Down here we're cautious about mentioning Russia in a EU energy security context lest we get accused of being Putin agents. We nevertheless do get accused of that.
Why an obscure Bulgarian academic is so clear and insightful versus every western energy minister or energy expert is a bit confusing for me. When did the west lose its ability to analyze and assess logically. Good info Irina, thx!
I'm sure the West is full of academics who are clear and insightful... and pressured into silence. I was just thinking that Borislav would make a good energy minister but that's exactly why he probably would never be allowed to, even if he was crazy enough to want it.
Energy security is waning, FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils (FFFF’s) are already being watered down in order to meet an exponential demand for their energy, and to some extent conserve Conventional Oil. Conventional (Crude) Oil peaked around 1970’s since then it’s flat-lined. Crude’s saviour Fracked (Tight Light) Oil) saved the day, but their extraction wells deplete rapidly, some as much as 60/70% in first two years, they are having to be Fracked and Re-Fracked like the Red Queen Syndrome. A large proportion of what is classed as Oil isn’t Oil, for on top of Crude and Tight Lite are Refinery Gain, NG Distillates and Biofuels. Oil is depleting but then it was always FINITE and the number of their consumers is growing exponentially, creating a double whammy.
Nuclear Power in whatever form it takes Grid/Utility sized NPP’s of whatever generation, or SMR’s for electricity or heating, will have to pass as well as regulatory scrutiny, also the publics, and with the threat of use of Nuclear strategic arms now becoming a possibility don’t think the public is going to be that keen. Then there’s the question of Nuclear fuel, as it has been exposed since Ukraine war how dependent nuclear industry has been on processed Uranium fuel from Russia. And then there’s the question of rising cost of FFFF’s to build NPP’s/SMR’s as they require huge amounts of FFFF’s to build them, Conctete, Steel, Construction and Transportation all consuming FFFF’s over years, and then there’s the operational and toxic waste costs. As Vaclav Smil would say “Don’t forget the problem of scale and complexity. So don’t expect a renaissance in NPP’s/SMR’s anytime soon, if ever🤔
"...meet an exponential demand for their energy..."
Proof positive that you are just repeating nonsense, as usual. Not that staring the proof right in your face will cause you to quit lying, but I'll try for the umpteenth time:
Primary Energy consumption USA, Europe, World 1965-2022:
That's a linear increase, a nearly flat curve in Europe & USA. Note that the curve is somewhat inflated in recent years due to BP multiplying wind, solar, hydro by 2.5X and nuclear by 0.8X.
Energy use per capita USA, Europe, World 1965-2022:
Mr Smith, last time we were in conversation you closed the thread on me, I don’t close threads on anyone, exception unless expletive language is used against me and not the argument. None of what you have said or the information supplied contradicts what I’ve written, simply because you are so bigoted you go ranting on about issues that I’ve not even raised. And so as it’s my prerogative to reply or not on this particular thread I won’t be replying to you, sorry but you started it🤔
Thanks - I love hearing from experts and true scientists instead of biased media reporters and pseudo-scientists. Very informative; great overview of whole energy and economic situation.
The fact is that Nuclear Power is being deliberately suppressed and continues to be so in spite of the more supportive rhetoric of the Climate Change stooges, as people are finally waking up to the absurdity of their rabid anti-nuclear stance while touting "it's the end of the world" or "global boiling" CC fear porn.
Nuclear Reactors are machines, actually comparatively simple machines, certainly simpler than a Tesla or a modern Jet Aircraft. You can make a perfectly safe nuclear reactor with a pool of heavy water and some rods of natural uranium you lower or raise into the pool, depending on energy requirements, along with a few control rods of boron or cadmium to maintain criticality. That's pretty simple stuff.
You build machines in factories. If Britain needs an Oil Tanker they don't contract a company to build an Oil Tanker at an Oil Terminal in Edinburgh. You order one from a big shipyard in South Korea where they crank them out by the hundreds. If wind turbines and solar panels were made on site, on demand, they would easily cost a 1000X what they cost now.
A standard design, proven safety analysis means global approval for operational license, just as is done with aircraft, cranked out in factories, like you would do for any machine, and sold for immediate installation and operation. No investment uncertainties, no regulatory bullshit scams, defined cost up front, definite time to operation. A few good examples:
Energy Future Unveiled! THORIUM Molten Salt Reactors, Copenhagen Atomics:
RENEWABLE REACTORS. The Fast Chloride Molten Salt Reactor (FC - MSR) re-defines our perception of nuclear safety and performance. It will create clean, reliable, and low-cost thermal energy, beyond electricity generation. It is a closed-loop nuclear power system that can be indefinitely refurbished (beyond 80-100 years). Pumps and heat exchangers will be serviced periodically, while each core can last at least 40 years.
If our governments REALLY cared about our energy security or climate change (Hint: they don't), they would be financing rapid development of reactors like those for Fast-Trak development using a small fraction of the $5T they've already thrown down the sewer on nutty Wind & Solar scams. The fact that they aren't, tells you the truth about what they are really advocating. i.e. Malthusianism, DeGrowth, Deindustrialization, Wealth Transfer, Impoverishment, Depopulation, Tyranny & Oppression.
The silver lining is that younger progressives are pronuclear primarily because they really believe in the net zero transition. They seem great at doing the math in terms of dense fuel sources but not challenging CO2 emissions’ relation to weather and temperature. Mine is not to reason why. . . The other motivation for nuclear is because fission is approaching it’s 80 to 100 year arc in becoming the next dense fuel after coal and natural gas. People are taking a second look at nuclear energy and see it as a way of providing most of the world with reliable, safe, and affordable thermo and electrical power. The smaller reactors offer all the advantages you mentioned. The US national lab system in the US is excellent, and university research departments have a lot of promising activity going on. Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is moving in the right direction now, but admittedly far too slow. I think it needs one empowered leader in charge (no one person is in charge) of it to follow the mandates Congress has already established. Nuclear energy is the biggest bi-partisan issue in a lifetime right now. It seems the only path available is a natural gas to nuclear (N2N) transition over many decades. Everything is difficult. But we may be looking at a glass half full.
Maybe, seeing is believing. I have very little optimism for the NRC. It's about as corrupted as the FDA, DHS, FBI, CIA, CDC, NIH, if not more so.
The best hope I see is:
1) Some large Developing Nations with high energy demand (i.e. China, India, Indonesia, Brazil) go full on board with Nuclear in response to a national energy crisis, as France did after the Arab Oil Embargo. And don't fool around. Finance a company like Thorconpower to build big nuclear factories. This would embarrass and demean Western governments so badly they would have no choice but to belatedly jump on the bandwagon. Or:
2) Energy crises and associated food crises abound due to shortages of fossil fuels, wars & boycotts by the few countries that control most the energy supplies. Believe me, those nations and big multinational fossil companies are well aware of what happened in the 70's as a response to the oil embargo and NG shortage. Or else they would have done many more supply restrictions since then. Food and energy shortage riots force many countries to switch to Nuclear out of necessity. Or:
3) A breakthrough in Fusion tech, like Helion, Focus Fusion, General Fusion, Pulsed Fusion or TriAlphaEnergy colliding beam fusion occurs. Which isn't immediately suppressed, as Vested Interests will likely try to do.
I don’t disagree. I just think the NRC is responding to bi-partisan pressure to get building the small reactors. My bet is a combination of your 1 & 2. Fission is just easier than fusion right now. I too think it will be an energy related crisis that gets the US serious about building more reactors. To the extent each of us can push nuclear energy to the forefront is better than being idle and negative. I am glad you’re out there talking about this stuff.
Yes, fusion is definitely a wild card, a potential black swan event. One thing is for sure, it is just more diversion that $65B will be wasted on the ITER boondoggle, was precisely the wrong way to approach the fusion problem. From 1970 to 1997 the power produced in Tokamaks grew by a trillionX at a consistent linear pace. Until all the effort went into ITER, the $65B boondoggle, progress has been poor.
TER Is a Suicidal Plan That Would Discredit Nuclear Fusion, Scientist Says, Again:
"20 Nov 2023, You're gonna love this one! Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda - it's a parody of itself! Nonetheless I have a great time taking it down hardcore ;-) Please share widely - you can download vid here too, to share elsewhere: https://we.tl/t-ul4uOAkqMg"
Watch how they are trying to train us to love eating bugs. It's in there.
The mantra these days seems to be - we need all of the above in our portfolio... meaning wind, solar and batteries are included. I am like you - none of those need to expand any further, if people want them in their back yard - go ahead, but utility scale just doesn't work for a modern industrial society, as we are experiencing these days. We have gas for peaker plants when we need them, and nuclear for base load we will be fine.
Nuclear in Bulgaria is based on Russian (mostly outdated) designs fueled by Russian supplied uranium. Not best for national or EU security.
Even in the US most of the uranium is imported since the left and the crazy green has relentlessly campaigned against nuclear.
Doesn’t help that natural gas prices make on demand generation dirt cheap.
If you believe that climate change is not man-made, then natural gas is the clear winner for electric and heat generation by far. Alternatively, if you want less co2 emissions then LOCALLY sourced and fueled nuclear gets a leg up.
Either way, worst way to power a country is solar and wind.
and given the insanity demonstrated by the climate hysterics, who can blame them. I can only imagine that you are not a favorite in certain circles, but definitely a favorite of mine and all of us who recognize the situation
Yes, sadly, I can't blame them either. Thanks for being so kind. Luckily for me, I have no circles to care about, but if I had I would have probably been writing under a pseudonym. This is where we've come to. It's unbelievable.
Very interesting, Irina! Thanks for that exclusive content.
My pleasure!
Very good interview. My only comment is that the word "Russia" seemed to be conspicuously absent in his analysis of European energy security.
Down here we're cautious about mentioning Russia in a EU energy security context lest we get accused of being Putin agents. We nevertheless do get accused of that.
Very interesting. Great content on the important subject of nukes.
Why an obscure Bulgarian academic is so clear and insightful versus every western energy minister or energy expert is a bit confusing for me. When did the west lose its ability to analyze and assess logically. Good info Irina, thx!
Excellent observation.
I'm sure the West is full of academics who are clear and insightful... and pressured into silence. I was just thinking that Borislav would make a good energy minister but that's exactly why he probably would never be allowed to, even if he was crazy enough to want it.
Energy security is waning, FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils (FFFF’s) are already being watered down in order to meet an exponential demand for their energy, and to some extent conserve Conventional Oil. Conventional (Crude) Oil peaked around 1970’s since then it’s flat-lined. Crude’s saviour Fracked (Tight Light) Oil) saved the day, but their extraction wells deplete rapidly, some as much as 60/70% in first two years, they are having to be Fracked and Re-Fracked like the Red Queen Syndrome. A large proportion of what is classed as Oil isn’t Oil, for on top of Crude and Tight Lite are Refinery Gain, NG Distillates and Biofuels. Oil is depleting but then it was always FINITE and the number of their consumers is growing exponentially, creating a double whammy.
Nuclear Power in whatever form it takes Grid/Utility sized NPP’s of whatever generation, or SMR’s for electricity or heating, will have to pass as well as regulatory scrutiny, also the publics, and with the threat of use of Nuclear strategic arms now becoming a possibility don’t think the public is going to be that keen. Then there’s the question of Nuclear fuel, as it has been exposed since Ukraine war how dependent nuclear industry has been on processed Uranium fuel from Russia. And then there’s the question of rising cost of FFFF’s to build NPP’s/SMR’s as they require huge amounts of FFFF’s to build them, Conctete, Steel, Construction and Transportation all consuming FFFF’s over years, and then there’s the operational and toxic waste costs. As Vaclav Smil would say “Don’t forget the problem of scale and complexity. So don’t expect a renaissance in NPP’s/SMR’s anytime soon, if ever🤔
"...meet an exponential demand for their energy..."
Proof positive that you are just repeating nonsense, as usual. Not that staring the proof right in your face will cause you to quit lying, but I'll try for the umpteenth time:
Primary Energy consumption USA, Europe, World 1965-2022:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~USA~Europe+%28EI%29
That's a linear increase, a nearly flat curve in Europe & USA. Note that the curve is somewhat inflated in recent years due to BP multiplying wind, solar, hydro by 2.5X and nuclear by 0.8X.
Energy use per capita USA, Europe, World 1965-2022:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=OWID_EUR~USA~OWID_WRL
Here you see energy use declining in Europe & USA while almost flat Worldwide.
Mr Smith, last time we were in conversation you closed the thread on me, I don’t close threads on anyone, exception unless expletive language is used against me and not the argument. None of what you have said or the information supplied contradicts what I’ve written, simply because you are so bigoted you go ranting on about issues that I’ve not even raised. And so as it’s my prerogative to reply or not on this particular thread I won’t be replying to you, sorry but you started it🤔
Oh no, not again. A typical Neoliberal:
VICTIMESE: The language of identity politics, whining about fake oppression, always playing the victim in all situations.
Ha! You should talk 😠🤔
Thanks - I love hearing from experts and true scientists instead of biased media reporters and pseudo-scientists. Very informative; great overview of whole energy and economic situation.
The fact is that Nuclear Power is being deliberately suppressed and continues to be so in spite of the more supportive rhetoric of the Climate Change stooges, as people are finally waking up to the absurdity of their rabid anti-nuclear stance while touting "it's the end of the world" or "global boiling" CC fear porn.
Nuclear Reactors are machines, actually comparatively simple machines, certainly simpler than a Tesla or a modern Jet Aircraft. You can make a perfectly safe nuclear reactor with a pool of heavy water and some rods of natural uranium you lower or raise into the pool, depending on energy requirements, along with a few control rods of boron or cadmium to maintain criticality. That's pretty simple stuff.
You build machines in factories. If Britain needs an Oil Tanker they don't contract a company to build an Oil Tanker at an Oil Terminal in Edinburgh. You order one from a big shipyard in South Korea where they crank them out by the hundreds. If wind turbines and solar panels were made on site, on demand, they would easily cost a 1000X what they cost now.
A standard design, proven safety analysis means global approval for operational license, just as is done with aircraft, cranked out in factories, like you would do for any machine, and sold for immediate installation and operation. No investment uncertainties, no regulatory bullshit scams, defined cost up front, definite time to operation. A few good examples:
Energy Future Unveiled! THORIUM Molten Salt Reactors, Copenhagen Atomics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27IntvWo4mo
What is ThorCon? ThorCon is a molten salt fission reactor.:
https://thorconpower.com/
https://thorconpower.com/prosperity/
RENEWABLE REACTORS. The Fast Chloride Molten Salt Reactor (FC - MSR) re-defines our perception of nuclear safety and performance. It will create clean, reliable, and low-cost thermal energy, beyond electricity generation. It is a closed-loop nuclear power system that can be indefinitely refurbished (beyond 80-100 years). Pumps and heat exchangers will be serviced periodically, while each core can last at least 40 years.
https://www.exodysenergy.com/
If our governments REALLY cared about our energy security or climate change (Hint: they don't), they would be financing rapid development of reactors like those for Fast-Trak development using a small fraction of the $5T they've already thrown down the sewer on nutty Wind & Solar scams. The fact that they aren't, tells you the truth about what they are really advocating. i.e. Malthusianism, DeGrowth, Deindustrialization, Wealth Transfer, Impoverishment, Depopulation, Tyranny & Oppression.
The silver lining is that younger progressives are pronuclear primarily because they really believe in the net zero transition. They seem great at doing the math in terms of dense fuel sources but not challenging CO2 emissions’ relation to weather and temperature. Mine is not to reason why. . . The other motivation for nuclear is because fission is approaching it’s 80 to 100 year arc in becoming the next dense fuel after coal and natural gas. People are taking a second look at nuclear energy and see it as a way of providing most of the world with reliable, safe, and affordable thermo and electrical power. The smaller reactors offer all the advantages you mentioned. The US national lab system in the US is excellent, and university research departments have a lot of promising activity going on. Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is moving in the right direction now, but admittedly far too slow. I think it needs one empowered leader in charge (no one person is in charge) of it to follow the mandates Congress has already established. Nuclear energy is the biggest bi-partisan issue in a lifetime right now. It seems the only path available is a natural gas to nuclear (N2N) transition over many decades. Everything is difficult. But we may be looking at a glass half full.
Maybe, seeing is believing. I have very little optimism for the NRC. It's about as corrupted as the FDA, DHS, FBI, CIA, CDC, NIH, if not more so.
The best hope I see is:
1) Some large Developing Nations with high energy demand (i.e. China, India, Indonesia, Brazil) go full on board with Nuclear in response to a national energy crisis, as France did after the Arab Oil Embargo. And don't fool around. Finance a company like Thorconpower to build big nuclear factories. This would embarrass and demean Western governments so badly they would have no choice but to belatedly jump on the bandwagon. Or:
2) Energy crises and associated food crises abound due to shortages of fossil fuels, wars & boycotts by the few countries that control most the energy supplies. Believe me, those nations and big multinational fossil companies are well aware of what happened in the 70's as a response to the oil embargo and NG shortage. Or else they would have done many more supply restrictions since then. Food and energy shortage riots force many countries to switch to Nuclear out of necessity. Or:
3) A breakthrough in Fusion tech, like Helion, Focus Fusion, General Fusion, Pulsed Fusion or TriAlphaEnergy colliding beam fusion occurs. Which isn't immediately suppressed, as Vested Interests will likely try to do.
I don’t disagree. I just think the NRC is responding to bi-partisan pressure to get building the small reactors. My bet is a combination of your 1 & 2. Fission is just easier than fusion right now. I too think it will be an energy related crisis that gets the US serious about building more reactors. To the extent each of us can push nuclear energy to the forefront is better than being idle and negative. I am glad you’re out there talking about this stuff.
Yes, fusion is definitely a wild card, a potential black swan event. One thing is for sure, it is just more diversion that $65B will be wasted on the ITER boondoggle, was precisely the wrong way to approach the fusion problem. From 1970 to 1997 the power produced in Tokamaks grew by a trillionX at a consistent linear pace. Until all the effort went into ITER, the $65B boondoggle, progress has been poor.
TER Is a Suicidal Plan That Would Discredit Nuclear Fusion, Scientist Says, Again:
news.newenergytimes.net/2020/12/05/iter-is-a-suicidal-plan-that-would-discredit-nuclear-fusion/
If you want to see what the Overlords/Banksters/WEF/UN are really planning for our future, watch this video:
UNMISSABLE: Main National TV Station Pumps INSANE Propaganda - ENJOY! Ivor Cummins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZwdn2kBcmY
"20 Nov 2023, You're gonna love this one! Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda - it's a parody of itself! Nonetheless I have a great time taking it down hardcore ;-) Please share widely - you can download vid here too, to share elsewhere: https://we.tl/t-ul4uOAkqMg"
Watch how they are trying to train us to love eating bugs. It's in there.
Smart guy. One quibble - if you can build nuclear, why do you need to even think about solar
The mantra these days seems to be - we need all of the above in our portfolio... meaning wind, solar and batteries are included. I am like you - none of those need to expand any further, if people want them in their back yard - go ahead, but utility scale just doesn't work for a modern industrial society, as we are experiencing these days. We have gas for peaker plants when we need them, and nuclear for base load we will be fine.
What an outrageous question. :D
Silly me.
Irena,
Outstanding commentary on the state of global energy today. Keep up your fine work!
Thank you, Jon!
Nuclear in Bulgaria is based on Russian (mostly outdated) designs fueled by Russian supplied uranium. Not best for national or EU security.
Even in the US most of the uranium is imported since the left and the crazy green has relentlessly campaigned against nuclear.
Doesn’t help that natural gas prices make on demand generation dirt cheap.
If you believe that climate change is not man-made, then natural gas is the clear winner for electric and heat generation by far. Alternatively, if you want less co2 emissions then LOCALLY sourced and fueled nuclear gets a leg up.
Either way, worst way to power a country is solar and wind.
Finally, sanity from someone in Europe!
I suspect there are plenty of sane people still left in Europe. They just prefer not to talk, for various reasons.
and given the insanity demonstrated by the climate hysterics, who can blame them. I can only imagine that you are not a favorite in certain circles, but definitely a favorite of mine and all of us who recognize the situation
Yes, sadly, I can't blame them either. Thanks for being so kind. Luckily for me, I have no circles to care about, but if I had I would have probably been writing under a pseudonym. This is where we've come to. It's unbelievable.