Started By
Message

re: "Manhattan Project 2" for Nuclear Energy Push

Posted on 5/23/25 at 1:53 pm to
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
133227 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 1:53 pm to
quote:

The pushback against Nuclear is stupid as frick. It is one of the most efficient, best power sources we have


The only reason why it appears some of the activists against nuclear are winning is due to its cost. Investors are not cowing to activist. They are following the business model.
Posted by Baers Foot
Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns
Member since Dec 2011
3733 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

“If we don’t unleash American innovation and American entrepreneurs and American construction and bold moves, we will lose Manhattan Project 2.”


Manhattan Project would not have been successful without highly intelligent university professors from all around the world.

Trump is actively trying to kick them out of our country.

Just like trying to make China his sole foreign policy boogeyman but taking an isolationist stance and distancing ourselves from allies that could potentially help us isolate China.

We can't have goals and enact policy to contradict them.
This post was edited on 5/23/25 at 1:55 pm
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
133227 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 1:55 pm to
quote:

Trump is actively trying to kick them out of our country.


No. He's just telling them you can't go to Harvard.
Posted by lostinbr
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2017
11881 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 3:12 pm to
quote:

Nuclear still faces one fundamental problem: cost.

Natural gas is so much cheaper.

Yep. Nuclear LCOE is something like 2x combined cycle natural gas LCOE.

That could change over time if massive demand (either from power or from LNG exports) leads to huge increases in the price of natural gas, but we aren’t seeing that yet.

It could also change to some extent if there is a major effort to remove red tape / government oversight requirements for nuclear generation.. but that kind of undermines arguments about the safety of nuclear power in the US over the past ~40 years.

Not to say that we won’t see a resurgence in nuclear. We very well might. But it’s not the cheap option many people think it is, for whatever reason.
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
66611 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 4:49 pm to
That would be #153.
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
66611 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 4:51 pm to
quote:

The order is expected to fast track the development of nuclear power stations in the United States, which would then supply the huge data centres required for AI.

quote:

Technology companies including Microsoft and Google have embraced nuclear power as a way to meet their expanding energy needs as the US government seeks to catch up with the boom in demand.

Cool. Let them foot the fricking bill. Taxpayers should not pay for their energy needs.
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
66611 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 4:53 pm to
quote:

Funny how just a week ago or so people were complaining about DOD loans to fund nuclear projects because it was done by Biden

I said the same thing then: If Big Tech needs more energy they need to take some of their billions and build some plants.
This post was edited on 5/23/25 at 4:54 pm
Posted by MSUDawg98
Ravens Flock
Member since Jan 2018
11635 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 9:43 pm to
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
15092 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:43 pm to
Remove the nuclear subsidization, then put up some phony action that won’t do shite. Pretty typically of our govt.
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
69217 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:44 pm to
We split the atom 80 years ago and we're still burning diesel in ships.

We dumb.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
15092 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:44 pm to
quote:

That could change over time if massive demand

Highly unlikely. The two biggest drivers of nuclear’s bonkers LCOE is cost of capital and o&m. You’re not going to economy of scale yourself out of those two. And the only way anything else gets close is a complete destruction of global commodity supply chains.
This post was edited on 5/23/25 at 10:46 pm
Posted by lostinbr
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2017
11881 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:57 pm to
quote:

Highly unlikely. The two biggest drivers of nuclear’s bonkers LCOE is cost of capital and o&m. You’re not going to economy of scale yourself out of those two. And the only way anything else gets close is a complete destruction of global commodity supply chains.

I don’t think nuclear gets any cheaper. I do think it might be possible (albeit unlikely) for gas to become more expensive between increasing utility demand and increasing LNG exports. But that sort of increase in the price of gas might frick the economy enough to reverse itself anyway.

OTOH, I guess we would probably see an explosion of shale gas drilling if that happened. So maybe it’s a moot point.
Posted by Kolbysfan
Member since Jun 2007
2028 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 5:56 am to
Modular nuclear reactors. Wright was at y-12 a few weeks ago.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram