X-Energy CEO Claims Their Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Are Meltdown Proof

Does anyone remember the ship they said, “God himself could not sink this ship”? Yep, it sank, killing over 1,500 people. It was the Titanic. Who can forget the mantra, “COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ saved millions of lives”? Well, as it turned out, millions of lives were determined to be expendable as these lives lost were the cost of CONvid-19 modified mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shots. And, how many millions were injured and maimed by them? Too many. As we should have learned by now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  However, that lesson remains elusive as Clay Sell, CEO of X-Energy, told The Washington Times, “our reactor is melt-down proof”.

Nuclear power is about to grow significantly in the U.S., led by a handful of companies that have redesigned reactors to be smaller, safer and quicker to build.

X-Energy, headquartered in the D.C. suburb of Rockville, Maryland, plans to have the first-of-its-kind, small modular reactor up and running on the Texas Gulf Coast early in the next decade.

“We expect to get the construction permit in the fourth quarter of 2026, which puts us in position to start construction in the first half of 2027,” Clay Sell, X-Energy CEO, told The Washington Times.

It will begin a major revival of nuclear’s role in the nation’s power grid, a share which has largely stalled at around 19% after older plants were shuttered and new construction wound down due to safety concerns in the 1980s. There are currently 93 nuclear reactors operating in 54 power plants across the U.S.

They are all, on average, about four decades old.

X-Energy plans to jump-start construction of brand new reactors in the next few years. But their reactors don’t copy the technology and design of older models like Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island, where an accident caused a partial meltdown in 1979. The mishap stirred a public backlash against nuclear power that has gone on for decades.

“Our reactor is meltdown-proof,” Mr. Sell told The Times. “It’s several orders of magnitude safer than the existing technologies that are deployed around the world.”

Here is a “new technology” to generate power using nuclear fuel that the company building it claims it is “meltdown-proof”. Where is the evidence to provide the proof of this claim? Nowhere. The public is expected to take the “word” of the CEO of a company who stands to gain from “quick to build” nuclear reactors for power generation.

All aboard the Titanic, everyone!

Mr. Sell said X-Energy’s simplified design plans and off-site, modularized factory production of components, among other advances, will dramatically reduce the risk of delays and cost-overruns.

“But there are a lot of people in the country that aren’t going to believe it until they see it,” he said.

X-Energy is among several nuclear power companies gearing up to build new, small modular reactors.

Google recently announced a deal with Kairos Energy to develop an advanced SMR to power its data centers and has entered a “strategic agreement” with Elementl Power to accelerate the development of three nuclear reactor projects.

Like Amazon, Google’s attraction to nuclear is based in part on a company goal of reducing carbon emissions. Nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gases.

While public perception of nuclear power has improved, not everyone believes the U.S. should be building more nuclear power plants.

This writer is one of the public whose perception of nuclear power has not changed or improved after doing extensive research on the issue. The promotion of nuclear power leaves out several caveats that are important. For example, traditional forms of energy production are required to “power” these reactors; stand-by generators that operate on diesel fuel are needed in cases of emergency and as has been reported, some facilities have not had the generators “hooked up”; and, the storage of nuclear waste long term remains elusive as is any viable “recycling” option. If that isn’t enough, what about the dangers to humans, the environment (air, water, soil), the animals, and plants in the event of a nuclear meltdown.

It seems the danger to humans is not life-threatening, according to Mr. Sell.

Mr. Sell said nuclear power is the safest form of energy generation that’s ever been deployed at scale.

There have been no deaths in the U.S. caused by nuclear power plant accidents. There were no deaths or measurable harm caused to people as a result of the Three Mile Island accident, nor did anyone die as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident, which was triggered by an earthquake and massive tsunami.

The Fukushima cleanup is ongoing and the site remains radioactive, but the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation reported that no adverse health effects directly linked to radiation from the accident were documented among the general public.

The U.S. is still grappling with how and where to store nuclear waste. A plan to bury spent nuclear material at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain has been all but scrapped following years of opposition from political leaders and other opponents in the state.

For now, nuclear power plants store waste on site. New technologies will reduce nuclear waste and some reactors will use waste to generate more power.

I call bull manure. Where is the proof that nuclear power is the safest form of energy generation that has ever been deployed at scale? It is no secret that government agencies hide any deaths related to any nuclear accident to include Three Mile Island and Hanover, Washington. Deaths related to nuclear accident-induced cancers and other illnesses are always attributed to something else other than a nuclear accident. Has everyone forgotten the number of individuals, American sailors to boot, who suffered severe health issues after Fukushima? These were the effects of radiation exposure. But, Sell doesn’t count that. Moreover, he doesn’t mention the contamination of the ocean with radioactive wastewater the Japanese have dumped into the Pacific Ocean that has entered the food chain, which humans consume seafood from the Pacific. He conveniently left out Chernobyl intentionally. Who can forget the number of infants who suffered from what was called “Chernobyl Heart”? An entire documentary was made about it. What about the nuclear accident in Oakridge, TN? He left that out as well as “Britain’s Chernobyl”. But, if any died years after because of radiation exposure due to a nuclear power plant accident or other nuclear incident, that is not counted. It’s intentional deception to push expansion of nuclear power generated by small modular nuclear reactors coming to your neighborhood in the near future.

This company is not the only one to get in on the small modular nuclear reactor business. Google partnered with Kairos Energy and Elementl Power due to “reducing carbon emissions”. Amazon, likewise, is looking to nuclear to decrease its “carbon emissions”. The claim is nuclear power “emits no carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gases”.

Wonder if any other company will declare their small modular nuclear reactors as “melt-down proof”? And, when is everyone going to remember their basic elementary school science on carbon dioxide being needed for plant growth and development? Plants and trees emit oxygen, which is needed for humans to exist. Your food supply depends heavily on adequate amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Too little carbon dioxide and food production slows and could almost stop.

As previously indicated, there is no firm plan to deal with nuclear waste – never has been going back to the development of the atomic bomb. Yet, the development of nuclear power has continued without a viable plan for nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Recycling spent nuclear fuel is only able to reclaim about six percent of the fuel with a “waste” of four percent from that process, leaving 90 percent that must be stored. And, the fuel generated from recycling, called MOX fuel, cannot be recycled. If you haven’t read my five-part series on nuclear energy, the links are provided below.

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/the-legacy-of-nuclear-is-not-looking-before-leaping/

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/nuclear-hazelnut-spins-nuclear-lies-about-health-safety-conservative-news-outlet-promulgates-same-lies-more/

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/recycling-nuclear-fuel-its-not-what-its-promoted-to-be-video/

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/endevr-documentary-answers-remaining-questions-on-spent-nuclear-fuel-reprocessing-results-they-are-not-surprising-video/

https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/enewetak-the-runit-dome-the-nuclear-disaster-you-probably-never-heard-about-videos/

Nuclear waste is stored on-site at these facilities. This is acknowledged but Sell intends to “sell” the people on nuclear wastes stored on-site in their neighborhoods hosting small modular nuclear reactors.

For now, nuclear power plants store waste on site. New technologies will reduce nuclear waste and some reactors will use waste to generate more power. [Think recycling]

Mr. Sell said he’s certain the U.S. will build a repository for nuclear waste in the coming years. Such a project will employ thousands of people and next-generation technology will ensure it poses no health risks, he said.

Finland, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Canada and China are all in or nearing the process of building underground nuclear waste storage facilities, while Germany is beginning a site selection process for a repository.

“I do think that communities will say yes to that when you present it in the right way,” Mr. Sell said. “Because there is a massive economic bonanza associated with wherever the ultimate geologic repository goes.”

Appeal to the “greed” of government charlatans to allow underground nuclear storage facilities in their States and counties – that’s his plan. The united States has had 7 decades to build a “repository for nuclear wastes”, but hasn’t yet because no one wants it in their State or county. And rightly so. The question is what manner of deception, lies, and charlatanism will be employed to get neighborhoods to champion storing of nuclear waste on-site at small modular nuclear reactors being used to power data centers? Remember, there is no container that has been developed to fully contain spent nuclear fuel waste to prevent leaking into the ground once taken from the cooling pools.

What does it matter what Finland, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Canada and China do? The people there can decide to store all the nuclear waste they want in their backyard. As my mother was so fond of replying to the statement, “Everyone else is doing it”, “If everyone decided to jump off the rooftop would you want to do that too?”  Her point was to encourage me to think for myself and not be persuaded by what others are doing. People of the united States should do the same – think for ourselves and not measure ourselves by what others do.

Sell believes if it is “presented the right way” (read deceive the people), people will consent to having radioactive nuclear waste stored in their States and counties. He may be right as crooked, corrupt political charlatans will sell out their constituents for a mere 30 pieces of silver and an ignorant public will swallow the lies until they are confronted with actually having to swallow the Jim Jones Kool-Aid.

Sell has a crafty marketing ploy for sure – acknowledge problems of the past with nuclear power plant construction and validate the criticism of the past problems.

The smaller reactors use new technology that cuts waste, ensures greater safety, lowers costs and speeds construction compared to nuclear power plants of the past, which took many years to build and, in some cases, cost far more than initially planned.

The construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia took nearly 15 years to build and cost $20 billion more than initially planned.

“I first have to acknowledge that the criticism of what had happened in the past is fair. And the first thing our industry needs to do is acknowledge that,” Mr. Sell said. “Our approach from the beginning at X-Energy was, how can we combine technology, simplicity of design, a new and different delivery model, with a set of new and different customers, to significantly mitigate the construction execution risk? Because that is the thing that has held back our industry.”

Mr. Sell said X-Energy’s simplified design plans and off-site, modularized factory production of components, among other advances, will dramatically reduce the risk of delays and cost-overruns.

Interesting that Sell cited Plant Vogtle in Georgia, which has a leaning foundation on one reactor and is sinking. Just a year after completion, Plant Vogtle suffered an accident, which fortunately did not release radioactive material into the air. Who paid for the cost of building Plant Vogtle and who had to bail it out because of overage cost? It was the residential customers and Georgia taxpayers. And, Georgia is still paying the bill for that plant.

Sell also engages in deflection, trying to blame the holdback in the industry on construction execution risk. That is not the only holdback. It’s the danger of a potential accident that has catastrophic consequences for people residing within a minimum of 100 miles of a nuclear reactor, the transport of fuel to the locations and eventually from the locations, and the on-site storage of nuclear waste. He downplays the actual risks, instead focusing on cost, design, technology, and delivery model. It’s sleight of hand to sell a potential danger as safe.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, that evidence is lacking while the claims keep mounting. People accepted the Titanic was unsinkable – until it sank and the response was disbelief. Why? Nothing man-made is infallible. Are people going to accept the claim of “meltdown proof” with these small modular nuclear reactors without proof as with the Titanic, allowing these in our neighborhoods, or are we going to learn from history? Only time will tell.  It’s interesting that those who believe in the “safety” of nuclear plants to produce energy never build their homes near one, but they don’t mind putting small modular nuclear reactors in your neighborhood.

In the meantime, buyer beware!

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media