All of the above - Nukes Are Back!

2,846 Views | 23 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by Jack Squat 83
Over_ed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:47a, 10/29/25
AG
"On Tuesday, Westinghouse announced that it had reached an agreement with the Trump administration that would purportedly see $80 billion of new nuclear reactors built in the US. And the government indicated that it had finalized plans for a collaboration of GE Vernova and Hitachi to build additional reactors".
...
he agreements were apparently negotiated during President Trump's trip to Japan. An announcement of those agreements indicates that "Japan and various Japanese companies" would invest "up to" $332 billion for energy infrastructure.
...
Meanwhile, Westinghouse claims that it will be involved in the construction of "at least $80 billion of new reactors," a mix of AP1000 and AP300 (each named for the MW of capacity of the reactor/generator combination). The company claims that doing so will "reinvigorate the nuclear power industrial base."

This is a great thing for our country, our long term energy independence, and, (if you think carbon is bad, I guess) our environment. Way past time for us to get this tech back on track.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/10/westinghouse-is-claiming-a-nuclear-deal-would-see-80b-of-new-reactors/

ETA - very good Trump!
Reply Quote
42
1 edit
ts5641
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:54a, 10/29/25
About time. Anyone or group who talks about clean energy and doesn't want nukes isn't to be taken seriously.
Reply Quote
68
Ulysses90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Over_ed • 6:05a, 10/29/25
AG
Good but not nearly as good as it could be. The US should be looking beyond pressurized water cooled reactors for both the size/cost and safety. Thorium is also a better fuel choice for reasons of domestic availability vs HALEU.

Reply Quote
11
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:59a, 10/29/25
AG
We were all saying it: Big Business love of AI would bring back nuclear and end the "green energy" scam
Reply Quote
24
1 edit
B-1 83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:03a, 10/29/25
AG
From this point forward, how long until we see a single Kw generated from any of the new projects?
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
Reply Quote
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to B-1 83 • 7:06a, 10/29/25
AG
Because we idiotically custom design every facility, and regulations are to a paranoid degree, it will take a decade to break ground.
Reply Quote
5
bigjag19
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to B-1 83 • 7:15a, 10/29/25
AG
I'd guess 10 minimum.
Reply Quote
1
Kansas Kid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 7:19a, 10/29/25
MouthBQ98 said:
Because we idiotically custom design every facility, and regulations are to a paranoid degree, it will take a decade to break ground.

Agreed. We need to build SMRs which allow plants to be closer to where it is needed, prebuilt primarily off site and mass produced plants that are like the Model T. These massive plants are a relic of the past that will never be economical because of the sky high building costs per kWh.
Reply Quote
11
Hoyt Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:20a, 10/29/25
AG
I wouldn't get too excited over this, to be honest. It will be a decade or more till a single kw is made given the Everest sized amount of red tape involved with anything nuclear. Furthermore, if a Dem gets in the White house in the next two terms, these projects will be shelved day one. Short term we should (and are) convert coal power plants to gas fired and continue to build CT plants with our abundance of natty gas. Keep pushing on nuke projects, but it is a long long time till these projects come to fruition.
Reply Quote
3 edits
DallasAg 94
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:31a, 10/29/25
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
TX AG 88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kansas Kid • 7:37a, 10/29/25
AG
Kansas Kid said:
MouthBQ98 said:
Because we idiotically custom design every facility, and regulations are to a paranoid degree, it will take a decade to break ground.

Agreed. We need to build SMRs which allow plants to be closer to where it is needed, prebuilt primarily off site and mass produced plants that are like the Model T. These massive plants are a relic of the past that will never be economical because of the sky high building costs per kWh.

I can't give this enough blue stars.
Reply Quote
6
TX AG 88
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:39a, 10/29/25
AG
Also, we need to invest in geothermal/drilling research. The core of the earth is hotter than the surface of the sun. In places like Iceland, they get most of their power from geothermal because it's close to the surface. With drilling and materials advances, we could access that energy from almost anywhere (or at least a whole lot more places than are utilized currently... Aspen, CO, etc. would probably be a bad place to try.)
Reply Quote
1
Hoyt Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TX AG 88 • 7:43a, 10/29/25
AG
There are companies actively drilling exploratory tests wells in NW Colorado in hopes to build such facilities.
Reply Quote
1
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hoyt Ag • 7:53a, 10/29/25
AG
Hoyt Ag said:
I wouldn't get too excited over this, to be honest. It will be a decade or more till a single kw is made given the Everest sized amount of red tape involved with anything nuclear. Furthermore, if a Dem gets in the White house in the next two terms, these projects will be shelved day one. Short term we should (and are) convert coal power plants to gas fired and continue to build CT plants with our abundance of natty gas. Keep pushing on nuke projects, but it is a long long time till these projects come to fruition.

Agree. Zeldin needs to gut the EPA along with massive amount of regs to get these through permitting ASAP. It truly is a race against the Dems because this would be a bigger target for them than opening the borders again.

Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Reply Quote
3
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kansas Kid • 7:57a, 10/29/25
Kansas Kid said:
MouthBQ98 said:
Because we idiotically custom design every facility, and regulations are to a paranoid degree, it will take a decade to break ground.

Agreed. We need to build SMRs which allow plants to be closer to where it is needed, prebuilt primarily off site and mass produced plants that are like the Model T. These massive plants are a relic of the past that will never be economical because of the sky high building costs per kWh.
Functionally most of the "plant" will still be permanent infrastructure built around numerous SMRs, so it's not going to strip as much out of the process as it would appear, BUT the benefit of central facility production / inspection / regulation is quite promising.


An analogy would be a custom garage who orders an engine but otherwise fabricates the car as a discrete project. Still tons of work & customization, but the primary component that COULD blow up on you isn't a concern.
Reply Quote
1
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kansas Kid • 8:12a, 10/29/25
AG
They do pay back but it takes like 2 decades or more so the up front investment is a big risk if anything goes wrong.
Reply Quote
cecil77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Get Off My Lawn • 8:18a, 10/29/25
AG
Get Off My Lawn said:
Kansas Kid said:
MouthBQ98 said:
Because we idiotically custom design every facility, and regulations are to a paranoid degree, it will take a decade to break ground.

Agreed. We need to build SMRs which allow plants to be closer to where it is needed, prebuilt primarily off site and mass produced plants that are like the Model T. These massive plants are a relic of the past that will never be economical because of the sky high building costs per kWh.

Functionally most of the "plant" will still be permanent infrastructure built around numerous SMRs, so it's not going to strip as much out of the process as it would appear, BUT the benefit of central facility production / inspection / regulation is quite promising.


An analogy would be a custom garage who orders an engine but otherwise fabricates the car as a discrete project. Still tons of work & customization, but the primary component that COULD blow up on you isn't a concern.


My Masters is now 45 years old and BS 48 years old. I was only in the industry a couple of years back then.

But this post could have been written then. I've not kept up, but it's bizarre that the discussion is fundamentally the same. Heck, we had a unit onThorium/salt breeders in 1975.
Reply Quote
2
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TX AG 88 • 8:44a, 10/29/25
AG
TX AG 88 said:
Also, we need to invest in geothermal/drilling research. The core of the earth is hotter than the surface of the sun. In places like Iceland, they get most of their power from geothermal because it's close to the surface. With drilling and materials advances, we could access that energy from almost anywhere (or at least a whole lot more places than are utilized currently... Aspen, CO, etc. would probably be a bad place to try.)


Have seen this live. It's interesting. You might have to be ok with quite large pipeline traveling over land to feed the energy. I'm sure land owners and greenies would love that.
Reply Quote
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:46a, 10/29/25
Will the anti-nuke activists from the 1970s-1980s fight the anti-carbon activists of 2010s-2020s over this?
Reply Quote
2
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to B-1 83 • 9:02a, 10/29/25
B-1 83 said:
From this point forward, how long until we see a single Kw generated from any of the new projects?

The research reactors (SMRs) that are now in the design phase/construction at the TAMU Rellis campus should be on-line (by late 2026) and on the grid by the mid 2030s, so I would predict about 5-10 years.
Reply Quote
3 edits
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DallasAg 94 • 9:08a, 10/29/25
DallasAg 94 said:
Democrats won't shelve them.

AI is the new grift. Guys like Bill Gates, et al, have too much money to make on AI and without more energy, AI is dead.

It will start with Gov approvals of improvemente on existing energy plants and culminate in these new reactors.

In the '90s any major improvements on lefacy energy plants would subject the plants to current emissions requirements. So, then plants that could gain 20% more efficiency... which would have improved its impact on "climate" aka "warming" as we called it... weren't done. Which was asinine regulation, but Gov leverage to push the owners to shut down or go full upgrade.

Unless they go the Anti-AI to protect Union job route
Reply Quote
nukeaggie2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:28a, 10/29/25
AG
I approve of this
Reply Quote
2
Highway6
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nukeaggie2000 • 9:46a, 10/29/25
AG
nukeaggie2000 said:
I approve of this

User name


Checks out
Reply Quote
4
Jack Squat 83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:58a, 10/29/25
AG
So.........will we the taxpayers own and operate them? Is it a gov't guarantee for the manufacturing phase?

In Ercot at least, private entities own the generation. Not sure how that will work out, but there is very little info given at this point at least in the article. BTW I am a fan of dispatchable energy of most any form, so yeah! I think. We are way behind the curve on generation.
I don't think you know me.
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.