Does nuclear energy get the press it deserves? Johnathon Ford turns the question around. Points out that there are still big gaps in public understanding of the technology - safety, economics, waste - asks what is industry doing to address? #nuclearsympo
"We have the press we deserve, in quantity" says @ValerieFaudon , executive director of @SFENorg . So at least nuclear is visible and there's a good chance to get messages across. But disappointing to always be called up for negative news #nuclearsympo
Leads to the point that the general character of press stories will tend to follow public opinion. Ford says that the press loves stories about people changing their minds - points to recent New Yorker story about nuclear advocates #nuclearsympo
@ValerieFaudon makes super interesting point. She doesn't mind negative press attention about temperature related outages at French plants (when AWOL VRE doesn't rate a mention) because she thinks it reinforces understanding that nuclear is crucial to security #nuclearsympo
Super interesting point from @iAlexhunt on qn of facts Vs emotions. He notes that people say they want facts and info, but will overwhelmingly read about personalities - until election day comes. They want both, but at different times. Same true for @W_Nuclear_News#nuclearsympo
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Onto the #nuclearsympo fuel session - Kazatomprom's Batyrbarev is talking about uranium delivery routes. Very hot topic for the company (and nuclear industry) right now. Notes that St Petersburg route is still open. They have even made one air delivery
Assistant secretary of US DOE Katy Huff talks about the need to double nuclear energy in USA (and indeed globally), creating huge additional demand for nuclear fuel #nuclearsympo
Euratom supply agency's Kazmierczak says straight up that as a result of war on Ukraine Russia has excluded itself as a reliable supplier of nuclear fuel services
First conference session of #nuclearsympo is about to begin. Very exciting. Great vibe amongst delegates evident last night and this morning. :-) @WorldNuclear chairman Bohdan Zronek takes the stage first
No promise to live tweet the event this year, but will fire out a few choice tweets
Director General @SamaBilbao gets to address the #nuclearsympo crowd in person for the first time. She lays out the 'sea of change' that has overtaken the nuclear industry in the last two years
Recently a canister of worms was opened when some nuclear advocates qned the sense of deep geological repositories for disposing of high level nuclear waste. Look, this deserves to be delved into periodically. So once more into the repository my friends.
All the usual caveats apply. I’m a generalist – not a specialist. I do occasionally get to work with specialists though. I’m gonna drag in info from a range of sources for this #thread. These are my observations and reflections only. Disagreement and/or corrections are welcome 2/
First off let’s recap on the philosophy that drives nuclear waste disposal thinking. There are, I think, two main principles – intergenerational equity and the avoidance of harm. This touchstone IAEA publication describes the main objective as follows www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicati… 3/
It’s time to blow off the cobwebs and write my first thread for a while. You guessed it – I'm about to cut loose on the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of different energy sources - and especially #nuclear 1.
Note. The usual caveats apply. I'm not an LCA researcher. These thoughts reflect my observations and experience only. Feel free to disagree and challenge me if you think I'm wrong on any point. 2.
Gonna start with a blunt observation. Nuclear energy is *very* low-carbon. Some commentators have recently claimed that is not, or that its lifecycle emissions are higher than renewables and therefore it should be disqualified as a climate solution. This is nonsense. 3.
Ok I’ll bite. Apologies for the lengthy reply, but I’m going to address multiple points in this here thread. Tldr: any reasonable questions this article raises about SMR potential gets swamped by anti nuclear nonsense. 1/
SMR economics. It’s true that SMRs lose out on economies of scale compared to large reactors. But they will potentially gain on factory fabrication (as the article notes) lower financing risks (hinted at), economies of multiples, accelerated learning and design simplification 2/
Surprisingly not mentioned by the article is that SMRs are likely to present higher operating costs than large reactors. For instance, absent some pretty major reforms they will likely need similar staff levels. This changes the investment profile somewhat. 3/
Are you confused about why it is that sometimes nuclear costs seems to increase even though nothing has changed? Alright then. Prepare thyself for a #thread on possibly one of the world’s most confusing subjects - the various ways of reporting nuclear energy costs 1/
Let’s start by saying that this is a very confusing subject. There are many examples of bad reporting and loads of experts occasionally get this wrong. I’ll add myself to that list. Just a reminder that I’m not a nuclear economist. I apologise for any mistakes in what follows 2/
This thread comes to you mostly courtesy of a recent @OECD_NEA report, which does a great job of clarifying this messy subject. It then goes on to describe how nuclear cost reductions can and are being achieved. You might want to read it thrice! 3/ oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653