Why Thermal- rather than Fast-Spectrum Breeder Reactors should do the Heavy Lifting for Energy Transition, and why only the Thorium fuel cycle can scale to meet our needs
Erik thesis is so meticulously crafted that I'm not sure my two cents can add much value. Nevertheless, it’s clear from his well-reasoned arguments that Eric deserves serious consideration for the role of NRC chair. If the U.S. is ever to reclaim its position as an energy superpower, this is the caliber of leadership we need. While I don't quite see eye to eye with him on issues like fossil fuel depletion and climate change, there's no question that his expertise could play a pivotal role in shaping the nation's energy policy for the better.
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm an entrepreneur, not a politician. We definitely need new leadership in NRC, but that's only the start. What's really needed is for heads of state around the globe to recognize that fast-tracking the commercialization of advanced nuclear technologies, particularly the TS-MSBR, should be a top national priority.
Back in the day (1970s), we were fighting the corrupt, entrenched money interests behind the oil & gas industry, and they killed nuclear energy with little effort. These days we have BOTH the corrupt entrenched oil & gas industry AND the even more corrupt, entrenched renewables industry trying to nay-say nuclear energy because they know they can't compete.
Market-oriented participation drives greater impact than public efforts alone. Your contribution, regardless of size, strengthens the nation as a whole. It's not about the scale, but the collective force of engagement that moves the needle. When individuals contribute, the entire country benefits.
Long time since I read or saw anything promoting the Thorium cycle (Kirk Sorensen vids from 5+ years ago anyone?!) so great to see this getting some well deserved attention again. And thanks for an extremely detailed article
I trust Erik's research and judgement. Nuclear energy is barely taking shape. I look forward to reading his views on the Thorium Fuel Cycle. Is this the superior model? Let's find out.
Thank you so much for undertaking this significant and valuable effort. I have learned a great deal from your presentations! Way to go! Keep them coming. Don't be discouraged by the difficulties of capturing our collective attention....you are having impact.
But sadly, the objective data doesn't support your statement that I'm having impact. My MacroVoices podcast has a sustained regular listener audience well over 150,000. In my opinion the nuclear energy stuff I write about here on Substack is far more important, but I have only 1,500 subscribers here. My 30-day downloads here are <5,000, but more than 300,000 on MacroVoices. That's a 60:1 ratio, so the sad truth is that only a few of you guys are interested enough to actually READ long-form content.
No surprise it's hard to get the masses to understand nuclear energy with these stats. :(
Totally on board with costs as key (see https://bit.ly/realist-transition). Molten salt is very interesting; will read Holcomb's paper. But the factory and manufacturing arguments are not really convincing. I read the Henry Ford piece, and still dont see how we get to $20MW LCOE. I would need engineers and manufacturers to explain why costs can fall ~80-90% from FOAK. Yes it happened with solar wind and batteries. But there we are talking millions of units and constant innovation. Nuclear is slow, iteration is difficult (regulation), and scale at least an order of magnitude smaller (maybe 2 or 3).
I'd love to be wrong.
PS I'm currently writing a policy piece on SMRs for a DC thinktank. Happy to chat if you like rgaster@incumetrics.com
"The chart above shows that from the end of WWII until the early 1970s, humanity was on a steady and consistent uptrend in human prosperity..."
This raises the question as to what happened in the early 1970s that caused this mysterious decline in prosperity, at the same time that technology increased exponentially and costs plummeted. The second question is, if the source of this prosperity drain continues, will it destroy the wealth generated by large scale, cheap energy too?
Erik thesis is so meticulously crafted that I'm not sure my two cents can add much value. Nevertheless, it’s clear from his well-reasoned arguments that Eric deserves serious consideration for the role of NRC chair. If the U.S. is ever to reclaim its position as an energy superpower, this is the caliber of leadership we need. While I don't quite see eye to eye with him on issues like fossil fuel depletion and climate change, there's no question that his expertise could play a pivotal role in shaping the nation's energy policy for the better.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-153620140?source=queue
Thanks for the kind words, but I'm an entrepreneur, not a politician. We definitely need new leadership in NRC, but that's only the start. What's really needed is for heads of state around the globe to recognize that fast-tracking the commercialization of advanced nuclear technologies, particularly the TS-MSBR, should be a top national priority.
Back in the day (1970s), we were fighting the corrupt, entrenched money interests behind the oil & gas industry, and they killed nuclear energy with little effort. These days we have BOTH the corrupt entrenched oil & gas industry AND the even more corrupt, entrenched renewables industry trying to nay-say nuclear energy because they know they can't compete.
Market-oriented participation drives greater impact than public efforts alone. Your contribution, regardless of size, strengthens the nation as a whole. It's not about the scale, but the collective force of engagement that moves the needle. When individuals contribute, the entire country benefits.
Long time since I read or saw anything promoting the Thorium cycle (Kirk Sorensen vids from 5+ years ago anyone?!) so great to see this getting some well deserved attention again. And thanks for an extremely detailed article
Hi James, yes, it seems that Molten Salt Reactor Technology was filed away. Thanks for bringing up Kirk Sorensen.
I trust Erik's research and judgement. Nuclear energy is barely taking shape. I look forward to reading his views on the Thorium Fuel Cycle. Is this the superior model? Let's find out.
Thanks for the kind words, Kristin!
Thank you so much for undertaking this significant and valuable effort. I have learned a great deal from your presentations! Way to go! Keep them coming. Don't be discouraged by the difficulties of capturing our collective attention....you are having impact.
Thanks for the kind words, Stephen!
But sadly, the objective data doesn't support your statement that I'm having impact. My MacroVoices podcast has a sustained regular listener audience well over 150,000. In my opinion the nuclear energy stuff I write about here on Substack is far more important, but I have only 1,500 subscribers here. My 30-day downloads here are <5,000, but more than 300,000 on MacroVoices. That's a 60:1 ratio, so the sad truth is that only a few of you guys are interested enough to actually READ long-form content.
No surprise it's hard to get the masses to understand nuclear energy with these stats. :(
Absolutely superb! Thank you
Great work, Erik! The 2 episodes with CA are by far the most pretious material one can find as of today.
Totally on board with costs as key (see https://bit.ly/realist-transition). Molten salt is very interesting; will read Holcomb's paper. But the factory and manufacturing arguments are not really convincing. I read the Henry Ford piece, and still dont see how we get to $20MW LCOE. I would need engineers and manufacturers to explain why costs can fall ~80-90% from FOAK. Yes it happened with solar wind and batteries. But there we are talking millions of units and constant innovation. Nuclear is slow, iteration is difficult (regulation), and scale at least an order of magnitude smaller (maybe 2 or 3).
I'd love to be wrong.
PS I'm currently writing a policy piece on SMRs for a DC thinktank. Happy to chat if you like rgaster@incumetrics.com
Youza.
Nice work!
"The chart above shows that from the end of WWII until the early 1970s, humanity was on a steady and consistent uptrend in human prosperity..."
This raises the question as to what happened in the early 1970s that caused this mysterious decline in prosperity, at the same time that technology increased exponentially and costs plummeted. The second question is, if the source of this prosperity drain continues, will it destroy the wealth generated by large scale, cheap energy too?
Here is a great website on this topic:
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Erik,
Love your work. Have you looked at https://www.reploypower.com/about?
@Gene Nelson, Ph.D. thoughts?