?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John Stossel
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John Stossel
What demise? Note that no new plant construction has been started in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over budget).
<snip link to political website>
On 7/15/2026 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John Stossel
What demise? Note that no new plant construction has been started in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over
budget).
<snip link to political website>
There are about 300 of the new SMR nuclear steam plants on order in the
USA alone.
The DOE - NRC is sitting on them and refusing to give out
licenses. The latest controversy is whether or not they will need a >containment dome which increases the cost significantly.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John Stossel
What demise? Note that no new plant construction has been started in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over
budget).
<snip link to political website>
There are about 300 of the new SMR nuclear steam plants on order in the
USA alone.
None of which have even started the permitting process. None of which
have ever split a single atom.
The DOE - NRC is sitting on them and refusing to give out
licenses. The latest controversy is whether or not they will need a
containment dome which increases the cost significantly.
Better safe than sorry. As it happens, solar, wind and batteries
can easly provide sufficient power for the US of A, but the orange clown doesn't like renewables because they don't funnel money and favors to
his buddies in the fossil fuel industry.
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >claims?
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John Stossel
What demise? Note that no new plant construction has been started in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over
budget).
<snip link to political website>
There are about 300 of the new SMR nuclear steam plants on order in the
USA alone.
None of which have even started the permitting process. None of which
have ever split a single atom.
The DOE - NRC is sitting on them and refusing to give out
licenses. The latest controversy is whether or not they will need a
containment dome which increases the cost significantly.
Better safe than sorry. As it happens, solar, wind and batteries
can easly provide sufficient power for the US of A, but the orange clown doesn't like renewables because they don't funnel money and favors to
his buddies in the fossil fuel industry.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where
power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of
them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
And of course the carriers and the subs do not have containment other
than the sub pressure walls.
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where
power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of
them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land filled and replaced. Musk is very proud that Tesla has gotten their batteries up to 4,000 charge cycles. Their first batteries were only
1,000 charge cycles.
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where
power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of
them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
BTW, the space ship in the "Summer's End" book I just reviewed has two
300 MWe fission reactors for powering the gravity plates on the ship.
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where
power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of
them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where
power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of
them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land >filled and replaced.
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where
power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of
them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
BTW, the space ship in the "Summer's End" book I just reviewed has two
300 MWe fission reactors for powering the gravity plates on the ship.
On 7/15/2026 5:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John Stossel >>>>>
What demise? Note that no new plant construction has been started in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over
budget).
<snip link to political website>
There are about 300 of the new SMR nuclear steam plants on order in the
USA alone.
None of which have even started the permitting process. None of which
have ever split a single atom.
The DOE - NRC is sitting on them and refusing to give out
licenses. The latest controversy is whether or not they will need a
containment dome which increases the cost significantly.
Better safe than sorry. As it happens, solar, wind and batteries
can easly provide sufficient power for the US of A, but the orange clown
doesn't like renewables because they don't funnel money and favors to
his buddies in the fossil fuel industry.
Do you have numbers supporting this contention?
You skipped hydropower.
...and I'd be very surprised if you can do it without nukes.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >>> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >>> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
[citation needed]
AFAIK, permanent US military bases run off the local grid with on-site
backup as needed. The only use case for highly enriched uranium in the
US military is for naval reactors (e.g. carriers and submarines).
And of course the carriers and the subs do not have containment other
than the sub pressure walls.
Eh, first of all, there is the reactor pressure vessel itself. And the reactor compartment is IIRC also set up for isolation from the rest of
the boat. Also, since one is on a boat, there isn't exactly the space
and weight budget for the kind of massive concrete dome nuclear power
plants tend to use. And finally, there is good old Rickover's design philosophy, according to which nuclear reactors only belong on vessels
that quietly disappear if there are problems (yes, Congress forced him
to put nuclear reactors on carriers, much against his resistance).
Kind regards,
Alex.
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire˙ <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the
electricity needs of the USA?˙ Or is this just another one of your wild
claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there.˙ The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where
power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution.˙ The bad thing
about
them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of
them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels,
and
about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land filled and replaced.˙ Musk is very proud that Tesla has gotten their batteries up to 4,000 charge cycles.˙ Their first batteries were only
1,000 charge cycles.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >>> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >>> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
I've been on several military bases. None of them had nuclear power
plants.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the
power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >>> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >>> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land
filled and replaced. Musk is very proud that Tesla has gotten their
batteries up to 4,000 charge cycles. Their first batteries were only
1,000 charge cycles.
So far, the service life performance of the traction batteries in
real service appears to clearly exceed expectations. If their usable
capacity has eventually declined too much for automotive use (say,
below 60..70%), they can still spend time serving in stationary
storage uses, where size and weight are much less critical. And finally,
just landfilling old traction batteries is silly - recycling them is
being done and extracts valuable materials to be used again.
Kind regards,
Alex.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 5:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John Stossel >>>>>>
What demise? Note that no new plant construction has been started in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over >>>>> budget).
<snip link to political website>
There are about 300 of the new SMR nuclear steam plants on order in the >>>> USA alone.
None of which have even started the permitting process. None of which
have ever split a single atom.
The DOE - NRC is sitting on them and refusing to give out
licenses. The latest controversy is whether or not they will need a
containment dome which increases the cost significantly.
Better safe than sorry. As it happens, solar, wind and batteries
can easly provide sufficient power for the US of A, but the orange clown >>> doesn't like renewables because they don't funnel money and favors to
his buddies in the fossil fuel industry.
Do you have numbers supporting this contention?
You skipped hydropower.
I should have included renewables, such as hydro/pumped storage
and geothermal in that statement.
From Google AI:
Yes, solar, wind, and batteries can theoretically power the entire
United States. However, to do so affordably, the US must build
massive solar and wind farms, update its power lines, and use
other clean energy sources like nuclear or hydro as backups.
...and I'd be very surprised if you can do it without nukes.
Yes, I was factoring in the existing non-polluting energy
sources (geothermal, hydro, nuclear, pumped storage).
Nuclear isn't a panacea, and it clearly has issues around cost, fuel production and waste disposal that any build-out would be required
to address.
California has made a good start at it. Renewables provide 40-70%
of daily supply depending on time of day.
https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply
On 7/16/2026 9:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 5:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John
Stossel
What demise?˙ Note that no new plant construction has been started >>>>>> in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over >>>>>> budget).
<snip link to political website>
There are about 300 of the new SMR nuclear steam plants on order in >>>>> the
USA alone.
None of which have even started the permitting process.˙ None of which >>>> have ever split a single atom.
The DOE - NRC is sitting on them and refusing to give out
licenses.˙ The latest controversy is whether or not they will need a >>>>> containment dome which increases the cost significantly.
Better safe than sorry.˙˙ As it happens, solar, wind and batteries
can easly provide sufficient power for the US of A, but the orange
clown
doesn't like renewables because they don't funnel money and favors to
his buddies in the fossil fuel industry.
Do you have numbers supporting this contention?
You skipped hydropower.
I should have included renewables, such as hydro/pumped storage
and geothermal in that statement.
˙From Google AI:
˙˙˙ Yes, solar, wind, and batteries can theoretically power the entire
˙˙˙ United States. However, to do so affordably, the US must build
˙˙˙ massive solar and wind farms, update its power lines, and use
˙˙˙ other clean energy sources like nuclear or hydro as backups.
...and I'd be very surprised if you can do it without nukes.
Yes, I was factoring in the existing non-polluting energy
sources (geothermal, hydro, nuclear, pumped storage).
Nuclear isn't a panacea, and it clearly has issues around cost,˙ fuel
production and waste disposal that any build-out would be required
to address.
California has made a good start at it.˙ Renewables provide 40-70%
of daily supply depending on time of day.
https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply
So does Texas.˙ In fact, Texas has way more wind and solar than any
other place on the planet.˙ But, the federal and state government
subsidies are incredibly expensive.
˙˙ https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards/fuelmix
Lynn
On 7/16/2026 9:06 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the >>>> power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >>>> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >>>> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
I've been on several military bases. None of them had nuclear power
plants.
So, they showed you where the nuclear power plant was. Really?
On 7/16/2026 7:39 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the >>>> power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >>>> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >>>> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land
filled and replaced. Musk is very proud that Tesla has gotten their
batteries up to 4,000 charge cycles. Their first batteries were only
1,000 charge cycles.
So far, the service life performance of the traction batteries in
real service appears to clearly exceed expectations. If their usable
capacity has eventually declined too much for automotive use (say,
below 60..70%), they can still spend time serving in stationary
storage uses, where size and weight are much less critical. And finally,
just landfilling old traction batteries is silly - recycling them is
being done and extracts valuable materials to be used again.
Recycling lithium batteries is being investigated by several teams now.
The only good results that I have read of used expensive and dangerous
acids that made the problem worse.
On 7/16/26 04:39, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the >>>> power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution
networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about >>>> them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and >>>> about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
[citation needed]
AFAIK, permanent US military bases run off the local grid with on-site
backup as needed. The only use case for highly enriched uranium in the
US military is for naval reactors (e.g. carriers and submarines).
And of course the carriers and the subs do not have containment other
than the sub pressure walls.
Eh, first of all, there is the reactor pressure vessel itself. And the
reactor compartment is IIRC also set up for isolation from the rest of
the boat. Also, since one is on a boat, there isn't exactly the space
and weight budget for the kind of massive concrete dome nuclear power
plants tend to use. And finally, there is good old Rickover's design
philosophy, according to which nuclear reactors only belong on vessels
that quietly disappear if there are problems (yes, Congress forced him
to put nuclear reactors on carriers, much against his resistance).
Actually the subs have containment vessels but they are steel and lead.
Ferro-concrete domes and big cooling towers they do not have.
Still they gave up on sodium cooled reactors after one submarine had
an accident in which molten sodium escaped to the empty spaces and
when cooled took months to chip out under inert gas.
Of course my information is like 65+ years out of date
and maybe Rickover's successors have changed things.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:39 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the >>>>> power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution >>>>> networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>>>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about
them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>>>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and
about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land >>>> filled and replaced. Musk is very proud that Tesla has gotten their
batteries up to 4,000 charge cycles. Their first batteries were only
1,000 charge cycles.
So far, the service life performance of the traction batteries in
real service appears to clearly exceed expectations. If their usable
capacity has eventually declined too much for automotive use (say,
below 60..70%), they can still spend time serving in stationary
storage uses, where size and weight are much less critical. And finally, >>> just landfilling old traction batteries is silly - recycling them is
being done and extracts valuable materials to be used again.
Recycling lithium batteries is being investigated by several teams now.
They are a bit late to the game, then.
The only good results that I have read of used expensive and dangerous
acids that made the problem worse.
Don't tell this to Kyburz of Switzerland, who have been doing Lithium
battery recycling (including making batteries with the recycled material again) for years. And this being Switzerland, they can't dump any nasty
waste down the next river, so their process has to be reasonably clean
in the end.
https://kyburz-switzerland.ch/en/battery-recycling
Kind regards,
Alex.
On 7/16/2026 9:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 5:57 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/15/2026 4:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
?The Demise of Nuclear Power Was Greatly Exaggerated? by John
Stossel
What demise?˙ Note that no new plant construction has been started >>>>>> in the US since
Vogtle 2 and 3 (which just came on line, years late and billions over >>>>>> budget).
<snip link to political website>
There are about 300 of the new SMR nuclear steam plants on order in >>>>> the
USA alone.
None of which have even started the permitting process.˙ None of which >>>> have ever split a single atom.
The DOE - NRC is sitting on them and refusing to give out
licenses.˙ The latest controversy is whether or not they will need a >>>>> containment dome which increases the cost significantly.
Better safe than sorry.˙˙ As it happens, solar, wind and batteries
can easly provide sufficient power for the US of A, but the orange
clown
doesn't like renewables because they don't funnel money and favors to
his buddies in the fossil fuel industry.
Do you have numbers supporting this contention?
You skipped hydropower.
I should have included renewables, such as hydro/pumped storage
and geothermal in that statement.
˙From Google AI:
˙˙˙ Yes, solar, wind, and batteries can theoretically power the entire
˙˙˙ United States. However, to do so affordably, the US must build
˙˙˙ massive solar and wind farms, update its power lines, and use
˙˙˙ other clean energy sources like nuclear or hydro as backups.
...and I'd be very surprised if you can do it without nukes.
Yes, I was factoring in the existing non-polluting energy
sources (geothermal, hydro, nuclear, pumped storage).
Nuclear isn't a panacea, and it clearly has issues around cost,˙ fuel
production and waste disposal that any build-out would be required
to address.
California has made a good start at it.˙ Renewables provide 40-70%
of daily supply depending on time of day.
https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply
So does Texas.˙ In fact, Texas has way more wind and solar than any
other place on the planet.˙ But, the federal and state government
subsidies are incredibly expensive.
˙˙ https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards/fuelmix
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
And of course the carriers and the subs do not have containment other
than the sub pressure walls.
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land >filled and replaced. Musk is very proud that Tesla has gotten their >batteries up to 4,000 charge cycles. Their first batteries were only
1,000 charge cycles.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:39 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have proof that solar, wind, and batteries can easily supply the >>>>>> electricity needs of the USA? Or is this just another one of your wild >>>>>> claims?
No, there is some pretty good math out there. The problem is that the >>>>> power isn't always where you want it and the changes to distribution >>>>> networks would be pretty dramatic.
The nice thing about small nuclear plants is that you can put them where >>>>> power is needed and avoid cross-country distribution. The bad thing about
them is that there aren't any.
I am 100% in favor of small nuclear plants but I am also 100% in favor of >>>>> them having well-designed and aggressively-tested containment vessels, and
about them being designed by engineers who aren't CEs.
--scott
And lithium batteries suck after ten years so they will have to be land >>>> filled and replaced. Musk is very proud that Tesla has gotten their
batteries up to 4,000 charge cycles. Their first batteries were only
1,000 charge cycles.
So far, the service life performance of the traction batteries in
real service appears to clearly exceed expectations. If their usable
capacity has eventually declined too much for automotive use (say,
below 60..70%), they can still spend time serving in stationary
storage uses, where size and weight are much less critical. And finally, >>> just landfilling old traction batteries is silly - recycling them is
being done and extracts valuable materials to be used again.
Recycling lithium batteries is being investigated by several teams now.
They are a bit late to the game, then.
The only good results that I have read of used expensive and dangerous
acids that made the problem worse.
Don't tell this to Kyburz of Switzerland, who have been doing Lithium
battery recycling (including making batteries with the recycled material again) for years. And this being Switzerland, they can't dump any nasty
waste down the next river, so their process has to be reasonably clean
in the end.
https://kyburz-switzerland.ch/en/battery-recycling
Kind regards,
Alex.
On 7/16/2026 3:29 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Don't tell this to Kyburz of Switzerland, who have been doing Lithium
battery recycling (including making batteries with the recycled material
again) for years. And this being Switzerland, they can't dump any nasty
waste down the next river, so their process has to be reasonably clean
in the end.
https://kyburz-switzerland.ch/en/battery-recycling
Kind regards,
Alex.
I note that they do not mention the cost nor the amount of government >subsidies.
Lynn McGuire<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has aFor better or worse this isn't true. The Russians were fans of big RTGs
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
at remote military bases but the US hasn't been doing that in part because they make great targets for bombs. Drop a hundred pound bomb on an RTG
and the whole area is contaminated. (Not that the Russians haven't been having plenty of RTG contamination issues without enemy assistance.)
There has been talk about deeply-buried nuclear plants at places like
Thule and the Aelutians where getting power in is difficult but nobody
has been writing checks to Westinghouse recently
On 7/17/2026 1:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lynn McGuire<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has aFor better or worse this isn't true. The Russians were fans of big RTGs
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
at remote military bases but the US hasn't been doing that in part because >> they make great targets for bombs. Drop a hundred pound bomb on an RTG
and the whole area is contaminated. (Not that the Russians haven't been
having plenty of RTG contamination issues without enemy assistance.)
There has been talk about deeply-buried nuclear plants at places like
Thule and the Aelutians where getting power in is difficult but nobody
has been writing checks to Westinghouse recently
The Air Force has just announced two bases to receive micro-reactors.
The Army had previously announced 9 posts.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/us-air-force-names-potential-smr-hosts
There has been talk about deeply-buried nuclear plants at places like
Thule and the Aelutians where getting power in is difficult but nobody
has been writing checks to Westinghouse recently
The Air Force has just announced two bases to receive micro-reactors.
The Army had previously announced 9 posts.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/us-air-force-names-potential-smr-hosts
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Stay away from the military bases then as each one of those has a
nuclear power plant using high percent uranium without a dome. Some of
them have 4 or 5. And they have had some really nasty uh-ohs.
For better or worse this isn't true. The Russians were fans of big RTGs
at remote military bases but the US hasn't been doing that in part because they make great targets for bombs. Drop a hundred pound bomb on an RTG
and the whole area is contaminated. (Not that the Russians haven't been having plenty of RTG contamination issues without enemy assistance.)
There has been talk about deeply-buried nuclear plants at places like
Thule and the Aelutians where getting power in is difficult but nobody
has been writing checks to Westinghouse recently.
More than talk - they actually installed˙ nuclear reactors in Greenland
and Antarctica, 60 years ago.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/camp-century-portable-nuclear-reactor
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 495847:56:08 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 587 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (3,318K bytes) |
| Messages: | 69,833 |