Nuclear power is safe

Calliban · 2020-11-12 14:10:12

The Independent is a news source that I would not trust to tell me the colour of an orange. None the less, this article is interesting.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi … 21175.html

Rolls Royce have experience building naval nuclear reactors. So its not like its all new to them. We are talking small PWRs with power output of about 200MWe each. About what is needed for a large Mars base.

Last edited by Calliban (2020-11-12 14:15:12)

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-12 14:43:40

For Calliban re #176

Thanks for the link to this report on Rolls Royce and its new direction. The implication of the report (as I interpret it) is that the UK government is willing to trust the company in this excursion away from military projects. That is definitely a favorable indicator for the future of the company, for a reason that you have posted about on several occasions .... releasing nuclear energy in a controlled fashion will (or at least ** should ** ) result in a net increase of available energy per capita in the UK, and in every country where this technology is introduced.

Is this company a candidate to develop the space rated reactor you've described in another topic?

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-11-22 16:16:20

Krusty paper contains lots of images of the unit prototype...

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-30 12:07:23

Here is more good news for the nuclear fission power industry:

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/finance … 42845.html

Production of hydrogen is a natural fit for nuclear power plants.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-12-05 09:17:05

Here is an update about prospects for Small Modular Reactors ...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/atom … 15693.html

Jonathan Tirone
Sat, December 5, 2020 1:00 AM ET
(Bloomberg) --
The first operators of miniature nuclear reactors described their job as “tickling the tail of a sleeping dragon” because of the danger involved with unlocking the energy in atoms.
<snip>
“This is the decade of SMR demonstrations, which could potentially determine front runners for the expected economy of series production,” said Henri Paillere, the head planning and economic studies at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. “There is high level of innovation.”
<snip>
Industrial heat requirements have helped turn Canada into a global hub for SMR developers, according to Simon Newton, the director of development at Moltex, a British company working on a 300-megawatt SMR for New Brunswick Power Corp. Temperatures exceeding 300 degrees Celsius are needed to turn oil sands into liquid petroleum for use in refined products ranging from fertilizers to pharmaceuticals. SMR developers are already evaluating how to displace fossil fuel producers in supply chains.
<snip>
Without reviving demand for nuclear energy, the National Academy warned that the U.S. risks losing expertise in building reactors, leaving behind all the hard lessons scientists learned from tickling dragon tails seven decades ago.
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com
Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.
©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

I hope this part of the nuclear industry thrives on Earth, because units of the size considered in this article would do well on Mars, and probably in other locations away from Earth.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-02-11 20:56:53

https://newatlas.com/nasa-krusty-reactor-nuclear/54465/

To meet this challenge, NASA is developing its Kilopower system, which is a 10-kilowatt reactor that can run for a decade before refuelling. To avoid the plutonium shortage, it uses a solid-cast uranium 235 reactor core 6 inches in diameter surrounded by a beryllium oxide reflector. A mechanism at one end removes and inserts a single rod of boron carbide that starts and stops the reactor, while the reflector catches escaping neutrons and bounces them back into the core, improving the efficiency of the self-regulating fission reaction. Until activated, the core is only mildly radioactive.

?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewatlas-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Farchive%2Fnasa-kilopower-3.jpg

http://anstd.ans.org/NETS-2019-Papers/T … ctors.html

http://anstd.ans.org/NETS-2019-Papers/T … t-94-0.pdf

http://www.aben.com.br/Arquivos/708/708.pdf

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index … ic=52042.0
Re: Molten salt fission reactors on Earth and beyond

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index … =45509.180
NASA to make announcement concerning the Kilopower project

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269208033_Kilopower_NASA's_Small_Fission_Power_System_for_Science_and_Human_Exploration

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ … 020/247504

SpaceNut · 2021-02-14 20:33:03

NASA grants renewal and funding for deep space health protections

tahanson43206 · 2021-03-23 13:59:39

Here is an update that looks (to me at least) like a ** very ** interesting power option for Mars settlement ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/portable-nuc … 16355.html

Defense News
Portable nuclear reactor project moves forward at Pentagon
Aaron Mehta
Tue, March 23, 2021, 11:50 AM
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has selected two companies to move forward with developing small, portable nuclear reactors for military use in the field.
BWXT Advanced Technologies and X-energy were chosen by the department’s Strategic Capabilities Office to continue on with Project Pele, which seeks to develop a reactor of 1- to 5-megawatt output that can last at least three years at full power. In addition, the reactors must be designed to operate within three days of delivery and be safely removed in as few as seven days if needed.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-03-23 18:16:25

The most valuable application from a military point of view, would be a self-contained mini factory unit that is capable of using a variety of different feedstock to produce liquid fuels for military vehicles. A unit that can do that efficiently in a compact and portable arrangement, whilst producing electricity, fresh water and low grade heat as well, would be extremely valuable.

One way of doing that anywhere on Earth, would be to couple a compact nuclear power reactor with a small Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis chemical reactor. The Haber-Bosch reactor, operates at pressures of 100-200 bar and temperatures between 400-500°C. This is within the operational temperature range of a small fast reactor using sodium or lead as coolant. Hydrogen could be produced in an electrolysis cell operating at high pressures of up to 200bar. The resulting hydrogen would be fed directly into the synthesis reactor, along with compressed nitrogen and direct nuclear heat would provide the energy source for driving ammonia production.

An alternative and slightly easier approach would be to build a plant that generates liquid fuels from biomass.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en … stillation

This is achieved through destructive distillation or pyrolysis. Most (though not all) locations can provide biomass in one form or another. This could be in the form of chopped crop residues, wood, foliage, peat, seaweed, sewage, domestic waste, etc - basically and form of fixed organic carbon. The material is first chopped into fine particles. Next, large quantities of low grade heat (70-120°C) are used to dry the material under anaerobic conditions. This heat source could be provided by a light water reactor, either using waste heat or direct nuclear heat. The dry organic material is then loaded into a retort, where it is heated to 540°C and undergoes pyrolysis, producing a complex mixture of combustible liquids, along with charcoal and mixed combustible and non-combustible gases. If a fast reactor is available as a heat source, then both drying and pyrolysis can be carried out using nuclear heat, without the need for electricity. The liquids can be separated thanks to differences in boiling point. They include things like toluene, methanol, ascetic acid and tar. Mixed together this is a diesel substitute. The gases could be burned in a small gas turbine to generate electric power. The turbine exhaust has about the right temperature to drive the pyrolysis. The carbon residue could be partially burned into CO, which then reacts with hydrogen produced by electrolysis, to produce methanol. A nuclear reactor producing electric power can also operate electrolysis cells. With sufficient hydrogen being produced, it would make sense optimising the process such that all fixed carbon entering plant, leaves it as liquid fuel.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-03-23 18:18:48)

SpaceNut · 2021-03-31 18:18:37

The big fear..
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tract … uxbndlbing

kbd512 · 2021-03-31 19:10:53

SpaceNut,

The article specifically stated that no material leaked or was otherwise lost and that there was no radiological contamination from the transportation accident.

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-11 07:11:41

For Calliban ...

This topic seemed (to me at least) like a possible way to connect with you... I ran this idea by SpaceNut in Housekeeping, so now it's time to see what you think.

The premise is that Nuclear is not only Safe (when handled properly) but it is Essential (a) and (b) a person can live comfortably away from Earth with it as the energy supply for a habitat. However, the set of topics I am proposing are ** NOT ** limited to heat, light and electricity, which you can already supply. I'm inviting you (and your guest authors) to build up a topic that shows that food, water suitable for drinking, and all other supplies can be made on site using nuclear power. This is not done on Earth at the moment, so it will be a stretch to work out how to do it in Space.

However, my argument is now (and has been for a number of years) that all human needs can be supplied for a space traveler if sufficient energy is brought to bear on the problem.

This is a new subtopic that I am opening in Housekeeping because I don't want to clutter other topics with discussion ...
I'm interested in the opinion of Calliban (first and foremost), kbd512, GW Johnson and Oldfart1939, and anyone else who supports the proposition:
Nuclear Power is Essential for Life Away from Earth
I would propose a companion: Companion to Nuclear Power is Essential for Life Away from Earth
SpaceNut is a key player in this initiative ... I'd like to suggest we limit participation to the four persons named above for the primary topic.
Everyone would be encouraged to participate in the Companion.
I'm looking for hard facts to develop in the primary.
I'd like to see the primary topic develop with hooks for finding specific items easily.
The forum software is lean and there aren't a lot of bells and whistles, but we humans have already demonstrated the ability to work with the environment to make it more useful for the longer term, as well as for the immediate discussion that might be in progress.
Edit#1: The proposition I hope to develop is that with sufficient power available, a human can live comfortably away from Earth, ** without ** resupply from Earth. The early ideas/explorations of trying to live in a space habitat without resupply envisioned all sorts of low energy solutions.
I'd like to propose design of a living space away from Earth that is NOT limited in power, and therefore can perform such operations as completely disassociating atoms from others in molecules, so that ** all ** waste from the living space is reduced to the pure form that can then be fed back into the environment as needed.

Overnight, I realized that it would make more sense to invite a lead author to manage the primary topic, and for that lead author to invite others to contribute posts. With SpaceNut keeping an eye on things, and with support of Moderators, it should be possible to build a flow in the primary topic that could be adapted for a print article at some point.

The Companion is where the work of thrashing out pros and cons would be done, and everyone would be welcome to pitch in there.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-05-12 15:31:01

Tom, I am happy to help. I start a new job in just over a week, so imagine I won't have as much free time between now and Christmas. However, this is a topic that can be developed gradually I think.

I don't know a great deal about CELSS. But I imagine that biological systems would do a lot of work processing grey and black water. The big unanswered question is whether it will be possible to produce electric power cheaply enough to provide illumination for food production in compact vertical farms. If that is possible, then we can indeed live wherever raw materials exist in sufficient abundance. When fusion becomes available, this opens up the outer solar system for large scale colonisation. Deuterium in ice provides a practically inexhaustible energy source. I and others here have suggested various marine plants as a large part of food supply, due to improved conversion efficiency of photons into food. Void suggested Hydrilla. Someone else (it may have been you) brought up floating freshwater aquatic plants such as duckweed. Enormous numbers of edible microalgae species are available as well. All of these plants can be used as raw materials for processed foods and the end result could be food stuffs that are quite appealing to the human pallete.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-05-12 15:47:11)

SpaceNut · 2021-05-12 16:54:49

https://www.quora.com/Are-new-nuclear-f … adioactive

No, new nuclear fuel rods are not very radioactive. When they arrive from the fuel manufacturer, they are inspected to ensure that they are defect free before use. They are inspected visually by plant personnel who get really close to the fuel(I’ve done it more than a few times in a previous life). Since the uranium fuel pellets inside the fuel assemblies are sealed inside zirconium tubes AND each fuel assembly is throughly washed to remove traces of uranium and other contaminants that may have been left on the assemblies during the manufacturing process, the new fuel assemblies are not relatively radioactive.

So shipping a reactor empty would take away the fear factor with the rods kept isolated until you are on mars ready for install.

louis · 2021-05-12 17:03:19

I've never doubted that nuclear power could be used on Mars for a variety of tasks, and might in fact become important. Even after humans have settled, and prior to terraformation, there will be little danger to humans from having nuclear reactors on Mars - even if things go badly wrong, we won't see milliions of people driven from their homes or thousands of square miles of agricultural land made barren in effect.

However, I really don't think it is very likely for the following reasons:

1. Solar power is going to have a head start. Musk and Space X are committed to it and there are very serious regulatory barriers to launching nuclear reactors of sufficient size to Mars.

2. Nuclear reactor stations are people-dense locations. The one thing we can be certain of on Mars is that labour will be in very short supply. There will be 1001 things that we will want to do on Mars - not least things that generate large revenue. The last thing we will want is an energy system that deploys a lot of labour. PV panel systems that can easily be maintained by robots will be favoured.

3. Nuclear power is not that flexible for smaller tasks like establishing mining outposts.

4. Once PV power becomes established on Mars and the people of Mars are producing PV panel/film (which could happen within 10 years of the first humans landing I believe) then there is unlikely to be interest in developing nuclear power.

However, all that said, I can see that once terraformation becomes an active policy, nuclear power might come into its own more. I think by then - maybe 50 years after the first landing - it will be a question of whether solar power satellite technology has been matured...if it has then that will probably win out over nuclear but if it hasn't, then nuclear power stations might be the best way forward for the terraformation process which will certainly require huge amounts of power.

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-12 18:43:51

For Calliban ... best wishes for success with the new job!

Thanks for all your contributions to the forum!

Louis will be here to give you challenging points of view to consider (with any luck) ...

(th)

Calliban · 2021-05-12 22:46:43

Thanks Tom. I won't be leaving the forum. But my contributions may become more occasional for the next 6 months.

Louis, appreciate your contribution. But you have made the same points over and over on this topic for several years. And they have been shot to pieces over and over again. What do you think will be different this time? Has the technology changed in some fundamental way that will change the outcome since the last time it was last discussed?

louis · 2021-05-13 07:07:26

Well you might not like what I have to say but it's all documented:

1. There are regulatory issues with launching nuclear reactors into space.

2. There are no Mars-designed nuclear reactors available for deployment.

3. The Kiliowatt units (designed for deep space primarily, but may be adaptable for Mars) are still in a testing phase and will likely weigh in at 1.5 tons per 10Kwe unit.

4. Nuclear reactors do not provide very flexible solutions for the initial colonisation phase when we might be trying out hundreds or thousands of mining sites.

When I read discussions on this site about nuclear power it sometimes feel like they are taking place in a reality vacuum.

Calliban wrote:

Thanks Tom. I won't be leaving the forum. But my contributions may become more occasional for the next 6 months.
Louis, appreciate your contribution. But you have made the same points over and over on this topic for several years. And they have been shot to pieces over and over again. What do you think will be different this time? Has the technology changed in some fundamental way that will change the outcome since the last time it was last discussed?

SpaceNut · 2021-05-13 19:25:26

RTG units are a regulatory item as its a functioning battery source of energy from decay a reactor needs not be active or even filled with the rods until later when it's time to set it up and activate it.
The readiness of the kilowatt is only waiting on the sterling convertor but it should be finished and duration tested to make sure it can perform correctly.
Solar is not flexible as its got to be mounted on stands to keep it from damage and be able to keep them clean...not to mention cabling inter connections plus output connections to the remaining power station.

Calliban · 2021-05-14 03:18:41

For long-term settlements, solar PV isn't going to work as the dominant base power supply for reasons that I and others on this board have been over many times before, most recently on the Settlement thread. The most limiting problem is that energy payback time is too long. In Germany, energy payback times for PV facilities is about 6 years.
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss … eprint.pdf

On Mars, it will be longer because sunlight intensity is lower. On a planet where basic energy needs for survival are going to be quite high, relying on a power supply with such low lifetime ERoEI isn't workable. We are going to need a lot of surplus energy simply to grow food, to access water and build all of the infrastructure needed for an expanding human presence.

Below is a link to the 2015 Quadrennial energy review, produced by the US department of energy.

www.energy.gov/quadrennial-technology-review-2015

Go to Section 10, Table 10.4 for a summary of materials inputs into several different types of powerplant in ton/TWh. Here are some tallys per TWh:
Nuclear (PWR) = 760t concrete / cement; 3t copper; 0t glass; 160t steel; 0t aluminium.
Wind = 8000t concrete / cement; 23t copper; 92t glass; 1800t steel; 35t aluminium.
Solar PV = 4050t concrete / cement; 850t copper; 2700t glass; 7900t steel; 680t aluminium.

Compared to a pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant, a solar PV plant producing the same electric power output will require some 5.3x more concrete; some 280x more copper, some 49.4x more steel; and thousands of times more glass and aluminium.

There is no indication that these quantities include any materials investments needed for energy storage. This would require further materials investments in pumped hydro, CAES or some other means. This increases the materials cost of wind and solar still further. Embodied materials are a reflection of embodied energy.

This is the situation on Earth. On Earth we are able to subsidise PV powerplant production by using low cost coal and natural gas based energy to manufacture the cells, glass and steel needed to build these installations. They also benefit from the short term measure of interest rates being beneath inflation and QE keeping bond prices artificially high. Short of gimmicks like this, such low ERoEI energy sources would not be workable even here on Earth. And we are better able to tolerate lower ERoEI on Earth, because nature provides us with so much for free. We have a natural environment with breathable air; fertile soil with adequate rainfall and temperature range to be able to grow food in the open. And of course most of us live in a temperate climate. Absent those things, simply staying alive becomes very energy intensive.

Regardless of institutional obstacles, it will not be possible to colonise Mars using solar power alone. One of the first priorities of a Martian base will be the development of capabilities to build nuclear power sources. The power supply to the base needs to expand rapidly and it cannot be imported from Earth when total system mass rises beyond a certain point. If compact fusion reactors become available, there will be strong incentives to develop this energy source as well.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-05-14 03:40:37)

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-18 13:41:49

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/0aba138 … stors.html

Rolls-Royce courts investors for mini nuclear plants
Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and Sylvia Pfeifer in London
Sun, May 16, 2021, 8:00 PM
A consortium led by Rolls-Royce that is hoping to build a fleet of mini nuclear power stations across Britain is talking to investors to secure £300m in funding as it prepares to submit its design to regulators later this year. The consortium, which also includes Jacobs and Laing O’Rourke, hopes to be the first “small modular reactor” developer to put its design through the UK’s rigorous nuclear regulatory assessment. UK prime minister Boris Johnson backed SMRs as part of his 10-point plan for a “green industrial revolution” last year.

Glad to see this tentative but promising step forward.

People in the UK who want to live on Solar Power surely have the option of installing solar panels, batteries and related electronics to isolate themselves from the grid?

Possible application of these new designs for the Mars enterprise is probably NOT in the business plan, but the designs themselves may be a good fit for shipment to Mars, if the total mass is under 100 tons.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-06-05 15:29:21

NASA's Perseverance rover is the 1st spacecraft in years to carry fresh US plutonium. It won't be the last.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … ar-AAKDfN6

SpaceNut · 2021-06-05 16:36:55

That was since other nations would not sell any from there stock of it to Nasa that we had to restart making it.

Calliban · 2021-06-18 03:22:26

Interesting post on Quora. Nuclear reactors have about 4x the capital cost that they would have if they weren't so cripplingly over-regulated. When light water reactor technology began expanding as a mainstream electricity source in the 1970s, it was the cheapest means of generating electricity. And so they should be - they are essentially steam driven electric power plants, driven by fission instead of combustion. Which means very low fuel cost. Without the effects of regulatory ratcheting, a unit of nuclear electricity would therefore cost half to two-thirds that of coal generated electricity. In the 1970s, the industry was expanding rapidly. Now it is effectively shrinking. Society regulates nuclear technologies so tightly that no one can afford to build them anymore. This answer is a few years old, but it contains a practical suggestion as to how we might put this right.
*******************************************************************************************************

Qu: How can the costs of molten salt reactor R&D as well as the early construction be justified? How could these costs be reduced?

Answer: The cost of Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) is not driven by the same mechanisms that drive the commercial costs for most industrial products. Conventional engineering methods that are used to reduce the cost of most of the manufactured items we buy will not help to any significant extent reducing the cost of modern Molten Salt Reactors.

The reason for this is that the cost of any type of new nuclear reactor, including MSRs, is actually driven by nuclear regulation. It can be further said that the level of nuclear regulation that is applied to new nuclear reactor designs is ultimately driven by the public’s perception of the safety of nuclear technology.

Perhaps as a result of unfair and ultimately unwarranted campaigning by anti-nuclear organizations. fossil fuel lobbyists, and radical environmentalists all forms of nuclear technology currently are quite over regulated. Careful scholarly analysis[1] indicates that the cost of new nuclear reactors is priced up more than 400% over what the real cost of nuclear reactors was in the US in the early 1970s during a time that America’s original nuclear regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission, had regulatory authority.

Engineering methods and approaches to reducing cost are secondary and marginal in reducing the ultimate cost of new nuclear reactors. The most rapid and effective way to reduce the cost of new reactors is to go after the actual cause of high new reactor cost - and that cause is regulatory.

Here are some concrete suggestions regarding steps that could be taken to to streamline the regulation of nuclear and to reduce the cost of new nuclear reactors.

Cost-Benefit analysis is an essential key to improving the quality of current US nuclear regulation which must simultaneously protect the public while encouraging nuclear technical innovation and advancement.

All existing nuclear regulation should be reviewed from a benefit/cost standpoint.

Federal regulation has a profound effect on the U.S. nuclear industry and the rate of nuclear innovation in the United States. Certainly some regulations are essential and help ensure that the power plants we build are safe; the environment in which we live is adequately protected; and the energy marketplaces in which utilities operate are fair, open and competitive.

Nuclear regulations also impose significant costs on both utilities and consumers and can reduce employment and depress growth. It is therefore imperative that federal agencies carefully consider the positive and negative impacts of proposed rules.

Cost-benefit analysis is the best available tool to evaluate these tradeoffs. Most federal agencies are required by a series of executive orders and guidance to assess the costs and benefits of proposed regulations when they are expected to significantly affect the economy. Only regulations for which the benefits justify the costs are permitted. These requirements have enjoyed broad bipartisan support across presidential administrations for decades, as they help to ensure that the various tradeoffs inherent in any regulation are described, quantified and evaluated before regulations are finalized.

Despite these requirements, however, federal agencies often fall short when assessing the impacts of their proposed rules.

For example:

» NRC is not always currently subject to the executive branch's cost-benefit requirements. While NRC is encouraged to perform cost-benefit analysis, they rarely do so.

» NRC when performing internally cost-benefit analysis on the impact of proposed new regulation typically does not monetize or even quantify costs and benefits for many major rules, making it impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons of the relevant tradeoffs. This problem has worsened in recent years; since 2009, NRC has developed monetized cost and benefit
estimates less frequently, while simultaneously issuing substantially more major rules.

» When NRC does perform cost-benefit analysis, their analyses often cannot be reproduced by a qualified third party due to insufficient transparency and lack of data access. Given that the nature of a regulatory agency is to regulate, it is important for independent experts and the public to be able to examine and if necessary re-create agency analyses or modify them while using alternative assumptions and approaches.

The regulatory process remains currently the greatest single obstacle to introduction of better nuclear (including MSRs and LFTRs). The current US regulatory process is arduous and daunting while acting to constrain new nuclear innovation. To overcome this block to nuclear innovation and break the decades standing regulatory gridlock, I would suggest that President Trump request that Congress authorize a fast-track permitting process for a limited number of reactor projects.

A way to revise the current slow, arduous regulatory process -
Fast Tracking of new MSRs and LFTR Reactors has Many Benefits and Few Drawbacks.

Streamlining the US regulatory process is necessary because the process cannot just be sped up. Specific procedures are in place that the NRC must follow, and that process takes time. Simply adding staff manpower at NRC, as some have suggested, would only provide marginal benefit. Because training regulators can take two years, it would be years before the NRC could hire and train enough people to shorten time schedules significantly.

To speed up the current permitting process and allow new classes of nuclear reactors to be prototyped and built, Congress should authorize a fast-track program that is open to new reactor applicants that meet certain conditions. The goal would be to cut by at least 50 percent the amount of time it takes to permit new nuclear reactor plants. This must be done without sacrificing safety standards or security.

The way we pay the cost of nuclear regulation will have long term impacts on the vitality of the nuclear industry and the quality of life in America. We do not need bailouts or huge loan guarantees to restart the American nuclear industry, we need DOE's help in rolling back regulatory obstacles that price up over 400% the cost of nuclear relative to the true inflation adjusted cost of nuclear in 1973 at the end of the AEC era of nuclear regulation.

Using applicant payments to pay the costs of regulation stifles innovation and prevents small American technology companies from entering the NRC regulated nuclear industry.

Why not incentivize NRC to locate for Congress areas in the current regulatory rulings where parts of the existing code exist that add cost and delay to nuclear construction but do not add significantly to safety?
It would be much more effective to promoting the long term health of nuclear power generation in America to bring American nuclear regulation down to parity with regulation in the lands of our industrial competition then to offer huge loan guarantees to finance a tiny handful of very overpriced and over regulated Light Water Reactors.

The lessons learned from a Trump Administration fast-track regulatory program could be applied to a more comprehensive regulatory overhaul of NRC and nuclear regulation in the future.
The program's objective would be to reduce the permitting schedule from four years down to two or less and should be available for up to two construction permits per reactor design.
What might be the key new elements of a revised and streamlined a new reactor fast-track program:

Focusing NRC Resources - Per congressional direction, the NRC should focus its resources on permitting designated fast-track applications as quickly as possible without sacrificing safety or quality assurance.

Mobilizing National Laboratory Capabilities - Although the NRC already uses the national labs to support their activities, the national labs should be compelled by Congress to organize themselves to support the fast-track applications. National Labs are still incredible engines of nuclear technical innovation and National Labs still enjoy grandfathered advantages to independently review for safety, without interference from NRC, new technology "test" reactors built on their Lab sites.

Focus University Funding Around Supporting the Effort of new nuclear innovation - The Department of Energy funds programs that support nuclear education in the university system. These programs should be focused on supporting the NRC's fast-track program. This would not only provide additional resources to fast-tracking permits but would also develop a workforce with the technical expertise to design and operate America's reactors.

Ensuring a Science and Technical Based Assessment - The NRC must have the freedom to pursue a transparent, fact-based process in a non-adversarial environment. While inputs from local stakeholders must be accommodated, the NRC must be allowed to make decisions based on good science and engineering in a timely manner. This requires an efficient process that allows legitimate concerns to be heard and resolved without being hijacked by outside, agenda-driven interests.

Fast-track program applicants promoting innovative new nuclear reactors would have to meet certain criteria. These would include:

Special Preference for NRC Certified or Proven Design - The NRC has already certified four designs and is reviewing several others. We should as quickly as possible accelerate the building of new nuclear reactors in the United States and reverse the recent shrinking in the numbers of the US commercial nuclear fleet. Only reactors with certified designs are currently licensable and can immediately be built. We should give preference to building new nuclear that is at a point of technical maturity to currently be built. We should also expediently accelerate to processing and licensing of new Gen-4 reactor technology which provides additional important safety features and holds out promise of making new nuclear even more economically competitive.

Proven Reactor Siting with Broad Public Support - The reactor site must already be licensed for operating reactors, and the applicant must demonstrate that the new reactor is welcome by the local community. Furthermore, the applicant must establish that an additional reactor will be safe and environmentally compatible. Under such conditions, the NRC should be permitted to provide an expedited environmental review, which takes roughly two years under current policy.

Proven Reactor Owner/Operator - The application must be submitted by an operator with extensive experience with nuclear operations and be in good standing with the NRC. This is not to suggest that some current COL applicants are not capable, but fast-track applicants should have extensive nuclear operations experience and credibility with the state and local community. Each applicant would have to demonstrate its competence to the NRC before entering the program.

Proven Demand - The applicant must demonstrate that there is a market for the power to be produced by the new reactor.
Complete COL (Combined Operations and Construction License) Application - The applicant must have a full and complete COL application per NRC guidance. One of the current problems slowing the NRC is the lack of completeness of some of the applications. Complete applications are critical to ensuring that the NRC is able to conduct a comprehensive design and safety review without having to go back to the applicant for additional information.

Long-Lead Components Commitment - The applicant must demonstrate both a financial commitment and a preparedness to earnestly move forward by securing a source for timely delivery of long-lead components. Many of the components used to build a nuclear power plant must be ordered years in advance. Applicants seeking fast-track permits should be required to place early orders or deposits as soon as they are granted a fast-track permitting status.

Applicant Fees - Like most other NRC activities, industry should fund most of the activities associated with the fast-track program through the assessment of a program participation fee.

To execute the program, Congress must:
Provide Specific Direction to the NRC, National Labs, and Department of Energy. Congress must explicitly state its intentions for the fast-track program and make funding contingent on the NRC, national labs, and DOE to organize themselves to achieve the objective of early completion of new reactor construction.

Adequately Fund - If Congress is serious about reducing the time it takes to permit and build new reactors, it must give NRC, the national labs, and the DOE the resources and regulatory flexibility they need to get the job done. Rebuilding America's energy infrastructure is exactly the kind of direction that each of these institutions should be working toward.

Fast Tracking of new advanced reactors including MSRs and LFTR has Many Benefits and Few Drawbacks

[1] - Dr. Bernard Cohen, “Cost of Nuclear Power Plants - What went wrong?” –

COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WHAT WENT WRONG?
(Regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant).

https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-costs … =103091387

The cost of Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) is not driven by the same mechanisms that drive the commercial costs for most industrial products. Conventional engineering methods that are used to reduce the cost of most of the manufactured items we buy will not help to any significant extent reducing the cost of modern Molten Salt Reactors.