#energysky

Proud of this major work by Juzel Lloyd, @cookpj.bsky.social, @wang-seaver.bsky.social, Matt Wald, + myself.

🌐International governments' interests in diversifying and expanding uranium and enrichment sourcing should share best practices for regulating and licensing fuel cycle projects, and must crucially increase the flexibility of international nuclear cooperation.

⛏️Coordinate uranium supply chain efforts with allies (maintain and strengthen Russian uranium bans, cooperate on uranium exploration and enrichment, minimize trade barriers between allies)

🏢Mobilize federal agencies to pursue multiple solution sets (coordinate on stockpiled nuclear material, speed up enrichment facility licensing, research new enrichment/reprocessing/reactor technologies, map uranium deposits, and produce uranium via legacy mine cleanup efforts)

How do we get enough US enrichment?
📈Send firm market signals + prioritize commercial-scale enrichment (HALEU bank, federal power procurement from new nuclear, funnel grants to large-scale projects)

By leading the charge in expanding enrichment capabilities + diversifying the nuclear fuel supply chain, the US + allies can position nuclear deployment efforts for success and support a more resilient and sustainable global nuclear industry.

The global supply chain is already constrained, and will become increasingly more constrained with expected growth. The U.S. cannot simply turn to the global market for a solution.

The higher enrichment level of HALEU fuel needed for advanced reactors correspondingly increases future enrichment needs for US scenarios that consider a higher share of advanced nuclear deployment.

“Failure to achieve needed scale [for] the nuclear fuel cycle will create a supply bottleneck limiting nuclear deployment. Even the short-term goal of transitioning N. American + European countries away from previous reliance on Russian enrichment will pose difficulties”

Pilot-scale demonstrations make sense for new technology. But a serious US nuclear buildout demands real commercial-scale capacity. 250 to 490 GW of nuclear by 2050 needs 31 to 97 million separative work units (SWU) annually. Report link: thebreakthrough.org/issues/energ...

They have recruited some recognizable names, but formed recently, and I haven't seen anything tangible yet

This guide details the necessary data topics, identifies where the data can be collected, and specifies the requirements needed to meet NRC siting standards for new nuclear projects. States can ensure that data meet both state and NRC permitting standards simultaneously.

Also, "The report thus concluded weather had an “essentially negligible” impact on nuclear power generation, and that it remains the most reliable of any zero-carbon electricity source."

From your own source "U.S. nuclear power plants are exceedingly well-protected facilities, with the reactors at their core defended by redundant safety systems designed to withstand any number of extreme circumstances, from earthquakes to terrorist attacks."
The cooling towers were non-safety at DA

If the full amount is invested, the government could receive 20% of profits beyond $17.5b, or force an IPO.
The deal with Japan also includes up to $100b in funding for GE Verona Hitachi SMRs, and an undefined amount for NuScale/ENTRA1 SMRs to support AI

I'll put it this way. The majority of the 70+ companies won't succeed

We proposed a program to address the cause instead of the cost symptoms.
If the program avoids even a small overruns it more than pays for itself relate to an ITC that balloons with the overrun. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energ...

There is concern of cost overruns. I can't cover that topic in depth here. But there are two main costs when there are overruns. Increased labor and accrued interest. These are both driven by increasing time on site due to poor planning.