{"id":69448,"date":"2025-11-21T03:00:31","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T08:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=69448"},"modified":"2025-12-13T08:26:40","modified_gmt":"2025-12-13T13:26:40","slug":"todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-ccxx-were-saved-a-nuclear-renaissance-is-upon-us-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=69448","title":{"rendered":"Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXXI–We\u2019re Saved! A Nuclear Renaissance Is Upon Us, Part\u00a02."},"content":{"rendered":"

Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXXI<\/strong><\/h1>\n

We\u2019re Saved! A Nuclear Renaissance Is Upon Us, Part\u00a02.<\/h3>\n

In Part 1 of this multipart Contemplation on the nuclear energy \u2018renaissance\u2019 (see: Website<\/strong><\/a> Medium<\/strong><\/a>, <\/strong>Substack<\/strong><\/a>), I argue that energy has been the fundamental driver behind the growth and complexity of human societies, from hunter-gatherer bands to modern industrial civilisation. An expansion that was significantly accelerated with the exploitation of hydrocarbons.<\/p>\n

I then trace nuclear energy\u2019s history from its scientific origins to its development for weapons and finally to its rebranding for peaceful purposes. The storyline about peaceful uses was primarily a strategic move by the US who wanted to maintain and expand its technological dominance in the field for economic and geopolitical reasons after the Second World War.<\/p>\n

The nuclear industry grew rapidly in the shadow of a narrative aimed at creating great optimism for a nuclear-powered future with electricity \u201ctoo cheap to meter\u201d and magnificent engineering feats, including inter-galactic space travel. These promises, however, soon collided with economic realities, safety concerns, growing awareness of an unresolved radioactive waste dilemma, and a continuing nuclear weapons programme hidden behind \u2018civilian research\u2019 stories.<\/p>\n

I finish by arguing that the \u2018renaissance\u2019 is being driven by overhyped marketing about nuclear energy being great for the climate (emissions \u2018free\u2019), energy security (reduces dependence upon oil imports), long-term sustainability (\u2018endless\u2019 fuel sources), and a focus upon small modular reactors (SMRs) that are said to address previous concerns regarding cost overruns and construction delays. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n
Illustration of BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor (<\/span>www.gevernova.com<\/a>)<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>
CLICK HERE<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

If you\u2019re new to my writing, check out <\/strong>this overview<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

SMRs<\/strong><\/p>\n

These reactors are still relatively unproven on a commercial scale but are today\u2019s \u2018solution\u2019 according to their marketers\/cheerleaders. They WILL take humanity to the promised land of \u2018clean\u2019 and \u2018cheap\u2019 energy, and help fuel perpetual growth on a finite planet.<\/p>\n

Cost overruns<\/a> and missed deadlines<\/a> for functionality have been major issues for traditional reactors. Whether SMRs can be constructed on time and within proposed budgets has yet to be proven, but the industry is assuring that they will be (and we know we can trust those profitting from their rollout to be honest about such things because, surely, this time will be different). With governments aiming to deploy these technologies as quickly as possible, critics are also raising concerns that weakening oversight could create significant safety risks and further erode public trust.<\/p>\n

The issue of waste disposal also remains with these reactors and robust supply chains for some of the necessary fuels (e.g., HALEU<\/a> from Russia) are questionable given today\u2019s geopolitics. Such hurdles could result in community opposition and possible stalling of projects.<\/p>\n

Much of the success of these technologies remains predicated on innovation (as-yet-to-be-hatched chickens), economics (probably a lot of government subsidies and private funding via taxpayers and ballooning debt), and regulations (\u2018streamlined\u2019 to expedite the process\u2013what could go wrong?).<\/p>\n

SMR History<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950s-1980s
\n<\/em>Small nuclear reactors are not novel, with early reactor configurations having tended to be small relative to later designs. In fact, the US military experimented early on with compact, mobile reactors for remote bases. And small, pressurised water reactors (PWRs) were developed for use in submarines and aircraft carriers. Despite this start with reactors of limited scale, the industry had its sights set on ever-larger ones to achieve economies of scale and (supposedly) to bring down electricity-user costs (with the claim of \u2018energy too cheap to meter<\/a>\u2019 having been made by some advocates and the media).<\/p>\n

1990s-2000s<\/em><\/p>\n

In the shadow of the Three Mile Island<\/a> and Chernobyl<\/a> incidents, public opposition grew and led to the stalling of new plants in most countries. In response, industry marketers began to propose SMRs as the \u2018solution\u2019 to potential safety issues. The \u2018sales pitch\u2019 emphasised better quality via factory fabrication (because there\u2019s never been a recall on any similarly-produced industrial technologies) and associated cost reductions. Despite these \u2018promises\u2019, major projects did not move forward as funding was lacking, low natural gas prices made them less attractive, and previous urgency waned.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n
Three Mile Island Generating Station (US DOE)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n

2010s-present
\n<\/em>Interest in SMRs has intensified with cheerleaders highlighting their \u2018carbon-free\u2019 status, reliable base-load generation, domestic security, and geographic flexibility. The US formally began to support the development of SMRs beginning around 2010 and Russia connected its first mobile SMR (Akademik Lomonosov<\/a>) to its electrical grid in 2020. In 2021, China started up its first design, a high-temperature, gas-cooled SMR (HTR-PM<\/a>). And despite promises by the industry that they had overcome economic and construction concerns, SMR projects in both the US and Europe have experienced significant cost overruns and delays during the last several years (e.g., see here<\/a>), bringing into question the promised benefits. Development and massive cheerleading is continuing, nonetheless, with huge amounts of government funding flowing into the industry.<\/p>\n

In summary, SMRs have evolved from their early military applications and towards potential commercial deployment with promises of more secure, safer, less expensive, and flexible power generation. They have begun to be used minimally in Russia and China, with North America and Europe taking their first tentative steps with these technologies; yet, concerns and criticisms remain.<\/p>\n

Concerns and Criticisms of SMRs<\/strong><\/p>\n

The advocates of SMRs have no problem promoting them as the future of nuclear energy by highlighting their supposed benefits and glossing over or avoiding the hurdles and risks that exist. Despite unanswered questions and a number of worries with respect to their economic viability, regulatory readiness, and waste management, a number of jurisdictions have jumped into contracts to begin their rollout (see: here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and, here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Economic Viability
\n<\/em>Contrary to the ongoing promises of relatively inexpensive power generation, these technologies have exceedingly high costs with levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) analyses\u2013that tend to underestimate<\/a> actual user costs\u2013concluding that power generation costs will actually exceed that of \u2018renewables\u2019, hydrocarbons, and large reactors (that somehow never met the \u2018too-cheap-to-meter\u2019 promises when they were being built and marketed). And, it is estimated by the industry itself that a massive rollout of 30-50+ units would be required before any cost savings would be realised (if ever, given past experience with such promises as a guide)\u2013see here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Waste
\n<\/em>SMRs actually produce a higher waste volume<\/a> than traditional large units, with some estimates of 2-30 times the amount. They also create new waste streams (e.g., irradiated graphite, reactive salts) that would require new handling and disposal methods as well as significant infrastructure buildout, resulting in additional costs to the pre-construction estimates already made.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n
Nuclear Reactor Waste Depository, Germany (<\/span>gettyimages.ca<\/a>)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Regulations
\n<\/em>Established regulations for large reactors do not necessarily address all the issues for smaller ones and this is leading to some delays with a common framework being a \u2018work in progress\u2019. And with this being a \u2018first-of-a-kind\u2019 rollout, there exist risks in both cost overruns and construction delays\u2013as has happened with all projects to date\u2013with cost reductions being promised with the deployment of the next<\/strong> generation of such reactors; and many of them! (SMR-generated electricity will be cheaper! Any. Moment. Now. We just need to keep investing in and building them!)<\/p>\n

Technology and Fuel
\n<\/em>Assurances about the viability of this relatively new technology have yet to be proven at scale and are based on (optimistic? overhyped?) projections and not operational evidence. Supply bottlenecks are likely given that the advanced designs require specialised fuel (HALEU) with limited global production. In fact, the majority of the SMR designs have yet to be operational with over 30 of these requiring HALEU fuel that is currently only produced at scale by Russia.<\/p>\n

A somewhat measured perspective is beginning to emerge among a limited number of observers regarding SMRs, with the realisation that this technology is not a miracle solution but may play a niche role in power generation (and will tend to be additive to humanity\u2019s energy consumption much like all the other \u2018alternatives\u2019 being touted as \u2018replacements\u2019 for hydrocarbons). These reactors are not, as claimed, cleaner, less expensive, nor faster to build than traditional large reactors. There continues to exist a very long road to their commercial deployment and very likely will take significantly longer and more money than the promises being thrown about by the industry, connected academics, media, and various politicians.<\/p>\n

Of course, such a realisation is not stopping nor slowing the hype surrounding them, nor the money being thrown at them by various governments.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n
Uranium Mining (<\/span>stock.adobe.com<\/a>)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n

GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hitachi\u2019s SMR design<\/a> (see illustration above) is perhaps the leading candidate for deployment in the West. Its 300 megawatt electrical (mWe) reactor is based upon established boiling water technology and appears cost-competitive.<\/p>\n

The technology is relatively simpler (e.g., no pumps are required due to the primary circulation being \u2018natural\u2019), with passive safety systems<\/a>, an estimated 60 year lifespan, and uses commercially available fuel. Several projects have been initiated in North America and Europe (i.e., Ontario, Canada; Tennessee, U.S.; Sweden; Finland).<\/p>\n

Hitachi argues that the design is a less expensive (due to reduced material needs) and simplified version of existing boiling water technology, with these SMRs being in their 10th iteration. However, as mentioned above, a significant number of reactors must be deployed to achieve economies of scale and electricity costs are estimated to be significantly more than that of other power sources.<\/p>\n

BWRX-300 Criticisms
\n<\/em>These particular SMRs face the same issues as that raised above for all designs, especially the realisation of the promises made by its advocates\/marketers. Concerns over cost competitiveness, waste streams, regulatory hurdles, and fuel remain (see: this<\/a>, this<\/a>, and\/or this<\/a>)\u2013although, as is usual in such circumstances, these matters are being downplayed or ignored for the most part with only the supposed benefits highlighted\u2013this, of course, is Marketing 101: highlight and overhype the benefits exclusively; never, ever, acknowledge nor give the time of day to the litany of risks\/dangers and hurdles.<\/p>\n

BWRX-300 Fuel
\n<\/em>The use of commercially-available fuel (Uranium Dioxide (UO2<\/sub>) pellets; U-235 3.81-4.95% enrichment) is perhaps the greatest \u2018advantage\u2019 of this particular design, with the risks and costs minimised as a result of not requiring development and licensing of a new fuel due to the fuel source already being commercialised and readily available. This fuel already has a well-established supply chain, reducing costs and vulnerabilities; especially for nations that produce such fuel (e.g., Canada). Not requiring Higher Assay Low-Enriched Uranium fuel (HALEU; 5-20% enrichment), these BWRX-300 reactors are more commercially viable and expedient\u2013in theory.<\/p>\n

Current global uranium \u2018identified recoverable\u2019 reserves are estimated to be relatively large at around 5.92 million tonnes<\/a> (January 2023, at $130\/kilogram). It\u2019s important to note that \u2018identified recoverable\u2019 refers to resources that are \u2018known\u2019 and \u2018can\u2019, with a high degree of confidence, be recovered \u2018economically\u2019. As with all mined material, such reserve estimates are directly tied to the market price and extraction cost with more difficult-to-reach deposits accessible with higher market prices\u2013and, of course, the economics of this extraction and refinement can change dramatically. [Note: keep in mind that this is a finite resource whose mining is heavily dependent upon industrial machinery and processes that are, in turn, dependent upon hydrocarbon resources; all of which is well into experiencing diminishing returns on investments. And given uranium is located in only certain parts of the world, geopolitics cannot help but play a role in its extraction, production, and supply chains.]<\/p>\n

It\u2019s important to acknowledge that even with such known reserves, current extraction and production of uranium does not meet current nuclear reactor demand and is resulting in a supply deficit<\/em><\/strong>. Global nuclear power plants require close to 69,000 tonnes of uranium each year but current production consistently falls short of that and depends upon stockpiled reserves and the decommissioning of nuclear weapons to meet demand.<\/p>\n

The World Nuclear Association has projected that future demand will grow significantly, especially with many nation\u2019s plans to begin building plants or expand on their number of existing ones. This, of course, will mean that the mining of uranium must expand in tandem; even faster given the growing deficit situation. That new mines take anywhere from 10-15 years to begin production means that a conundrum exists; thus the \u2018rush\u2019 to expand mining investment and streamline regulations in several jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n

A Thought Experiment, With A Bit Of Math\u2026
\n<\/em>Leaving aside for the moment a number of obvious hurdles and negative consequences to the ongoing and proposed expansion of the uranium extraction necessary to fuel a significantly larger nuclear power-generation fleet of reactors (e.g., massive ecological destruction, waning diesel fuel supplies to power this enterprise, limited equipment, etc.), the drawdown of a finite resource is, well, finite in nature.<\/p>\n

Current global requirements of 69,000 tonnes would take some time to exhaust current identified recoverable reserves of 5.92 million tonnes\u2013approximately 85 years. That\u2019s almost forever. And if one looks at the \u2018estimated\u2019 reserves, if the price point doubles to $260\/kilogram, there would be 7.94 million tonnes, or 115 years worth of fuel. That\u2019s longer than forever\u2013perhaps even longer should electricity prices continue to increase exponentially and lead to some demand destruction.<\/p>\n

Of course, these estimates\u2013that get publicised alongside the many overhyped benefits of such power generation\u2013are modelled projections\/scenarios that depend on current drawdown of resources and demand\u2013which is projected to increase significantly as time passes but left out of such prognostications. If we are to be a bit more honest in such modelling, then let\u2019s include increasing drawdown should the world increase uranium use as much as is being proposed\u2013a 3-10x increase in the number of reactors.<\/p>\n

If we use the lower increase estimate (3x), rather than 69,000 tonnes required per year we suddenly need closer to 210,000 tonnes bringing reserve lifespan down to 28 (@ $130\/kilogram) and 38 (@$260\/kilogram) years. Still forever in the eyes of nuclear advocates\u2013mostly because technologies will improve and prices will increase leading to larger reserves\u2026and all the raindrops will be lemon and gum drops<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This optimistic outlook requires a significant increase in the extraction\/production of uranium. In fact, some have suggested that an 8-10% annual increase should suffice\u2013a rate rarely achieved, and certainly not for multiple years in a row. Meeting fuel needs, then, depends upon unprecedented extraction rates to increase annually, and for decades upon decades.<\/p>\n

So, we \u2018invest\u2019 in an expansion of mining (perhaps one of the most destructive industrial enterprises human societies engage in), significantly increasing our drawdown of this resource alongside the drawdown of many other required materials and minerals (because, after all, this enlargement of mining means an equally large increase in all the industrial technologies required to carry out this brilliant enterprise, and the fuel to power this), especially hydrocarbons\u2013embodided carbon anyone?\u2013and thereby eliminate the supposed benefits of nuclear being \u2018carbon free\u2019. Ignore this hiccup, however.<\/p>\n

And something else that can be ignored is the ecological destruction that would and is beginning to occur in the wake of this \u2018solution\u2019, particularly if the need to expand nuclear is much more than the estimated 3x used in this thought experiment (remember, a 10x expansion has been proposed by some); an increase that would drawdown the finite fuel reserves even faster and shorten the lifespan of this wonderful \u2018answer\u2019 to humanity\u2019s expansion and energy \u2018needs\u2019.<\/p>\n

Not even considered in the above is the \u2018competition\u2019 from all the other technological \u2018solutions\u2019 (e.g., solar photovoltaic, wind turbines, wave energy, hydrogen energy, fusion reactors, etc.) for the material and minerals necessary to carry out this nuclear resurgence as well as continuing expansion of all the other infrastructure to support ever-growing, complex human societies.<\/p>\n

\n

Then there\u2019s the waste dilemma associated with nuclear power generation which I will expand on in Part 3 alongside some other considerations regarding nuclear power generation\u2019s promises to support human societies for forever and a day.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s important, though, if one wants to remain on the hopium bandwagon of a massive rollout of nuclear power generation via SMRs (or even traditional reactors) to discount such thoughts and projections about the negative side of the ledger and cling to those on the positive side\u2013this overly-optimistic position brought to you by the people profitting from this technological \u2018solution\u2019 to our predicaments.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Relevant and related articles:<\/p>\n

Valar Atomics Achieves Cold Criticality With Project NOVA | ZeroHedge<\/a><\/p>\n

The New Nuclear Fever, Debunked | The Tyee<\/a><\/p>\n

Summary of Greenpeace \u201cNuclear Reactor Hazards\u201d | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse<\/a><\/p>\n

SMR \/ Gen 4 nuclear reactors less safe & create even more toxic waste<\/a><\/p>\n

Five Things the \u201cNuclear Bros\u201d Don\u2019t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors – Union of Concerned Scientists<\/a><\/p>\n

Critics Slam Cost of Ontario SMR Plan, Question Dependence on U.S. Uranium<\/a><\/p>\n

Slow deployment, safety hazards make SMRs a poor climate solution<\/a><\/p>\n

World Peak Uranium Production | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse<\/a><\/p>\n

World Oil and Gas Demand Could Grow Until 2050, IEA Says<\/a><\/p>\n

World Fossil Fuels Discoveries and Production<\/a><\/p>\n

IEA Current Policies Scenario<\/a><\/p>\n

The Oil Import Curse<\/a><\/p>\n

Will oil and gas consumption keep rising through 2050?<\/a><\/p>\n

Did the \u201cSolution\u201d Solve the Problem, Or Did It Just Make Somebody Rich?<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

What is going to be my standard WARNING\/ADVICE <\/strong>going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:<\/p>\n

\u201cOnly time will tell how this all unfolds but there\u2019s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by \u2018collapsing now to avoid the rush\u2019 and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better. Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There\u2019s no guarantee it will ensure \u2018recovery\u2019 after a significant societal stressor\/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can \u2018hope\u2019 for from its pursuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my \u2018fictional\u2019 novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian)<\/strong>, via my website or the link below \u2014 the \u2018profits\u2019 of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).<\/p>\n

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).<\/p>\n

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.<\/p>\n

Costs (Canadian dollars): Book 1: $2.99; Book 2: $3.89; Book 3: $3.89
\nTrilogy: $9.99<\/strong><\/p>\n

Feel free to throw in a \u2018tip\u2019 on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents\/dollars helps… https:\/\/paypal.me\/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.<\/p>\n

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton\u2019s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter\u2019s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXXI We\u2019re Saved! A Nuclear Renaissance Is Upon Us, Part\u00a02. In Part 1 of this multipart Contemplation on the nuclear energy \u2018renaissance\u2019 (see: Website Medium, Substack), I argue that energy has been the fundamental driver behind the growth and complexity of human societies, from hunter-gatherer bands to modern industrial civilisation. An […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,4,5,6,7],"tags":[6735,578,34862,3794,30370,33947],"class_list":["post-69448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-energy-2","category-environment","category-geopolitics","category-liberty","category-survival-2","tag-nuclear","tag-nuclear-energy","tag-nuclear-energy-renaissance","tag-radioactive-waste","tag-todays-contemplation","tag-todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=69448"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69448\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69476,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69448\/revisions\/69476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=69448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=69448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=69448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}