• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Economics

Ontario leads the way to clean energy credit registry

October 7, 2022 By Rod Adams 6 Comments

OPG and Microsoft link up with Clean Energy Credits (CECs)

On September 26, 2022, Microsoft Canada and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) announced an important agreement for clean energy credits (CECs). The most significant part of the deal was the fact that OPG would supply the credits from its nuclear and hydro-electric plants. Microsoft will procure the credits on an hour by hour basis to match the consumption of its data centers and other energy consuming activities.

Coming from one of the biggest of the Big Tech firms, Microsoft’s action could stimulate a major change in the clean energy landscape, with all non-emitting power sources being treated more equally and their product being more fairly valued against the CO2-intensive hydrocarbons that still dominate the energy market.

Matching consumption as it happens with clean energy allows the company to move closer to its stated 100/100/0 goal, which the company defines as 100 percent of electrons, 100 percent of the time supplied by zero CO2 sources. By shifting its own consumption pattern to meet this goal, the company hopes to move closer to a vision where all of the world’s grids achieve the standard.

The inclusive CECs that Microsoft has agreed to purchase are an expansion of the older, less inclusive system of renewable energy credits (RECs) that have played an important role in making wind and solar power development an attractive investment. Income from RECs has long given developers a return on the clean energy characteristics of their power plants and significantly increased the rate at which the power plants were erected.

Agreement has far reaching implications

The agreement between Microsoft and OPG includes collaboration on the development of a trading, tracking and accounting system using Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing platform. Scaling the system that the companies are developing will increase its climate impact enabling a broader range of providers and customers to participate in a process that recognizes value of clean energy that matches demand when it occurs.

In 2021, the global renewable energy credit market was estimated to be worth more than $12 billion and projected to grow to more than $100 billion by 2030. Though relatively small compared to the amount of capital being deployed in building renewable energy projects, REC income helps make the investment case and speeds development.

Though clean energy credits that value the environmental attributes of hydro and nuclear power are not entirely new, previous programs have been isolated to narrowly defined plants facing specific economic challenges. They were designed to provide a minimal lifeline to prevent plant closure rather than to provide investment incentives or a recognition of the higher value that clean power deserves in a world facing dire threats from climate change.

Developing a clean energy registry in Ontario

OPG/Microsoft’s agreement is a prelude to Ontario’s evolving process of creating a clean energy registry. As it is currently envisioned and described, the system is limited to purchases by Ontario businesses from Ontario suppliers.

The intent of the CEC registry is to offer Ontario industry and consumers a transparent tracking system that shows voluntarily purchased CECs that have been generated in Ontario.

Province of Ontario “Development of a Clean Energy Credit Registry”

In August 2022, Ontario posted a description of its proposed clean energy registry and requested comments. The comment period closed on September 16. The Ministry of Energy is now developing the system and expects it to be operational in early 2023. The Ministry of Energy provided Atomic Insights with a brief summary of their reasons for developing the system and the expected results once the system is operational and being voluntarily adopted.

As environmental and sustainability goals increasingly influence corporate decisions on where to invest and grow, Ontario is leveraging our province’s world class clean electricity grid by launching a voluntary CEC registry to boost competitiveness and attract jobs.

Ontario is continuing its strong economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Along with our highly skilled workforce, available tax credits, and a world-class research and development ecosystem, a CEC registry will contribute to Ontario’s attractiveness as a top destination for manufacturing investment by allowing businesses to meet their corporate sustainability goals and demonstrate that their electricity has been sourced from clean resources. 

Revenue from CEC sales could also provide value for ratepayers and support the future development of new clean energy projects in the province.

This would help to keep costs down for Ontario families, support electrification and help the province reduce emissions even further. 

We anticipate the Clean Energy Credit registry will be operational by early 2023.


Email to Atomic Insights from Ministry of Energy Communications Branch Oct 6, 2022

Will nuclear and hydro CEC sales help increase clean energy production?

It might be a mere coincidence, but three days after announcing that it had sold clean energy credit sale to a very large company, Ontario Power Generation announced that it was going to keep operating the Pickering nuclear power plant through at least 2026. That decision was the result of a request by its sole shareholder, the Province of Ontario.

The short extended period of operations will provide OPG with the time to conduct a reevaluation of its 2009 decision to close Pickering and replace its output with natural gas power production. That 13-year old decision came soon after the global financial crisis and the fracking boom. At the time, even the Sierra Club was calling natural gas clean. Times and the market have changed significantly.

Atomic Insights asked the OPG Media Relations Office if the Pickering announcement and the clean energy program announcement were related.

The Clean Energy Credit market in Ontario is still nascent, as is the market for credits from nuclear facilities, and will need time to develop. OPG will continue to monitor the market as it evolves, and factor any insights and value drivers that can be used into future investment decisions. We are encouraged that Microsoft, an environmentally driven large technology company, with a global footprint, is including nuclear energy in its clean power mix and recognizing the value of nuclear and hydro as clean, baseload generation required in the energy mix to drive to net zero.

Email response to Atomic Insights from Kim Lauritsen, OPG VP – Energy Markets Oct 6, 2022

If the closure decision had not been changed, Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions would have quickly increased by 2.1 million metric tons per year.

Though it is an exciting development for clean energy, the decision to keep operating Pickering still needs approval.

OPG requires approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for its revised schedule. The CNSC, which employs a rigorous and transparent decision-making process, will make the final decision regarding Pickering’s safe operating life. OPG will continue to ensure the safety of the Pickering facility through rigorous monitoring, inspections, and testing.


Ontario Supports Plan to Safely Continue Operating the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station

It is unlikely that the deal with Microsoft will be an isolated occurrence. There are dozens of other large companies, some in the same data center operations business as Microsoft, that have made pledges to power their operations with clean energy that matches demand at the time it exists.

Objections from critics

Despite all of its claimed and potential benefits, the deal has not received universal approval. Critics, some of whom are habitually opposed to nuclear and large hydro, have provided several reasons for their opposition.

  • The arrangement rewards existing power plants whose power is already under contract for something they are already doing. It does not automatically result in additional clean energy.
  • Allowing OPG’s large volume of clean energy, roughly 27 GWe, into the offset market would flood the market, reducing the value of RECs and PPAs for renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
  • There has been no commitment from OPG and no requirement from Ontario that the income from CECs would be directed to development of new clean energy sources
  • Using income from selling CECs to reduce electricity bills would subsidize customers and cause them to use more electricity, presumably from burning natural gas.
  • Sales of clean energy credits to customers outside of Ontario would reduce the cleanliness of Ontario’s power production. It would be double counting to claim a clean grid while selling the attribute of cleanliness to a third party.

Note: Above points have been compiled from several sources that have offered different versions of similar objections. The Atmosphere Fund (Bryan Purcell), Environmental Defense (Lana Goldberg), The City of Ottawa (Mike Fletcher) and Climate New Network Energy Mix (Clifford Maynes).

The objections have a varying degree of validity.

Subsidizes actions that would have been done anyway

Though it’s true that Ontario’s hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants were built several decades ago, it is less true that their electricity production already exists. Every kilowatt hour they produce is a new kilowatt hour that did not exist and is immediately consumed.

Recent history in both Canada and the United States shows that nuclear plants that do not generate sufficient revenue are vulnerable to being shut down. When that happens, they stop creating new clean kilowatt hours. Convincing large companies like Microsoft to pay more for electricity that is worth more because it is clean helps keep those old plants operating.

The objection has more validity for plants that are under contract, but electricity sales contracts generally cover only a moderate period of time. When the contract expires, CECs should be part of the new negotiation.

New CECs will flood the REC/PPA market

The new CECs will initially tip the supply-demand balance in favor of customers. Said another way, they will reduce market prices. But the availability of clean energy credits that can be combined with both firm and variable sources of clean energy to match demand as it occurs could increase the size of the customer base enough to overcome the effect, eventually making all clean energy worth a higher price for customers.

No commitment to use CEC income for more clean energy projects

Ontario is not yet requiring OPG to use the income from CECs to expand its clean energy generation, but the province has requested the extension of Pickering and is strongly supporting OPGs program to build small modular reactors (SMRs) and micro modular reactors (MMRs).

Those programs will be more cost effective in jurisdictions where clean energy fetches a higher price than dirty energy. Big companies and governments are presumably aware of the fungibility of money and the emptiness of promises to use a certain category of income for certain designated purposes.

Using CEC to reduce customer costs

The objection to using income from CECs to reduce costs for consumers reveals something almost sinister among those who object to the program. In today’s market, electricity customers, a group that includes every resident, are stressed by inflationary pressures.

Those pressures are especially worrisome for products like electricity whose use cannot be avoided. With lower electricity prices, customers are likely to celebrate lower monthly bills and shift the dollars to food, medicine and rent. Using more electricity is probably much lower on their list of items they want to buy.

Potential for double-counting if sold outside province

There are good reasons for concern about the effects of CEC sales to customers located outside of Ontario. Claiming cleanliness of Ontario’s grid while simultaneously selling the attribute of clean electricity outside of Ontario is a double-counting tactic that was pursued under the SPEED program in Vermont. It is a practice that must be avoided. As currently described Ontario’s clean energy registry is limited to customers in Ontario from suppliers in Ontario, but this part of the plan deserves careful tracking to make sure it isn’t changed in ways that degrade the program.

Bottom Line: A credible, well structured clean energy registry that allows participation in a technology neutral fashion accessible to both new facilities and established facilities helps clean energy fetch a higher price than dirty energy. It is an important incentive for companies and outside investors to direct their money to systems that reduce emissions and fossil fuel dependence.

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Clean Energy, Economics, Investing

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest?

August 4, 2022 By Rod Adams 19 Comments

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are gaining increased attention as a major opportunity in clean power production. They are a welcome tool in the necessary transition from an energy system dominated by hydrocarbon combustion to one that produces more power for more people with dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

As a partner in Nucleation Capital, a venture capital fund that focuses on the commercial opportunities that are anticipated by advanced nuclear technologies and power systems, I thought it would be useful to discuss reasons why so many are eager for the arrival of the growing slate of smaller nuclear reactors that are under development. For important reasons there are few mentions of individual companies.

Like traditional large nuclear reactors, SMRs generate power from fission. They don’t produce any air pollution components like NOX, SOX, mercury or fly ash. Unlike large reactors, which were built as large infrastructure projects, the expectation is that SMRs can be constructed more quickly from prefabricated components so that they can be rolled out at an increasing rate once they have completed a necessary product demonstration phase.

Some energy observers see SMRs as the appropriate evolution of nuclear for use with a more distributed grid. Others believe the sector has been widely “hyped” in online energy forums but won’t be available in the time frame needed to address climate change. So how should those for whom the term SMR is just now entering their lexicon think about this technology?

Why does fission excite anyone?

Uranium and thorium are two of nature’s most incredible clean energy storage assets. If completely fissioned, a handful of nuclear fuel weighing a kilogram contains more stored energy than 50 large tanker trucks filled with petroleum.

At the current diesel fuel price of $5.60 per gallon, 50 trucks can carry more than $3,000,000 worth of fuel. In contrast, nuclear power plant owners pay approximately $1,700 per kilogram of fuel in the form of finished assemblies.

The tiny waste production per unit energy released is an inherent aspect of concentrated fission reactions. Unlike combustion, all ingredients needed for fission are contained inside fission fuels. (Combustion needs an external source of oxygen in greater masses than the fuel itself.) The mass of fission wastes is slightly less than the mass of fission fuel; the mass of combustion wastes are about 2.5 times the mass of input fuel.

No fission product wastes need to be routinely removed to allow the reaction to continue operating for its design fuel cycle. None need to be discharged to the environment. Fission reactors are clean enough, safe enough and independent enough to operate inside sealed submarines carrying crews of several dozen people. Those submarines have gone to every part of every ocean on the planet.

Fission even works in the vacuum of deep space.

Those physical and economic facts almost beg power plant designers to think about building a wide variety of machines in order to use that amazing source of energy in as many parts of the diverse global energy markets as possible. Power systems using combustion fuels range in size from model trains to multi GWe power stations. Fission-based power systems need sufficient size to support a chain reaction, and to provide adequate shielding, but that still leaves a wide spectrum of potential applications and sizes.

Today, advanced nuclear innovators are designing reactors that will meet the needs of a much broader range of energy users than traditional nuclear could previously address.

Why did fission reactor unit size get so large?

The earliest reactors were small; the core of EBR-I (Experimental Breeder Reactor I) was roughly the size of cylinder that could snuggly contain an American football. It produced a 1.5 MW of heat and 200 kW of electricity. That was enough to power the building that housed it.

Rod Adams at EBR-I behind a replica of the first four lights powered by fission electricity

But since the dawn of the First Atomic Age, the primary design trend has been to strive for ever larger units in hopes of reducing the cost of the electricity they generate. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, engineering degree programs taught that the “economy of scale” meant that equipment cost did not grow as rapidly as capacity.

For example, a pump that could produce ten times as much flow should only cost four times as much based on cost computations using input materials.

Design engineers learned by experience that bigger factories, bigger refineries and bigger mines could produce cheaper commodity products.

Seeing nuclear power plants as electricity factories, they could not help but believe that achieving economy of scale required them to design ever larger reactors and to place them in increasingly large groups at massive power stations.

There is a diseconomy of scale with super-sized units

Hinkley Point C foundation

Larger units can successfully use the economy of scale to lower the cost per unit of output but it isn’t the only kind of scale that can drive down costs. Ever larger units can also run into diseconomies of scale that plague mega-projects in construction, mass transit, sports complexes, and airports.

The experience of the industry in building the Vogtle AP1000s shows that there is such a thing as too large. In contrast, the economies of scale that we believe will aid in the appeal of SMRs takes the form of mass production and is expected to enable the construction of SMRs to more closely follow the declining cost curves experienced by wind and solar projects.

How can smaller reactors be produced and operated economically?

After observing the challenges associated with building only very large nuclear plants, there is a growing field of nuclear system developers who consider nuclear power plants to be a product, not a factory. A phrase that is repeatedly heard at gatherings of modern nuclear system developers is “We want to build airplanes, not airports.”

Entrepreneurial companies that see nuclear power systems as products understand that “scale” means building large quantities of the same product. They need to be positioned to meet the needs of a sufficient number of customers who want to buy enough machines to provide the opportunity to capture cost reductions from “experience curves” where cost declines as a result of cumulative product volume.

One advantage of smaller systems is the improved ability to use factory manufacturing techniques. Of course, the components used in conventional large reactors are produced in factories, but then they are individually shipped to the site to be assembled into an operating plant. With reactors that have the size and complexity closer to that of large ships or commercial aircraft, it is possible to assemble and transport complete or nearly complete products.

Factory workforces have many advantages over site construction workforces. They can improve productivity by repeating similar tasks regularly, They can live and work in cities served by mass transit. They can implement quality assurance techniques and environmental consistence systems that are difficult to achieve at remote large plant assembly sites.

Several of the entrepreneurial advanced nuclear companies are looking to scale their businesses using a hybrid approach. They recognize the need to build large quantities of their power- and heat-generating machines but they have found that there’s a limited universe of customers who want to operate nuclear power systems under current and foreseeable oversight regimes.

One solution to this problem is “Energy as a Service.” Companies can build, own and operate a fleet of their own small modular reactors to produce electricity and heat as the products they sell to willing customers. At least some of the companies following this path are keenly aware that there are numerous advantages to co-locating a significant number of the members of their nuclear fission fleets on each site they develop.

That statement is especially true under current regulatory requirements for security, oversight and quality assurance. Large numbers of smaller units on a single site also take advantage of repeatable, consistent work for the inevitable site-specific parts of erecting a power station. They can share transmission and cooling infrastructure, training, emergency response and administrative facilities.

One more variation on the SMR business model is the detectable emergence of developers that want to build on skills they’ve gained in deploying, owning and operating other kinds of power systems. They believe that certain SMRs, once designs are approved, can be readily integrated by project developers that specialize in engineering, permitting, construction, local politics, working with regional operators, and developing logistical supply chains for projects that blend clean energy production for local grids with water purification, carbon capture, hydrogen production and other revenue opportunities.

What about the waste for small modular reactors?

Lindsay Krall, Rodney Ewing and Allison Macfarlane recently published a paper titled Nuclear Waste from Small Reactors in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science describing the larger surface to volume ratio of smaller reactors as a disadvantage.

Aside: Neutron Bytes published an article with extensive commentary on the study; though there is some overlap between that article and this one, this contains a few additional points of interest. End Aside.

The paper authors chose to conduct their study using publicly available information on three (out of dozens) small modular reactor designs. They looked at an early version of the NuScale Power Module, Terrestrial Energy’s IMSR™, and Toshiba’s 4S (a reactor system that has not been actively marketed since 2011.)

To the surprise of the lead author, that paper received unusual attention from the press.

 I didn’t really know how the article would be released. There was a copy of the paper circulated to the media or to the press some five days in advance of the article’s publication. So, reactor developers were contacted by the press about the article before it was even published. As a scientist, I was just thinking, “Oh, thank God, this paper got accepted, and I don’t have to work with it anymore.” But then the release of the paper shocked me.

Diaz-Maurin,François Interview: Small modular reactors get a reality check about their waste, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jun 17, 2022

The attention was likely related to press releases issued by the host institutions before the study was actually published.

Both NuScale and Terrestrial Energy challenged the study’s conclusions about their systems. Dr. Jose Reyes, NuScale CTO, wondered about the way advanced copies of the study were released to the press and asked PNAS editor-in-chief May R. Berenbaum if PNAS had implemented a new policy about paper promotion.

It seems likely that summaries of the paper’s tenuous conclusions will be repeatedly introduced into discussions of small modular reactors. If not fully understood, the assertions about increased waste production might hamper SMR deployment.

The paper stated that smaller cores leak a larger portion of the fission neutrons and those neutrons activate structural materials. It also stated that increased neutron leakage leads to lower fuel efficiency because a reactor with increased neutron leakage needs a higher concentration of fissile material to maintain criticality.

Discussions with several nuclear design engineers that are not working on SMRs confirmed that those statements contained some truth and were worth consideration, but also described how they did not tell the complete story about waste generation from smaller nuclear plants.

Those design engineers pointed out that a marginal increase in the amount of waste generated per unit energy output would not make much of a difference in the effort needed to address long term storage or disposal of radioactive materials.

The paper expressly ignored the potential to reduce radioactive waste by recycling material and fuel.

This study also neglects to consider reprocessing, recycling, and dilution because these treatments will not eliminate the need for the storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive materials.

Krall, L.M.; Macfarlane A.M.; Ewing, R. C. “Nuclear waste from small modular reactors” PNAS Vol. 119, No. 23 May 31, 2022

In her interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dr. Krall pushed back on the headlines that emphasized the high end of the range of estimates offered. She said that high end estimate of increased waste generation only applied to sodium, a coolant proposed for use by several small and advanced reactor developers.

…for a sodium-cooled reactor, for instance, that sodium coolant is likely to become low-level waste at the end of the reactor’s lifetime, because it becomes contaminated and activated during reactor operation. So, the “up to 30 times more waste” that’s been driving the headlines, it’s mostly the sodium coolant.

Diaz-Maurin,François Interview: Small modular reactors get a reality check about their waste, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jun 17, 2022

For sodium waste, reuse in new reactors has the potential for a dramatic decrease in waste that needs to be processed for disposal, but only if there is a growing population of sodium-cooled reactors.

The potential for reuse of sodium from reactors is limited. The most likely utilization would be as a reactor coolant, but there are currently no LMFRs being constructed where sodium waste is available. (Emphasis added)

IAEA Radioactive Sodium Waste Treatment and Conditioning, Jan 2007. p. 46

Small reactors also have some advantages in fuel and nuclear plant material systems that include recycling. They are going to be easier to disassemble for some of the same reasons that they will be easier to assemble. Recycling factories can be less costly when designed to handle a more steady flow of smaller pieces and parts.

The Krall et. al. study also did not credit advanced reactors with fuel efficiency gains that arise from using operating temperatures that are significantly higher than those that are possible in large light water reactors.

Few of the teams designing SMRs point to reductions in waste generation as a major selling point, but quite a few of the designers point out the potential that fast reactors have for using recycled materials from the current used nuclear fuel stockpile and describe the efficiency gains from reactor systems that are capable of achieving much higher temperatures than conventional light water reactors.

Engineering is a profession that recognizes tradeoffs. Improvements in one design measure often results in a reduced performance in another design measure. Establishing priorities and determining the best overall choices requires expert, detailed knowledge that often isn’t available to outside academics. Small modular reactor developers and their backers have evidently determined that improving passive heat removal, constructibility, financial performance and customer acceptance are more important than the potential for a marginal increase in waste generation.

Waste from smaller modular reactors needs to be well managed, but neither the waste nor the misleading media headlines that appear to detract from the clear benefits of this emerging technology, should be seen as significant hurdles to their successful development.

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic Entrepreneurs, Economics, New Nuclear, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors

What makes smaller nuclear power systems so exciting?

September 21, 2021 By Rod Adams 27 Comments

Let me start by dispelling the notion that I think smaller, modular, manufactured nuclear power systems – often called SMRs or micro reactors – are the be all and end all solution to anything, including climate change or energy security. Though not THE solution, they have the potential to be a crucial, uniquely capable part […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Business of atomic energy, Clean Energy, decarbonization, Economics, Investing, New Nuclear, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors

Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell

February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams 34 Comments

A large number of “hot takes” are appearing now that the cold wave that began arriving on Feb 11, 2021 has moved into areas where sub-freezing temperatures in Feb are normal. If the politically charged nature of the takes could be harnessed, the energy released would be able to keep quite a few homes supplied […]

Filed Under: Economics, Electric Grid, Emergency management, Grid resilience, Nuclear Performance, Unreliables

Atomic Show #289 – All Reactors Large and Small

January 29, 2021 By Rod Adams 16 Comments

Pro-nuclear advocates generally agree that there is a large and growing need for new nuclear power plants to meet energy demands with less impact on the planet and its atmosphere. There is frequent, sometimes passionate discussion about the most appropriate reactor sizes, technologies and specific uses. Atomic Show #289 is a lively discussion among some […]

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Economics, New Nuclear, Podcast

Atomic Show #271 – Improving Nuclear Cost and Schedule Performance

April 15, 2020 By Rod Adams 5 Comments

One of the most persistent arguments against the rapid deployment of nuclear energy is that projects are too expensive and take too long to complete. Based on the performance of the few nuclear plants that have begun construction in the West during this century, it’s hard to disagree. But there is solid evidence from projects […]

Filed Under: Business of atomic energy, Economics, Podcast

Turning nuclear into a fuel dominated business

October 28, 2018 By Rod Adams 66 Comments

Under our current energy paradigm, nuclear power has the reputation of needing enormous up-front capital investments. Once those investments have been made and the plants are complete, the payoff is that they have low recurring fuel costs. Just the opposite is said of simple cycle natural gas fired combustion turbines. They require a small capital […]

Filed Under: Adams Engines, Advanced Atomic Technologies, Business of atomic energy, Economics, Gas Cooled Reactors, Graphite Moderated Reactors, Pebble Bed Reactors, Smaller reactors

Why can’t existing nuclear plants make money in today’s electricity markets?

July 25, 2018 By Rod Adams 42 Comments

What does it mean when nuclear plant owners tell people that their plants are struggling to make money in competitive markets as currently structured? They are attempting to more precisely state what is often misleadingly dismissed by journalists as “nuclear plants cannot compete.” The more commonly used statement gives the impression that nuclear plants produce […]

Filed Under: Alternative energy, Atomic politics, Economics

With immediate and profound changes, U.S. nuclear power can become an unexpected but welcome low carbon wedge

July 9, 2018 By Rod Adams 91 Comments

Researchers from Carnegie Mellon, University of San Diego, and Harvard recently published a useful call to action titled U.S. nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge. For pro-nuclear observers and debaters, their conclusion may seem quite depressing. It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Business of atomic energy, Economics

Atomic fission technology is a terrible candidate for a “do not resuscitate” order. Antinuclear groups MUST not be granted right to put one in place

April 10, 2018 By Rod Adams 50 Comments

I’m going to beg forgiveness and literary license for the following extended, potentially inappropriate, and perhaps too personal metaphor. For several weeks, I’ve been struggling with finding my “voice” in dealing with current events related to the U.S. electricity production system. As part of my healing process, I went on a several day long reading […]

Filed Under: Atomic Advocacy, Economics, Fossil fuel competition

Is America’s vaunted electricity supply system on course for rocks and shoals?

April 2, 2018 By Rod Adams 41 Comments

Late last week, while many observers were focused on a long weekend of religious celebrations with friends and families, there were several announcements made in the slowly developing crisis in the American electricity supply system. Operators of a number of several large power plants with the ability to produce electricity night and day, wind or […]

Filed Under: Economics, Fossil fuel competition, Grid resilience

Logical Basis For Sec. Rick Perry’s Resiliency Pricing Rule.

October 30, 2017 By Rod Adams 18 Comments

The intense conversation Energy Secretary Rick Perry purposely initiated with his Sept. 29 letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission continues to occupy the attention of specialists. The direction was concise: implement pricing rules that protect electricity generators that meet certain requirements from being pushed into early retirement. The marching orders came with an aggressive but […]

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Business of atomic energy, Economics, Politics of Nuclear Energy

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Rod Adams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Michael Scarangella on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Gareth on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy