Google to back three new nuclear projects

Concerns about Elementl and Nuclear “Charlatanism”

• Commenters highlight The Register’s reporting that Elementl is young, hasn’t built reactors, is “technology agnostic,” and heavy on finance/MBAs, which fuels suspicion it’s more a deal-structuring vehicle than an engineering outfit.
• Corporate jargon (“meeting needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit”) is widely mocked as content‑free and a red flag for hype over substance.
• Several point to a “golden age of charlatans” in nuclear: US scams and failures (Summer, Vogtle, Ohio scandal), South Korean and French scandals, and startups that enter regulatory processes then stall.

Nuclear Technology, Safety, and Designs

• Historical comparisons: Chernobyl (no containment), Fukushima (too-small containment, tsunami vulnerabilities), Three Mile Island (strong containment, no large offsite damage).
• Alternative designs (sodium, pebble bed, molten salt, high‑temperature gas) are described as repeatedly defeated by real‑world plumbing, materials, and maintenance challenges.
• Long debates on fast reactors and molten‑salt safety: some argue modern “passive” and “physics-safe” designs can’t go prompt‑critical; others stress unresolved accident scenarios and structural damage under fast neutron flux.
• Waste: some say spent fuel volumes are small, well‑managed, and less harmful than fossil externalities; others argue long‑term disposal and decommissioning remain incompletely solved.

Economics: Nuclear vs Renewables + Storage

• Multiple examples (Vogtle, Flamanville, Olkiluoto, canceled US projects, Superphénix) are cited as evidence of “negative learning,” chronic overruns, and uneconomic kWh costs, even with heavy subsidies.
• Pro‑nuclear voices counter that regulation, stop‑start build programs, and ever‑tightening safety requirements drive costs, not the technology itself; they argue serial builds at one site can still get learning effects.
• Large parts of the thread emphasize solar, wind, and especially batteries: recent TW‑scale solar additions, fast-falling storage prices, and grid data (e.g., California, China) are used to argue renewables+storage already undercut new nuclear.
• Critics of rooftop solar call it regressive and grid‑cost‑shifting; others say utility‑scale solar and storage are now economically dominant.

Intermittency, Grids, and System Design

• One camp: intermittency is “a solved problem” with batteries, overbuild, interconnection, and a small residual role for gas turbines (potentially later fueled by hydrogen/biofuels).
• Opponents stress Dunkelflaute, seasonal variation, and industrial processes that dislike frequent start/stop, arguing that firm baseload (nuclear) or large gas backup still needed.
• Hydrogen as long‑duration storage is hotly disputed: some see it as inevitable, others call it physically and economically ill-suited versus batteries.

Politics, Activism, and Narratives

• Disagreement over responsibility for stalled nuclear: anti‑nuclear green activism vs fossil‑fuel lobbying vs structural cost and state‑capacity issues.
• Some argue nuclear is now being pushed as a distraction from cheap renewables; others say renewables were earlier hyped to block nuclear.
• Several reject “team solar” vs “team nuclear” tribalism and frame decarbonization as a systems-engineering problem requiring mixed portfolios.

Google, AI, and Power Demand

• Many see Google’s move as PR or a low‑risk bet: PPAs cost little upfront, but yield cheap power if projects succeed.
• Others note big tech and AI will massively increase electricity demand and may be among the few actors able to finance nuclear capital costs.
• Skeptics say they’ll “believe it when a plant comes online,” viewing repeated big‑tech–nuclear announcements as mostly talk so far.