In the 60s, reactors were being build at an incredible rate, and the levelized cost of nuclear electricity was on par with coal. So what killed nuclear?

  1. Regulation invited by the contractors of the US Navy (who were the original developers of the technology) in the 60s to limit access of competitors to the nuclear market. For example with the economically prohibitive ALARA and LNT principles. Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop by Jack Devanney discusses this at length.
  2. After India’s nuclear weapon’s test in 1974, fuelled by Plutonium from a Canadian designed research reactor, anti-proliferation concerns circulated. An equipment supply cartel (nuclear suppliers group) was created and export-control laws (Especially DoE 10 CFR Part 810). Created more industry protectionism.
  3. Public opinion was destroyed in the 70s and 80s due to conflation with nuclear weapons and handling of accidents. The effect of Chernobyl is dramatically overstated and deliberately misconstrued. Three Mile Island had zero public health impact, and Fukushima was limited.
  4. Finally, privatization in the 90s, where the 10-year investment horizon limits the pool of potential investors to pension funds. Gigawatt scale nuclear could not compete in a private market against gas.

The nuclear establishment moved from selling coal-competitive electricity in the 60s to selling nuclear fear in the 1970s. Nuclear has to entirely relearn by doing. Nuclear safety culture is strong, but safety is a farce without competence.

In the world’s history, no private nuclear reactor company has designed and built a reactor with private funding, let alone a privately designed new design. And none since the 60s has, certainly. Only the government programmes, very few have made profits. We have forgone opportunities for innovation, for decades due to mismanagement and monopolization.

The parallel to a rejuvenation of such a stagnant industry is the founding and success of SpaceX by Elon Musk. It takes a technical leader who will invest his time and energy in making real risk vs reward trade-offs.

Principles

From my independent reading, I have identified the following principles for driving innovation:

Testing and Iteration

All the testing was done in the 60s until nuclear testing was effectively made illegal in the west. Since then, very few experimental reactors and been built, and we have tested none to destructive limits like they do in the aircraft industry. We need to do this to quantify the unknown unknowns.

Something is better than nothing. Paper reactors are just that — they don’t exist. The cost saving of modularity and optimization will pale in significance to trial and error with physical labourers on physical sites. The AP1000 was arguably over modularized, which had a net negative impact on construction time.

The leader must personally direct and own all the major design decisions

If you are distracted with winning money, you have already lost.

Small team of highly capable people

  • Fast acting — more open and honest. Avoid siloing and entrenched interests.
  • Also, far cheaper — sell less of the original stake

Industry Establishment are often the Industry’s own enemy

  • The nuclear industry was born from post-WII defence contractors who, the moment nuclear become commercial in 1965, invited regulation to entrench their oligarchic market position.
  • The standards that since evolved are disproportionally stringent.

Nuclear radiation is disproportionally feared

No evidence for cancer probability increase from doses under 100 mSv, yet we design out any risk of nuclear radiation.

Complexity is the enemy

Complexity will arise naturally, the best system is the one that doesn’t exist.

Abstract quality and safety requirements are the enemy

Procedures are only as good as they are implemented. Modern industry needs a better balance between executing and planning. We are over planning and the world doesn’t conform to our spreadsheets, but it is the world that suffers.