9 ms·

This is a big deal, not because Microsoft wants to build reactors but because it highlights the real bottleneck: nuclear fuel. There’s already a growing uranium

This is a big deal, not because Microsoft wants to build reactors but because it highlights the real bottleneck: nuclear fuel. There’s already a growing uranium deficit, conversion and enrichment capacity are thin and geopolitically fragile, and next-gen reactors need HALEU, which barely exists today. Building new reactors is the easy part — scaling the fuel supply chain takes years.

kfrzcode 1y ago
Very interesting, can you provide any more reading on this topic in particular? Curious about how the modern private market is approaching the fuel supply chain issue in creative ways.
- just_human 1y ago
  Recommend starting here: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/ https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/
- defrost 1y ago
  As per just_human, more specifically, start- https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/high-assay-low-enriched-uranium-haleu https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
matthewdgreen 1y ago
If building nuclear reactors is the easy part, and we're barely building nuclear reactors (and when we do they go massively over estimates), this sounds all around kind of bad.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
windows2020 1y ago
Perhaps the bottleneck is public perception after the accident at Three Mile Island, and then everyone wasting time on alternate (insufficient) renewables. But now it's not about migrating from dirty to clean energy (which nuclear is), it's we need more power and it's time to get serious. Welcome back, nuclear. Microsoft entering an agreement with Three Mile Island nicely concludes a period in energy history. The next one should be most exciting.
- destitude 1y ago
  And yet we still have no place to put that "clean" energy when it is depleted.
  - maroonblazer 1y ago
    I'd rather it be stored neatly in canisters underground than floating up into the atmosphere.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    God I hate this argument. Casks. The answer is casks. The short term solution turns out to be a fantastic long term solution. If that isnt good enough, demand it be reprocessed with thorium or something. There. No more silly anti nuke gotcha. You can give up on that one permanently.
    - zekrioca 1y ago
      Nuclear proliferation.
      - protocolture 1y ago
        I am steelmanning this, and assuming you are making a hilarious joke at the expense of anti nuke activists. Instead of defending the storage issue, this is just a pivot to another unrelated and already well resolved issue. Thats exactly what the silly anti nuke folk get up to. Well played, solid joke, 10/10.
ChuckMcM 1y ago
Yes, and ... restarting the fuel cycle under the current administration is, according to activity in the US uranium rich areas, kind of happening. I haven't seen anything "official" yet but driving around southern Utah shows signs of 'unexpected economic activity.' Speculation is that the USG is going to re-open a Uranium mine near Moab.
ggm 1y ago
Nuclear fuel, like lithium is a supply chain problem not an Erlich/Simons end-of-resources problem. Nuclear fuel UNLIKE lithium, has bizarre qualities that the waste stream from some kinds of reactors in turn, is valuable fuel. Not that we want prolifration from breeder reactors, but the point "fuel is the bottleneck" has some caveats. Supply chain logistics around fuel, including whole-of-life treatment of the outputs, is a problem.
PaulHoule 1y ago
I don't believe it. The problem with nuclear energy is not the availability or the cost of the fuel but the capital cost of the reactor and the high level of financial and operational risk involved with the construction. For instance there is an unlimited amount of handwringing over a closed fuel cycle costing a little more than an open fuel cycle but nobody points out that the capital cost of the reactor dwarfs fuel cycle costs for any fuel cycle -- no nukes hate reprocessing so they won't point this out and nukes don't want to remind you of the capital cost problem. For every NPP that's had a nuclear meltdown there have been 20 that had a financial meltdown before they've even turned it on. It drives me up the wall that big tech companies want to buy "a reactor" or an unspecified "SMR" but never an AP1000 (reactor that's actually been built) or even a BWRX300 (an SMR that might actually get built.) If there wasn't any bullshit a new build AP1000 would probably have a 10 year lag at least but... ... in the current international tariff situation it's almost impossible that any full-size or even moderate-sized reactor will be built in the US in the forseeable future because the US has no super-heavy press that can forge a nuclear reactor vessel. Japan, China, Korea, the UK, and many other countries have them and in the neoliberal world of a year ago we could have just had one made for us and shipped in by boat. The BWRX300 is the only western SMR that is far along and the pressure vessel will be made in Canada -- it's going to cost plenty no matter what but put 35% on top of that and you're doing the no nukes job for them. Way to go. I want to see it work but I am not seeing realistic plans from the likes of Microsoft and Google, just the hot air from a 100W lightbulb when we really need 10,000,000 times as much heat!
- just_human 1y ago
  > The problem with nuclear energy is not the availability or the cost of the fuel but the capital cost of the reactor and the high level of financial and operational risk involved with the construction. Yes, in US and western Europe it's been practically impossible to build new reactors since the 90's for capex and regulatory reasons (both are related). However, we used to be able to build reactors significantly cheaper and faster and I'd argue we're on the path to do it again later this decade. There's no technical reason we can't solve this problem: there's bipartisan support for nuclear, willing financial backers, and no demand shortage. We're going to see 100+ gigawatts of new nuclear in the western world in the next 20 years.
boringg 1y ago
I think I should correct your statement slightly - its not wrong however we don't have a uranium shortage -- we have more uranium than we could possible use. We do have a HALEU advanced nuclear fuel supply chain issue. Thats being currently tackled. To your advanced reactor point -- they are also still far away so it is plausible that the supply chain catches up before any of the new reactors get deployed - assuming they make it to the finish line. I should hope they make it to the finish line - I think we could do well with more nuclear providing our backbone of energy.
ljlolel 1y ago
General Matter working on this (founders fund company)
dopa42365 1y ago
Enriching uranium to 20% instead of 5% is easy. If reactors require it, the fuel will be found just fine. You already have hundreds of SMRs in submarines and aircraft carriers and what not. A1B reactors in your carriers run on 93% enriched uranium! That really isn't the bottleneck by any means. If there's demand there will be supply.
zozbot234 1y ago
Fission fuel is so cheap that we currently don't even bother to fully recycle our nuclear waste. We could easily extract a lot of energy from that source that currently goes unexploited.
- pbmonster 1y ago
  > We could easily extract a lot of energy from that source that currently goes unexploited. > easily That's and understatement. The PUREX process is a nightmare to get right, is expensive in both CAPEX and the specialized personell you need to pay, it produces much more deadly waste products, and you really don't want to proliferate it. In the end, virgin uranium directly from ore is orders of magnitude cheaper for the foreseeable future.
looofooo0 1y ago
There is more than enough uranium on the planet. This is more of a pork cycle problem. If there is a clear path towards an SMR industry supply will be there.
keepamovin 1y ago
But if you dismantle nuclear weapons and downblend to make HALEU you have it. Killing two big birds with one small shift. Megatons to megawatts, ftw.

kfrzcode 1y ago

Very interesting, can you provide any more reading on this topic in particular? Curious about how the modern private market is approaching the fuel supply chain issue in creative ways.

just_human 1y ago
Recommend starting here: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/ https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/
defrost 1y ago
As per just_human, more specifically, start- https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/high-assay-low-enriched-uranium-haleu https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

matthewdgreen 1y ago

If building nuclear reactors is the easy part, and we're barely building nuclear reactors (and when we do they go massively over estimates), this sounds all around kind of bad.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

windows2020 1y ago

Perhaps the bottleneck is public perception after the accident at Three Mile Island, and then everyone wasting time on alternate (insufficient) renewables. But now it's not about migrating from dirty to clean energy (which nuclear is), it's we need more power and it's time to get serious. Welcome back, nuclear. Microsoft entering an agreement with Three Mile Island nicely concludes a period in energy history. The next one should be most exciting.

destitude 1y ago
And yet we still have no place to put that "clean" energy when it is depleted.
- maroonblazer 1y ago
  I'd rather it be stored neatly in canisters underground than floating up into the atmosphere.
- protocolture 1y ago
  God I hate this argument. Casks. The answer is casks. The short term solution turns out to be a fantastic long term solution. If that isnt good enough, demand it be reprocessed with thorium or something. There. No more silly anti nuke gotcha. You can give up on that one permanently.
  - zekrioca 1y ago
    Nuclear proliferation.
    - protocolture 1y ago
      I am steelmanning this, and assuming you are making a hilarious joke at the expense of anti nuke activists. Instead of defending the storage issue, this is just a pivot to another unrelated and already well resolved issue. Thats exactly what the silly anti nuke folk get up to. Well played, solid joke, 10/10.

ChuckMcM 1y ago

Yes, and ... restarting the fuel cycle under the current administration is, according to activity in the US uranium rich areas, kind of happening. I haven't seen anything "official" yet but driving around southern Utah shows signs of 'unexpected economic activity.' Speculation is that the USG is going to re-open a Uranium mine near Moab.

ggm 1y ago

Nuclear fuel, like lithium is a supply chain problem not an Erlich/Simons end-of-resources problem. Nuclear fuel UNLIKE lithium, has bizarre qualities that the waste stream from some kinds of reactors in turn, is valuable fuel. Not that we want prolifration from breeder reactors, but the point "fuel is the bottleneck" has some caveats. Supply chain logistics around fuel, including whole-of-life treatment of the outputs, is a problem.

PaulHoule 1y ago

I don't believe it. The problem with nuclear energy is not the availability or the cost of the fuel but the capital cost of the reactor and the high level of financial and operational risk involved with the construction. For instance there is an unlimited amount of handwringing over a closed fuel cycle costing a little more than an open fuel cycle but nobody points out that the capital cost of the reactor dwarfs fuel cycle costs for any fuel cycle -- no nukes hate reprocessing so they won't point this out and nukes don't want to remind you of the capital cost problem. For every NPP that's had a nuclear meltdown there have been 20 that had a financial meltdown before they've even turned it on. It drives me up the wall that big tech companies want to buy "a reactor" or an unspecified "SMR" but never an AP1000 (reactor that's actually been built) or even a BWRX300 (an SMR that might actually get built.) If there wasn't any bullshit a new build AP1000 would probably have a 10 year lag at least but... ... in the current international tariff situation it's almost impossible that any full-size or even moderate-sized reactor will be built in the US in the forseeable future because the US has no super-heavy press that can forge a nuclear reactor vessel. Japan, China, Korea, the UK, and many other countries have them and in the neoliberal world of a year ago we could have just had one made for us and shipped in by boat. The BWRX300 is the only western SMR that is far along and the pressure vessel will be made in Canada -- it's going to cost plenty no matter what but put 35% on top of that and you're doing the no nukes job for them. Way to go. I want to see it work but I am not seeing realistic plans from the likes of Microsoft and Google, just the hot air from a 100W lightbulb when we really need 10,000,000 times as much heat!

just_human 1y ago
> The problem with nuclear energy is not the availability or the cost of the fuel but the capital cost of the reactor and the high level of financial and operational risk involved with the construction. Yes, in US and western Europe it's been practically impossible to build new reactors since the 90's for capex and regulatory reasons (both are related). However, we used to be able to build reactors significantly cheaper and faster and I'd argue we're on the path to do it again later this decade. There's no technical reason we can't solve this problem: there's bipartisan support for nuclear, willing financial backers, and no demand shortage. We're going to see 100+ gigawatts of new nuclear in the western world in the next 20 years.

boringg 1y ago

I think I should correct your statement slightly - its not wrong however we don't have a uranium shortage -- we have more uranium than we could possible use. We do have a HALEU advanced nuclear fuel supply chain issue. Thats being currently tackled. To your advanced reactor point -- they are also still far away so it is plausible that the supply chain catches up before any of the new reactors get deployed - assuming they make it to the finish line. I should hope they make it to the finish line - I think we could do well with more nuclear providing our backbone of energy.

ljlolel 1y ago

General Matter working on this (founders fund company)

dopa42365 1y ago

Enriching uranium to 20% instead of 5% is easy. If reactors require it, the fuel will be found just fine. You already have hundreds of SMRs in submarines and aircraft carriers and what not. A1B reactors in your carriers run on 93% enriched uranium! That really isn't the bottleneck by any means. If there's demand there will be supply.

zozbot234 1y ago

Fission fuel is so cheap that we currently don't even bother to fully recycle our nuclear waste. We could easily extract a lot of energy from that source that currently goes unexploited.

pbmonster 1y ago
> We could easily extract a lot of energy from that source that currently goes unexploited. > easily That's and understatement. The PUREX process is a nightmare to get right, is expensive in both CAPEX and the specialized personell you need to pay, it produces much more deadly waste products, and you really don't want to proliferate it. In the end, virgin uranium directly from ore is orders of magnitude cheaper for the foreseeable future.

looofooo0 1y ago

There is more than enough uranium on the planet. This is more of a pork cycle problem. If there is a clear path towards an SMR industry supply will be there.

keepamovin 1y ago

But if you dismantle nuclear weapons and downblend to make HALEU you have it. Killing two big birds with one small shift. Megatons to megawatts, ftw.