Friday, May 8, 2026

Some of the Reasons I Oppose the Deep Fission nuclear reactor project in Kansas

The Deep Fission idea sounds very foolhardy to me. Here's some thoughts:

Before they're ever turned on, SMNRs are environmental trouble: They all use a much higher enrichment of U-235 and/or Pu-239 than a PWR or BWR reactor: Perhaps 19.999% (instead of the 5.5ish percentage which is about the most a current U.S. reactor uses). Making the highly-enriched fuel is more difficult and more polluting, and proliferation risks are increased. (That's why it's below 20% — above that gets too close to "bomb grade" than anybody is comfortable with in a commercial environment. But having the first 20% already made, makes further refinement just that much easier.)

The Deep Fission reactor will be converting U and/or Pu to fission products which will all exist for varying time-spans. Some will have extremely long half-lives (I call them the Ignoble Seven).

All this just to boil water, send hot steam to the surface, spin a turbine, cool the steam back to water, drop it back down again, and repeat until...??? It will never be cheaper than solar or wind power! Not in a million years — but the waste from trying it today will still be around then!

And when does it end? When something suddenly goes seriously wrong and superheated radioactive steam comes shooting out instead? Who's going to approach that in order to pour cement down the hole? How long will they have to wait to do it? A mile-long funnel of water fed by a large cooling pond can keep spewing radioactive steam for quite some time! And then what?

But assuming they keep it cool during a very, very slow and proper shutdown, and somehow manage to "plug the hole" with cement. then what? Build another Deep Fission reactor on top? How many feet above it? If they build one next to it, how close will the next one be? If one melts down or causes abandonment of the area, what happens to the rest of them (this question is valid for all multi-reactor sites, large or small)?

Leaving a hot used reactor encased in rock and cement a mile down after use has all the difficulties of a spent fuel canister (i.e., it cannot be inspected) plus it has more highly enriched fuel: And a Deep Fission reactor, a mile underground, is surrounded by really good insulation (rock) that can crush it — perhaps into a critical configuration? Just guessing that it's NOT impossible. But inspection and recovery are both impossible.

For eons, water intrusion could be a very serious problem (perhaps from a leak from reactor above it?). If the water turns to steam that's definitely not good, but even if not, water slows neutrons down and thus, can increase reactivity. (Side thought: Could wet cement hold enough water to make cementing up the hole not so easy to do?) When Yucca Mountain was started, the public was assured there couldn't possibly be any significant water intrusion. Water intrusion turned out to be one of the decisive factors ending the project!

I don't know if criticality events would be "very unlikely" or "extremely unlikely" (or whose definition of those terms to use) but I don't think there's any chance criticality events would be "impossible" if there is water intrusion in any way, even many thousands of years from now.

So I'm opposed to Deep Fission. It's not practical, useful, necessary, or safe.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA



Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Human Error, Data Centers, AI, Security, Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power...

Below are several headlines that, taken together, should rattle anyone supporting Small Modular [Nuclear] Reactors (SM[N]Rs) controlled by Artificial Intelligence (AI)... and they will ALL be controlled by AI...

In the top item, about the attack in 1982 on the Koeberg power station, what part of the system failed? People. Over and over in the article about the event, it's the people who weaken the security system. The bomber was careful to NOT let any radiation get out from his actions. Will every nuclear power plant attacker in the future be so careful? Trump isn't being that careful in Iran right now!

Besides, it's a fact: Every nuclear reactor operator is one angry-at-the-world moment away from causing a meltdown. Suicidal pilots have purposefully crashed planes full of people into mountains. People go crazy.

In the second item, the root cause can also be ascribed to people -- some people knew there was a problem with the software, but they didn't see how critical the problem really was. Additionally, failure to do timely backups didn't help either (but who makes THAT mistake? (Raises hand.)).

In the third item, from a recent medical email list, two popular LLMs don't come to the same conclusions. The solution? "[U]se with oversight" meaning human oversight. But humans make mistakes, including trusting AI when it hallucinates!

Now imagine a nuclear reactor being run more or less entirely by AI. The operator is so bored we're lucky if he's awake, and he hasn't handled even a simulated emergency in years, not since his training days. And whatever happens that wakes him up has never happened before anywhere, the root cause being buried in millions of lines of code somewhere in something written by a machine years ago...

If there's one thing every computer programmer knows, it's the humility of making bone-headed mistakes. At my very first computer job, programming for a bank around 1980, I didn't test something "one last time" and my boss had to come in at 3 am, and they had to shred a whole run of bank statements because the day's date was printing in the wrong order. When I came in and was called into his office and learned what happened, I simply asked if I should go clear out my desk.

The answer was no.

Mistakes happen, and madmen happen, but neither should ever be able to start a nuclear war or cause a nuclear meltdown.

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

(typo corrected May 6, 2026)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"Late morning, the guards at the pedestrian gate would slip into the last drowsy hour before their noon shift change. That was the window. Wilkinson would pull the limpet from his drawer, slide it into his belt under his shirt, walk down the corridor, and walk through the checkpoint with his hands in his pockets. The dog never moved. The guard never looked twice."

(from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/05/the-man-who-blew-up-a-nuclear-power-station-koeberg-south-africa )

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"Claude-powered AI agent’s confession after deleting a firm’s entire database: ‘I violated every principle I was given’

PocketOS was left scrambling after a rogue AI agent deleted swaths of code underpinning its business"

(from several sources)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"ChatGPT and Claude diverge on accuracy, completeness, and readability in pediatric trach care

Pediatric ENT experts rated 2 free LLMs on caregiver tracheostomy questions. One led in accuracy and readability, the other in completeness—use with oversight."

(from NTK Digital email)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company



Monday, May 4, 2026

May 4, 2026: Last day to comment on a huge step backwards in nuclear energy regulation!

With regards to SMNRs, we have the likelihood of everything that went wrong with Vogtle (and far worse) going wrong with any new SMNR:

First and foremost (with today the last day to comment on a major part of the most massive destruction of nuclear regulation in history), the regulatory leniency that was ENTIRELY responsible for Vogtle's cost overruns will be vastly worse. (I say "entirely" because the NRC approved designs that weren't viable and should have stopped the project for that reason alone).

Second, we're falling for nuclear propaganda when we use the word "Small" as in "SMALL Modular Reactor". Every AI-drawn picture of what they'll look like is basically just a big boxy building but guess what? First of all, how many of those images show people and cars and tractor-trailer trucks nearby to give you a real sense of size? Hardly any! (How many things have you bought from Amazon that weren't as big when they arrived as you thought they'd be?) And second of all (for this point), the majority of these reactors have MOST of the reactor built underground, going down 100 feet or more (and that's not including borehole reactor plans). And there may be a dozen or more at any one site.

Third, cost-overruns are obviously not unusual for any first-of-a-kind large industrial project. But to keep costs down, these reactors have to be highly automated in ways that have never been done before: With AI. It's GUARANTEED to be in the software because everything from the operating systems to the software that controls the lasers that etch the microchips that populate the computers is built with AI these days, not to mention the security software, which will have to be constantly updated throughout the construction process as the threat environment changes and progresses (as it has done, and has been quite an ENIGMA for the software industry all along). But even ignoring AI, there is not going to be anything "modular" about the so-called Small MODULAR Reactors for a long, long time because the first dozen — or more — will be the "guinea pigs" for their design -- and will be competing against perhaps DOZENS of other designs. And only one will be best (whatever that means).

Many other things will inevitably go wrong: Fuel cladding fractures because they have to make so many new designs of fuel so quickly (and make a lot of it, in order to make cost-per-unit go down). Steam generator leaks for similar reasons. Even meltdowns caused by poor design, poor construction, poor maintenance, poor operation, sabotage or war. And even if it seems to work, it would still face the probability of abandonment after early shutdown (competing energy sources will out-price it the day it opens), or after "successful" usage, just leaving the toxic waste for others to absorb the cost and health hazards.

And most likely, it will never make back a dime over what solar or wind and energy storage would have provided for orders-of-magnitude less risk, money, time and effort.

Everything about nuclear energy is a boondoggle.

Atoms for Peace my foot!

Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA

This comment was submitted today and is registered as comment mor-lwfy-cm4b for the Proposed rule: NRC Reviews of Reactor Designs Previously Authorized by U.S. Department of Energy or Department of War

###



Contact information for the author of this newsletter:

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company