• 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

Investing

Enough with “renewables!”

December 31, 2022 By Valerie Gardner 9 Comments

The American Nuclear Society posted an article entitled How a nuclear victory at COP27 started with a teen and a text reporting on the wonderful story of Ia Aanstoot. This is the 17-year old Swedish highschool student who effectively saved the day for nuclear at COP27 by alerting a WhatsApp chat group with the right people in it, that the final language being used by the COP27 negotiating team for its agreement used the term “renewables” rather than “clean energy” and so excluded consideration of nuclear. 

Through a chain of texts and resulting prompt action by senior US officials which were relayed back to the negotiating room, a potential clean energy disaster was averted. Given that there was a quick fix, it seems that the whole threatened exclusion problem arose less because of some deliberately nefarious effort by negotiators to exclude nuclear but rather was due to misguided if casual usage of the word “renewables.” The good news is that, as far as COP27 showed, nuclear energy is sitting at the clean energy table again.

The bad news is that many people, including top negotiators, don’t think about the implications of their use of the this word. If nothing else, this story highlights the confusion and potential pitfalls caused by using “renewable,” which is a form of jargon, rather than what is really meant. Some folks use this particular term to cause confusion and some use it because they are confused. In the COP27 case, the use appears to have been inadvertent. Still it seems wise to point out how use of this particular word causes confusion, problems and contributes to our inability to make good climate decisions.

We need “Clean” energy to address Climate Change

When it comes to choosing which types of energy technology to prioritize and build in order to address climate, we need to stay focused on low-carbon sources, or what we now call “clean” energy. Many people may not realize that all of what is “renewable” is not “clean.”

Renewable energy is defined to focus on types of energy that come from “sources that cannot be depleted or which naturally replenish,” an appealing concept but actually a red herring with respect to carbon emissions. Clearly, some types of renewables are low and non-carbon-emitting energy sources, such as wind and solar. But some renewables are highly emitting sources of energy, namely bioenergy, which includes burning ancient forests, also called biomass energy.

Technically, under the proper conditions and given hundreds of years, forests will grow back. But this is not going to happen in the timeframe which matters to humanity. We have an urgent problem and need to halve global emissions by 2030 and eliminate emissions entirely by 2050. We can’t afford to either lose more forests or wait for trees to grow. Thus, what really matters is knowing whether or not there are carbon emissions that come a source of energy and not whether it might eventually be replenished, even if too late to matter.

We can get this information by looking at the carbon-intensity of energy. We consider low-carbon-intensity “clean” and high-carbon-intensity “dirty.” Unfortunately, many simply assume that all renewables are “clean” but that’s not the case. Bioenergy emits as much carbon as fossil fuels. People applaud our progress when they hear that the percentage of renewables is growing. Yet, according to Bioenergy International, bioenergy produced more than 2/3rds of the energy labelled “renewable.” And that generates high levels of emissions, so this is actually not progress towards emissions reductions.

Lately, the large and growing bioenergy industry has been seen as contributing massively to deforestation. Yet, bioenergy has the burnish of appearing to be “green” because it’s made the political cut and is included as “renewable.” This means that companies cutting down trees have benefitted from the subsidies and incentives intended to increase clean energy. Fortunately, many are starting to be more discerning and are specifically excluding ecologically-damaging types of bioenergy as unsustainable and not worthy of prioritization with climate-focused subsidies.

Politics, lobbying and powerful ideologic preferences are what have brought the term “renewable” into vogue in the first place. This also means that what’s included as renewable differs from place to place. California specifically excludes large hydro power but includes small hydropower stations. Not because large hydro emits more carbon or doesn’t rely on the renewing resource of rain but rather because California policymakers decided dams posed too great an ecologic impact and didn’t want to prioritize building more large dams. In other places, renewables includes large hydro. The fact that the definition of what’s renewable varies from place to place, contributes to confusion and lack of clarity. When folks in California hear that there are Canadian provinces running almost entirely on renewable energy, they may think that means they’ve succeeded in building out lots of wind and solar. In fact, it’s predominantly large hydro—which isn’t counted as “renewable” in California.

Nuclear’s Contributions to Clean Energy are Sidelined

The biggest problem by far with using the term renewable, however, is that it is invariably defined to exclude nuclear power. This causes the entire nuclear industry—which for decades has produced more clean energy than all other low-carbon sources combined—to be discounted and even sometimes excluded. Not surprising since nuclear has long been maligned and even demonized. Even so, the omission of nuclear as a renewable energy source, whether intentional or not, causes significant problems for those trying to use good data to address climate change.

We cannot make good decisions about how to invest in new energy generation if we don’t get good information about where our clean energy is coming from. Most energy agencies now include reports on levels of Renewables, because they are politically potent. They don’t create reports based on carbon intensity (such as by grouping the low-carbon energy technologies and the high-carbon energy technologies). Thus, people are not shown that their nuclear power plants are contributing to the clean energy being produced. This may induce them to think that nuclear is carbon-emitting—which it isn’t. They will think biofuels are a good thing for the climate—they aren’t. They will also think we have less clean energy than we actually do and agree to pay for more renewables. In certain areas, nuclear power plants are not even credited with producing carbon-free energy that counts towards the region’s clean energy goals! Which explains why folks (like in Downstate New York) are willing to allow craven politicians (like former Governor Cuomo) to shut down perfectly good nuclear power plants (like Indian Point). In short, the focus on “renewables” also produces misleading data.

New York is a perfect example. New York’s Independent System Operator, NYISO (whose stated vision is “Working together with stakeholders to build the cleanest, most reliable electric system in the nation”) provides stakeholders with two types of pie charts on its Real-Time Energy Dashboard: “All Fuels” and “Renewables.” You can see all of the types of energy that contribute to the fuel mix powering the state in the sample chart on the left but the chart doesn’t reflect carbon intensity, so you won’t be able to see which types of energy are contributing to climate change and which aren’t. (Click charts to enlarge.)

NYISO’s second chart, Renewables, also doesn’t show carbon intensity or provide information about what’s “clean” or not. This subset includes hydro, wind and “other renewables” (shown to include solar, methane, refuse and wood). In this example, hydro appears to be the largest source of clean energy for the state. Anyone could easily interpret these two charts to think that the first shows all types of energy and second shows those that are “green” (i.e. “clean”‘.) This of course is wrong and misleading. All the types of energy shown in the green color are not “green,” low-carbon sources. Additionally, the second chart omits showing the largest source of New York’s clean energy generation. Shame on you, NYISO. Rate-payers deserve to be shown all of New York’s low-carbon energy. Your job is to deliver less jargon and more facts! Such a chart would make it very clear that nuclear energy was producing the majority of New York’s clean energy, like the below mock up created by the Climate Coalition (and explored in an article called “NYISO’s Deceptive Reports“):

The Climate Coalition’s mock-up of the type of chart not provided by NYISO

New York is not alone in producing deceptive reports that mislead viewers and also serve to undermine support for nuclear energy. Most state system operators follow this same pattern. These professionals are all aware of the climate crisis and the importance of educating people about sources of clean energy—but they are under political constraints. It seems oblivious, if your goal is “building the cleanest and most reliable grids” then what people need are reports which show “Emitting/DIrty” energy vs “Non-Emitting/Clean” energy types. These agencies know that Petroleum, Natural Gas, Coal and Bioenergy (biofuels/biowaste/biomass, etc) emit carbon at very high levels. They also know that Nuclear, Large Hydro, Small Hydro, Wind, Solar and Geothermal have significantly lower emissions attributed to them and so do not substantially contribute to climate change, regardless of your politics. Yet even the US Energy Information Agency fails to provide data in a useful format that avoids jargon and provides an accurate picture of how well we are doing addressing climate change. Take this chart for example:

The EIA helpfully groups Fossil Fuels and Renewables together but doesn’t show what’s actually clean energy, so we know how well we are doing reducing emissions. Again, a more useful presentation would be one centered around carbon emissions rather than jargon. Here’s the same exact data organized by Nucleation Capital in a way that reflects CO2 emissions. It’s much easier to see the decarbonization achieved in these 12 years:

When I contacted the EIA and asked whether they had any reports that just show energy generation based upon relative impact on climate, I was told “we do not categorize energy sources subjectively as clean or dirty.” Hmm, why not?

This problem reflects persistant nuclear prejudice and the political popularity of renewables, despite their increasingly obvious poor performance at reducing emissions. This was the gist of a study that was published by Atte Harjanne and Janne M. Korhonen in 2018 entitled “Abandoning the concept of renewable energy.” They write: “In politics, business and academica, renewable energy is often framed as the key solution to the global climate challenge. We, however, argue that the concept of renewable energy is problematic and should be abandoned in favor of more unambiguous conceptualization . . . [as] the key problems the concept of renewable energy has in terms of sustainability, incoherence, policy impacts, bait-and-switch tactics and generally misleading nature.”

Again, it is important to distinguish between those who don’t like the types of energy labelled as “renewable,” and what we are suggesting here. We find that use of the term “renewable” is misleading with respect to the metrics that matter the most to the public and policymakers. The debate about whether or not we should be using solar, wind or biofuels is not what we are concerned with here. Those are worthy debates which endeavor to look at whether or not the amount of land, mined materials, manufacturing, installation, ecosystem impacts, and all-in firming and transmission costs are worthwhile investments achieving both our decarbonization and grid reliability goals. We are not even questioning the merit of considering certain technologies as “renewable” when forests are being cut down with no guarantees of being replanted. We are only questioning the merit of grouping a limited set of technologies into a catch-all term that is used as a proxy for “clean energy,” when it’s not. Confusing jargon that elevates some technologies, excludes others without true reference to emissions is not helping us make good decisions towards our carbon-reduction goals.

We need clear and accurate information on climate impacts as we make increasingly large investments in transitioning our energy systems, commiting us to energy projects that will have 20, 30, 50-year and longer life-spans. For this, we definitely should avoid anything that hints at ambiguity and stick with what we mean: clean energy. So, in 2023, let’s work to reject use of the word “renewable” and demand that we focus on the distinction that does matter: carbon intensity. Without clear language and understanding, neither the public nor those negotiating our future world agreements can be expected to make good decisions.
___________________

Citations

1. “How a Nuclear Victory at COP27 Started with a Teen and a Text,” by Amelia Tiemann, published by NuclearNewswire, December 15. 2022.

2. “Renewable Energy Explained: Overview and Types” by EnergySage.

3. “Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada” by Joe Crowley and Tim Robinson, published in BBC News, October 3, 2022

4. “Under dinosaurs reign, bioenergy the largest renewable energy source,” by Bioenergy International, December 10, 2020.

5. “Australia rejects forest biomass in first blow to wood pellet industry,” by Justin Catanoso, published by Mongabay, December 21, 2022.

6. New York Independent System Operator “Real-Time Dashboard.”

7. ResearchGate: “Abandoning the concept of renewable energy”, by Atte Harjanne and Janne M. Korhonen, December 2018.

Filed Under: 100% WWS, Alternative energy, Atomic history, Biomass, Clean Energy, Climate change, decarbonization, Electric Grid, Grid resilience, Investing, rhetoric, Solar energy, Unreliables, Wind energy Tagged With: 100% renewables, Amelia Tiemann, ANS, Climate Coalition, Gov. Cuomo, Ian Aanstoot, Indian Point, New York Independent Serivce Operator, Newswire, NuClear, NYISO, renewables, US Energy Information Agency

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

How Hot is Cold Fusion?

August 12, 2022 By Valerie Gardner 51 Comments

The 24th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF24) was held at the lovely and spacious Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA over four days in late July. As a venture investor looking at evaluating and investing in a wide range of advanced nuclear ventures, I was invited to participate and/or sponsor the event. While […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Alternative energy, Atomic Pioneers, Clean Energy, Climate change, Cold Fusion, Conferences, ICCF24, Innovation, International nuclear, Investing, Low Energy Nuclear Reactors, New Nuclear, Smaller reactors, Solid-State Energy, Venture Capital Tagged With: Anthropocene Institute, Carly Anderson, cold fusion, Florian Metzler, ICCF, ICCF24, LENR, low energy nuclear reactions, Matt Trevithick, multi-body interactions, Nucleation Capital, solid-state fusion energy

Atomic Show #296 – Julia Pyke, Director of Finance Sizewell C

March 12, 2022 By Rod Adams 41 Comments

Sizewell C is a project to build a 3,200 MWe power station consisting of two EPR units on the site that currently hosts a single large pressurized water reactor (Sizewell B). With the exception of site-specific foundations and structures, the new power station will be a copy of the station currently under construction at Hinkley […]

Filed Under: Business of atomic energy, International nuclear, Investing, New Nuclear, Podcast Tagged With: Atomic Show, clean energy policy, finance, Julia Pyke, nuclear finance, Sizewell C, United Kingdom

Catching Oklo — a rising star!

December 14, 2021 By Rod Adams 45 Comments

Update: On Jan 6, 2022, the NRC denied Oklo’s COA application “without prejudice.” Power published an article titled NRC Dismisses Application for Oklo Advanced Nuclear Reactor that provides a solid early summary of the action and its implications. A new generation of clean energy is on the horizon Oklo is a clean energy company that […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Investing, Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors, Micro Reactors, New Nuclear, Small Nuclear Power Plants

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

Nucleating our carbon-managed future

April 22, 2021 By Valerie Gardner 104 Comments

If you’ve studied chemistry, you’ll know that the nucleation point describes the start of a change in physical state, such as from a solid to a liquid, or liquid to gas. Water starting to crystallize into ice nucleates where the first H2O molecules reorganize as a solid. We’re seeing a similar transformation of human society—forced […]

Filed Under: Aging nuclear, Atomic Advocacy, Clean Energy, Climate change, decarbonization, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, Fossil fuel competition, Grid resilience, Innovation, Investing, New Nuclear, Pro Nuclear Video, Venture Capital Tagged With: CCUS, nuclear investment, Nucleation Capital

Change is in the wind: Commencing a new phase as a Venture Capitalist

February 3, 2021 By Rod Adams 11 Comments

Atomic energy is a tool that is capable of helping address some of humanity’s most wicked challenges. Clean, abundant, reliable and affordable power makes everything we do a little easier and is becoming increasing urgent in the era of climate change. Unfortunately, atomic energy is a long way from reaching its potential or even achieving […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic Entrepreneurs, Clean Energy, Climate change, decarbonization, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, Investing, New Nuclear, Venture Capital

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