

Just discovered this channel after YT suggested your interview with Nate Hagens. Awesome stuff!

[@dodaexploda]

I listened to this one in the car. It's a bit of a strange one. Maybe I don't get it, but there was some weird talking points in here. Like wind/solar is as complex as nuclear. I feel like Jigar was meaning something else and not quite getting it out. Also complaining about capital costs for nuclear plants for foreign countries when that's what the SMRs are specifically made for.

[@edwardleaver7838]

Well... one of Mr. Shah's hats is "political animal". DOE policy is "diversity" and "all of the above" -- at least all clean energy plus gas. Mr. Shah's public statements must reflect that public policy. Coincidentally, Mr. Shah mentioned disagreements with Robert Bryce, whose contemporaeous "about a minute" is on point: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2W5lGulo5qnd68

[@dodaexploda]

@@edwardleaver7838 He has to reflect the DOE policy... Is that why it didn't make sense. I'm only half joking here.

[@AmurTiger]

If you go over it again or know what to listen for you can hear him trying to both defend US government policy as well as diminish the ground that the US has lost relative to other players in the nuclear industry. The one I always know to watch out for is whether they can admit to the undeniably impressive performance of the Russian nuclear industry because whatever you think of Russia's awful geopolitical actions they're building all over the world to a budget and schedule that we clearly should envy but it's a reality that the US government likes to ignore. They're more ready to acknowledge China's strengths even since China's considered the peer competitor where Russia's supposed to be the defeated rotting husk of a monster. You can hear it again in the dismissal of South Korea's nuclear program as insufficiently capitalist because US policy for some time has been to turn their back on organizations like the TVA or state-run utilities and to push 'market solutions' to repeated disastrous effect ( see: PG&E and ERCOT ). Now if they want to make the market-capitalist argument for nuclear then by all means do so but they can't JUST be critical of the nuclear industries failures ( which are plentiful ) but ALSO the market structure they've designed that's more or less been an all-in bid on natural gas with only marginal exceptions because it's cheap in capital terms. Just yelling at the nuclear industry to try harder.... well there's little wonder why Terrestrial Energy specifically opened up an office in Canada ( a far far far smaller overall market ) to try and get their reactor developed and built. Whether or not you ultimately believe that electricity generation should be funded and built as a public interest like roads and water utilities or if it should be market led you have to be able to clearly identify flaws in your market structure or your regulated monopoly structure when they start to produce undesirable results, Jigar's unable or unwilling to do that and so will continue to get undesirable results. Frankly if I was a Canadian Electric Utility with export ambitions I'd be quite pleased with Jigar's performance.

[@fjdhaan]

Well, it sounds like SMRs were also developed because the US funding structures are so insane, because those who fund nuclear buildouts are allowed to always extract their pound of flesh. ;-)

[@dodaexploda]

@@AmurTiger thank you for the well thought out reply. I don't disagree with anything you've said. That does explain it. As for Canadian export, we've seen the CANDUs not to be approved in the states. We'll see if the BWRX-300 runs into similar issues, but I think it might already be approved. But I do believe the hope is that we export them into the states.

[@colinmegson7721]

There's only one way Jigar Shah's comments can be interpreted, even though he didn't say it outright - in the commercial money markets [the pension funds with $trillions to invest] 'Big Nuclear' is dead and the future of nuclear power is the small modular reactor (SMR). Somebody has to say it: Advantages of SMRs: Commercial money market funding; 2 to 4 years build programmes; EPZs at the boundary fences (a biggie in terms of political/public persuasiveness); lower power - lower standby capacity to cover for unplanned outages; supply chain [forgings; machining capacity; etc.] expands significantly; scalable built out of module factories for rapid expansion of nuclear power build out; economies of scale through 'mass production'; swift escalation up the learning curves; workforce training and security of employment from constant production. Advantages of Big Nuclear: None.

[@jimbob1427]

Shocking interview, the guest was needlessly combative and either ignorant or lying when comparing a nuclear reactor and solar as similar in difficulties to build . No one in their right mind would argue this .

[@acwojtkowiak]

Jag does not come off as positive on nuclear, but claims to be impartial, which is one of his job requirements. Jag articulated his views well. The discussion was very good. Monsieur Moustache did very well in having Jag ellucidate his points of view. Great moustache, a Canadian classic. Pointing out competing industries disadvantages is a sound business practice. Fear mongering by nuclear oppositions has almost destroyed the nuclear industry, but it is has hung on by a thread so far.

[@ryccoh]

That was umm quite confrontational but enlightening

[@GeorgeStreet-m8c]

Great conversation!

[@Nill757]

Why? Details? Any at all?

[@mikepilley6611]

Am I missing something? At the end in regards to hydro, did he say increasing the production cost of the electricity by 400% for a 15% output increase because fish, was a good idea?

[@Nill757]

Anything to get more solar for Shah. He’d blow up every dam if we let him.

[@victorferguson874]

I will defer to the wisdom of those of you who are much more knowledgeable than I on this subject but my instinct is to think Shah is blowing smoke up your you-know-what.

[@Draco3.6.9]

I live right by the bryon plant. Awesome stuff !

[@kaya051285]

To put in a reality check for Nuclear advocates in the USA The most recent US Gas Fired Station was built for 90 cents per watt and if it operated like a nuke as baseload it would cost just 13 cents per watt per year using current gas prices While the most recent nuke was built for over $13 per watt. That means it would take 93 years for the nuke to catch up assuming nuclear fuel is FREE and nuclear workers are paid in peanuts that fall from the sky....... Even if you could build a nuke for just $2.50 per watt (which is impossible imo) it would still be too expensice vs a modern Nat Gas plant Natural Gas in the USA is just dirt cheap and its competition (gas fired stations) are super productive/efficient/cheap The best you can hope for is keeping the existing reactors from closing Either a carbon tax is needed or some government guarantee/support. Or we just accept Nat Gas is cheap and plentiful for now and just keep using Nat Gas for the foreseeable Europe has already embraced wind/solar so there is little to no room for nuclear China is whatever the government wants so I see them building 150+ reactors minimum just to say they have more than the amercians. Plus they don't have much domestic Nat Gas and Coal is more expensive to run and operate than Gas Nuclear for electricity is not going to work not when the competition is 90 cents a watt and 40 men can operate a large CCGT while you need more than 10x that for a nuke While nuclear fuel might be cheap. Processing it into usable fuel rods isnt. Refueling isnt. Nuclear engieners arent cheap

[@Nill757]

The new pipeline that goes with the gas , the storage, that’s not altogether under $1. US once built dozens of reactors under $1/Watt, in 1960s, 2023$, in 3-4 yr ea. Some still running like Point Beach. No expensive pipelines or gas either. Therefore, US can again. Nat gas carbon and methane leaks need to go.

[@affinity1]

Sovereign govts can't finance these large projects? US, Japan, China, EU? Or are you saying the nuclear projects are so large that they are unmanageable by humans?

[@im_83n]

the combativeness is certainly offputting at first, but he makes good points. As a finance student this has been a great perspective to hear.

[@colsylvester639]

Agreed, however if one is going to be combative, why be combative against someone of the same team? There's a difference between that and devil's advocacy. There was a distinct change in tone from Jiga later on, perhaps on reflection and I acknowledge I am not a telepath here! 😆

[@jwholmes2]

That was pretty interesting. However I think that every time you tried to chunk down the arguments he deflected. Some good insights though.

[@alfihalma4320]

Please invite someone from Westinghouse, Framatome or else and ask them how to bring costs down!

[@stanmitchell3375]

Wind and solar is factory built,field workers gouge whenever they can,don't know what they are doing until they do two jobs

[@bentray1908]

This guy is like, “um”, a “you know” poor mans razib khan “right”

[@bentray1908]

However, i liked his challenge to the community of nuclear bros. We need to get with industry and help them sell.

[@davidwilkie9551]

The comments about Chat GPT and data Centres are particularly relevant in this context of public perceptions about financing service, not commodity, projects.., because it's confidence that the proposed technology is matched by competent designs that understand the actual science involved. Eg Chat bots can review inputs that are only as good as the original research, assemble a story reminiscent of Lawyers summing up precedents and unless a professionally skilled human goes through every step, in Principle, the output can't be trusted. Eg2 Fusion Energy is self-defining bs, in Principle, "good" for bombs not graduated release. So as hinted, modularity components for mass production of proven Reactor designs needs that $200mill finish to design work asap.

[@kaya051285]

Nuclear for heating needs makes more sense A heat only reactor would be approx 10x smaller & cheaper per KWh In a lot of the wolrd heating needs are higher than electricity needs. Eg my home uses 3,000 KWh of electricity but 30,000 KWh of Nat Gas for heating A country like the UK would see a massive reduction in Natural Gas consumption if we built out a nuclear heating grid powered by heat only reactors The UK needs 100GW of low temp thermal heat in the winter. That could be met with 100 x 1GW thermal reactors. They would operate for 4-6 months of the year and provide seasonal heatig needs Remember a AP1000 reactor is 1.1GW eletricity but 3.4GW thermal. So the heat costs just 1/3rd the electricity. And you don't need to build the significant costly conversion equipment. You delete about half the buildings in a heat only reactor so half the cost. You'd finish it sooner so less finance cost too. I think you are looking at 10x cheaper than electricity for a heat only nuke. Well with nat gas at 4 cents in Europe and heat.only reactor at potentially 1 cent it makes a lot of sense But its a chicken and egg problem. Cant do this before the hesting grids are in place But I'm not holding my breath

[@killcat1971]

The thing is you can do that with WASTE heat from a high temperature reactor, if it's running at~800C the waste heat from cooling the electricity generating component could easily heat nearby homes.

[@kaya051285]

@killcat1971 This is unrealistic. Both Europe and the US have proven they have lost the skills to make even conventional AP1000s and EPRs To then suggest a higher temp reactor And Co generation Will mean that suggestion costs even more and takes even longer to build Keep it simple A heat only reactor is the same as an AP1000 minus about three fourths of the parts. A heat only reactor would be 100% efficient (or close to 100) while the AP1000 is only 33% efficient. Therefore a heat only reactor will (even with Western nuclear skills lost) be far cheaper and quicker to build and I'd guess it would be 10x cheaper per KWh of heat and if built en mass maybe even 2x that again Also a heat only reactor doesn't have to be the HUGE power of an AP1000 which is over 3.4GW thermal. I imagine perhaps 10 x 340MW heat only reactor would be better than 1 x 3.4GW reactor so as to reduce the distributed heating grid costs The real difficulty about this idea isn't the nuclear side its the heating grid side But even there our shale brothers can do a lot of the heavy lifting Imagine a 1GW thermal reactor (so 3x smaller than an AP1000) and from that site using shale technology you drill down and then horizontally. That one site could reach out 20km in any direction. Limiting needs for permits and surface works greatly.

[@killcat1971]

@@kaya051285 Most of the 4th gen SMRs are looking at high temperature reactors going forward, either Molten Salt or Gas cooled, they are even prototyping one for space use. So while the US may lack the specialization they can simply buy the units from the companies that make them, of course that's assuming they ever make it to market.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

​@@kaya051285The steam could be used in the summer for absorption air conditioning to increase utilization and decrease the payback period.

[@edwardleaver7838]

Thanks Jigar! Great, dynamic, informative, and hopefull interview!

[@Nill757]

Any actual facts? Or all bling?

[@sputnik94115]

Question on the eye blinking. Are you suffering from dry eyes due to contact lenses? Eye drops are not going to solve your problem and it's really very distracting in spite of the excellent content and the fact you are a handsome guy. Would rather you wear eyeglasses or properly address the root problem.

[@kaya051285]

Nuclear fuel might be cheap But nuclear engineers (especially in the USA) definitely aren't cheap. So manning a nuke with 500 men rather than a CCGT with 40 men makes nuclear non economic Natural gas is very cheap in the USA/Canada. 500 full-time nuclear engineers at a cost of $150,000 each is not cheap So it's simply not going to be economic in the USA with high wages and low Nat Gas Prices It makes more sense in say Poland where Nat Gas is 3x the price and Nuclear Engineers are paid a third of what they are in the USA But then the problem in places like Poland are two fold. 1: Their grid is too small to incorporate many reactors, so the price is going to be high as little to no learning curve and 2: Subsidised wind and solar means periods of negative Prices. So you build your expensive first of a kind nuke and are expected to sell maybe a third of the output at negative wholesale prices...... so the result is no one will touch nuclear without subsidy and guarantees from the government

[@hanshyde9108]

The constant snipes and misinformed leadups are annoying and the same that has happened for more than a decade (predating you Dr. Keffer). Palisades closure was NOT political, it's original owner and main power purchaser (Consumers) decided not to extend the contract and purchase power off the market. "Look at Indian Point" or "Look at Diablo Canyon" or "Look at Germany and "it's deindustrialization", and how POLITUCAL they are/were, but don''t look/mention Besse, Perry or Beaver Valley and the outright corruption and holding the NPPs hostage to get payments First Energy poured into its coal plants. When there was lack of federal support for nuclear under Trump, it was blue states with red legislatures that protected the majority of their NPPs with ZECs... NY, NJ, PA, IL. Where was MI, Iowa (Duane Arnold), Wisconsin and Ohio working at the state level to provide the NPPs support? No where to be seen... until Biden Admin came in and started "saving" them. But this reality doesn't match the reality in Germany, where OMG they shut down NPPs too! And look, Energwende is a complete failure. It doesn't match the European experience because it is not Europe we are talking about at all and the only place were are told NPPs were closed down was in Blue states where renewables are fawned over, so therefore all NPPs closed or threatened was ONLY due to politics, when in fact it is completely opposite to this narrative. Frankly, how about you talk about the hard won/waged successes in Ontario, and finally the end of blank checks being written for nuclear and accountability demanded, else the projects have hard offramps, instead of trying to compare and analyze something you do not have the background to understand, and trying to explore it fully entrenched within a nuclear industry silo makes you sound like a shill for nuclear. You want to talk about nuclear, fine, talk about nuclear. But stay out of grid operations, where NPPs are but one part of a massive integrated system that is advancing technologically, and no longer needs as much of the legacy attributes NPPs provided back in the middle & latter half of the 20th Century.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Logarithmic Time Duration Timing modulation behaves like a Diorama landscape, coherence-cohesion resonant bonding chemistry made-of-making elemental e-Pi-i sync-duration connectivity function by QM-TIME superposition logic assembles compositions of time-timing in calendar-like maps and models of reciprocation-recirculation relative-timing sequences spinning and spiraling in epicycles of Quantum-fields pulse-evolution differentiates integrated @.dt zero-infinity Centre of Time axial-tangential orthogonality freeze-framing. A fact-of-life missing from the current curriculum that modifies our approach to Actuality, by default. Nuclear Power Generation has a more expansive effect on knowledge, e-Pi-i Superposition-point Observation.

[@billcampbell1292]

Chris is off his rocker. :) Cute

[@JordanArno-l7x]

Harris Joseph Miller Thomas Wilson Michael

[@kaya051285]

Its not a truely competitive market. If there are a handful of 'competitors' BUT they all decide to build only gas fired power stations then they all win Why would utility A build a nuke or even a coal plant if they can build a gas fired station for 1/10th the cost 1/10th the staff 1/10th the land 1/10th the protest. It doesnt matter to utility A that the price of gas might get more expensive becuade utility B C D and E are also only willing to build gas plants therefore the future clearing price of electricity will always be such that your gas power station investment will pay off For the utilities the best world is one of only gas fired power stations and the USA is on the path to that (the UK is already there having demolished by law all its coal plants) The old world of a mix of gas and coal was arguably better but the future is basically a 'competitive' gas fired power market and a subsidised/regulated solar&wind market

[@chapter4travels]

This is why nukes have to come down in cost to be competitive with both gas and coal. Old-school PWRs can't possibly do that but gen. IVs can. Independent cost estimates of the Terrestrial Energy IMSR show exactly that. The only reason they don't meet that mark would be regulators.

[@kaya051285]

@chapter4travels but why would an independent for profit utility want to take the risk when they can just build a risk free Gas Fired station? And some government subsidised or regulated wind/solar in the mix? You might reply that a gas-fired station isn't risk-free. But it is if all the 'competition' does the same Here in the UK, nothing is built without government direct or indirect guarantees/subsidy Wind Solar Nuclear Biomass All require subsidy/guarantee I mean even if you could build a nuke for $5/watt which is less than half the price of the new USA nuke. You wouldn't do it as its a 60 year project and the subsidised wind and solar on the grid will push prices negative for large parts of your operating life You don't know what the competition is going to be like in 10 years let alone 50 years. You have no idea what the minute to minute market price is going to be going out 60 years. You have no idea if a future government will make up some BS and tax you indirectly. The unknowns are too much. Why would you build a nuke for all that risk when your $20 billion nuke budget can just be invested in the stock market for a 10% return or into government binds for 5% Also there is another factor. If you are a utility why would you order the first two reactors and pay $15 Billion and $12 billion. And now your competitor utility can order the next nuke for $10 billion and $8 billion..... It's simply not going to happen There has been the best part of 30+ years with no significant nuclear build in the west. If it was going to happen woth the current rules it would have already happened. Especially during the near zero rates period where finance was available for 2% it sure as he'll isn't going to happen now that finance is 7%

[@chapter4travels]

@@kaya051285 All good points. Energy security comes to mind and also if the customer is not an electric utility but a refinery that needs cheap industrial heat. Terrestrial Energy's first customer fits that category. That's a big foot in the door.

[@kaya051285]

​@chapter4travels The only possible significant future for nuclear I can see and even this is unlikely is if nuclear is used for heating buildings and homes using large distributed heating grids A heat only reactor is 10x smaller/cheaper/simpler than an electricity nuke and can probably be built in half or a third the time For example the AP1000s are approx 1.1GW electricity or 3.4GW thermal. So stright away if you use it as just heat you have 3x as much energy and you delete over half the parts of the station as you don't need to make eletricity or dump two thirds of the heat to the ocean or towers at cost and expense In the UK 90% of homes and buildings are heated by natural gas boilers. Almost all of that could become nuclear heated buildings It's low temp low pressure Simple Efficient Plus we wouldn't need monster sized reactors. Maybe 300Mw thermal would be fine. The UK would need 300 of these small reactors so the first 5 or 10 might be expensive the next 290 will be cheap. Or maybe even 50MW thermal reactors and 2000 of them. Each reactor able to feed 20,000 homes their heating needs Also in many countries including the UK a lot of eletricity is used for heating so heat reactors would also lower overall eletricity demand Imo it makes far more sense And it could mean nuclear provides a third of primary energy needs without having to touch electricity But I don't see any country thinking of or talking about this Also technically there would be no waste as the 'waste' would just be long life fuel for the heating grids

[@chapter4travels]

@@kaya051285 By 2100 all primary energy will come from high-temperature fission, both breeders and burners. This includes transportation with synthetic diesel and jet fuel. No other energy source has all the advantages of gen/ IV and V nuclear that are not political in nature. The AP1000 and all its variants are antique, outdated technology and will soon be replaced by high-temperature nukes.