This article is just another approach to warming Americans to the return of nuclear power. I am suspicious that Matt is just in love with his slate pitch that over-regulation doomed abundant nuclear electricity. He takes a headline like molten salt reactors don't melt down, but ignores concerns about corrosion and longevity. https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/
On subs, the key factor is Oxygen- subs cannot access atmospheric oxygen while submerged, so fossil fuels don't work well. With nukes you can run underwater for unlimited time at full power vs batteries used in non-nuclear subs
Weight is almost certainly *not* a factor for any sort of ship- public estimates for reactor weight are between 1-2K tons. That sounds like a lot but a carrier displaces 100K tons.
For comparison, an Iowa class battleship carried about 9K tons of fuel and was ~47K tons displacement- fuel made up 20% of the ship's weight!
So when you travel back in time and kill Hitler, you can tell him: "Take that! . . . for potentially reducing adoption of nuclear power in 2023!" That'll show him, the Monster.
I miss the distinction in the alternative history between public naively believes that nuclear power is unsafe compared to other risks (like the misbelief that taxing CO2 emissions is costly, protectionism/immigration restrictions "protects" jobs, etc.) vs political activists promoting/taking advantage of the naïve belief for their own purposes.
I love the beautiful naivety of Pres. Eisenhower deciding we need to use Nukes for peaceful means and the solution they come up with was “blow up a bunch of shit in Alaska” 🤣🤣🤣
Matty hasn’t posted excerpts on twitter which makes me suspect the “contingent alternate history” posts aren’t big traffic drivers. Which is too bad bc they’re my favorite!
Oh, FFS... Substack seemingly buggily destroyed a long comment I had just posted.
Short reconstruction of that post Substack has seemingly (to me, at least as I write this) buggily destroyed:
Especially in light of Lewis Strauss being a key figure in _Oppenheimer_ (he's the guy played by Robert Downey, Jr), I think the bit of history that it's Strauss who coins the phrase "too cheap to meter" in 1954 should be front-and-center amidst one's counterfactual history. (Sidenote: "Too cheap to meter" being the notion nuclear fission, properly pursued by wise gov't policy, should make affordable as much energy as humanity ever needs. Indeed, one might even argue it'd make an order of magnitude more energy than most scientists and engineers could even figure out uses for! Of course, this is *not* how the economics of large-scale, costly-in-both-time-and-$$$ infrastructure works, especially when there's incumbent politically-influential stakeholders who've invested A LOT in non-nuclear infrastructures that were also costly-in-both-time-and-$$$ to build, and shall be costly to maintain and build more of. But, you get the idea.)
I say Strauss and his coining of "too cheap to meter" in 1954 should be front-and-center in one's counterfactual historicizing because:
1) It offers the fun parlor game of, "Oh noes! Was the humbling of Lewis Strauss in scuttling his 1959 nomination to be Eisenhower's Secretary of Commerce a great mistake?!"
2) But more importantly it does exemplify how key movers-and-shakers in US politics did indeed have the notion that civilian nuclear power could usher in a nigh-sci-fi-utopia by producing gobs and gobs of really cheap energy. (SIDENOTE: To be clear, I wholly agree that the military angle was primary throughout the 1950s. Indeed, the "Atoms for Peace" civilian purposing of nuclear physics for energy production and medical radioisotopes was very much first-and-foremost just the proverbial "carrot" in the carrot-and-stick regime of nuclear nonproliferation that was being formed.)
3) And for those who want to do a deep dive into historical details, I contend it's an interesting angle given how key "Atomic Scientists*" like Von Neumann and Teller were quantitatively modelling CO2-led anthropogenic global warming in the mid-1950s to figure out just how much policy-influential people at the time had the sense that civilian nuclear power production wasn't just gee-whiz-sci-fi-utopia awesome but also potentially necessary to avoid environmental cataclysm circa 2050ish onward.
(* Neurotically-Compulsively-Added and Admittedly Kinda Parochial Footnote: Since I'm a physicist by education and vocation, I just gotta say: damn, I love that phrase "Atomic Scientists", e.g., "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" and their eventual Doomsday Clock. I mean: damn, we physicists used to have GREAT BRANDING... sigh. "SUPERstring theory" and "QUANTUM computers" just doesn't compare even if "SUPER-" and "QUANTUM-" tend to be effective prefixes for advertising... indeed, often too effective, generating impossible-to-fulfill hype if not reams and reams of barely-even-*pseudo*scientific woo.)
Excellent post, IMHO. However, especially in light of _Oppenheimer_, I'd say it's missing this key part of actual history that leads to tantalizing counterfactual history.
Now, I still haven't seen but I know it has
1) ...has Robert Downey, Jr playing Lewis Strauss, and...
2) ... it not only covers Strauss being a driving force behind the 1954 hearing that stripped Oppenheimer of his security clearance, ...
3) ... but also covers how that soured many policymakers on Strauss, leading to Strauss failing in 1959 to become Eisenhower's Secretary of Commerce for the close of the Eisenhower Administration.
I bring Strauss up, since it's Strauss that's credited with the famous phrase "too cheap to meter" in *1954* --- that is, the notion that nuclear fission reactors, properly pursued by wise gov't policy, can be reasonably expected allow humanity to have as much energy as it ever wants for super-duper-low prices.
So, that was in not just the Zeitgeist but key movers-and-shakers in and around US politics within a decade after the Trinity Test and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, as the original post points out, everything nuclear was indeed primarily focused through the lens of the escalating Cold War and the all-too-real prospect of an all-too-hot WWIII. But I'd say the notion that humanity might extract nigh-utopian tools out of nuclear physics not just definitely-dystopian ones was, again, not just in the Zeitgeist but in the minds of at least a few key movers-and-shakers. Indeed, have you looked at "Atoms for Peace" Program logos and such? While my priors might've been warped from knowing some stamp collectors in my youth, but dang! They had this 3 cent postage stamp in 1955!!
What more historical evidence do you need that? Ok, yeah... the fact Lewis Strauss was a big backer and someone got a 3 cent stamp made in 1955 don't in and of themselves give an airtight case for the following proposition, I kinda get the sense it's true. Namely, while peaceful civilian use of nuclear physics was definitely a secondary priority (especially since the "Atoms for Peace" program was itself primarily conceived as the proverbial "carrot" of the carrot-and-stick nuclear nonproliferation regime being set up), that prospects for going full-tilt on nuclear fission for LOTS and LOTS of energy production were as high as any reasonable (read: at least mildly cynical and not straight-up Pollyanna-ish) observer of US politics could have ever expected.
Matt, let’s assume that we can build and operate safe nuclear reactors or that we could have done so in the counter factual world you posit. How do we solve the decommissioning problem? At some point you have to shut a reactor off forever. They age. And then you have massive amounts of moderately radioactive material. This is separate from the spent fuel that gets buried in a salt mine in Nevada. If we build many more reactors that too will become a larger challenge. I’m with you, we have to lean into fission generated electricity, but I haven’t seen good solutions to these problems.
"This was a monumental undertaking that cost $2 billion relative to the 1940 GDP of $200 billion."
This bugs me. It seems designed to leave the impression that the Manhattan Project cost 1% of GDP. But the Project was a three to four year program, with costs spread out over that time. One could more accurately claim that it averaged 0.3% of annual GDP. Still a big number, but much less daunting.
And to be crass and cold-blooded about it, by short circuiting the invasion of Japan, it probably paid for itself in strict GDP terms.
I never understood why Japan could not have just been sieged with continued strategic bombing into surrender. Once there is not Japanese military outside of Japan, what's the hurry?
Isn’t the other concern about nuclear power that the components can be used for bombs? (See eg Iran deal.) Is this just not an actual concern but fear mongering? Because Pakistan has had the bomb a long time, and also harbors terrorists, and yet terrorists have yet to use any kind of nuclear weapon.
Where can I read more about molten salt reactors?
This article is just another approach to warming Americans to the return of nuclear power. I am suspicious that Matt is just in love with his slate pitch that over-regulation doomed abundant nuclear electricity. He takes a headline like molten salt reactors don't melt down, but ignores concerns about corrosion and longevity. https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/
Why write so little about advanced geothermal and its promise? No slate pitch here? Why not herald the repurposing of fracking tech to usher in a geothermal boom? https://www.volts.wtf/p/enhanced-geothermal-power-is-finally#details
Nukes on subs/boats is sort of wrong:
On subs, the key factor is Oxygen- subs cannot access atmospheric oxygen while submerged, so fossil fuels don't work well. With nukes you can run underwater for unlimited time at full power vs batteries used in non-nuclear subs
Weight is almost certainly *not* a factor for any sort of ship- public estimates for reactor weight are between 1-2K tons. That sounds like a lot but a carrier displaces 100K tons.
For comparison, an Iowa class battleship carried about 9K tons of fuel and was ~47K tons displacement- fuel made up 20% of the ship's weight!
So when you travel back in time and kill Hitler, you can tell him: "Take that! . . . for potentially reducing adoption of nuclear power in 2023!" That'll show him, the Monster.
I miss the distinction in the alternative history between public naively believes that nuclear power is unsafe compared to other risks (like the misbelief that taxing CO2 emissions is costly, protectionism/immigration restrictions "protects" jobs, etc.) vs political activists promoting/taking advantage of the naïve belief for their own purposes.
I love the beautiful naivety of Pres. Eisenhower deciding we need to use Nukes for peaceful means and the solution they come up with was “blow up a bunch of shit in Alaska” 🤣🤣🤣
Matty hasn’t posted excerpts on twitter which makes me suspect the “contingent alternate history” posts aren’t big traffic drivers. Which is too bad bc they’re my favorite!
Maybe he is just promoting Notes.
Any idea when Treads will have a desktop version?
Agreed
Seems odd to write about the post-WWII military v. civilian nuclear development without even a mention of Rickover (or did I miss something)
Ordnance is weapons. Ordinance is a law.
If you grew up playing SimCity, you were led to believe that nuclear meltdowns happened all the time!
Oh, FFS... Substack seemingly buggily destroyed a long comment I had just posted.
Short reconstruction of that post Substack has seemingly (to me, at least as I write this) buggily destroyed:
Especially in light of Lewis Strauss being a key figure in _Oppenheimer_ (he's the guy played by Robert Downey, Jr), I think the bit of history that it's Strauss who coins the phrase "too cheap to meter" in 1954 should be front-and-center amidst one's counterfactual history. (Sidenote: "Too cheap to meter" being the notion nuclear fission, properly pursued by wise gov't policy, should make affordable as much energy as humanity ever needs. Indeed, one might even argue it'd make an order of magnitude more energy than most scientists and engineers could even figure out uses for! Of course, this is *not* how the economics of large-scale, costly-in-both-time-and-$$$ infrastructure works, especially when there's incumbent politically-influential stakeholders who've invested A LOT in non-nuclear infrastructures that were also costly-in-both-time-and-$$$ to build, and shall be costly to maintain and build more of. But, you get the idea.)
I say Strauss and his coining of "too cheap to meter" in 1954 should be front-and-center in one's counterfactual historicizing because:
1) It offers the fun parlor game of, "Oh noes! Was the humbling of Lewis Strauss in scuttling his 1959 nomination to be Eisenhower's Secretary of Commerce a great mistake?!"
2) But more importantly it does exemplify how key movers-and-shakers in US politics did indeed have the notion that civilian nuclear power could usher in a nigh-sci-fi-utopia by producing gobs and gobs of really cheap energy. (SIDENOTE: To be clear, I wholly agree that the military angle was primary throughout the 1950s. Indeed, the "Atoms for Peace" civilian purposing of nuclear physics for energy production and medical radioisotopes was very much first-and-foremost just the proverbial "carrot" in the carrot-and-stick regime of nuclear nonproliferation that was being formed.)
3) And for those who want to do a deep dive into historical details, I contend it's an interesting angle given how key "Atomic Scientists*" like Von Neumann and Teller were quantitatively modelling CO2-led anthropogenic global warming in the mid-1950s to figure out just how much policy-influential people at the time had the sense that civilian nuclear power production wasn't just gee-whiz-sci-fi-utopia awesome but also potentially necessary to avoid environmental cataclysm circa 2050ish onward.
(* Neurotically-Compulsively-Added and Admittedly Kinda Parochial Footnote: Since I'm a physicist by education and vocation, I just gotta say: damn, I love that phrase "Atomic Scientists", e.g., "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" and their eventual Doomsday Clock. I mean: damn, we physicists used to have GREAT BRANDING... sigh. "SUPERstring theory" and "QUANTUM computers" just doesn't compare even if "SUPER-" and "QUANTUM-" tend to be effective prefixes for advertising... indeed, often too effective, generating impossible-to-fulfill hype if not reams and reams of barely-even-*pseudo*scientific woo.)
This post should really be titled "The Tragedy of WWII"
The Tragedy of the Great Depressions. THAT could so easily have been prevented.
Excellent post, IMHO. However, especially in light of _Oppenheimer_, I'd say it's missing this key part of actual history that leads to tantalizing counterfactual history.
Now, I still haven't seen but I know it has
1) ...has Robert Downey, Jr playing Lewis Strauss, and...
2) ... it not only covers Strauss being a driving force behind the 1954 hearing that stripped Oppenheimer of his security clearance, ...
3) ... but also covers how that soured many policymakers on Strauss, leading to Strauss failing in 1959 to become Eisenhower's Secretary of Commerce for the close of the Eisenhower Administration.
I bring Strauss up, since it's Strauss that's credited with the famous phrase "too cheap to meter" in *1954* --- that is, the notion that nuclear fission reactors, properly pursued by wise gov't policy, can be reasonably expected allow humanity to have as much energy as it ever wants for super-duper-low prices.
So, that was in not just the Zeitgeist but key movers-and-shakers in and around US politics within a decade after the Trinity Test and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, as the original post points out, everything nuclear was indeed primarily focused through the lens of the escalating Cold War and the all-too-real prospect of an all-too-hot WWIII. But I'd say the notion that humanity might extract nigh-utopian tools out of nuclear physics not just definitely-dystopian ones was, again, not just in the Zeitgeist but in the minds of at least a few key movers-and-shakers. Indeed, have you looked at "Atoms for Peace" Program logos and such? While my priors might've been warped from knowing some stamp collectors in my youth, but dang! They had this 3 cent postage stamp in 1955!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atoms_for_Peace_stamp.jpg
What more historical evidence do you need that? Ok, yeah... the fact Lewis Strauss was a big backer and someone got a 3 cent stamp made in 1955 don't in and of themselves give an airtight case for the following proposition, I kinda get the sense it's true. Namely, while peaceful civilian use of nuclear physics was definitely a secondary priority (especially since the "Atoms for Peace" program was itself primarily conceived as the proverbial "carrot" of the carrot-and-stick nuclear nonproliferation regime being set up), that prospects for going full-tilt on nuclear fission for LOTS and LOTS of energy production were as high as any reasonable (read: at least mildly cynical and not straight-up Pollyanna-ish) observer of US politics could have ever expected.
I'm of course happy to hear counterarguments. :)
Matt, let’s assume that we can build and operate safe nuclear reactors or that we could have done so in the counter factual world you posit. How do we solve the decommissioning problem? At some point you have to shut a reactor off forever. They age. And then you have massive amounts of moderately radioactive material. This is separate from the spent fuel that gets buried in a salt mine in Nevada. If we build many more reactors that too will become a larger challenge. I’m with you, we have to lean into fission generated electricity, but I haven’t seen good solutions to these problems.
Larger salt mines. Dumped in Ocean trenches.
"This was a monumental undertaking that cost $2 billion relative to the 1940 GDP of $200 billion."
This bugs me. It seems designed to leave the impression that the Manhattan Project cost 1% of GDP. But the Project was a three to four year program, with costs spread out over that time. One could more accurately claim that it averaged 0.3% of annual GDP. Still a big number, but much less daunting.
And to be crass and cold-blooded about it, by short circuiting the invasion of Japan, it probably paid for itself in strict GDP terms.
I never understood why Japan could not have just been sieged with continued strategic bombing into surrender. Once there is not Japanese military outside of Japan, what's the hurry?
That sounds worse fot the Japanese population than one or two atom bombs.
Isn’t the other concern about nuclear power that the components can be used for bombs? (See eg Iran deal.) Is this just not an actual concern but fear mongering? Because Pakistan has had the bomb a long time, and also harbors terrorists, and yet terrorists have yet to use any kind of nuclear weapon.