Is Regulation Strangling Nuclear Energy?

Is overzealous regulation the root cause of the contemporary crisis in deployment of nuclear reactors in the USA? James Krellenstein argues that Nuclear Regulatory Commission critics are trapped in the 1980’s and that the spectre haunting today’s deployments are not primarily regulatory. Due to simplified systems and lower material costs modern NRC approved passive reactors should be cheaper than complex Gen 2 reactors. In addition there are 17 licensed sites with combined construction and operating licenses in the USA ready to go. All that and more on this week’s episode.

Listen to Decouple on:

[daniellarson]

This guy knows his stuff. FSAR, Tech Specs, USAR, PSAR and all the various regulations - Good thing there's somebody that takes an avid interest in that kind of thing.

[mhirasuna]

@1:03:42, James asks what are the regulations that could be eliminated that would make NPPs cheaper. Chris was not prepared for this question. How about the regulations that prevent the release of radioactive gases if there is a meltdown. These gases are far less dangerous than the exhaust from coal plants and would prevent an explosion that would release a lot more radioactive material. Bret Kugelmass called this a safety regulation that makes NPPs less safe.

[GreezyWorks]

"Self-licking ice cream cone". That metaphor does not get nearly enough dramatic pause it deserves.

[piotrturek]

This guy is a great example of how the nuclear industry keeps sabotaging itself. He is clearly very bright and highly educated in the space. He is effortlessly shooting anecdotes and relevant examples like a Browning machine gun, to support his position. And yet... he completely fails to make a clear, concise, convincing, practical, actionable argument that viewers, policymakers, and the industry itself can understand, accept, and act on. Analysis paralysis, overengineering, all analysis, no synthesis.... If a policymaker who's on the fence regarding nuclear energy listens to this podcast, they are more likely than not gonna end up concluding that it's a confusing mess and a lost cause. Is this really the outcome James is aiming for?

The nuclear industry badly needs more pragmatic, entrepreneurial minds with multidisciplinary engineering background, who can communicate well and understand normal people, and fewer of the hardcore academic types who happily tie themselves in overintellectualized knots for fun

[scottmedwid]

Well, I already know I'm gonna be listening to this podcast a couple more times. It's an understatement to say "I learned a lot listening to your Q&A, and comment on Nuclear regulation.

[davidwilkie]

Keep adding "nauseum", the next fleet is unfinished. Awesomly Great Commentary! "Rome wasn't built in a day", but it worked for a thousand years, and we're only looking at 8-9 decades so far if we can get the Holographic Principle nucleation chemical bonding circuit adjusted for purpose.

[scottmedwid]

17 GW of permitted new build capacity. What do we need to do to get those machines built and in operation? I know there are several rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric cooperatives around the country, have them band together and buy up all this capacity for their use and distribution for their citizen members. That spreads the risk and extra cost of the first several units and the development of a North American supply chain. I think it's the quickest way to catch up with the Chinese. I know I've been talking to Mike or electric cooperative I'm gonna go back in this next week After a little bit of study and re-watching this fine video excellent work, Dr. Chris

[philipwilkie]

My reading is that it's been a combination of factors. Irrational fearmongering, misaligned incentives in the industry, loss of industrial capacity and poorly directed regulation have all played their part. The persistence of bad science around LNT has not helped matters either.

The fact of the US Senate recently passing legislative - with a highly bi-partisan vote - to reframe and refresh the NRC has to tell us that regulatory evolution has been necessary.

Although I accept that the loss of experienced and capable people in the industry is probably the most critical problem at the moment. Maybe the US should consider poaching a few good Rosatom people with very high pay.

[EricMeyer]

Awesome episode. I always learn a ton from James!

[mikesnyder]

Excellent program. I think just the right amount of detail. James is really wonderful at providing the relevant history.

I am also interested in the topic of advanced reactors because I believe a (future) reactor design that produces more economical power than coal is key to adoption in 3rd world countries, and to greenhouse gas reduction. Any chance of a future podcast on that topic?

[oliverschultz]

Thank you for the valuable discussion Sirs! Mr. Krellenstein is extremely knowledgeable, highly intelligent, and rhetorically-adept, but speaking as a plain layman, I'm still unable to support nuclear because of the basic, apparently unsolved problem of waste disposal/storage/management. Also, general safety and pollution risks, plus insane financial construction costs seem like legitimate causes for precaution when considering expansion of the nuclear energy (and armament) industry in this day and age.

[dastankuspaev]

They should allow building npps with regular grade concrete

[ninefox]

Another excellent show with James. I'd be interested in hearing what James thinks pro nuclear community should be focusing on if not regulation.

[chaptertravels]

The root cause is the principles behind a LWR. To keep a high-pressure reactor from melting down and containing hydrogen explosions is inherently expensive. Then you have an overzealous regulator that makes the construction tolerances next to impossible to meet. Then you have the nuclear-rated low-temperature power conversion equipment. Combine those with an inefficient use of fuel and you get a really expensive power plant no matter what.

How might this be solved,

Maybe, just maybe by building low-pressure/high-temperature reactors that don't need any of those expensive protections and work with off-the -shelf power conversion equipment. Combine that with very high efficiency and process heat and you get a cheap power plant and cheap industrial heat.

Now if there were just some companies developing such a reactor. maybe someone like TerraPower, Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, Seaborg, Dual Fuel, Exodys Energy, Copenhagen Atomics, Thorcon, or Oklo, or, or, or.
All it takes is one of them to be successful and no one ever builds another PWR ever again.

[Nill]

Getting to be the Krellenstein-NRC podcast. Where’s Ted Nordhaus?

[aliendroneservices]

1:07:15 "The AP1000 utilized 342 modules..."

[Nill]

Yes. Over regulation is the problem. NRC has had clearly malevolent actors. Now do something about it, and enough w the hand waiving about a better reactor, hand holding finance, etc.

[philipwilkie]

Well I've listened to the whole thing and still missed exactly what Krellenstein really thinks the 'rate limiting step' actually is. And while standardisation is obviously desirable, it stands in eternal tension with innovation.

[jjuniper]

I think I understand this, but Simon Michaux has said that the reason we use uranium is to mask our nuclear weapons buildup.

He thinks thorium is a better choice, but we were in a cold war when the program took off, so we used the more volatile option.

[msxcytb]

The cases like mentioned Shoreham set the precedence on high risk of the projects. Active enough opposition effectively being able to torpedo giant investment is a terrible case to see for any company/state willing to decarbonise. Organising such opposition is also incredibly cheap perspective for if it benefits multibillion NatGas corporation long time interests. System of regulations which enables that is wrong. Only strong support of well informed population which would not be swinged by cheap fear-mongering could oppose it(?)