Peter Thiel: We Need a New Atomic Age

HughPickens.com writes: Peter Thiel writes in the NYT that what's especially strange about the failed push for renewables is that we already had a practical plan back in the 1960s to become fully carbon-free without any need of wind or solar: nuclear power. "But after years of cost overruns, technical challenges and the bizarre coincidence of an accident at Three Mile Island and the 1979 release of the Hollywood horror movie "The China Syndrome," about a hundred proposed reactors were canceled," says Thiel. "If we had kept building, our power grid could have been carbon-free years ago. Instead, we went in reverse."

According to Thiel, a new generation of American nuclear scientists has produced designs for better reactors. Crucially, these new designs may finally overcome the most fundamental obstacle to the success of nuclear power: high cost. Designs using molten salt, alternative fuels and small modular reactors have all attracted interest not just from academics but also from entrepreneurs and venture capitalists like me ready to put money behind nuclear power. However, none of these new designs can benefit the real world without a path to regulatory approval, and today's regulations are tailored for traditional reactors, making it almost impossible to commercialize new ones. "Both the right's fear of government and the left's fear of technology have jointly stunted our nuclear energy policy," concludes Thiel. "supporting nuclear power with more than words is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. Like Nixon's going to China, this is something only Mr. Obama can do. If this president clears the path for a new atomic age, American scientists are ready to build it."

Comments

Re:"Failed" push for renewables?

[kheldan]

I'd happily live down the street from a Thorium reactor.

I second the motion.
Speaking as someone who, back in the late 80's, out of my own fear due to ignorance and a lack of foresight, voted to shut down Rancho Seco, I've come full circle on the subject, and now feel that nuclear power is, for at least the time being, an excellent option to break us out of the use of fossil fuels, at least while other technologies are being (further) developed, and from what I've read on the subject, thorium reactors are a better, safer choice than uranium reactors, and more sustainable for the time being due to the relative abundance of thorium -- assuming we've learned from our mistakes and can design and operate such plants in an appropriately safe manner. Meanwhile I'll hold out hope that we manage to solve the puzzle of workable fusion reactor design, and the proliferation of technologies like photovoltaics can do nothing but good and I encourage their further development wholeheartedly. As a sidebar we need to persuade the electric power industry to stop whinging about rooftop solar and embrace it rather than treating it like it's The Enemy Trying To Destroy Them; just another case of an outdated business model that refuses to die, and profit standing in the way of much-needed progress, much like the way the auto industry treats upstart plug-in electric vehicle manufacturers like Tesla. Big Business can't be allowed to determine the course human progress is going to take, because on average they'll choose profit over what's good for people over the long run every single time (in my opinion).