Trump administration wants to ease NRC regulations for new to build nuclear reactors

May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
The Trump administration is seeking new ways to accelerate the development and building of nuclear reactors with less evolvement of US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by firing key people from the NRC.
Donald Trump even seem to have stated that nuclear radiation is harmless.





Small excerpt from text :
"
The White House has introduced radical changes that threaten to disrupt the effectiveness of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The agency was formed in 1975 to be an independent regulator, separating it from the promotional role pursued by its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The NRC has set safety requirements that have become the global gold standard for nuclear regulation. The White House actions threaten to undermine this record.

Conversations with fellow former NRC chairs and retired NRC experts reveal a shared concern that the changes will have unintended, dangerous consequences. In February, the White House issued an executive order that intruded on the traditional autonomy of independent agencies, thereby giving the White House the capacity to control NRC regulatory actions and allow politics to infect regulatory decision-making. A series of executive orders on nuclear matters issued in late May compounded the challenge. One of the executive orders focuses on the reform of the NRC. It would establish arbitrary deadlines for decisions on construction permits and operating licenses, regardless of whether the design offers new and previously unevaluated safety challenges. Other provisions demand the review of all the extensive NRC regulations within 18 months. The other executive orders allow the construction of nuclear power reactors on federal lands—sites belonging to the Energy Department and the Defense Department—without any review by the NRC.

Then, on June 13, the Trump administration fired Christopher Hanson, an NRC commissioner and former chair, without any stated justification. These actions all serve to weaken protections for those who work in or live near reactors. Given the anticipated expansion of reliance on nuclear power, the drastic staff reductions contemplated by the White House come at the wrong time.
"
 
Last edited:

you2

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2002
6,881
1,958
136
One thing is fer sure; trump is no student of history and how much damage a kaboom reactor can do even if it is 'contained'.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,155
15,576
136
If the world is going to shift away from fossils... you have to say nuclear in some capacity.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,275
12,838
136
If the world is going to shift away from fossils... you have to say nuclear in some capacity.
Sort of, but not really.

Renewables are getting so good and so cheap that by the time you build the reactor and get it operational to even start paying back the billions in cost, you could have built out several generations of renewable capacity and been making ROI the whole time.

At least, in a sane world. We do not live in that world 😞
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,606
46,260
136
Sort of, but not really.

Renewables are getting so good and so cheap that by the time you build the reactor and get it operational to even start paying back the billions in cost, you could have built out several generations of renewable capacity and been making ROI the whole time.

At least, in a sane world. We do not live in that world 😞

Maybe the SMR guys can do better but the all in cost for Units 3 and 4 at Vogtle was $34B and took nearly 20 years to come online. Which is why no utility in America is even remotely interested in a new build traditional reactor. Rescuing existing plants that would otherwise go offline or restarting ones (Palisades, TMI Unit 1, etc) that recently did is a way better deal financially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,367
16,635
146
Sort of, but not really.

Renewables are getting so good and so cheap that by the time you build the reactor and get it operational to even start paying back the billions in cost, you could have built out several generations of renewable capacity and been making ROI the whole time.

At least, in a sane world. We do not live in that world 😞
I'd be curious about the multi-decade TCO of an equivalent amount of solar/wind + batteries to create a rough analogue to the baseline provided by a modern reactor, and if it shakes out as that much cheaper. When renewables get talked about, most people tend to skim over storage, replacement as batteries degrade, and mining/disposal of rare elements.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,606
46,260
136
I'd be curious about the multi-decade TCO of an equivalent amount of solar/wind + batteries to create a rough analogue to the baseline provided by a modern reactor, and if it shakes out as that much cheaper. When renewables get talked about, most people tend to skim over storage, replacement as batteries degrade, and mining/disposal of rare elements.

People "skim over" those with nuclear power too since we still have nowhere to permanently store the light water reactor waste the is US generating. Political issues will likely keep that so. The technical problems of recycling batteries and solar modules seem a lot less significant in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KompuKare

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,367
16,635
146
People "skim over" those with nuclear power too since we still have nowhere to permanently store the light water reactor waste the is US generating. Political issues will likely keep that so. The technical problems of recycling batteries and solar modules seem a lot less significant in comparison.
The volume of wastage materials that come out of a nuclear reactor are far less than multiple decades of renewables + batteries though, right?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,606
46,260
136
The volume of wastage materials that come out of a nuclear reactor are far less than multiple decades of renewables + batteries though, right?

The former is largely a technical problem of how to recycle the materials in a cost effective manner or the least costly manner anyway. Quite a few companies are working on this. It may even prove advantageous to recover certain materials.

The political issue of spent fuel in the US is unlikely to be resolved in my lifetime. It's probably gonna sit on site forever and create future hazards.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,500
16,988
136
People "skim over" those with nuclear power too since we still have nowhere to permanently store the light water reactor waste the is US generating. Political issues will likely keep that so. The technical problems of recycling batteries and solar modules seem a lot less significant in comparison.

What about the use of heavy water based nuclear plants?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,606
46,260
136
What about the use of heavy water based nuclear plants?

I mean if it was up to me the US government would contract for the construction and operation of a small fleet of CANDU reactors to use as actinide burners for the spent light water reactor fuel stockpile. You can burn up much of the most troublesome elements which greatly reduces the need for a deep geologic repository that can remain secure for thousands of years.
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
People "skim over" those with nuclear power too since we still have nowhere to permanently store the light water reactor waste the is US generating. Political issues will likely keep that so. The technical problems of recycling batteries and solar modules seem a lot less significant in comparison.
Although it is a totally new design, but subcritical Accelerator driven systems like MYRRHA and CiADS are able to use that nuclear waste from current reactors as fuel and transmutate the nuclear waste to material a lot less radioactive and dangerous while generating enough heat to be used for electricity generation.

If i would see on the news that Donald Trump is talking about ADS driven subcritical nuclear reactors. Then i would have a bit more faith.

Subcritical reactors are the only nuclear way to go.
Fusion is not going to happen for a long time and conventional nuclear reactors are too dangerous because these systems are by nature critical reactors.

Belgium is building a subcritical Accelerator driven systems.

And China is building subcritical Accelerator driven systems as well :
https://english.imp.cas.cn/research/facilities/CIADS/

Why is the USA not following this same ADS principle ?

edit:
Forgot for those people reading this, the uranium rods in a conventional nuclear reactor have a surplus of neutrons and the fission reaction need to be controlled by control systems to not go too much critical.

Thorium which is used as a fuel has a deficit of neutrons and is therefore subcritical. What happens with an subcritical accelerator driven system is that a linear particle accelerator is forcing the fuel to go critical, but if you turn off the particle accelerator there are not enough neutrons to maintain the fission reaction. Hence the fission reaction in the nuclear fuel stops by it self.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: you2 and Fenixgoon

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,632
15,820
146
I mean if it was up to me the US government would contract for the construction and operation of a small fleet of CANDU reactors to use as actinide burners for the spent light water reactor fuel stockpile. You can burn up much of the most troublesome elements which greatly reduces the need for a deep geologic repository that can remain secure for thousands of years.
As a next step I’d then use the power from these plants to process CO2 from the ocean / atmosphere into synthetic fuels to replace aviation and bunker fuel.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,500
16,988
136
Although it is a totally new design, but subcritical Accelerator driven systems like MYRRHA and CiADS are able to use that nuclear waste from current reactors as fuel and transmutate the nuclear waste to material a lot less radioactive and dangerous while generating enough heat to be used for electricity generation.

If i would see on the news that Donald Trump is talking about ADS driven subcritical nuclear reactors. Then i would have a bit more faith.

Subcritical reactors are the only nuclear way to go.
Fusion is not going to happen for a long time and conventional nuclear reactors are too dangerous because these systems are by nature critical reactors.

Belgium is building a subcritical Accelerator driven systems.

And China is building subcritical Accelerator driven systems as well :
https://english.imp.cas.cn/research/facilities/CIADS/

Why is the USA not following this same ADS principle ?

Because our priority is privatizing things so businesses can make more money. The US doesn’t prioritize taking care of its citizens or its land.
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
Because our priority is privatizing things so businesses can make more money. The US doesn’t prioritize taking care of its citizens or its land.
That is kind of sad to read.
If there is one country that is able to build an ADS system, it is the USA.
For a fraction of the cost of all those bombs that are now send to the Ukraine.

I do not know how much a B2 costs but for a few of those, an ADS can be build. Even a research reactor is a great way to get experience with subcritical nuclear fuel. getting rid of the nuclear waste from reactors, getting rid of those nuclear warheads, because these nuclear bombs age as well.
I am certain that a 1980 nuclear warhead can no long be used 40 years later but is highly radioactive.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,648
13,758
136
Because our priority is privatizing things so businesses can make more money. The US doesn’t prioritize taking care of its citizens or its land.
Idk, that kind of sounds like socialism to me. We should be privatizing more. Firefighters roll up to your burning house, they should first be presenting you with a credit card machine. If you add a 20% tip, they'll also save your dog. /s
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,818
33,833
136
Trump’s policy is to turn the NRC and DOE back into the AEC. We have spent well north of a trillion dollars cleaning up the environmental mess left by the first AEC. Let’s see what we get in round two.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,565
10,243
136
This is what stupid people do to fix a problem. Yes, the US absolutely should be making it easier (read: commercially viable) to build new reactors and bring more capacity online. Hell, I even welcome the idea of building with less red tape on federal lands (as long as basic tribal/environmental concerns are handled.)

But I don’t think the NRC is the roadblock here. The biggest issue is what to do with nuclear waste, and all the NIMBYism that goes on between federal, state and local governments (not to mention NGOs and civic groups) with handling said waste. Trump has all the finesse of a bull wading into a china shop with sledgehammers on his horns trying to clear a path.