For the first time ever, it will be possible to make Nuclear energy cost LESS than energy from fossil fuels. And that means Nuclear done right can fully solve Energy Transition globally. Here's how...
Thanks so much for publishing my article on your substack, Dr. Anas! The much greater reach of your platform (compared to my own substack) should give these ideas much more visibility. Many thanks!
They will be happy to burn every last drop of oil the affluent west replaces with SMR's.
More generally, humans will always desire to use more energy in the quest to raise their standard of living. SMR's will do this by increasing energy supply, not by replacing fossil fuels.
In the last century we have added oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables to the energy supply... and coal consumption last year was at an all time high. SMR's will have the same effect.
SMR's are a great path forward, but will not reduce CO2 emissions any more than windmills and solar panels.
If we fail to make nuclear cost LESS than fossil fuels, you'll be proven exactly right, for all the reasons you stated so well.
But if we can make nuclear cost less than energy from FF's, and I'm convinced we can if we really do this right, there's no sane reason to think that the people of the would would choose MORE EXPENSIVE fossil-fuel derived energy sources.
Certain applications--Aviation in particular--will take much longer to solve. It won't take all that long before we can produce clean-burning jet fuel from synthetic hydrocarbons produced using nuclear energy. But making that kind of jet fuel cost less than JET-A refined from Petroleum is admittedly quite a ways off. But most other users of energy will prefer nuclear-sourced energy just as soon as we can make it cheaper than energy from fossil fuels.
Mass-producing nuclear powerplants on robotic assembly lines is what will make it all possible.
Yes, agreed if SMR's are cheaper than fossil fuels. IF.
However, to allow the other 6 billion people to reach our standard of living, you will need a gazillion SMR's and several 100 years. Total energy demand is much higher than today's current consumption... multiples greater.
Also, oil would get cheaper if SMR's actually do replace demand for it. Imagine the price of oil if demand is 50 Mb/day and supply is 100 Mb/day... not going to happen.
Sorry to rain on your parade... SMR's are a fantastic idea and we should proceed as fast as you suggest... but I am sure humans will consume every drop of oil that can be produced at EROI of greater than 1 which will effectively happen before enough SMR's can be manufactured to make oil obsolete.
I'm confused as to who the 'other 6 billion people' you keep referring to are.
As explained in the article, my vision of how to best seize the Nuclear Henry Ford Moment is to mass-produce entire nuclear power plants in state-of-the-art robotic factories, and then install those powerplants all over the world. Part of my plan (not mentioned in this article because it was already too long) is to focus the roll-out on the countries that most need better energy infrastructure first. Counter-intuitively, countries like USA are the last place to roll this out, because USA already has the most competitive electricity market on the planet. The best place to build the first modular nuclear plants will be Africa and otheer parts of the world where electricity is frightfully expensive and more is desperately needed for humanitarian reasons.
So in terms of the 8 billion people who live here on planet Earth, my plan already has them covered. If you're aware of 6bn more on some other planet, I'm afraid I don't have a plan to help them at present.
The six billion people who are not part of the affluent west. Those who aspire to increase their energy consumption 5 fold so they can live at our standard of living. Unless you provide them with enough SMR's for 5X the energy capacity of their present consumption, they will consume all the oil you replace with SMR's. Simply replacing their present consumption is not enough.
I already told you that my plan is to roll out nuclear power plants to those exact 6bn people FIRST, before delivering the same solution to the 'affluent west'.
I'm already well aware that replacing their present consumption is not enough, and I've already explained more than once that my plan is to solve that problem by giving them all the nuclear-generated electricity they need to elevate their standard of living. I don't know how to be more clear than I've already been on that point.
It feels like you didn't bother reading either the article or my responses to your comments before you felt the need to weigh in telling me that the problem with my plan is that it doesn't do precisely what I've now told you several times are the very first things I want to do!
Since we don't seem to be communicating well, I'm going to leave this exchange here and refrain from further comment. I've already addressed your objections several times now.
Gigawatt powerplants are hardly 'small', so I'm not sure what 'small modular powerplants' you refer to. My plan is to build LARGE powerplants using small modular reactors to reduce cost of construction. They can be secured just as easily as any other power plant.
Like I said, SMR's are a great idea, but they will never displace oil. Oil supply will be in decline faster than SMR's can replace current and future demand for the entire planet. Nuff said.
Thanks so much for publishing my article on your substack, Dr. Anas! The much greater reach of your platform (compared to my own substack) should give these ideas much more visibility. Many thanks!
What about the other 6 billion people on earth?
They will be happy to burn every last drop of oil the affluent west replaces with SMR's.
More generally, humans will always desire to use more energy in the quest to raise their standard of living. SMR's will do this by increasing energy supply, not by replacing fossil fuels.
In the last century we have added oil, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables to the energy supply... and coal consumption last year was at an all time high. SMR's will have the same effect.
SMR's are a great path forward, but will not reduce CO2 emissions any more than windmills and solar panels.
If we fail to make nuclear cost LESS than fossil fuels, you'll be proven exactly right, for all the reasons you stated so well.
But if we can make nuclear cost less than energy from FF's, and I'm convinced we can if we really do this right, there's no sane reason to think that the people of the would would choose MORE EXPENSIVE fossil-fuel derived energy sources.
Certain applications--Aviation in particular--will take much longer to solve. It won't take all that long before we can produce clean-burning jet fuel from synthetic hydrocarbons produced using nuclear energy. But making that kind of jet fuel cost less than JET-A refined from Petroleum is admittedly quite a ways off. But most other users of energy will prefer nuclear-sourced energy just as soon as we can make it cheaper than energy from fossil fuels.
Mass-producing nuclear powerplants on robotic assembly lines is what will make it all possible.
Yes, agreed if SMR's are cheaper than fossil fuels. IF.
However, to allow the other 6 billion people to reach our standard of living, you will need a gazillion SMR's and several 100 years. Total energy demand is much higher than today's current consumption... multiples greater.
Also, oil would get cheaper if SMR's actually do replace demand for it. Imagine the price of oil if demand is 50 Mb/day and supply is 100 Mb/day... not going to happen.
Sorry to rain on your parade... SMR's are a fantastic idea and we should proceed as fast as you suggest... but I am sure humans will consume every drop of oil that can be produced at EROI of greater than 1 which will effectively happen before enough SMR's can be manufactured to make oil obsolete.
I'm confused as to who the 'other 6 billion people' you keep referring to are.
As explained in the article, my vision of how to best seize the Nuclear Henry Ford Moment is to mass-produce entire nuclear power plants in state-of-the-art robotic factories, and then install those powerplants all over the world. Part of my plan (not mentioned in this article because it was already too long) is to focus the roll-out on the countries that most need better energy infrastructure first. Counter-intuitively, countries like USA are the last place to roll this out, because USA already has the most competitive electricity market on the planet. The best place to build the first modular nuclear plants will be Africa and otheer parts of the world where electricity is frightfully expensive and more is desperately needed for humanitarian reasons.
So in terms of the 8 billion people who live here on planet Earth, my plan already has them covered. If you're aware of 6bn more on some other planet, I'm afraid I don't have a plan to help them at present.
The six billion people who are not part of the affluent west. Those who aspire to increase their energy consumption 5 fold so they can live at our standard of living. Unless you provide them with enough SMR's for 5X the energy capacity of their present consumption, they will consume all the oil you replace with SMR's. Simply replacing their present consumption is not enough.
I already told you that my plan is to roll out nuclear power plants to those exact 6bn people FIRST, before delivering the same solution to the 'affluent west'.
I'm already well aware that replacing their present consumption is not enough, and I've already explained more than once that my plan is to solve that problem by giving them all the nuclear-generated electricity they need to elevate their standard of living. I don't know how to be more clear than I've already been on that point.
It feels like you didn't bother reading either the article or my responses to your comments before you felt the need to weigh in telling me that the problem with my plan is that it doesn't do precisely what I've now told you several times are the very first things I want to do!
Since we don't seem to be communicating well, I'm going to leave this exchange here and refrain from further comment. I've already addressed your objections several times now.
What about security for these small modular power plants? Arent they going to be easy terrorist targets?
Gigawatt powerplants are hardly 'small', so I'm not sure what 'small modular powerplants' you refer to. My plan is to build LARGE powerplants using small modular reactors to reduce cost of construction. They can be secured just as easily as any other power plant.
Like I said, SMR's are a great idea, but they will never displace oil. Oil supply will be in decline faster than SMR's can replace current and future demand for the entire planet. Nuff said.
I read no lies in this.