Great detective work, Gabe! Governments at all levels behind the scenes actually do lots of good without getting credit - but the minute anything goes wrong, OY! Former democratic governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (2007-15) ordered a safety audit of all his state’s hundreds of bridges after the I-35 bridge collapse in MN. No bridge malfunctions in MA since! Did anyone notice or care?
Right off the bat you go above and beyond the normal corporate media purview. Thanks for this in-depth and informative article on a great bi-partisan piece of legislation! And for going through the major parts of what is in the legislation. Nuclear energy is pretty much our only chance right now to try to bring the electric grid up to speed.
Great stuff! My question is, why isn't anyone, regardless of political affiliation, trying to take advantage of the public relations here? Doesn't any one want to add this as a feather in their cap of work they've done. So many people are displeased with their representatives or the government in general, this seems like an excellent chance to show they've been doing the work. Why stay silent?
Thanks, Gabe, for your piece todaypointing to the need for more electricity generation with nuclear power. It's indeed badly needed, and recent reactor designs are intrinsically safe. But you entirely failed to mention the REAL problem with nuclear: disposing of the spent fuel. It's a long sad story, but the crux is the U.S. failure to create a long-term storage facility. (Finland opened an impressive one not long ago.)
I urge you to look intothe issue - there's a lot of politics involved - and do another piece!
This is honestly one of the best articles I've read in the past year, and probably the single best *political* article I've read in the past year. Substance over showmanship... this is what true political journalism should be all about. Can't believe how young the writer Gabe Fleisher is, either. Excellent reporting and analysis. I literally subscribed to his entire Substack page just because of this one post.
Nukewatch.org and other organizations are documenting the problems with nuclear energy, which include massive denial about what to do with the waste (other than put it on native lands!), refusal to show responsibility about harm already done (downwinders and others who are trying to get compensation and care) and of course, corporate disregard for following regulations when there is a problem such as a leak (Monticello). https://nukewatch.org/
It's almost like if you aren't taking time and attention while flailing around on social media, then nowadays many people will presume that you aren't even trying to do anything at all.
Sorry Gabe ... You need to do a little more research on the nuclear power issue. There are good reasons why it is unlikely we will have any new nuclear power plants built in the US in the next couple of decades. I would bet that a lot of those yes votes were for firefighters - unaware that the nuclear lobby had snuck in another bill they were unable to get passed on its own merits. I do agree that we should take a second look at nuclear energy once it is cost competitive and there is a safe way to deal with the spent fuel rods that are piling up under risky water storage ponds at each plant. Are you curious why no insurance company will cover a nuclear plant and their liability for damages had to be taken on by the Federal Government?
Hey Gabe, which exports is this referring to? "Commerce estimates that the U.S. could generate more than $100 billion in new exports and thousands of new jobs by building more reactors." Radioisotopes for medicine? (I can't imagine the market is that large.) If the logic is more electricity = more exports in general, that's pretty weak tea as a less expensive electricity source (everything is less expensive than nuclear) would do the same thing.
Gabe you’re right that the ADVANCE Act should have been covered by the media, thank you for reporting on it. The fact that Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey were the two no votes makes it suspect in my liberal eyes.
I’m all for zero carbon emissions, but radioactive waste will still be a problem long after you’re drawing Social Security. It’s a forever problem. Once they solve that, then full steam ahead (so to speak). Yucca Mountain is not the solution. In the mean time, stick to wind and solar.
G- trying to sign up for annual subscription but can’t figure it out. I clicked the link in your final email which opened the app but the said I couldn’t change the subscription in the app. Any ideas? Want to support the only place I get my political news. TY.
I think nuclear energy is a potential solution to reducing climate warming. BUT the only problem with nuclear power plants is the safe containment and handling of the highly radioactive waste products. This has not been dealt with and is extremely frightening.
The irony is we were the first and only country to drop an atom bomb and here we are way behind in using nuclear power to generate energy. Oh for another Oppenheimer to figure this out!
Some small nitpicks, not all SMRs are fourth generation, and most aren't more efficient. For example, Nuscale's projects, the AP300, and BWRX-300 are Gen 3+. In the case of the AP300 and BWRX, they're (effectively) scaled down AP1000s and ESBWRs respectively. In the case of the Terrapower project in Wyoming, a sodium fast reactor (SFR) is a Gen 4 reactor, but SFRs were also developed before the light water reactors (LWR) we operate currently, and there's many reasons we built out LWRs instead of SFRs. Finally on the efficiency thing, the reason plants got so large (e.g. North Anna and Surry are ~900 MW LWRs while Palo Verde is a ~1350 LWR and the AP1000s at Vogtle is ~1100 MW), is because they use materials and fuel more efficiency. The BWRX will require about 60% more civil engineering work to be built per MW compared to the large ESBWR. That's not to say SMRs don't have their advantages (lower absolute costs principally), but they are not a magic solution in it of themselves.
Great detective work, Gabe! Governments at all levels behind the scenes actually do lots of good without getting credit - but the minute anything goes wrong, OY! Former democratic governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (2007-15) ordered a safety audit of all his state’s hundreds of bridges after the I-35 bridge collapse in MN. No bridge malfunctions in MA since! Did anyone notice or care?
Other governors too: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna20094855
Right off the bat you go above and beyond the normal corporate media purview. Thanks for this in-depth and informative article on a great bi-partisan piece of legislation! And for going through the major parts of what is in the legislation. Nuclear energy is pretty much our only chance right now to try to bring the electric grid up to speed.
And this, right here, is why I'm happy to subscribe! Thanks for another informative and interesting article Gabe!
Great stuff! My question is, why isn't anyone, regardless of political affiliation, trying to take advantage of the public relations here? Doesn't any one want to add this as a feather in their cap of work they've done. So many people are displeased with their representatives or the government in general, this seems like an excellent chance to show they've been doing the work. Why stay silent?
Thanks, Gabe, for your piece todaypointing to the need for more electricity generation with nuclear power. It's indeed badly needed, and recent reactor designs are intrinsically safe. But you entirely failed to mention the REAL problem with nuclear: disposing of the spent fuel. It's a long sad story, but the crux is the U.S. failure to create a long-term storage facility. (Finland opened an impressive one not long ago.)
I urge you to look intothe issue - there's a lot of politics involved - and do another piece!
Richard Werthamer, PhD
This is honestly one of the best articles I've read in the past year, and probably the single best *political* article I've read in the past year. Substance over showmanship... this is what true political journalism should be all about. Can't believe how young the writer Gabe Fleisher is, either. Excellent reporting and analysis. I literally subscribed to his entire Substack page just because of this one post.
Nukewatch.org and other organizations are documenting the problems with nuclear energy, which include massive denial about what to do with the waste (other than put it on native lands!), refusal to show responsibility about harm already done (downwinders and others who are trying to get compensation and care) and of course, corporate disregard for following regulations when there is a problem such as a leak (Monticello). https://nukewatch.org/
It's almost like if you aren't taking time and attention while flailing around on social media, then nowadays many people will presume that you aren't even trying to do anything at all.
Sorry Gabe ... You need to do a little more research on the nuclear power issue. There are good reasons why it is unlikely we will have any new nuclear power plants built in the US in the next couple of decades. I would bet that a lot of those yes votes were for firefighters - unaware that the nuclear lobby had snuck in another bill they were unable to get passed on its own merits. I do agree that we should take a second look at nuclear energy once it is cost competitive and there is a safe way to deal with the spent fuel rods that are piling up under risky water storage ponds at each plant. Are you curious why no insurance company will cover a nuclear plant and their liability for damages had to be taken on by the Federal Government?
Hey Gabe, which exports is this referring to? "Commerce estimates that the U.S. could generate more than $100 billion in new exports and thousands of new jobs by building more reactors." Radioisotopes for medicine? (I can't imagine the market is that large.) If the logic is more electricity = more exports in general, that's pretty weak tea as a less expensive electricity source (everything is less expensive than nuclear) would do the same thing.
Gabe you’re right that the ADVANCE Act should have been covered by the media, thank you for reporting on it. The fact that Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey were the two no votes makes it suspect in my liberal eyes.
I’m all for zero carbon emissions, but radioactive waste will still be a problem long after you’re drawing Social Security. It’s a forever problem. Once they solve that, then full steam ahead (so to speak). Yucca Mountain is not the solution. In the mean time, stick to wind and solar.
G- trying to sign up for annual subscription but can’t figure it out. I clicked the link in your final email which opened the app but the said I couldn’t change the subscription in the app. Any ideas? Want to support the only place I get my political news. TY.
This right here is why I wish I could afford to be a paying subscriber. ✌🏻
I think nuclear energy is a potential solution to reducing climate warming. BUT the only problem with nuclear power plants is the safe containment and handling of the highly radioactive waste products. This has not been dealt with and is extremely frightening.
The irony is we were the first and only country to drop an atom bomb and here we are way behind in using nuclear power to generate energy. Oh for another Oppenheimer to figure this out!
Some small nitpicks, not all SMRs are fourth generation, and most aren't more efficient. For example, Nuscale's projects, the AP300, and BWRX-300 are Gen 3+. In the case of the AP300 and BWRX, they're (effectively) scaled down AP1000s and ESBWRs respectively. In the case of the Terrapower project in Wyoming, a sodium fast reactor (SFR) is a Gen 4 reactor, but SFRs were also developed before the light water reactors (LWR) we operate currently, and there's many reasons we built out LWRs instead of SFRs. Finally on the efficiency thing, the reason plants got so large (e.g. North Anna and Surry are ~900 MW LWRs while Palo Verde is a ~1350 LWR and the AP1000s at Vogtle is ~1100 MW), is because they use materials and fuel more efficiency. The BWRX will require about 60% more civil engineering work to be built per MW compared to the large ESBWR. That's not to say SMRs don't have their advantages (lower absolute costs principally), but they are not a magic solution in it of themselves.