I always maintained that if climate activists dismiss getting nuclear power plants built to supply clean energy to their citizens then they’re not really climate activists.
Michael - interesting article and important topic of discussion. I served on nuclear powered submarines in the Navy for years. I trust the technology implicitly. Like anything, it needs to be handled with care and by trained professionals. But the Navy's nuclear power program has been running strong for years without any nuclear incidents. And on a submarine you are always within 300 feet of a running reactor. I don't know anyone who has sprouted a third eye on their forehead.
I’m a relatively new reader here. Great piece. Really informative. My thinking on nuclear was back to the Simpsons model. This is truly game changing. Thanks!
I found this very interesting because I have heard many people, particularly guests on the Joe Rogan podcast, talk about the viability of nuclear energy and how safe it is to use. However, I never heard anyone explain exactly why it is safe for the kinds of uses that you described. Thanks for connecting the dots for me!
Yes! I think everyone who honestly assesses the situation eventually concludes that nuclear has to be a huge part of any kind of clean energy transition, and nuclear is many, many times safer than the alternatives. The math does not lie.
I'm not sure we have the full picture of how bad Chernobyl or Fukushima really were, but I'm also confident that they pale in comparison to the damage burning coal has done over even a fraction of the time reactors have been up and running.
Interesting comment by Ehrlich and Lovins. They appear not to be worried about nuclear power, per se, but about the dangers of excess (anything) to humanity. I suppose if we analyze our society, we can judge for ourselves at this point in time.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this particularly since hearing about this the first time. It would be great to have self sustaining households in terms of power generation. It pretty much eliminates the possibility of power outages. Having been considering things like Tiny Homes, many of them talk about being off the grid. This would provide an opportunity to expand it.
You write, "They built the reactors on the coast in a region known for seismic activity and a history of tsunamis. It’s oddly hubristic to think that was a safe option."
But that's the kind of thing humans do. Over and over again, for thousands of years. Every so often we go totally FUBAR. And this example wasn't in a crumbling corrupt Soviet state on the brink of collapse, but in modern Japan, home to some of the most intelligent technically savvy people on the planet.
QUESTION: Is human ability unlimited? If we answer no, then it logically follows that human technology will have to be limited.
Whatever the limit to our ability to safely manage technology might be, we are racing toward that limit as fast as we can. Ideally, we won't be oddly hubristic and keep racing until we hit the wall.
When I read the opening lines, I smugly assumed you'll be discussing nuclear fusion and its potential (something both Bill Gates and Sam Altman are betting heavily on).
I was not at all aware of the mini reactors and Triso fuel!
It's such a shame that the largely irrational fears are preventing large-scale deployments of such promising tech.
Do you know anything about the current traction these type of initiatives are having in political and corporate circles?
Thank you for discussing your first hand experience evaluating a small reactor. The more people like you write about the actual safety of nuclear reactors, the more likely they are to be accepted by everyone. We’ve already seen a huge shift in public opinion over the past few years.
I always maintained that if climate activists dismiss getting nuclear power plants built to supply clean energy to their citizens then they’re not really climate activists.
Michael - interesting article and important topic of discussion. I served on nuclear powered submarines in the Navy for years. I trust the technology implicitly. Like anything, it needs to be handled with care and by trained professionals. But the Navy's nuclear power program has been running strong for years without any nuclear incidents. And on a submarine you are always within 300 feet of a running reactor. I don't know anyone who has sprouted a third eye on their forehead.
I’m a relatively new reader here. Great piece. Really informative. My thinking on nuclear was back to the Simpsons model. This is truly game changing. Thanks!
I found this very interesting because I have heard many people, particularly guests on the Joe Rogan podcast, talk about the viability of nuclear energy and how safe it is to use. However, I never heard anyone explain exactly why it is safe for the kinds of uses that you described. Thanks for connecting the dots for me!
Yes! I think everyone who honestly assesses the situation eventually concludes that nuclear has to be a huge part of any kind of clean energy transition, and nuclear is many, many times safer than the alternatives. The math does not lie.
I'm not sure we have the full picture of how bad Chernobyl or Fukushima really were, but I'm also confident that they pale in comparison to the damage burning coal has done over even a fraction of the time reactors have been up and running.
Interesting comment by Ehrlich and Lovins. They appear not to be worried about nuclear power, per se, but about the dangers of excess (anything) to humanity. I suppose if we analyze our society, we can judge for ourselves at this point in time.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this particularly since hearing about this the first time. It would be great to have self sustaining households in terms of power generation. It pretty much eliminates the possibility of power outages. Having been considering things like Tiny Homes, many of them talk about being off the grid. This would provide an opportunity to expand it.
You write, "They built the reactors on the coast in a region known for seismic activity and a history of tsunamis. It’s oddly hubristic to think that was a safe option."
But that's the kind of thing humans do. Over and over again, for thousands of years. Every so often we go totally FUBAR. And this example wasn't in a crumbling corrupt Soviet state on the brink of collapse, but in modern Japan, home to some of the most intelligent technically savvy people on the planet.
QUESTION: Is human ability unlimited? If we answer no, then it logically follows that human technology will have to be limited.
Whatever the limit to our ability to safely manage technology might be, we are racing toward that limit as fast as we can. Ideally, we won't be oddly hubristic and keep racing until we hit the wall.
What a fascinating read!
When I read the opening lines, I smugly assumed you'll be discussing nuclear fusion and its potential (something both Bill Gates and Sam Altman are betting heavily on).
I was not at all aware of the mini reactors and Triso fuel!
It's such a shame that the largely irrational fears are preventing large-scale deployments of such promising tech.
Do you know anything about the current traction these type of initiatives are having in political and corporate circles?
Thank you for discussing your first hand experience evaluating a small reactor. The more people like you write about the actual safety of nuclear reactors, the more likely they are to be accepted by everyone. We’ve already seen a huge shift in public opinion over the past few years.
Typo? “Fuckashima” 🤣