SOURCE:
Why solar is not the solution to the energy crisis (substack.com)
Next generation nuclear power is clean, efficient, and environmentally friendly. Most of the waste products can be recycled over and over and the remaining part is short lived. Why was it killed?
Read this tweet thread about solar power from my friend Michael Shellenberger:
These next generation reactors, such as the sodium-cooled integral fast reactor (IFR), are extremely safe because if the cooling goes bad, the reactor safely shuts down based on the laws of physics.
These reactors also recycle their own waste on site so the nuclear material can be used over and over again (a method known as pyroprocessing).
There is a very small amount of “waste” product but it can be safely stored and becomes “safe” after less than 100 years (and we know how to store things safely on those time frames vs. thousands of years required for traditional nuclear waste).
President Bill Clinton killed the next gen nuclear power program
Sadly, Bill Clinton killed the program (which was supported by both Democratic and Republican Presidents) for political reasons (the oil companies didn’t like the competition).
President Clinton never talked directly to any of the scientists involved in the program to learn their side of the story before he stopped the program. It would be nice if he made a statement regretting his decision, but people never like to admit they were wrong.
In America, before making important decisions, the decision makers often hear only one side of the story. People with differing views are silenced or not consulted.
This has been going on for decades. Collectively, we are all paying the price for such poor decision-making.
Some of the people who created the IFR are still alive
Chuck Till and Yoon Chang are the two people most knowledgeable about this work. It is world-class thinking and it is very sad that it is likely they will die before seeing their work adopted.
My readership is worldwide and perhaps the leader of some nation will pursue this idea with the funds it deserves.
Yoon Chang and I did meet with Bill Gates, but instead of funding the slam dunk solution, he decided to fund scientists working on a “better” design. At least he listened to the pitch (but did so well after he started funding TerraPower). I give him credit for that.
But he should have funded both… the bird in the hand (IFR) and the bird in the bush (TerraPower).
In my opinion, had Elon Musk invested in building next gen nuclear power instead of Twitter, we’d be in a better position for our future than we are today.
Wouldn’t it be great if a large enlightened oil company realized we have passed peak oil and looked to diversify their revenue stream and developed the technology in a supportive country?