Data centres, electrification and energy security are converging on a simple reality: intermittent power cannot carry a modern civilisation—and nuclear is the only scalable alternative.
Wondering if AI costs will really get the US government (and public) behind a standardized method for developing nuclear. SMRs seem to be getting positive press since early 2025. I actually think that a favorable psychological shift would happen as soon as Americans stop associating nuclear power with the images of cooling towers. We just need better nuclear marketing.
The loss of mega-project civilisational skill is interesting too. As corporations grapple with sustainability topics that are relevant to them (safety, water, people, community etc) I do wonder if they should branch out more, delve into these sort of topics, where economic, environmental, social impacts interact, and where opportunities will be found with benefits across the three-legged stool of sustainable development. It brings to mind Lomborg's book, Best Things First... I will take a look at the mega projects book...
Even if wind and solar with batteries were 24/7 reliable, which of course they aren't, and even if they didn't have to be replaced every 20 to 30 years, I would be opposed to them for three very simple reasons - they require thousands of acres because of their low energy density, they are produced from environmental destruction and even child slave labor in 3rd world locations, and they use so many materials and metals that could be put to much better use.
You mentioned "The first new military‑hosted reactors in the United States are now approved and more projects are in the pipeline." "military-hosted"? What ones have been approved? Any put into service yet?
Wondering if AI costs will really get the US government (and public) behind a standardized method for developing nuclear. SMRs seem to be getting positive press since early 2025. I actually think that a favorable psychological shift would happen as soon as Americans stop associating nuclear power with the images of cooling towers. We just need better nuclear marketing.
But if the wrong country tries to use nuclear power, it becomes the target of war. Because the US also led the way in using it as a weapon.
The loss of mega-project civilisational skill is interesting too. As corporations grapple with sustainability topics that are relevant to them (safety, water, people, community etc) I do wonder if they should branch out more, delve into these sort of topics, where economic, environmental, social impacts interact, and where opportunities will be found with benefits across the three-legged stool of sustainable development. It brings to mind Lomborg's book, Best Things First... I will take a look at the mega projects book...
Great article 👍
Great writing.
Nuclear energy really is inevitable, the next decade should be exciting from a development perspective
Great article. Nuclear is clearly the way to go.
Even if wind and solar with batteries were 24/7 reliable, which of course they aren't, and even if they didn't have to be replaced every 20 to 30 years, I would be opposed to them for three very simple reasons - they require thousands of acres because of their low energy density, they are produced from environmental destruction and even child slave labor in 3rd world locations, and they use so many materials and metals that could be put to much better use.
You mentioned "The first new military‑hosted reactors in the United States are now approved and more projects are in the pipeline." "military-hosted"? What ones have been approved? Any put into service yet?