<
https://freedium.cfd/https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/circles-of-credulity-bias-desperation-fuel-small-modular-nuclear-dreams-4a5f9913334d>
'A few months ago, a STEM and economics literate global decarbonization
executive for a $4 billion annual revenue logistics business operating in most
of the major trading companies of the world asked me "What drives this madness
on hydrogen?" They were being peppered with irrational proposals for the
molecule and its derivatives. I answered at length with the motivations that
were creating cognitive biases among the self-supporting circle of fossil fuel
firms, their financial firms, the countries with high oil rents and firms whose
only intellectual capital is in technology which burns fossil fuels like
internal combustion engine manufacturers.
This week I had an equivalent question from someone engaged by the
Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists. The individual isn't an industry insider and didn't
have a particular iron in the fire, but had been engaged to write a
Bulletin
piece on the perplexing enthusiasm small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) are
seeing from an overlapping circle of advocates and firms.
This was, of course, in the week when NuScale inevitably imploded, a story I'll
return to as I unpack some of the motivations behind those thinking a bunch of
lab technologies that have been around for decades that depend on uranium from
Russia, that don't have the physical characteristics for cheap nuclear
generation and don't have the conditions for success for nuclear generation
will be the saviours of the nuclear industry and a key wedge in fighting
climate change.
The
Bulletin, as a reminder, is the non-profit organization founded in 1945
by Albert Einstein and several of the scientists involved in the US creation of
the atomic weapons detonated in Japan at the end of World War 2. Its founders
realized that the weapons technology had the potential to destroy the human
race and decided that informing the public and policy makers about the dangers
was a good idea. Their most high-profile publication is the Doomsday Clock, a
metaphorical meter of how close the human race is to destroying itself. They've
branched out to a lot of science communication on other threats like climate
change, AI and COVID, but still have a core focus on nuclear energy and
weapons.
Some bona fides. I like nuclear generation. I know it's safe enough. I'm not
concerned about radiation. I know it is capable of 90% capacity factors and
limited load following. I've published assessments on nuclear vs renewables
scaling in China that have garnered reasonable attention, material on the
prerequisites for successful nuclear programs (and why those prerequisites
don't exist in the 21st Century), a bunch of other basic nuclear grounding
pieces and a fair amount about why small modular nuclear reactors are head
scratchers. I just know that it doesn't have the conditions for success to be
built and scaled economically in the 21st Century, and wind, water, solar,
transmission and storage do.
The
Bulletin representative undoubtedly saw something I'd written and put me
on the long list of people to interview. We had that conversation this week,
and it's worth writing down the perspective I shared with them.'
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
