87 Comments

Something’s going on at the tail end of the post here

Expand full comment

Bryan, the folks at the Breakthrough Institute have started a Build Nuclear Now initiative along the lines of what you're suggesting. Check out/Sign up for their weekly newsletter if you don't already:

https://buildnuclearnow.org/?utm_source=Breakthrough+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4c1ac2996e-Nuclear_Notes_11_22_2022&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49b872540e-4c1ac2996e-387836265

Cheers!

Anders

Expand full comment

As Robin Hanson recently pointed out, it's regulations that prevent fission power and there's no reason to think fusion power won't be stopped by the same regulations. (Exactly what is better about fusion has never been very clear to me.)

Most fission reactor designs are descended from those designed in the 1940s to produce materials for making weapons. New clean-sheet designs would be far better - many have been proposed, but regulation has so far strangled them in the crib.

I wonder if it's more than just greens who have been blocking nuclear power. It seems to me the fossil fuel industry has far more to lose from it than anyone else.

Expand full comment

Scaling up nuclear energy is not difficult. France did this quickly in the 1960s, so since we have 60 years technological advantage on them and some large multiplier of wealth, the only thing preventing us from doing this again is our own idiocy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_in_France.svg

Expand full comment

So I read you and people like you and they say “solar and wind are inadequate”. Then I read people like Noah Smith, and they say “solar and wind are winning, generating more and more every year.” This really feels like an issue where people have their own base of “alternative facts”. It would be great if some well-informed scientist could give an in-depth explainer of the pros and cons of solar and wind, as of 2022. Or is this a game without referees?

Expand full comment

I am very much not opposed to nuclear its cheap to run, reliable, safe, and the waste issue is totally solvable.

But since the 1970's nuclear is really really expensive to build. So much so that it really does not make sense. Sure you can say that it is all due to regulations and I am sure lot of it is. But at least some of those regulations are necessary. And even still nuclear plants of massive construction projects and those have proven hard to build for things other than nuclear as well. Also it is not like there are other countries with lower regulations building nuclear super cheaply or bring on tons of plants.

So far the only recent plants that have been able to be built have been highly regulated markets with captured customers that can be forced to cover the construction cost. The only recent plant to be built Vogtle 3&4 took 10 years to build and will come in way over budget,. And those required federal loan guarantees.

Maybe in some magical regulatory world nuclear plants could be built cheaply but I have zero faith in any plausible world that they can. It would be nice to be proven wrong.

Expand full comment

"They know that solar and wind are currently a grossly inadequate substitute for fossil fuels." Is it? Sure, right now they are only a small part of the energy mix, but they (and batteries) are getting cheaper so fast!

Expand full comment

So what's a numerate person to do? Quit their day job and bang their head against the political machine? I've written every politician I'm a constituent for and some I'm not - they all ignore it.

Expand full comment

What many miss with a co2 tax. You might be able to have your fossil fuels and no net co2 too.

An ideal CO2 tax raises no revenue and it might be cheaper to remove CO2 from the air,so shouldn't all revenue from a CO2 be paid out to firms/people that remove CO2 from the air?

Enhanced weathering might do it.

Expand full comment

In principle, if a country wants to be CO2 neutral, the only policy it needs is this: "If you import or produce fossil fuel, you must pay for the corresponding CO2 to be sucked out of the air". I.e., carbon capture companies would sell carbon credits that oil companies would be forced to buy if they want to sell their oil.

Under this policy, if carbon capture can be done cheaply, it will be. If it can't, then prices for fossil fuels will rise and make nuclear/wind/solar more competitive.

Expand full comment

> Yet more thoughtful economists usually deem this an inadequate response. Since solar and wind are a grossly inadequate substitute for fossil fuels, no politically feasible tax will noticeably reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Instead, energy users will typically just pay the tax and continue on their merry carbon-emitting way.

That doesn't sound like a very economistic way of thinking. Aren't they supposed to think on the margin, recall that if you tax something you get less of it (while if you subsidize you get more of it?). Even if no alternative form of energy presents itself, a tax will at least encourage conservation & more efficient use of conventional fossil fuels!

Expand full comment

Two things Bryan.

1. Clearly define the problem of having a little more CO2 in the atmosphere. After all more plants will grow, and some places may get a tiny bit warmer. Also the question of how much human activity is causing it needs a real clear answer. i.e. does CO2 cause temperature or vice versa?

2. Read Fossil Future by Alex Epstein. His point is to talk up the real benefits of FF (prosperity & human flourishing) and stop only hysterically emphasising its negatives.

Expand full comment

"Instead of searching for a magic new technology, we should massively multiply our effort to sell our magic old technology. We already have a cheap, safe, clean energy source; what we lack is the will to use it freely. Forget changing tech. Change minds instead."

Yes, right on. Clear the way for nuclear power! But while we are at it, why don't we also massively multiply our old magic technologies surrounding fossil fuels? You know, the ones responsible for modern civilization. The carbon dioxide demon is a straw man. CO2 is life-giving, the basis for nearly all life. More atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow and use less water as they grow. The current concentration of atmospheric CO2 is among the lowest known levels in geologic history. There were many periods in the past in which the earth's average temperature was much lower than today, even though CO2 levels were many multiples higher than today's. The logical extension of your suggestion (a good one) is to drop the fear-mongering around CO2. Clean up real pollutants, yes, but CO2 is not one of them.

Expand full comment

I have no argument with anything you say but I do want to mention an interesting upside to fusion -- we will never run out of hydrogen (and therefore its isotopes). That means we will be able to build fusion reactors pretty much forever, which means the cost of building them will go down PMF, taking with it the cost of energy. For centuries. That seems pretty cool.

Expand full comment

“I think it’s the coolest form of energy,” says Brazilian model, digital fashion designer, and the world’s first nuclear influencer, Isabelle Boemeke, otherwise known as Isodope. . . . Hijacking the free-floating eyeballs that lurk over Instagram’s Discover Feed or TikTok’s For You, Boemeke adapts familiar influencer tropes — the workout routine, makeup tutorial, or diet plan — redirecting attention to what should be commonly shared goals: clean energy and decarbonization. “It’s a bit of a rebellion on my end,” she says, “because it’s not what my agent or society expects a model who uses social media to make.”

https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/isabelle-boemeke-interview/

Expand full comment