Podcasts about Nuclear power

Ever since the Homestead Act of 1862, the U.S. government has worked to help everyday Americans own a piece of their nation. One important innovation was the 30-year fixed rate mortgage, a uniquely American loan that helped supercharge homeownership in the U.S. after World War II. But not every effort by the government to increase homeownership has paid off. Now as younger homebuyers face an affordability crisis, can the U.S. government keep that American dream alive This episode is part of The Wall Street Journal's USA250: The Story of the World's Greatest Economy, a collection of articles, videos and podcasts aiming to offer a deeper understanding of how America has evolved. Listen to previous installments of our USA250 podcast: Nuclear Power's Reboot The Struggle To Keep America's Workers SafeAn Economy Built on Speculation America's Road to a DIY Retirement And check out our special series: Can Anything Kick-Start the U.S. Housing Market? With Homeownership Out of Reach, Some Are Choosing to Rent Forever What's in the New Bipartisan Housing Bill That Congress Just Passed The Housing Market Slumped This Spring. Where Does It Go From Here? The Fight for Affordable Housing Mamdani Won on Housing. Will Democrats Follow His Lead? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode is a real doozy, folks. We're talking about the Colorado governor's decision to keep a coal plant open, and the ensuing battle between the federal government, the state, and the utilities. But it's not just about the coal plant - it's about the structure of the Republican Central Committee, the Department of Energy's loan to Westinghouse, and the Supreme Court's decision on gun rights. It's a wild ride, and we're just getting started.The speaker dives into the details of the Colorado coal plant, explaining how the governor's decision is not just about politics, but about the facts on the ground. We're talking about a plant that was scheduled to close years ago, but was kept open by the Trump administration. The speaker also touches on the Department of Energy's loan to Westinghouse, and how it's a game-changer in the nuclear energy industry. But what's really interesting is the speaker's take on the loan - is it corporate welfare, or is it a smart move to take on China?The episode also covers the Supreme Court's decision on gun rights, and how it affects the Second Amendment. The speaker breaks down the decision, explaining how it's a major victory for gun owners, and how it sets a precedent for future cases. But what's really striking is the speaker's commentary on the decision - it's not just about guns, it's about the power of the people, and the importance of individual rights.If you're interested in learning more about these topics, and hearing the speaker's unique perspective, be sure to listen to the full episode. With expert analysis and insightful commentary, this episode is a must-listen for anyone looking to stay informed on the latest news and trends.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. -------------------- 01 Introduction This is the second follow up to my 8 part series on nuclear power. In this episode I will attempt to answer a question posed by brian in ohio in a comment on HPR4583. In that comment he said: 02 -------------------- Loving this series. Maybe Whiskey Jack could give some cost comparisons between large and small reactors. He could also give us a realistic look at nuclear plant safety/accidents compared to conventional power production. Looking forward to the episode on FORTH generation reactors ;-) -------------------- 03 End of quote. The first question I answered in my previous follow up, which was HPR4628. In this episode I will attempt to answer the second question, which was about the safety of nuclear power compared to other sources of electrical power generation. One of the HPR janitors encouraged me to make this episode, so I think we can thank him for getting another HPR episode made. 04 Defining the Scope First, let's define the scope of the question. This will cover electrical power generation only. Within that scope I will consider only the following sources of energy. 05 Coal Oil Natural Gas Hydroelectric Nuclear Wind Solar I won't cover geothermal, wave, or tidal power as these are only used in very small amounts and so there simply isn't enough literature on them to base a discussion on . 06 Foreshadow Conclusion I should mention right away that I cannot provide absolute answers to this question in the form of a nice, neat ranking table based on numbers from peer reviewed scientific sources. The reasons for this will become apparent, but to put it briefly, the data on which to base such a ranking simply doesn't exist. I will however provide context within which people can think about the issue. Wherever possible, I will provide links to the references that I used in the show notes so you can read further on this yourself. -------------------- 07 Energy Catastrophism versus Energy Uniformitarianism First though I need to go off on a slight geological detour in order to explain an important analogy that I will use. 08 In the 19th century there was a great debate among geologists over what is known as catastrophism versus uniformitarianism. In seeking to explain the origins of the earth and of the landscape that we see around us, there were two points of view. 09 One was "catastrophism". This is the belief that the mountains, valleys, and plains that we see around us were formed as a result of great catastrophes which occurred relatively recently in earth's history. This explanation was necessary in order to fit geological features into an earth that was believed to be only a few thousands of years old. This view was heavily influenced by religious belief. In this view Noah's flood was the great catastrophe and the fossils of dinosaurs were the remains of animals who had not been saved on the ark and so had died in the flood. 10 The other point of view was uniformitarianism. This was the hypothesis that the landscape we see around us can be explained by the very slow accumulation of very small changes over very long periods of time. For this to be true however, the earth had to be far older than the few thousand years that a literal reading of the bible would suggest. The earth in fact had to be many, many, millions of years old. 11 Eventually, the uniformitarian view won out and people understood that while some catastrophes can take place, the shape of the landscape is overwhelmingly due to small changes over very long periods of time. 12 How is this Relevant to this Episode You Ask? How this is relevant is that I will use this analogy to explain how we need to think about energy and safety. Very small numbers of deaths and injuries multiplied over many occurrences can add up to big numbers, comparable in scale or possibly even larger than a single catastrophe or even several of them. 13 I don't know if anyone else has used this analogy before, I have just thought of this when writing the script for this podcast. None the less, I think it is a very useful way of helping to understand the issues. 14 As an example of this, think about the well known case of the safety of flying versus the safety of travelling in your car. Air crashes are catastrophes that make the headlines. Automobile crashes are seldom more than local news at best. You have probably heard many times the claim that if you making a trip somewhere, you are safer to fly than to drive yourself in your car. 15 Example - Hydro versus Solar I will now present an example of this. Hydro electric power has some notable large scale catastrophes associated with it. Roof top solar power does not have any notable catastrophes that I am aware of. However, which is safer? 16 Hydro Catastrophes Here are three examples of hydro electric catastrophes in just one country, Italy. The Vajont Dam which collapsed in1963 An estimated 1,917 to 2,500 people died. The Sella Zerbino dam which collapsed in 1935. More than 100 people died. The Gleno Dam which collapsed in 1923. An estimated 350 people died. https://damfailures.org/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4997708/ 17 I haven't tried to compile a global list of the worst hydro electric dam collapses, as this sort of information is actually very difficult to find, even on web sites dedicated to dam failures. An additional problem is that information on whether a dam was used for electric power generation or not is often not available. 18 Dam failures where contradictory or insufficient information is available on whether there was an associated hydro power plant include the 1975 Banqian Dam failure, where death estimates range up to a quarter of a million. 19 Solar Panel Slow Accumulation Contrast this with roof top solar panels. Many small accidents can add up to big numbers as well. 20 Health and safety literature discussing solar panel safety mention things such as Falls from roofs. Electric shock. Arc flash (burns from electrical arcing). Normal electrical safety procedures which are based around locking out sources of energy do not work with solar panels which makes safety more difficult. Heat stress due to working exposed in the hot sun. Warning from US government on falls by solar panel installers. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/228946 https://www.osha.gov/green-jobs/solar 21 Why We Cannot Compare the Two Hydro catastrophes are not well documented, but we can at least find records of some of the most notable ones. However, even those have very large variations in estimates of deaths. 22 Roof top solar deaths however are largely undocumented. The industry is largely unregulated. There is no central authority which accumulates many individual deaths or injuries. At best there are worker and public safety bodies who simply accumulate those statistics into general construction or household injuries. 23 Thus we have no reliable means of comparing the two energy sources on a comparable basis. We face the same problem with all other major electrical energy sources. So far as I am aware, there are no peer reviewed scientific studies which compare the relative safety of all of the major electrical energy sources we are considering here based on actual numbers. -------------------- 24 Safety Risks I will now try to list some the major hazards for each of energy sources we are considering. There is however limited data available. In many cases we just have reference to worker safety organizations as to what the hazards are. I will not attempt here to put numbers to these here. Categories 25 Coal, Oil, Natural Gas The hazards are Air pollution Mining and oil field accidents Pipeline explosions Transportation accidents. These- move a lot of material so these are significant. 26 Hydroelectric These include Dam collapse Drowning 27 Nuclear These include Radiation exposure 28 Wind These include Falls Confined space deaths (there is not much detail on this) Electric shock Ice throws (that is, throwing pieces of ice off the blades) This technology has a significant problem with people working alone which greatly increases risks associated with other dangers. 29 Solar These include Falls Electric shock Arc flash Heat stress 30 I have not tried to cover all possible risks associated with each category, just the ones which each industry considers to be the risks they concern themselves with. There does not exist any means by which risks of similar types are compared across different industries. 31 Reliability of Supply is Also Safety In a completely electrified net zero society, reliability of supply is a safety matter. People will die in very large numbers in cold climates if they do not have heat. If we have no fossil fuels, we need to also consider how reliably does a grid based on any of the options work. I have not seen anyone attempt to address this question and will not attempt to address it here. However, it must be addressed in any comprehensive attempt to rank safety. -------------------- 32 Studies or Articles on Estimates of Relative Safety Despite the difficulties of comparing the safety of different sources of energy, some people have attempted this anyway. Different estimates done at different times had different focuses, so unfortunately we do not have a nice set of studies that we can neatly use to cross check one another. I will however list the names and the authors and summarize the results. -------------------- 33 The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear By Dr. Petr Beckman Published in 1976 The author of this book tried to address the relative safety of different sources of energy in the mid 1970s. However, it is old at this point, so I won't bother digging through its pages to find his figures. 34 He mainly focused on comparing electric power generated with coal to nuclear. His conclusion was that if the goal was to prevent deaths or ill health in the process of generating electricity, then the logical conclusion was to replace coal fired power plants with nuclear. 35 The book was relatively well known at the time, as least as far as books on energy are concerned, so I thought it was still worth mentioning. I happen to have a copy of this book which I bought back in that time period It was the 8th printing of the book, so it would appear to have had relatively good sales. 36 The author did address the issue of what I have termed "catastrophism" in his comparison of different energy sources, although I don't know if he used this phrase. I don't know if he was the first to use this sort of analysis, but he certainly was very influential in terms of popularizing it. -------------------- 37 Risk of Energy Production by Herbert Inhaber Publication AECB 1119 March 1978 This study is a scientific paper from the same time period as the book "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". 38 He based his risk estimates largely on estimates of the amount of material which was used in the construction and operation of various power sources. While we could argue over whether or not this is a valid methodology, I think any such argument would be pointless as I think the age of the study alone renders it not relevant today anyway. Advancements in materials have changed the basis results significantly by now. However, as it exists I thought I would mention it to show that the idea of comparing energy sources to each other is not a new one. The author compared a wider variety of potential sources than Beckman did. 39 Here's his conclusions. He assumes equal amounts of energy produced by each method. The numbers are normalized such that the total sums to 100%. You can think of it in terms of what proportion of total deaths or injuries would result from each source if each were equally used. 40 Coal 27.5% Oil 25.6% Methanol 16.7% Wind 10.8% Solar photovoltaic 9.2% Thermal 8.1% Solar space heating 1.5% Ocean thermal 0.4% Nuclear 0.13% Natural Gas 0.08% 41 His natural gas estimate is drastically different from that of other authors. I am not going to worry about explaining it however, as the study is as I said old enough to be not very relevant anyway. I am mainly including this here out of historical interest. 42 As a footnote, the methanol he refers to would be synthesized from wood. This was a popular idea in that era as a means of providing liquid fuels for transportation. Practical battery electric cars in those days were strictly science fiction. 43 The ocean thermal category is a real blast from the past and I had forgotten all about that concept. It was a very popular idea at that time and was supposed to be *the* big and upcoming thing in renewable energy. It involved various means of attempting to extract energy from differences in water temperature at different depths in the ocean. It gradually faded away however, as despite great efforts being put into it, designs never proved to be practical. -------------------- 44 Electricity generation and health Anil Markandya, Paul Wilkinson Published in the Lancet, Vol 370, 15 September 2007 45 This is more recent than the previous one, although it is nearly 20 years old at this point. Unfortunately it doesn't cover wind or solar, just fossil fuels and nuclear. However it is still useful, and the Lancet is a very reputable peer reviewed journal. 46 I will present just the results rather than discussing the whole paper. The authors break it down into deaths among the public, occupational deaths, and air pollution related deaths, serious illness, and minor illness. 47 They break the energy sources down into lignite, coal, gas, oil, biomass, and nuclear. Lignite is a type of very low grade coal used mainly for electric power generation. In this paper biomass refers to energy crops and forest residues. 48 I will summarize the results by category rather than trying to describe a table that has 6 rows and 5 columns. All numbers are normalized in terms of deaths or cases per TWh. 49 Occupational deaths from accidents lignite 0.1 coal 0.1 gas 0.001 oil no data biomass - no data Nuclear is 0.019. 50 Deaths among the public from accidents lignite 0.02 coal 0.02 gas 0.02 oil 0.03 biomass no data Nuclear 0.003 51 Air pollution deaths lignite 32.6 coal 24.5 gas 2.8 oil 18.4 biomass 4.63 Nuclear 0.052 52 Air pollution serious illnesses lignite 298 coal 225 gas 30 oil 161 biomass 43 Nuclear 0.22 53 Air pollution minor illnesses lignite 17,676 coal 13,288 gas 703 oil 9,551 biomass 2,276 Nuclear no data 54 Natural gas edges out nuclear power slightly in terms of occupational safety, but in every other category nuclear is drastically lower in terms of ill effects than any of the alternatives. -------------------- 55 2020 Fatalities for US Roofers Increased 15% as Solar Roof Installations Increase Published in The Next Big Future July 6, 2021 by Brian Wang 56 This seems to be written by someone who has a popular science blog. I'm not familiar with it personally, but he addresses the subject so I'll list it. The title implies that it's all about rooftop solar, but he provides comparative numbers for the other energy sources of interest, so that is useful for our purposes. However, he doesn't describe his methodology, so we need to treat them with some caution. Here are his results These are deaths per thousand terawatt hours. 57 Coal - 100,000 Oil - 36,000 Natural gas - 4,000 Hydro - 1,400 Rooftop solar - 440 Wind - 150 Nuclear - 90 58 If we plot these numbers on a bar chart, coal and oil are so large that all of the others are squished to the bottom of the chart and are difficult to see at all. Let's therefore look at these in terms of orders of magnitude. Keep in mind that this is a logarithmic scale. This means that the difference between 4 and 5 is much greater in linear terms than the difference between 1 and 2. 59 Coal - 5 Oil - 4 Natural gas - 3 Hydro - 3 Rooftop solar - 2 Wind - 2 Nuclear - 1 60 Each of these numbers represents an order of magnitude, that is a power of ten. We can see that with rooftop solar, wind, and nuclear, the numbers are so close and the uncertainties are so great and their relative values so small compared to say coal that they can be seen as equivalent so far as safety is concerned. -------------------- 61 What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? by Hannah Ritchie Published in Our World in Data First published in 2017, updated in 2022 and 2024 62 The author of this study addressed both deaths and greenhouse gas emissions. Deaths from accidents and air pollution are normalized to per TWh of electricity, while greenhouse gas emissions are normalized to GWh of electricity over the life cycle of the plant. 63 Here are the death figures. Coal 24.6 Oil 18.4 Biomass 4.6 Natural Gas 2.8 Hydro power 1.3 Wind 0.04 Nuclear 0.03 Solar 0.02 64 For greenhouse gas emissions the figures are Coal 970 tons Oil 720 tons Natural gas 440 tons Biomass 78 to 230 tons Solar 53 tons Hydro power 24 tons Wind 11 tons Nuclear 6 tons 65 If we take the death figures and rank them by order of magnitude as we did with the previous article, we get the following. 66 Coal - 4 Oil - 4 Biomass - 3 Natural Gas - 3 Hydro power - 3 Wind - 1 Nuclear - 1 Solar - 1 67 Keep in mind that the previous article covered only rooftop solar and not large industrial installations, and so is not directly comparable. Also the units are different, with the previous article being in terms of thousand TWh, and this one being in TWh. If we exclude solar (as the numbers are not comparable), Brian Wang's numbers are between 1.5 to 4 times higher than Ritchie's, except for hydro which are almost identical. I think this latter is due to both sets of numbers are dominated by one exceptionally big hydro accident. 68 Overall however, the relative rankings are quite comparable. Ritchie's numbers for deaths from coal, oil, and natural gas appear to be directly from the study by Markandya and Wilkinson mentioned above. For the benefit of those who are wondering, Ritchie specifically states that her numbers for nuclear include the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. -------------------- https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1/solar-power-more-dangerous-nuclear Direct link to file https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/abstract https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/07/2020-fatalities-for-us-roofers-increased-15-as-solar-roof-installations-increase.html -------------------- 69 Conclusion from Studies Remember that in engineering terms, when comparing groups of numbers which contain both both very small numbers and one or more very large numbers, the differences between the small numbers are often not significant. The differences between the small numbers may be the product of our ability to measure these things rather than any real differences. 70 For example, in the article by Ritchie wind power would appear to be twice as dangerous as nuclear. However, the difference between them is 0.02 compared to 24.6 for coal. In other words, the difference between apparently "dangerous" wind and apparently "safe" nuclear is equivalent to 0.08% of the total for coal. It's therefore meaningless and a red herring to even worry about. 71 With the above taken into consideration, generally the different sources of energy fall into two broad categories in terms of number of deaths, injuries, and illnesses. The fossil fuels and biomass fall into one group and wind, solar, and nuclear into another group. 72 Hydro power would seem to fall into the higher risk category or at least somewhere between the two, but this I suspect is mainly due to one exceptionally large dam collapse in China, the Banqian Dam failure in 1975. This is mentioned as being specifically included in the article written by Ritchie. This was a multi-purpose dam, and information on this dam is difficult to find. It is not clear to me whether it had a hydro electric generator associated with either it or another dam that was part of the same system. 73 Some people therefor may argue for its exclusion from the numbers. Of course some people may argue for its inclusion anyway, as it was a dam regardless of whether it actually had an electric generator attached. If we exclude it, then I think the numbers for hydro power would fall into the same range as for nuclear, wind, and solar. 74 Most people would consider hydro power to be safe and clean enough regardless of this and I will rank it as such in any conclusions that I come to. As you can see, even if we have numbers, it can be a matter of opinion as to how to interpret them. -------------------- -------------------- 75 Taking a Systems Approach Now let's take a look at the broader energy picture today and into the future. Many countries in many parts of the world have committed to the concept of "Net Zero", which means eliminating carbon emissions on a net basis. Net zero essentially means the complete electrification of society. We must therefore have electrical energy on demand and at low cost. We must as a result of this look at complete electrical systems rather than individual sources in isolation. 76 At one time many electrical systems were entirely coal or entirely hydroelectric. This is no longer the case. There are now major amounts of wind and solar involved in many countries. However these are inherently intermittent. This means that other sources of energy are inherently also required to have a functional system. 77 If any particular solution inherently requires fossil fuels to meet part of the demand, then the safety, pollution, and climate issues relating to those fossil fuels have to be factored in to that complete system when trying to come up with a relative ranking. Talking about Individual sources in isolation are therefore meaningless in these countries. 78 There are battery systems, but these are mainly used to stabilize and regulate the grid plus to a lesser degree to smooth out short term daily peaks in demand. They do not have the ability to store large amounts of electricity on a large scale for an entire grid for days, weeks, and months to make up for intermittency. 79 So a serious attempt to rank sources of energy would need to look at a variety of representative countries and for each one come up with a plan that involves 'x' megawatts from source 'a', 'y' megawatts from source 'b', etc., and total up the values for each. 80 I am not aware of anyone who has studied this larger issue. However, the problem has to be addressed from this perspective in order for any answer to be useful. Not taking this into account is like ordering a diet soft drink to go with with a high calorie meal and assuring yourself that your plans to diet are fine. 81 This is not to imply there is anything inherently wrong with wind or solar. It does mean that if your goal is to achieve both net zero and a clean environment, you have to look at your entire energy system as a complete system rather than focusing on what you feel are the most reassuring parts of it while ignoring the rest. This does however add to the argument that it is in fact inherently very difficult to come up with a system of ranking energy sources for safety. -------------------- 82 Nuclear, Climate, and Clean Air - Contrasting Examples To give a tangible example we will now look at two different places that followed two divergent paths at roughly around the same time frame. These are the province of Ontario in Canada, and Germany. 83 Ontario had a mix of coal, hydro electric, and nuclear generating plants. Germany had a mix of coal, nuclear and natural gas plants. Ontario shut down their coal fired plants and kept their nuclear plants. Germany however shut down their nuclear plants and kept their coal fired plants. 84 The Phase Out of Coal in Ontario In 2003 Ontario decided to close all of its coal fired generating plants, which consisted of 19 units (that is boilers and turbines) totalling 8,800 MW. This phase out was completed by 2014. 85 Here are the figures for amount of power generated by each energy source in 2003 and 2014. Nuclear went from 42% to 60% Hydro went from 23% to 24% Gas went from 11% to 9% Coal went from 25% to 0% Non-hydro renewable went from 0% to 7%. 86 As you can see, the bulk of that replacement came from increased use of nuclear power. Furthermore, this did not result in simply replacing coal with natural gas. While gas is cleaner than coal, it still has emissions and if you recall from the studies that we looked at earlier, had an estimated death rate roughly 2 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear, solar, or wind. 87 To put this in more practical terms, at one time Toronto regularly had clouds of smog obscuring it, to a large extent due to these coal fired power plants With the phase out of coal, smog days went to zero in 2015 compared to 53 a decade earlier. The 2023 figures for Ontario show carbon emissions of 53 grams per kWh of electricity generated. We can use this as a rough benchmark comparison for total emissions. 88 The Phase out of Nuclear in Germany Until March of 2011, Germany generated one quarter of its electrical power from nuclear. Starting in 2011 however, they began shutting down their nuclear power plants. These were then phased out over the next decade. However, the coal plants were to be kept to 2038. In 2026 Germany began talking about increasing use of coal in order to save gas. In the same year the German chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the phase out of nuclear was a quote “serious strategic mistake”. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said it was "a strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emissions power". 89 I won't go into the details of the phase out, but let's look at some emissions numbers for Germany. If we look at the official numbers from the European Environmental Agency for 2024, for Germany their emissions were 298 grams per kWh of electricity generated. Recall that we are using emissions as a very rough guide to amount of air pollution, and that this has a direct effect on the safety of the overall electrical energy system. 90 So, who actually made their people safer, Ontario who phased out their coal plants and kept their nuclear plants, or Germany who phased out their nuclear plants and kept their coal plants? 91 If you want a comparison directly within Europe, then Germany has one of the highest rates of emissions per kWh of electricity generated, whereas France, who use mainly nuclear power, have one of the lowest at 43 grams per kWh of electricity generated. Again, who is making their people safer, Germany or France? 92 I don't want to make it sound like I am picking on Germany. I am also not going to tell them how they ought to run their country. However they provide a good real world example of how we need to look at things in overall context when we are thinking about the choices that we make. https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/smog-study-shows-significant-decreases-in-pollutants-in-ontario-1.4151183 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-is-right-to-reject-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-says-iea-chief-fatih-birol/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-considers-ramping-up-coal-power-to-avert-energy-crisis/ https://www.iea.org/countries/estonia/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/malta/electricity -------------------- 93 Conclusions As we can see, there don't appear to be an abundance of peer reviewed scientific studies that we can simply point to in order to answer the question of safety of all possible major different energy sources once and for all. Collecting the data to even attempt to answer the question is inherently very difficult as we cannot readily conduct experiments to answer the question, and sources of data are not collected or consolidated in a manner which can answer this question adequately. 94 The essence of the problem is that most energy industries are not as tightly regulated and monitored to the same degree that say nuclear power or commercial airliners are, so this data is simply not being systematically recorded. However, a number of people have attempted to make estimates. 95 Their conclusions would seem to be that nuclear, wind, and solar are roughly equivalent in terms of safety. All fossil fuels are much less safe than nuclear, wind, and solar, by as much as several orders of magnitude. 96 We can however say with a reasonable degree of certainty that if a country shut down their nuclear power plants and kept their fossil fuel plants, particularly coal, then they probably made their people less safe than if they had done things the other way around. 97 I hope that I have provided some context in which to think about the issue. Thanks again to brian in ohio for providing the question upon which this episode is based. -------------------- Provide feedback on this episode.

The summer heat is here and so is a heavier load on our country's electrical grid. The U.S. Northeast, Northwest, and areas of Texas and California face an elevated risk of blackouts from extreme weather and overextended power grids. Combine the normal load increase with a sharp rise in expansion of AI data centers, digital infrastructure, and industrial electrification. Proponents of nuclear power say it supplies cleaner and more reliable energy than other sources, especially during extreme weather events. FOX's Tonya J. Powers speaks with John Kotek, Senior Vice President, Policy and Public Affairs, from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), who says during extreme weather events nuclear can provide clean, reliable power, and explains how 'microreactors' are an important element of a nuclear future. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For the latest and most important news of the day | https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca To watch daily news videos, follow us on YouTube | https://www.youtube.com/@CdnPress The Canadian Press on X (formerly Twitter) | https://twitter.com/CdnPressNews The Canadian Press on LinkedIn | https://linkedin.com/showcase/98791543

The U.S. military has a strong and growing interest in using small and micro nuclear reactors as a means of reducing logistics challenges and improving operational resilience. They like nuclear reactors for their ability to operate independently of the grid for years without needing any new fuel. Almost as important is their ability to be designed to retain byproducts and reduce heat signatures for improved stealth. Dr. Jeff Waksman Is the U.S. Army’s go-to guy for pioneering nuclear energy projects. Though no military-related project can be completed by a single person, program success often rests on the effective leadership provided by a singularly skilled leader who combines organization, inspiration and deep knowledge of how to get things done in a purposely hierarchical system. Before his current role for the Army, Waksman led Project Pele – the military’s first micro-reactor project in 50+ years – for the Department of Defense’s Strategic Capabilities Office. He did well enough at that assignment to have been selected to lead a more expansive program to finally deliver nuclear fission capabilities to bases and units that need clean, reliable power that comes with a low logistics burden. Fission’s characteristics are nothing new and the military’s interest dates to the earliest days of nuclear energy. The political, environmental and strategic situation has changed enough in the 50 years since the Army’s Nuclear Power development program was effectively cancelled to stimulate new efforts to address the economic and technical challenges that were never solved during the 1960s and 70s. Waksman’s current role has the mouthful title of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (PDASA) for Installations, Energy and Environment (IE&E). Though only one of his responsibilities, he is the Army’s point person for a subsequent reactor development program called Project Janus. Dr. Waksman joined me on Atomic Show #347 to discuss the lessons taught by Project Pele and to provide insights on how those lessons are being incorporated into subsequent programs, both civilian and military. We covered a variety of topics, including: Reasons why he was picked to lead Project Pele Direction provided to the Department of Defense’s Strategic Capabilities Office regarding program outcomes Focus on building systems that work in the real world instead of just more models Challenges of fitting inside tightly constrained boundaries (C-17 transport plane) Limiting components – not surprisingly, it was the heat exchanger that transferred reactor heat from the coolant gas to the power conversion system Importance of balance of plant compared to reactor Streamlining Department of Energy approval process Economic value of competition Economic trade-offs with the potential to make TRISO a more economic fuel than other options Project Pele’s influence on Reactor Pilot Program Project Janus goals and status Stretch goal timeline that includes the first operating reactor supplying a military base by the end of 2028 Expansion of the project beyond the Army to the Air Force and possibly the Navy Unquantified description of the possible magnitude of military reactor program Desire for military reactor program to stimulate a larger commercial reactor market I learned a lot from the show. Dr. Waksman shares valuable experience, including ways to avoid some of the bruises that came with leading the first-of-a-kind project for a modern transportable nuclear reactor and the U.S.’s first nuclear project development project in decades. I hope this show will influence those who follow so that they can make their own mistakes instead of repeating those that have already been made and documented.

US envoys in Switzerland for Iran talks as the Lebanon ceasefire faces another test; farmers groups on alert amid concerns of the impact of H5 bird flu on local species; and in football, the Netherlands beat Sweden to top Group F in the World Cup.

Japan's Future in Energy and Artificial Intelligence. Guest: Lance Gatling. Japan is working toward a goal of 40–50% renewable energy and 20% nuclear power by the mid-2030s. Lance Gatling notes that Japan remains a critical link in the semiconductor chain essential for the global AI boom. While circumspect about AI's authority, Japanese companies dominate the hardware manufacturing processes necessary for semiconductor production. 141920

Erik Deatherage speaks with Listening to America host Clay Jenkinson about the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, Roosevelt's legacy, and the challenges of interpreting American history in a changing cultural and political landscape.

James Krellenstein returns to take apart one of the most persistent myths in energy discourse: the idea that there was a golden age when nuclear power was cheaper than coal. The plants people point to, Oyster Creek, Dresden, Point Beach, Quad Cities, were cheap to the utilities that bought them, but they were not cheap to build. General Electric and Westinghouse sold them as fixed-price turnkey projects at a deliberate loss, eating roughly 1 billion in 1960s dollars, more than 10 billion adjusted for inflation, across about a dozen plants. This loss leader strategy paid off. Between 1962 and 1976 the US nuclear fleet doubled its capacity roughly every 2 years, a stretch of sustained growth that rivals anything in American industrial history and still constitutes the largest nuclear fleet on earth in 2026.The conversation traces how turnkey era prices distorted every nuclear cost comparison that followed, why the utilities themselves pushed to abandon turnkey contracts, and how regulatory change, slowing load growth, and across-the-board cost inflation turned the boom into a wave of cancellations. Krellenstein closes on the fundamental question for the present moment: if we want to set off another ordering cycle, someone has to absorb first-of-a-kind risk with a balance sheet large enough to guarantee a firm fixed price, and it is not obvious who that is. Back then GE and Westinghouse could swallow the losses because they were two of the largest industrial conglomerates on earth and commercial reactors were a single-digit percentage of their business. No comparable actor today has shown any willingness to take that risk on, which explains both how the world's largest nuclear fleet got built and why nobody has been willing to repeat the trick since.Listen to Decouple on:• Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6PNr3ml8nEQotWWavE9kQz• Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/decouple/id1516526694?uo=4• Overcast: https://overcast.fm/itunes1516526694/decouple• Pocket Casts: https://pca.st/ehbfrn44• RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/23775178/podcast/rssWebsite: https://www.decouple.media

Make Australia monocultural, axe SBS, paywall the ABC, dump Snowy Hydro 2.0 and introduce nuclear power - Pauline Hanson’s first address to the National Press Club was certainly eventful. Read more: ‘Don’t come near me’: Pauline Hanson clashes with journalist over daughter’s employment Commentary by Geoff Chambers: How ‘Svengali’ James Ashby unleashed Trump-style machine to fuel One Nation’s surge Linfox succession battle escalates as son Peter Fox ousted from top role History as Messi bags first World Cup hat-trickSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nuclear energy can lower one cost that has seen rapid inflation in recent years: electricity bills. But nuclear power plants aren't cheap to build. In one state, legislators wade into a debate over whether taxpayers or utility companies should shoulder the burden. Also in this episode: Kevin Warsh faces war-driven inflation ahead of his first FOMC meeting as Fed chair, MAHA movement drives up cotton demand, and advertisers leverage the World Cup to reach Latino consumers.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.

Nuclear energy can lower one cost that has seen rapid inflation in recent years: electricity bills. But nuclear power plants aren't cheap to build. In one state, legislators wade into a debate over whether taxpayers or utility companies should shoulder the burden. Also in this episode: Kevin Warsh faces war-driven inflation ahead of his first FOMC meeting as Fed chair, MAHA movement drives up cotton demand, and advertisers leverage the World Cup to reach Latino consumers.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.

Bob talks about the death of the leader of Tren de Aragua, Father's Day, complaints at Berkley over the lack of academic rigor, what is going on up at the house, and Nuclear Power in New York.

A breakthrough has been reached in ending the war between the United States and Iran. According to the U.S., Iran and Pakistan, there is a ceasefire agreement. Donald Trump says the U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is ending, while Pakistan's Prime Minister says fighting will end on all fronts. Crucially, nothing has been signed yet. We have the latest details.Also: The streets of Aughagower, Ireland were decked out in maple leafs and Canadian flags today. Prime Minister Mark Carney made a personal pitstop during his official tour of the country - returning to the town his ancestors once called home. And: The Ontario government says demand for electricity will increase by as much as 75 per cent over the next 25 years. To meet that demand, there's a plan to build the world's largest nuclear power plant in Port Hope. But that plan is angering some in the town, which has a troubled history with nuclear energy. Plus: UFC matches on the White House Lawn, CUSMA negotiations, and more.

We're going to start today's show talking about our nuclear policy. That's because at a forum in Singapore Defense Minister Chris Penk said it could be "helpful" to have a conversation about Nuclear Free New Zealand. He made the comments in reference to Australia's agreement to acquire three nuclear powered Virginia Class submarines from the United States. Speaking on Morning Report today Prime Minister Christopher Luxon comprehensively ruled out any such conversation. Labour leader Chris Hipkins also dismissed the idea. But is it actually a conversation we should be having? Liam Hehir thinks so. The lawyer and former active National Party member joins Jesse to discuss.

Labour is labelling the Government's overhaul of council voting rights a distraction. A Bill amendment will strip voting rights from unelected members —including iwi and youth representatives— on council committees. It comes after the Far North District Council moved to expand its Māori liaison committee. Labour's Ginny Andersen told Heather du Plessis-Allan the issue is not a priority for New Zealanders. She says people are far more worried about paying their bills and being able to cope everyday. National's Mark Mitchell disagrees, saying that stance shows how out of touch Labour really is. He told du Plessis-Allan that most Kiwis are pretty proud of our democracy, and he doesn't think they want unelected people going onto committees and making decisions. Mitchell says it's always prudent to have unelected people with special skillsets and backgrounds advising, but not voting, and he thinks most Kiwis would agree. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with returning guest Ekue Kpodar for their third conversation together, covering a wide range of topics at the intersection of technology, geopolitics, and the evolving information age. They dig into Ekue's unconventional setup of running local AI models across roughly 15 computers, the growing case for open source models over closed ones from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, and how Chinese open source models may be positioned to outcompete Western alternatives on a global scale. The conversation also touches on vibe coding and the democratization of software development, the strategic use of small models for IoT and enterprise applications, the role of Israel and China as dominant players in the information age, and how smaller nations and even individuals may wield outsized power as AI continues to collapse the cost of knowledge work. You can find Ekue Kpodar on X @ekpodar and LinkedIn.Timestamps00:00 Stewart welcomes Ekue for their third episode, diving into vibe coding and AI-driven development changes.05:00 Ekue explains using Claude on Chrome to auto-reply on Skool, burning tokens through screenshots, and Playwright as a more efficient alternative.10:00 Stewart describes his Claude-dependent planning and coding agent system breaking after a model update, prompting him to build his own chatbot.15:00 Small models discussed as critical for IoT, defense, and privacy-focused enterprises building internal APIs instead of routing traffic to OpenAI.20:00 Open source versus closed source debated, with Chinese models gaining global traction while US foundational labs remain expensive and restrictive.25:00 SaaS apocalypse explored as AI commoditizes knowledge work, with Linux and Terraform cited as proof open source still generates wealth.30:00 OpenAI's sci-fi terminator fears explained as the reason they stayed closed source, ultimately handing China a strategic open source advantage.35:00 China's economic dumping strategy applied to AI, potentially displacing US model dominance globally the same way manufacturing was disrupted.40:00 Israel's signals intelligence dominance discussed alongside asymmetric warfare, drones defeating tanks, and information control replacing military muscle.45:00 Global information age rankings debated, Israel leading, US and China tied, France and Poland emerging as sovereign tech players.50:00 Qatar, NVIDIA, and Iran cited as proof that rare resources and technology matter more than population size in the 21st century power landscape.Key Insights1. Running local AI models on a network of affordable computers can be more cost-effective than relying entirely on third-party APIs. By using compressed or smaller open source models locally, developers can handle repetitive or lower-stakes tasks without burning through expensive tokens from providers like Anthropic or OpenAI.2. Small AI models are becoming increasingly important for IoT, defense applications, and companies that do not want to send sensitive data to external providers. Organizations can download open source models, run them on internal servers, and build proprietary APIs around them, creating something like an intranet of specialized small models.3. The value created by AI tools is being redistributed away from traditional SaaS companies toward foundational model providers and individual builders. People are canceling subscriptions to software they once paid hundreds per month for, because AI now allows a single person to build comparable tools themselves.4. Open source technology does not eliminate the ability to profit. Linux and Terraform are both open source yet made their creators wealthy. People will still pay for installation, setup, troubleshooting, and customization even when the underlying software is free.5. China is applying its longstanding manufacturing dumping strategy to artificial intelligence by releasing cheap open source models globally, which threatens to erode US dominance in AI the same way Chinese manufacturing undercut other countries for decades.6. In the information age, the size of a country or institution matters far less than its access to rare resources or advanced technology. Qatar, Israel, and NVIDIA each demonstrate that small populations or headcounts can wield enormous global negotiating power through concentrated technological or resource advantages.7. Asymmetric warfare is redefining military power, with inexpensive drones defeating tanks that cost millions to build. This shifts the advantage toward nations that excel at signals intelligence and information management rather than those with the largest conventional military forces.

Todd Royal, Author, BP Capital Advisors, stops by the Energy News Beat PodcastTodd Royal is an author, a true Nuclear expert, and a great friend of the Energy News Beat Podcast. I had an absolute blast visiting with Todd, and we covered a lot of great topics. Being in the rapital raising business for nuclear is an outstanding part of our Energy Dominance requirements. We need modular nuclear, mines, and critical minerals.Todd is an outstanding energy resource and industry leader. I recommend connecting with him https://www.linkedin.com/in/172466/1. Nuclear Power as the Solution to Energy DemandThe hosts emphasize nuclear energy as the most viable solution to meet growing electricity demands, particularly for AI data centers. They highlight nuclear's exceptional capacity factor (95%+), reliability, and ability to run continuously—far superior to renewables. The discussion includes the reopening of Three Mile Island and the potential to restart 20 of the 94 U.S. reactors.2. AI Data Centers and Power RequirementsA significant focus on the massive electricity demands of AI data centers and the challenges they create. The conversation explores the tension between needing this infrastructure and concerns about farmland usage, grid strain, and rising electricity costs. They discuss potential solutions like revenue-sharing models similar to oil royalties.3. Climate Policy and “Climate Orthodoxy”The speakers critique what they call “climate orthodoxy”—the ideological push for renewables and net-zero policies that they argue have harmed economies. They discuss how Democratic-led states have higher electricity costs (38% higher) and how climate policies have destroyed economies in Europe, California, and other regions.4. Renewables vs. Nuclear EconomicsA detailed comparison of levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) and total cost of electricity, arguing that renewables require expensive backup systems and storage. They propose that $10 trillion spent on wind and solar could have built 2,000 nuclear reactors instead, providing clean, reliable baseload power.5. Energy Security and GeopoliticsDiscussion of global energy security, including LNG exports, the Strait of Hormuz, and Europe's energy crisis. They argue that energy dominance and security should start at home through reliable domestic power generation.6. Regulatory and Political BarriersThe hosts contend that the real obstacles to nuclear expansion aren't technical or financial, but political—including the NRC's historical anti-nuclear stance, environmental regulations, and permitting delays that make projects expensive and slow.7. Climate Science SkepticismThey challenge mainstream climate narratives, citing scientists like Roger Pielke Jr. and Judith Curry, and reference the UN's recent acknowledgment that climate change may not be as catastrophic as previously claimed. They discuss data manipulation allegations and the RCP 8.5 climate model controversy.8. Economic Impact of Energy PolicyThe conversation ties energy costs to broader economic issues like inflation, housing shortages, and manufacturing costs. They argue that cheap, abundant nuclear power could reduce inflation and boost economic growth.9. Data Center Backlash and OppositionDiscussion of organized opposition to data centers funded by billionaires and NGOs, which has halted $152 billion in economic activity. They explore the need for better communication and compromise between tech companies and local communities.10. Policy SolutionsRecommendations include passing the SAVE Act, implementing revenue-sharing agreements for data centers, building power plants dedicated to data centers, and reforming carbon markets and subsidies.The podcast presents a pro-nuclear, skeptical-of-renewables perspective on energy policy and its economic implications.Thank you, Todd, for your great industry leadership.We have some great interviews lined up next week.Check out the Energy News Beat SubStack https://theenergynewsbeat.substack.com/A shout-out to Steve Reese and the Reese Energy Consulting group for sponsoring the Podcast https://reeseenergyconsulting.com/.Data2 if you have any business systems, can you trust A? Well, they have the patent on validation. . https://data2.zoholandingpage.com/energyAnd we have WellDatabase rolling in as a new sponsor. https://welldatabase.com/

As America's energy infrastructure undergoes a massive evolution, one critical trade is quietly keeping it all efficient: mechanical insulation. On today's episode of the America's Work Force Union Podcast, host Ed "Flash" Ferenc welcomes back Pete Ielmini, Executive Director of the Mechanical Insulators Labor Management Cooperative Trust (LMCT), for his monthly update. Pete reveals the latest behind-the-scenes push on Capitol Hill and details why the future of American energy security relies on skilled union labor. Key Topics Covered in This Episode: Bipartisan Momentum on Capitol Hill: An inside look at Senate Bill 4312 (S.4312), the Federal Mechanical Insulation Act of 2026. Sponsored by Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Steve Daines, this bill aims to mandate insulation upgrades across 350,000 federal buildings to save taxpayer dollars. The Power of Thermal Imaging: How the LMCT is utilizing live thermal camera demonstrations at trade shows to make energy waste instantly visible to architects, engineers, and facility managers. The Data Center Cooling Demand: Why modern data centers—which require constant cooling between 55 to 60 degrees—are creating a massive pipeline of work for mechanical insulators. The Nuclear Energy Revival: Pete makes a direct case for nuclear power as the cleanest, most efficient solution to America's energy deficit, highlighting Microsoft's reactivation of Three Mile Island and the rise of small modular reactors. Learn More: To find out more about the legislation and the economic impact of mechanical insulation, visit mechanicalinsulatorslmct.com.

Today we talk with Dr. Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment about data centers, air pollution, nuclear power, Great Salt Lake, and more.

Lorenzo Fiori discusses Italy's renewed interest in nuclear power and electric vehicle production in Naples. He also recommends the Molise region for its unique food and red Biferno wine. (6/16)1903 LA

This national historic landmark was the world's first nuclear power plant. Idaho National Laboratory's EBR-I atomic museum opens to public tours this Friday.

With global electricity demand on the rise, the need for reliable power is becoming increasingly critical. Nuclear power is fast emerging as a critical part of this future infrastructure, with small modular reactors, or SMRs, gaining particular attention. Scalable, flexible and able to provide consistently high load factors, SMRs are emerging as an important technology for a reliable, low-carbon energy system. In this episode of Industry Optimized, host Fran Scott speaks to Jacob Stedman, CEO of Blykalla, and Elova Ryegard, Nuclear Expert, Energy Industries at ABB. Together they discuss what a low-carbon future might look like, how SMRs can complement both renewable and conventional nuclear energy sources and why they’re increasingly seen as a practical pathway to expanding low-carbon energy capacity.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stay informed on current events, visit www.NaturalNews.com  - Strait of Hormuz Closure and Escalation (0:11) - Impact on Global Supply Chains (1:35) - Motor Oil Shortage and Market Reactions (4:03) - Polyethylene Shortage and Broader Supply Chain Issues (7:09) - Rising Prices and Economic Impact (9:42) - EV Sales and Market Shifts (11:47) - Preparedness and Self-Reliance Strategies (14:42) - Technological Advancements and Future Prospects (27:58) - Globalist Agenda and AI Concerns (39:11) - Economic and Environmental Implications (1:12:44) - Globalist Agenda and AI Power (1:12:58) - China's Energy Strategy and Globalist Manipulation (1:14:38) - Nuclear Power and Orbital Data Centers (1:16:01) - Free Energy Technologies and Government Suppression (1:17:39) - AI and Human Control (1:19:27) - Plasma Intelligence and UFO Disclosure (1:33:38) - Government Plans and Plasma Beings (1:43:23) - Spiritual Traditions and Plasma Fields (1:43:38) - Plasma Beings and Human Evolution (1:48:51) - Future of Human Civilization (1:49:35) Watch more independent videos at http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport  ▶️ Support our mission by shopping at the Health Ranger Store - https://www.healthrangerstore.com ▶️ Check out exclusive deals and special offers at https://rangerdeals.com ▶️ Sign up for our newsletter to stay informed: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html Watch more exclusive videos here:

Blockades, 11-month deployments, the Vietnam War, shipbuilding plans, and some love for our friends from The Philippines…a full plate for a Midrats Free for All.SummaryThis episode covers the recent return of the USS Gerald Ford after a 326-day deployment, the significance of naval operations, shipbuilding plans, and geopolitical considerations in the Indo-Pacific region. The hosts analyze naval readiness, technological advancements, and strategic challenges facing the US Navy.Show LinksFORD Carrier Strike Group receives Presidential Unit Citation.USS Mahan (DDG-72) returns from deploymentUSS Midway (CV-41) off Vietnam 1973Easter Offensive of 1972Hong Kong's Mary SooExecutive Orders:141921426514269Latest Shipbuilding PlanDecades-long requirement for a nuclear powered escortMobilize: How to Reboot the American Industrial Base and Stop World War III,by Shyam Sankar and Madeline HartEpisode 393: Building the right carrier; heavy, medium, or light with Tal ManvelBalikatan 2026China, the unwanted guestChapters00:00: Introduction and Overview of the USS Gerald Ford's Deployment10:01: Lessons Learned from the USS Gerald Ford's Deployment14:24: Historical Context of Carrier Deployments22:29: Life on Deployment: Experiences and Morale30:27: Current Naval Operations and Future Considerations33:02: The Ongoing Naval Operations in the Persian Gulf38:55: Challenges in Aircraft Carrier Deployment44:47: The Future of Shipbuilding and Naval Assets50:54: The Role of Nuclear Power in Modern Naval Warfare56:52: International Naval Cooperation and Exercises

In the final installment of this three-part conversation, Adam Schwarze lays out his policy vision with the same directness he brought to the battlefield. From making nuclear energy his Senate legacy to dismantling deficit spending and bureaucratic rot, Adam doesn't speak in talking points — he speaks from experience. The conversation also gets into opposition research, the corruption baked into federal elections, the U.S.-Israel relationship, term limits, and why the VA system may need a complete rethink. Raw, informed, and unfiltered. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia pursue nuclear power, raising proliferation concerns. Peter Huessy argues that Chinastrategically facilitates proliferation to create global instability while draining American military resources and testing international diplomatic authority. (4/16)1930

Episode 250 of the 6G Podcast features Anshel Sag and Mike Dano discussing key 5G/6G developments. They cover an NVIDIA–Corning partnership to expand U.S. optical manufacturing capacity tenfold with three new facilities in Texas and North Carolina and 3,000 jobs, noting AI data centers are driving fiber demand and affecting ISP buildouts. Mike recaps the WIA ConnectX show, including debate over whether direct-to-device satellite services threaten or complement cell towers and uncertainty that AI traffic will spur new cell sites. The hosts review NTIA's phased progress studying spectrum bands (including 1.6, 2.7, 4.4, and 7 GHz), plus industry discussion of CBRS and potential upper C-band clearing around 2028–2030. They also highlight Samsung and Qualcomm tests of 5G fixed wireless class-one uplink improvements and provide an update on a proposed 2 GW Socorro, New Mexico data center, now reported as potentially powered by small modular nuclear reactors amid local opposition and a May 19 town hall. 00:00 Welcome and Introductions 00:22 Week Recap and Travel 01:38 Nvidia Corning Optics 05:26 ConnectX Show Highlights 08:07 AI Traffic and Upgrades 10:15 NTIA Spectrum Roadmap 14:05 CBRS and Upper C Band 17:28 Samsung Qualcomm FWA Boost 23:04 Socorro Data Center Update 26:24 Nuclear Power and Local Debate 30:09 Wrap Up and Subscribe

The U.S. pioneered early nuclear technologies—not only for war, but also for peacetime, in the form of abundant nuclear energy. After a surge in new reactor construction, the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island precipitated the end of nuclear energy's expansion in America. But recent calls for reliable, clean energy to fuel AI data centers have shifted attitudes and increased investment and innovation in the industry. Will the AI race be enough to reboot nuclear energy in the U.S.? This episode is part of The Wall Street Journal's USA250: The Story of the World's Greatest Economy, a collection of articles, videos and podcasts aiming to offer a deeper understanding of how America has evolved. Listen to previous installments of our USA250 podcast: The Struggle To Keep America's Workers Safe An Economy Built on Speculation America's Road to a DIY Retirement Further Reading: Why Fusion Is Considered Energy's Elusive Holy Grail America's First Commercial Nuclear-Power Projects in a Decade Just Broke Ground ‘Three New York Cities' Worth of Power: AI Is Stressing the Grid Inside the Audacious Plan to Reopen Three Mile Island's Nuclear Plant Five Things to Know About AI's Thirst for Energy ‘It's Time for Nuclear' to Meet Growing U.S. Power Needs, Trump Declares Nuclear Power Is Making a Comeback Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nuclear energy was a taboo for decades, but it's coming back, it'll power AI data centers for Google and Microsoft. What does new nuclear technology look like, and why do the nuclear optimists believe this new tech is superior? Meltdowns, reactors that can fit in your backyard, and one podcaster's heroic attempt to describe nuclear fission. Rachel Slaybaugh Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow (check out her book Atomic Dreams) Adam Stein Search Engine's episodes on data centers: Colossus 1 & Colossus 2 Support the show! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

8/16: Scott Harold discusses Japan's $10 billion lending initiative to counter Chinese influence in Asia. He also explores Japan's efforts to diversify energy sources, including nuclear power and importing American LNG.1654

May 5, 2026; 6pm; Donald Trump is struggling to contain the fallout from the war he started in Iran, with reports undercutting his claims about Iran's nuclear timeline. MS NOW's Ari Melber reports and is joined by Mike Barnicle, Molly Jong-Fast, Andrew Weissmann and Fab Five Freddy. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

People in the US live paycheck to paycheck while the Trump administration demands billions more to escalate the arms race in space with a missile defense (offense) shield modeled after Israel's Iron Dome. Marcy Winograd interviews Bruce Gagnon, founder of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, on why the Dome is a disaster in waiting. Alice Slater, board member of World Beyond War, follows with a call to ban the bomb and sign on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Nuclear energy is back — and this time, the momentum may be here to stay. In this episode of The POWER Podcast, Executive Editor Aaron Larson sits down with Dagmar Thien, who manages conventional island equipment for nuclear power plants at Siemens Energy, to explore what's driving the industry's renewed optimism and how the company is positioning itself at the center of the action. Thien, a physicist with two decades at Siemens Energy, breaks down the forces fueling the nuclear resurgence: surging global electricity demand, the need for reliable baseload power to back up intermittent renewables, and nuclear's strong climate credentials as a low-lifecycle-emission energy source. The explosive growth of data centers, which require uninterrupted power around the clock, has added particular urgency. The conversation spans the full spectrum of reactor technology — from gigawatt-scale plants that benefit from economies of scale, to small modular reactors (SMRs) promising faster, cheaper deployment through factory standardization, to Generation IV designs like high-temperature gas-cooled and molten salt reactors that could unlock industrial heat applications beyond electricity. Thien explains how Siemens Energy's broad turbine portfolio allows it to support virtually any reactor type. She highlights the value of whole-system optimization — collaborating with reactor developers to find the best overall plant performance rather than optimizing each side independently. The episode also covers the critical but often overlooked work of lifetime extension and modernization. With some U.S. plants pursuing 80-year operating licenses, upgrading turbines, generators, and control systems is essential. Thien discusses the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station — a landmark example of a decommissioned plant being brought back online — and the complex process of managing obsolescence in safety-qualified instrumentation and control systems used in roughly 23% of the world's reactors. Regulatory challenges, international harmonization efforts between the U.S., UK, and Canada, and the growing role of nuclear heat for industrial decarbonization round out a wide-ranging discussion on where the industry is headed next.

Episode 185.1: Guest Bill Hoyer, Data Centers, Nuclear Power, Philippines Bar Scene as a Marine, Mamasan's, NIL Patents, Shortbarrel Bees Knees Bourbon, and AI Rocket Design

In this forward-looking discussion, Christian Briggs, economic guest on NTD News, breaks down what he sees as a powerful shift underway in the U.S. economy—one driven by massive investment in AI infrastructure, energy independence, and strategic policy decisions that could reshape growth for years to come.The conversation begins with a key data point: business equipment orders hitting their highest level since 2020—a signal that companies are aggressively investing again. Briggs interprets this as a strong indicator that the economy is more resilient than many expected, even amid global uncertainty. At the center of this surge is artificial intelligence. Major tech companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into building massive data centers—some spanning hundreds of acres. These investments, Briggs explains, are not just about technology—they're fueling job creation, economic growth, and long-term infrastructure development.While some sectors like housing and hospitality show signs of slowing, Briggs argues that overall momentum remains strong. He credits a mix of tax cuts, deregulation, and private sector spending for helping stabilize growth and potentially pushing GDP higher in the coming quarters.A major theme in the discussion is energy—specifically, the critical role it will play in supporting the AI boom. Briggs emphasizes that traditional energy sources may not be sufficient to meet future demand. Instead, he points to nuclear energy as the next major frontier, highlighting recent deals between tech giants and nuclear providers as evidence of where the industry is headed.This shift toward nuclear energy is framed as both an economic and strategic advantage. Not only does it provide consistent and scalable power for data centers, but it also strengthens U.S. energy independence—particularly in the context of global tensions and conflicts like the situation in Iran.Briggs also connects these developments to broader investment opportunities. He suggests that sectors tied to energy infrastructure—especially nuclear—and materials like platinum and palladium could benefit significantly as demand grows. For investors, this represents a potential long-term play tied directly to technological expansion.Despite ongoing geopolitical risks, including instability in the Middle East, Briggs remains optimistic. He believes that once major uncertainties are resolved, markets could respond positively, with lower interest rates and stronger equity performance.The overall message is one of cautious optimism: while challenges remain, the combination of AI-driven investment, energy innovation, and economic policy could create a powerful growth cycle—one that impacts everything from job markets to global competitiveness.

Earlier this week, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said that Ireland should explore the idea of using nuclear power in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.Fianna Fáil TD James O'Connor has introduced a bill to reverse the ban and it is due to be debated in the Dáil in the coming months.Dr. Paul Deane, senior lecturer in Clean Energy Futures at UCC and Senator Malcolm Noonan of the Green Party speak to Matt on The Last Word about this.Hit the ‘Play' button on this page to hear the piece.

Lisa Ryan, Professor of Energy Economics at the UCD School of Economics and Energy Institute, discusses Europe's reliance on fossil fuels, a subject which has been highlighted by European Commission President, Ursula Von Der Leyen.

Is Doug Ford's drop in popularity just a blip, or is there reason for Ontario's Progressive Conservatives to be concerned? Hosts Steve Paikin and John Michael McGrath break down the latest poll numbers and how they would translate to seats. Then, the hosts look at how Minister of Education Paul Calandra made a rare appearance at the committee discussing Bill 101, and why his comments to union leaders prompted criticism. Finally, how might Mark Carney's new Canada Strong Fund support Ontario's future goals? Just look at the Ford government's economic priorities: nuclear power and critical minerals. In "Your Column, My Column," JMM discusses how the federal government might consider positioning itself on the Billy Bishop Airport, and Steve wonders why Doug Ford has been so ornery, and discusses his ad hominem attacks against Liberal MPP Stephanie Smyth.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sponsor Link:To check out our special NordVPN deal with big savings and 4 extra months free, visit nordvpn.com/spacenutsNuclear Space Policies, SETI from the Moon, and the Hubble Tension In this riveting episode of Space Nuts, hosts Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson delve into a range of fascinating topics that are shaping the future of space exploration. From the Pentagon's new nuclear energy policy for space missions to the exciting potential of searching for extraterrestrial intelligence from the far side of the Moon, this episode is packed with insights that will leave you pondering the cosmos.Episode Highlights:- Nuclear Energy in Space: Andrew and Fred Watson discuss the recent directive from the Pentagon to NASA for the development of nuclear power stations in space, exploring the implications for lunar and orbital power supply systems. They examine the benefits and challenges of using nuclear energy in space, addressing public concerns and the potential for collaboration among government agencies.- SETI from the Far Side of the Moon: The hosts explore the advantages of conducting the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) from the Moon's far side, where Earthly radio noise is absent. They discuss the capabilities of China's Chang'e 4 mission and its low-frequency radio spectrometer, which is attempting to detect technosignatures that could indicate the presence of alien life.- The Hubble Tension Debate: Andrew and Fred Watson unpack the ongoing debate surrounding the Hubble constant, highlighting the discrepancies between measurements obtained through different methods. They discuss new research that aims to refine our understanding of the universe's expansion rate and its implications for our grasp of dark matter and dark energy.For more Space Nuts, including our continuously updating newsfeed and to listen to all our episodes, visit our website. Follow us on social media at SpaceNutsPod on Facebook, Instagram, and more. We love engaging with our community, so be sure to drop us a message or comment on your favourite platform.If you'd like to help support Space Nuts and join our growing family of insiders for commercial-free episodes and more, visit spacenutspodcast.com/about.Stay curious, keep looking up, and join us next time for more stellar insights and cosmic wonders. Until then, clear skies and happy stargazing.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts-astronomy-insights-cosmic-discoveries--2631155/support.

There's been renewed interest in nuclear power in recent years, thanks in part to demand from tech companies in search of reliable energy to power their AI data centers. The startup Kairos Power has jumped on this opportunity. Its nuclear reactors are cooled by molten salt. They also use golf-ball sized nuclear fuel, instead of uranium rods cooled by water used by traditional reactors. Mike Laufer, co-founder and CEO of Kairos, says their reactors a bit like an upside down gumball machine.The company just started construction on its first power plant, located in eastern Tennessee, called Hermes 2. It will supply energy to the utility in the area, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and specifically to Google to power its data centers. Marketplace's Stephanie Hughes spoke with Laufer to learn more.

There's been renewed interest in nuclear power in recent years, thanks in part to demand from tech companies in search of reliable energy to power their AI data centers. The startup Kairos Power has jumped on this opportunity. Its nuclear reactors are cooled by molten salt. They also use golf-ball sized nuclear fuel, instead of uranium rods cooled by water used by traditional reactors. Mike Laufer, co-founder and CEO of Kairos, says their reactors a bit like an upside down gumball machine.The company just started construction on its first power plant, located in eastern Tennessee, called Hermes 2. It will supply energy to the utility in the area, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and specifically to Google to power its data centers. Marketplace's Stephanie Hughes spoke with Laufer to learn more.

On April 14, President Trump signed an executive order telling the Department of War and NASA to put a nuclear power plant in low Earth orbit by 2028 and one on the lunar surface by 2030. Lt Gen (Ret.) Steven L. Kwast unpacks why that is not the start of weaponized space, but the catch up move America cannot afford to skip. Kwast walks through the case calmly and clearly. We already have a nuclear navy steaming the oceans safely for decades, so why not a nuclear powered space force? He tackles the Fukushima fear directly, explains how Elon Musk style cheap launch lets us send spent uranium rods into the sun, and shows how robotic mechanics, AI, and laser comms make astronauts unnecessary for reactor operations. Then he zooms out. China and Russia are already racing for space nuclear power. Whoever gets there first gets the high ground of energy, communications, and resources. Distributed mobile reactors in orbit work like the internet or a blockchain ledger, every node has to be killed to kill the network. The homework: read up, vote smart, and stop letting lobbyists scare your members of Congress into standing still.

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. -------------------- 01 Introduction This is a follow up to my 8 part series on nuclear power. In this episode I will answer questions posed by listeners in the comments to the series. I would like to start by thanking these people for taking the time to submit interesting questions. -------------------- Costs of Small Versus Large Reactors 02 brian-in-ohio asked two questions The first was for a cost comparison between large and small reactors. The second was for nuclear plant safety compared to conventional power plants. 03 Answer I think that any answer to the second question is going to be perceived by some people as politically controversial, so it's probably not a good topic for HPR to address. 04 The first question though about cost of small versus large reactors is an interesting one, although not one that is easy to give an answer to. I will restrict the answer to just grid scale electric power production and ignore use cases such as industrial process heat or power for remote mines and communities. 05 This question comes down to economies of scale versus economies of replication. Economies of scale centre around increased efficiencies of use of materials and labour when making something bigger. For example, the amount of steel used by a pipe increases linearly with its diameter, but the amount of fluid that it transports increases with the square. 06 Economies of replication come from increasing efficiencies which result from serial production. As you repeat the same design over and over again, you learn how to do things better and make fewer mistakes. 07 The exact same principles apply to shipbuilding. Indeed, a lot of the inspiration for Small Modular Reactors comes from the shipbuilding industry. If you build a series of identical ships, then each subsequent ship will cost less and be built faster. There are of course diminishing returns to this process, so the improvements are less with each additional unit and after a sufficient number of units the cost and time reductions level off. 08 However, this doesn't discount the benefits of economies of scale. What it does mean is that there are two ways of approaching the problem, and which way works in any given scenario depends on such conditions as how big the local electricity market is how fast the demand for electricity is growing, the ownership and financing structure of the electricity market, and the geography of the area, which may pose limits on the number of sites. 09 According to the finance people who have crunched the numbers, there are two sizes of reactor which make the most sense in the above context. These are 300 MW and 1000 MW. However, take those as very rough numbers rather than immutable laws of nature and other sizes may work as well. 10 The key point is that there are cases to be made for both small and large reactors, with the large reactor being several times the size of the small one. 11 An additional factor is that building only one reactor does not reap the benefits of efficiency of replication. You need to build a series of them on the same site. So if you are building a power plant, you don't build a power plant that has just one reactor unless you are in a small market which can only use that much power. Instead, you should build between 4 and 6 reactors in sequence next to one another. 12 If you are supply a large population with a growing demand for electricity, then 4 or 6 large 1000 MW reactors gains both economies of scale and economies of replication. If you are supplying a smaller population with slow growth in demand for electricity, then 4 or 6 300 MW reactors at least gets you economies of replication. 13 There is what could be viewed as an interesting example in terms of the above taking place just east of Toronto. There they are building four 300 MW SMRs on a site next to an existing nuclear power plant. 14 Here are the cost estimates from the Government of Ontario. All costs are in Canadian dollars. Unit 1 is $6.1 billion, plus $1.6 billion in costs which are shared by all four unit.s Unit 2 is $4.9 billion. Unit 3 is $4.2 billion. Unit 4 is $4.1 billion. 15 As you can see, building a series of reactors sequentially on the same site results in declining overall costs. They are very confident in these costs as they used data from a series of major nuclear power plant refurbishment projects in Ontario which have been coming in on time and on budget. 16 Construction began last year and the plant is expected to have a 65 year operating life. 17 However, the province of Ontario also has plans for expansion of electrical generation by about 15,000 MW by 2050 in order to meet net zero targets. 18 Given the heavy concentration of population in the Toronto region, and the very high cost and difficulty of building long distance transmission lines, and the limited number of sites which could host new power generation facilities of any sort, I suspect it is quite likely that subsequent reactors will be large 1,000 MW ones rather than SMRs. 19 The Wesleyville site (which is further east of Toronto) is tentatively scheduled for a 10,000 MW nuclear power plant. That would seem to make ten 1,000 MW reactors more likely than 34 300 MW reactors. 20 I don't have a comparable set of numbers for building large reactors to give an exact apples to apples comparison of costs. Different countries use different accounting and financing systems, and finance makes a huge difference to overall costs for nuclear power as operating costs are a relatively small share of the total. 21 Now to look at another side of this equation, the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick wish to replace their coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants. The populations of these provinces are too small to absorb a large new power plant into their grids, and studies assuming large reactors have foundered on this issue. 22 New Brunswick already have a nuclear power plant, but it was build in the days when reactors were much smaller. Both provinces however are very interested in small reactors, even individual ones, in order to replace the coal fired plants that are of similar size. 23 I think this covers the cost versus size issue. The more I look into it, the more it becomes apparent that there is no simple one size fits all answer but rather there are a series of trade-offs which must be taken in light of local circumstances. -------------------- MOX Fuel in the USA 24 The next question comes from mnw who asked about the use of MOX fuel in the USA. 25 mnw asked I am enjoying and look forward to the rest of the series. Do you think the US will ever wake up and start recycling its spent fuel? It seems like such a huge waste just to try and keep a small amount of fuel away from"the bad guys" or whatever they are imagining. Answer 26 My answer to this is as follows. I think I've addressed this in the original series, although not directly with respect to the US so I can provide some more detail on that aspect of it. 27 First though I will review what plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is. As mentioned in previous episodes, military grade plutonium is not the same as the plutonium which comes out of commercial power reactors. Just as military grade uranium requires nearly pure U-235 isotope, military grade plutonium requires nearly pure Pu-239 isotope. 28 What comes out of a commercial power reactor as spent fuel is not usable for weapons purposes as the proportion of Pu-239 is much too low. However, plutonium recovered from spent fuel can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors in place of uranium 235 when mixed with uranium 238 either left over from enrichment or extracted from spent fuel. This is what is known as MOX fuel. 29 To look at the US history of this however, here's the sequence of events. The US banned fuel reprocessing in 1976. However, this ban was repealed in 1981. 30 In 2005, the US began building a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel plant at Savannah River in the state of South Carolina. However, this plant was not intended as a normal commercial operation and it was not intended to recycle commercial nuclear power plant fuel. It was instead intended to convert surplus military grade plutonium into commercial fuel in order to get rid of it as part of an arms control program. 31 The program was suspended in 2018. There were apparently many complex political issues involved in these on-again off-again decisions and I won't pretend to have the time or interest to explore all the details nor do I think most listeners would be interested in hearing abou them. 32 As of March 2026, the US are looking at reviving part of the Savannah River plant to produce limited amounts of fuel for testing of advanced reactors. The issue driving this is the shortage of uranium enriched to just below 20%. This fuel is used in certain types of small SMR. 33 The main commercial supplier of this material was a plant in Russia, but "certain events in Europe in recent years" shall we say, have resulted in that supply no longer being available to commercial operations in the US. MOX fuel based on surplus weapons grade plutonium is intended as a short term quick fix for that problem. 34 Another driving force is legal requirements following from domestic commitments for the US government to dispose of certain stockpiles of weapons grade plutonium from certain sites in the US where it is "temporarily" stored, and the solution to that is seen as burning it up in power reactors. 35 So the history is the US banned fuel reprocessing. Then a few years later they un-banned it. Then the US government started building a MOX plant which was intended to get rid of surplus weapons grade material by burning it up in power reactors. Then they decided they didn't want to do that. Then they decided they may want to make MOX fuel after all to replace supplies of special grades of fuel for experimental or prototype reactors. 36 What is missing from the above history is any actual interest from the US commercial nuclear industry in MOX fuel. The reason for this is, as mentioned in the previous episodes, uranium is so cheap and abundant that fuel made from fresh uranium is cheaper than MOX fuel. 37 Some countries such as France wish to recycle spent fuel to reduce their dependence upon imports. Recall that France's drive to build nuclear power plants was in response to the 1970s era energy crisis when oil imports from the Middle East were suddenly cut off. However, the US are not concerned about this issue and so do not make it national security policy as France did. 38 As a result, US commercial demand is for cheaper fuel made from fresh uranium rather than for MOX fuel. Until such time as fresh uranium greatly increases in price there is little economic incentive for the use of MOX fuel in the US. 39 However, there is another aspect to this. If you recall in previous episodes I described molten salt reactors which used dissolved uranium fuel. These reactors inherently reprocess fuel as part of their normal operation. They just do it as part of maintaining the molten salt chemistry at the correct values rather than doing it as a separate process. 40 If these types of reactors become widely used then they would be achieving the same thing as creating MOX fuel, but without an explicit separate step. 41 As a final footnote to the above, the US has almost exclusively use enriched uranium light water reactors. As mentioned in previous episodes, there are ways of recycling spent fuel from light water reactors which do not involve chemically reprocessing it to make MOX fuel. 42 Experiments have been done involving South Korea, China, and Canada which take spent fuel from light water reactors and repackage it to fit it into natural uranium heavy water reactors. What is used up or "spent" fuel for a light water reactor is high grade fuel to a natural uranium reactor. However, the US has, for whatever reason, never built commercial natural uranium reactors such as are used in a number of other countries around the world. 43 If they were to do so, then nuclear fuel could be used twice, once in a light water reactor, and again in a natural uranium reactor, all without having to turn it into MOX fuel in a separate reprocessing step. However, this particular alternative would likely face the same issue in the sense that fresh fuel would still be cheaper than reusing spent fuel. -------------------- A Variety of Questions from Clinton 44 Next we have a variety of questions from Clinton. Clinton asked I would like some commentary in the current situation, why has hinkley gone off the rails, the new american approach, the odd things done after fukushima, the new radiation rules in the states. 45 Question 1 why has hinkley gone off the rails, 46 Answer The question refers to cost overruns at the Hinkley Point nuclear power project in the UK. The UK government looked into this issue in a more general sense in 2025. They published a report on it titled Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 Enabling nuclear delivery through regulatory reform John Fingleton There is a link to the report in the show notes. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692080f75c394e481336ab89/nuclear-regulatory-review-2025.pdf 47 As the report is 162 pages long, I won't try to cover it all in this answer. I will however give a few simple examples. The report focuses on civilian nuclear power and the defence nuclear industry as well. However it also draws examples from outside the nuclear industry to show that the problem is not limited to nuclear. It shows that the same problems exist in the offshore wind industry, and in the HS2 High Speed Rail project. 48 In the view of the authors of the report, the essence of the problem seems to be a lack of any degree of proportionality in terms of mitigating negative effects from any project. Big nuclear projects make the headlines because they are inherently big projects, but as I have just mentioned, they affect things like wind power development and rail transport as well. 49 I will pick one example from Hinkley Point specifically. This is "Case Study: Hinkley Point C Fish Protection" A summary of this is that they spent £700 million of additional money on the cooling water intakes to protect an estimated 0.083 salmon per year, along with 0.028 sea trout, 6 river lamprey, 18 Allis shad, and somewhere between 100 and 528 twaite shad. The report points out that there are ways to protect far more fish for far less money by spending it in other areas, and gives some examples. Again, this problem is not limited to nuclear power, and they give similar examples connected with offshore wind development and HS2 High Speed Rail. 50 I would like to emphasize that I am not expressing an opinion on whether or not any of these decisions were good or bad ones or whether the money was well spent. I am just summarizing the report's explanation of why large projects of all sorts initiated and approved by the UK parliament were not turning out as initially expected. I will leave it up to people in the UK to decide whether or not they are satisfied with the current situation. 51 Question 2 the new american approach, 52 Answer The US have apparently announced changes to their regulatory system. I don't know enough about the subject to really judge the practical effects of regulation within the US. However, I have read and listened to many interviews of people from both the industry and the regulatory side of things who are from outside the US but are familiar with it. They generally contrast two different approaches to regulation. On the one hand there is the US approach, which they see as being more of a box ticking exercise than an in depth safety review. This makes it very hard to get a design other than a traditional PWR or BWR approved in the US. 53 It has the advantage from the regulator side of things though in that it reduces the amount of work required as it primarily requires just following a set of defined procedures. These people then contrast that approach with the one used in the UK and in Canada, both of which they see as being very similar to one another. In those two countries, regulators work with industry to review designs from basic principles rather than just seeing if it meets a pre-defined list of criteria. This is a results oriented system rather than a process oriented system as used in the US. 54 As a result of this, designers of new nuclear reactors are going to the UK and Canada first to go through preliminary review there, and only going to the US later. What designers are looking for is feedback on their design as they go along in order to align the design with what safety regulators see as being required from their standpoint. They want to go into a review process before the design is finalized so they can get guidance on how they should approach things rather than trying to add safety as additional features on top of a finished design. 55 It would take someone with deep familiarity with nuclear regulation systems to understand the practical effects of recent changes in US regulatory systems, but it is quite possible that people within the regulatory structure in the US have been taking the above on board and trying to adapt to current circumstances. However, I can only speculate on that. This is about the best answer that I can give. 56 Question 3 the odd things done after fukushima, 57 Answer This covers a lot of topics, some of which are probably political and so are not suited to HPR. I will try to list a few events however. As a brief summary if the Fukushima events go however, a historic scale earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011 caused huge loss of life and widespread damage. About 20,000 people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami. Three nuclear reactors based on 1960s era GE BWR designs were seriously damaged by hydrogen explosions caused by loss of power to backup generators when they were flooded by the tsunami. However, there were no radiation related deaths or cases of radiation sickness. 58 Following events in Japan was a general review of designs around the world, with various improvements made in some areas, particularly backup generators and hydrogen management. It seems to be conventional wisdom that the Fukushima event caused a number of countries to decide to phase out nuclear power. 59 However, when I tried to make a list of such countries for this episode I found things were not as is often heard. The countries which decided to get rid of nuclear power had largely started down that road at least a decade before then and generally for reasons unrelated to any specific events outside of their own country. In other cases they reversed that decision or are in the process of doing so. Japan itself has restarted many of their nuclear power plants and plant to replace decommissioned nuclear power plants with new ones, although many of the older and smaller ones were considered not economically worth upgrading at this point in their life to restart them. 60 The one possible exception to this may be Taiwan which decided to phase out nuclear power in 2016. However, I don't know enough about Taiwanese politics to state with any confidence that their decision in 2016 was based on anything related to events in Japan, or whether in fact they were a byproduct of other political changes within Taiwan and the shut down of nuclear plants happened to be carried along with those. Currently Taiwan get their electricity primarily from natural gas and coal. 61 Meanwhile across mainland Asia from Turkey to China, large numbers of nuclear power plants were built or are under construction. Taken together on a global scale, did anything really change after Fukushima, or did the countries which had already decided to close down their nuclear power plants simply continue to do so, and those countries who decided they wanted more of them continue to build them? That's a good question for which I don't think anyone has the perspective to answer at this point. 62 Another side of this which is hard to disentangle from it though is the increased use of natural gas for electric power generation which was happening at around the same time. Increased use of fracking in a number of countries, plus increased supplies from Russia and LNG from the Middle East and other places resulted in falls in natural gas prices in many places. Since combined cycle natural gas turbines form the main competitor to nuclear power, anything which improves the economics of natural gas will act to reduce demand for nuclear power. This makes it hard to decide to what degree the reduction in the number of reactors being built was due to the political effects of the earthquake and tsunami and to what degree it was due to cheaper natural gas through fracking and other means. I'll leave that question at that. 63 Question 4 the new radiation rules in the states. 64 Answer I'm not deeply familiar with US radiation rules, but I will attempt to answer the question. Apparently there are wide variety of different things being addressed, only some of which have any relevance to the nuclear power industry. One of these is an epidemiological study on the current exposure limits for workers in the nuclear industry. This study will take place over about 5 years. In the end it may not result in any changes. This is for a number of reasons. 65 One is that US exposure thresholds for workers are currently aligned with international standards. It would be difficult for the US industry to operate on a different basis than the rest of the world when supply chains are global and kit is designed to meet currently recognized standards. Another is that apparently the nuclear industry are not, so far as I can discern, asking for any changes to limits. They instead are looking for changes to how some of the details are being applied, such as for example the criteria for deciding when respirators are required in low risk environments. 66 Some point to recent changes in UK regulations as an example of what they are looking for. I will post a link to the new (November of 2025) UK regulations in the show notes. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-industry-principles-to-guide-the-application-of-as-low-as-reasonably-practicable-alarp-and-best-available-techniques-bat/ways-of-working-principles-to-guide-the-application-of-alarp-and-bat-in-the-nuclear-industry-accessible-webpage This is about as much detail as I think I can comment on when it comes to this question, as I think it is a subject that requires a fair bit more practical knowledge of than I have in order to give a thorough and balanced answer. -------------------- 67 Question from Antoine Were/are the designs patented? Hi, Whiskeyjack. Nice ep. You said AGR, based on Magnox, was a nuclear reactor type that did not sell well outside the UK. I then started thinking if it were (is) possible to another countries to develop by themselves based on that project, or if it had (has) a commercial restriction for exploration of the technology. I have yet to listen to the following episodes (doing little by little) and may learn better on the choices, but I felt free to present the question by now... Thanks! 68 Answer This is a very good question because it offers the opportunity to talk about a number of interesting things that haven't been touched on yet. Let's cover a bit of background first. 69 A patent is a time limited right to exploit a defined bit of valuable technical knowledge. Patents were involved from the very earliest days of commercial nuclear power, and I will give an example of this later. A key point to keep in mind though is that the nuclear power field moves very slowly and it takes a long time for new knowledge to make it from the lab to commercial application. Patents will often expire before they reach the point where they can be used. 70 Contracts on the other hand are legally enforceable agreements between two parties. A contract may have a time limited life, but that is an arrangement between the parties. A commercial nuclear power plant is a very large and complex bit of kit and not easily copied in detail. It can be far more effective to cover designs under contracts and licenses than to rely on patents. If a country wished to build their own nuclear power plants rather than buying them from someone else, there are a large number of companies who have commercial designs they are willing to license to third parties for them to build themselves. Indeed a number of these companies base their business around licensing of designs or have other reasons for wishing to do so. 71 From a licensee perspective, it could take decades of work and hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to take a design from first principle to the ready to build state, wheras licensing a design give you a proven design right away. As mentioned in previous episodes, there many types of reactor in the world. The selection of what sort of reactor a country decides to buy often depends more on commercial considerations revolving around licensing terms and conditions than it does with respect to any technical considerations. Here's an example which shows how South Korea decided to license a design, build it for themselves, and then export it to other countries. 72 KunMo Chung - Professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, stated in an interview in 2019 that South Korea wanted to standardize on a single reactor technology in the early 1980s. They had reactors from multiple different vendors, but wanted to license an existing successful design to produce for themselves and for the export market. One of the major factors in deciding to standardize was to allow them to improve operator training by focusing on one design. Professor Chung stated that one of the key factors in selecting a design from ABB-Combustion Engineering was that he personally knew and had a good relationship with the Chief Technical Officer of ABB-Combustion Engineering going back to a time when Professor Chung had been studying and working in the USA. 73 On their side, ABB-Combustion Engineering were having financial problems and they needed a partner to help further develop their new PWR design. Also they stood to gain revenue from this partnership as well. Based on this relationship, the two sides came to a business agreement and South Korea began producing reactors based on this design, while also continuing to develop and improve it further. 74 Here's an example of a case where the developers of a promising technology decided that they had more to gain by not patenting their technology. Instead they decided to freely share their information in order to get other researchers elsewhere to help to advance the technology so that all could benefit from it. 75 In an interview Wacław Gudowski - Prof. Emeritus, Royal Institute of Technology KTH Stockholm stated that the Soviets and later the Russian were the leaders in lead-bismuth cooled reactors. These reactors use lead-bismuth liquid metal alloy as a coolant. In the 1990s the Russian institute working on commercializing this technology were working with Western partners on nuclear technology in general. They considered patenting this technology, but in the end decided to simply publish it openly. 76 Professor Gudowski had even smuggled $60,000 in cash into Russia to finance the patent application in order to get the Russian institute to publish their technology, but the money was not needed. They based this decision on the judgment that it would take 20 years of R&D before the technology was ready for the commercial market, so they wouldn't see a penny on any patents anyway. They were right on this, as it was another 20 years of R&D in Europe, Russia, China, and Korea before lead-bismuth technology was ready for commercial use. 77 It had already seen use in submarine reactors, but the commercial market demanded a more thoroughly developed technology to satisfy commercial needs. By deciding to not patent the technology, the original developers gained from shared R&D rather than chasing the illusary gains from patent licenses on technology that was not ready for the commercial market anyway. 78 I said that patents were involved in nuclear technology from the very earliest days, and I will now turn to that story. When I say the earliest days, I mean probably earlier than you are imaging. I am talking about before WWII. 79 First though I need to give some background information. France and Britain were working on nuclear weapons from the very earliest days of WWII. In Britain's case this was called Tube Alloys. Canada also was conducting nuclear experiments, including building an "atomic pile", but it's not clear if this had any clear practical goals or was done to understand the physics better. 80 If you read the Wikipedia version of history, it states that Tube Alloys was merged into the Manhattan Project. However, participants have stated in interviews that this was not the case, and the Quebec Agreement which supposedly merged them makes no such mention of any merger of the projects, just the setting up of a board to coordinate efforts between the three countries, that is the US, UK, and Canada. In fact the two projects didn't get along that well, and as we shall see below, a big part of that was disputes over patents. ### 81 The following is based on a paper written by Bertrand Goldschmidt, a French nuclear scientist. Two of his colleagues, Hans Halban and Lew Kowarski played a critical role in early nuclear research. Halban in particular was one of the greatest scientific names in nuclear fission. In March of 1939 Halban conducted an experiment showing that neutrons were emitted by the fissioning of uranium. 82 In April Joliot, Halban, Kowarski and Perrin had a pretty good idea of how to use nuclear fission to produce energy and to make an explosive device and decided to file patents on their invention. Each of the four would receive a 5% share of any benefits and the other 80% would go to the research instittute they worked at in Paris. I will now quote from Goldschmidt's paper. 83 The first two patents concerned energy production and were entitled "Device for energy production" and "Method for stabilizing a device for energy production." They roughly defined the principles of the main components of our present power reactors: moderator in heterogeneous or homogeneous arrangements, cooling fluid, control rods, protection shield. The third patent called "Method for perfecting explosive charges" was less brilliant from a foresight point of view though it proposed valid solutions for the trigger, the tamper, and the rapid obtainment of the critical assembly of a possible explosive device. Finally, nearly a year later, after Alfred Nier's experimental confirmation in March 1940 of Niels Bohr's theoretical prediction that uranium 235, the rare isotope of the mixture in natural uranium, was responsible for fission by slow neutrons, the French took out an additional patent on the advantage of using enriched uranium for the chain reaction. End of quote. 84 In May of 1940, the CNRS, the French research institute in Paris, negotiated an agreement with Belgian mining company Union Miniere, who were the world's biggest producer of uranium, at the time a byproduct of radium mining, about a partnership for the world wide exploitation of these patents. However the agreement was not finalized due to the ongoing events in the war. At the beginning of the war, the French government had approved the development of an energy generator - or a nuclear reactor as we would say today, with the intention of creating an engine for submarines. 85 With the fall of France, Halban and Kowarski travelled to the UK with their supply of heavy water where they were received by their UK counterparts, James Chadwick and John Cockroft. The British were already working on an atomic bomb. In the UK the two conducted an experiment showing that it was possible to create nuclear energy using natural uranium and heavy water. In 1941 the British nuclear project was reorganized and given the name Tube Alloys. In 1942 it was decided to move the work on a plutonium bomb to Canada, and Canada would pay for the project. A lab was set up in Montreal and Halban was put in charge of the project. 86 Halban had negotiated this arrangement by offering to arrange to have the French patents for world wide rights outside of France and the French empire transferred to the UK. In return the French team were to be given a key role in the British nuclear project. The author of the paper I am referencing, Bertrand Goldschmidt, was a section leader in Montreal and a colleague of Halban from France. The Montreal group cooperated with the American Manhattan Project and the two shared information and exchanged visits. 87 However, relations between the two began to break down, with a major cause of this being the Americans being unhappy about the French patents and Halban's arrangement to give the British world wide rights to them. The postwar commercial potential for nuclear power was seen to be huge, and this was a major bone of contention. The extensive participation of ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) engineers in the Tube Alloys project was also objectionable to the Americans. Presumably this had something to do with potential for ICI being involved in future commercialization of the technology. The American Dupont company, a commercial rival of ICI, was also heavily involved in the American atomic bomb project. The eventual result of this was that the US cut off cooperation with the UK-Canada nuclear project. 88 Finally Halban was forced out of the project at the insistence of the Americans, and he was replaced by John Cockroft who moved to Montreal to take charge of the project. The Americans now restore limited cooperation. Kowarski was put in charge of building a heavy water moderated natural uranium reactor at a new site north of Ottawa at Chalk River. This reactor was turned on on the 5th of September, 1945, three days after Japan's surrender. So in what was supposedly a titanic war for survival, key allies were falling out with respect to their ultimate weapon over issues of patents covering post war commercialization. 89 With the end of the war, the nuclear weapons project in Montreal and Chalk River was wound up. Halban, Kowarski, and Goldschmidt returned to France and Cockroft to the UK where they all played senior roles in the nuclear programs of their respective countries. John Cockroft played an important role in the development of the Magnox reactors which Antoine asked about. The Chalk River Site remains as Canada's main nuclear research centre to this day, and Canada was to continue development of heavy water moderated natural uranium reactors. 90 The first commercial nuclear power plant was commissioned in the UK in 1956, roughly 17 years after the original French nuclear patents. At that time, UK patents had a term of 16 years. While I am not a patent lawyer, it would appear that these patents would likely have expired before nuclear power was ever commercialized. So to answer the question about patents, the first patents on nuclear energy date to before WWII started, and the very first two were about nuclear power plants and it was only the third one which covered nuclear weapons. -------------------- 91 Thanks to other listeners. A number of other listeners made comments saying they were really enjoying the series. I would like to thank the following for their kind words of encouragement. They helped make the work required to do this worthwhile. They are brian-in-ohio mnw Clinton Antoine bjb Kevin O'Brien Trey L'andrew Archer72 Jim DeVore If you have commented but I have forgotten your name, or if the show was recorded before I got a chance to read your comment, I would still like to thank you. 92 Conclusion I would like to thank all the listeners for their kind comments and insightful questions. I hope that I have answered these questions to the satisfaction of everyone. I look forward to hearing from all of you in future podcast episodes including those on other topics. -------------------- Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Canadian Nuclear Association and 10th annual conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society. V. 1-3 https://inis.iaea.org/records/m2s41-40917 This has a paper by Bertrand Goldschmidt about the work of the French scientists in Canada. -------------------- Provide feedback on this episode.

In 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear accident devastated the Soviet Union and shocked the world. But, 40 years on, are we now seeing a nuclear renaissance? And what does that mean for the climate? Climate Question host Jordan Dunbar has just visited the most contaminated place in the world for a BBC World Service documentary. He tells co-host Graihagh Jackson about the ghostly atmosphere in the former Chernobyl control room and the huge dome that now covers the remains of the nuclear reactor that exploded. Jordan and Graihagh also discuss how the disaster set back the nuclear power industry for decades. Now, however, nuclear is firmly back on the international agenda because of rising power demand and concerns about energy security. With around 40 countries now aiming to build more nuclear power stations, what will this mean for the climate and the world's goal of keeping global warming under control? Got a question or a comment? Email us at theclimatequestion@bbc.comPresenters: Jordan Dunbar and Graihagh Jackson Producers: Simon Watts and Diane Richardson Sound Mix: Tom Brignell Editor: Simon WattsPicture credit: Getty Images

The Other Side of the Story with Tom Harris and Todd Royal – As geopolitical tensions rise across the world, nuclear power's star is at last on the rise again. More and more nations are coming to realize that, if we want to continue to improve our standard of living while protecting the environment, nuclear power is the way to go. Not that the sector is perfect or that we can't still improve how we...

1. Robert Zubrin introduces The Case for Nukes, arguing that nuclear power is essential for environmental preservation and global prosperity. He posits that using "artificial" energy sources like uranium protects the natural world by sparing resources like wood and whales. Zubrin highlights the massive energy deficitfacing humanity, noting that lifting the global population out of poverty requires a five-to-tenfold increase in energy production. He critiques wind and solar as insufficient and land-intensive. Finally, he explains the basic physics of fission, emphasizing that uranium holds ten million times the energy of oil. (1)1951 LAS VEGAS

4. Zubrin discusses technological frontiers, starting with small modular reactorsdesigned for factory assembly to improve competitiveness. He emphasizes that nuclear power is "absolutely key" to the human future in space, providing essential energy for Mars bases and propulsion where solar energy is insufficient. Regarding fusion, Zubrin expresses optimism that private startups may achieve ignition this decade by bypassing stagnant government programs. He concludes that the U.S. must revitalize its nuclear industrial base to ensure economic independence and national security, warning that current restrictive energy policies threaten Americanprosperity. (4)1953 ATOMIC CANNON.