As multiple advanced reactor vendors enter the licensing process to build first-of-a-kind demonstration projects, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA)—a nonprofit “think-and-do tank” that supports the nuclear power industry—has said issues with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) current user fee cost-recovery model could slow innovation.

In a report released on May 19, the NIA identified how the NRC’s fee model can inhibit advanced nuclear innovation, compared the current model to structures used in other industries and countries, and recommended changes to improve the system. Importantly, the group says reliance on applicant fees limits the ability of the NRC to hire and train staff ahead of expected applications, reducing regulatory efficiency.

Smaller Firms with Less Resources
“We’re at an inflection point with the nuclear industry in the U.S., as well as nuclear regulation,” Alex Gilbert, project manager with NIA, said during an online panel session held to roll out the report. “We’re really moving away from the large, conventional light-water reactors that dominated our initial 40, 50 years of the nuclear industry in the U.S. We’re looking at advanced reactor technologies. We’re looking at new advanced light-water technologies—other non-light-water technologies, and we have a regulatory framework that we’re currently in the process of transforming to adapt to these new technologies.”

According to Gilbert, nuclear reactor development has historically been dominated by a handful of large, multinational corporations. For them, the cost of regulatory fees may not have been a significant financial barrier. But today, many smaller, less-established companies are working to develop new designs, and money is sometimes scarce.

“When we’re looking at the industry that we’re trying to develop, we’re trying to look towards a very vibrant, very competitive future. And so, we need to think about how our regulatory system is impacting new entrants,” Gilbert said. //

Gilbert explained that there are basically two elements to the NRC’s current fee structure. The first is 10 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 170 fees. These are hourly fees that are charged to applicants when they’re getting a specific item or regulatory engagement of value.

“The easiest way to think about that—and the thing that we focused on—is if you’re trying to get a license at the NRC to build and operate a nuclear facility, that’s something that there’s a discrete value and you’re charged hourly fees. Those hourly fees are actually just under $300 per hour, so that can add up pretty quickly,” said Gilbert.

The second element of the current fee structure is 10 CFR Part 171 fees. These are annual fees paid by existing licensees. These fees actually provide the majority of the funding for the NRC. Although these fees are obviously very important, Gilbert said NIA focused on the Part 170 fees because the group was most interested in understanding how fees affect innovation.

Notably, the report says the NRC’s budget has declined by more than 30% since the mid-2010s due to plant retirements and reduced application activity. This has been accompanied by a 25% reduction in NRC staff. While the existing fleet may be shrinking, indicating a lesser need for NRC staff, the growing pipeline of advanced reactors and the potential obligation for NRC design reviews would signal more staff may be required.

“What we’re concerned about with that kind of efficiency question is getting the right resources for the right project at the right time,” Gilbert said. //

The NIA reviewed fee structures for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to better understand how they were funded. Gilbert felt the FAA and FDA were particularly noteworthy. “These are really interesting regulatory agencies, because they’re very similar to the NRC in that they’re regulating innovative activities,” he said.

In the case of the FAA, even though most of the agency is funded by user fees, those user fees are collected exclusively from economic activities, such as ticket sales. “They’re not charging fees for their review of what’s called a type certification, which is similar to what the NRC does for a reactor license. So, you’re not having that disincentive to innovation,” said Gilbert.

The FDA operates a little bit differently. “They’ve had to actually substantially grow their overall budget over time,” Gilbert explained. “In implementing user fees there, it was really effective when combined with public investment by being able to balance both public and private interests in the funding of the agency. And that’s one of the reasons, among several others, that FDA is considered to have a relatively efficient and effective regulatory review system.”

Meanwhile, the EPA, which regulates many of the nuclear power industry’s competitors, such as coal, gas, and biomass power plants, only requires a small portion of its costs to be covered by fees. “They’re really minor compared to nuclear license fees,” said Gilbert. “So, the way that this fee system has worked out across the federal agency is actually disincentivizing the nuclear industry and kind of raising a roadblock that our competitors are not facing.” //

In its report, the NIA recommended a number of changes to the NRC fee structure, which it felt would spur innovation. For example, it proposed excluding or substantially reducing fees for new license applicants. The report says: “Multiple aspects of U.S. nuclear regulation bring benefits to the public and entities rather than just the applicant. Reduced fees, especially for new designs and innovative technologies, can reflect these broad benefits. Increasing the fraction of the NRC’s budget that is funded from general revenues can incentivize more innovation, improve regulatory efficiency, and ensure the American regulatory environment remains competitive.” Alternatively, NIA said if licensing fees could not be completely replaced, then excluding fees for items such as pre-application, topical reports, and environmental reviews could still bring substantial benefits. //

Peter Hastings, vice president of Regulatory Affairs and Quality with Kairos Power, agreed. “I think some amount of fee could be an effective barrier to that kind of frivolity. She used the term ‘skin in the game,’ and that certainly makes sense—to not necessarily reduce the hourly fee to nothing, but perhaps put in some sort of cost-share that would reduce the overall cost but still require the applicant to demonstrate that they’re serious, even if it’s only through a financial obligation,” he said.

“Any time that you put a cost on something, like a carbon tax, you discourage it,” said Gilbert. “In the case of these hourly fees, you’re essentially charging for innovation. And so, if we’re trying to build a new generation of safer, more economic reactors that can really help restore American competitiveness, we’re kind of creating a regulatory barrier right now to that innovation.”

Gandalf, like all the five wizards of Middle Earth, was a Maia, an angelic spirit of the same order as Sauron. It was the persistence of Sauron’s power into the Third Age that made the Valar of Valinor, a higher order of spirits, wish to send emissaries to aid and inspire those of the Free Peoples who resisted evil. The emissaries would be Maia, clothed in the bodies of Men advanced in age but possessed of great physical and mental power. So embodied, they would lose a great deal of their natural power; they were not meant to exercise force nor to coerce anyone to act. They would also be subject to weariness, hunger, injury, and the risk of death. Possessed of free will, they could also be tempted away from their task.

With his long robes, pointed hat, and immense power, Gandalf the Grey is the archetypal wizard of modern fantasy. Sent to the shores of Middle Earth to contest the influence of Sauron, he was tireless in his task, and the only of the five wizards to hold true to it until the end, according to J.R.R. Tolkien. As the Grey Pilgrim, Gandalf helped to seed the downfall of Sauron in The Lord of the Rings and even in The Hobbit, but along the way, he was transformed into Gandalf the White. This Gandalf was more directly involved in the final conflict of The Lord of the Rings. Yet it is as the Grey that Gandalf is best known, and Ian McKellen and Peter Jackson both preferred the first incarnation of the character. A casual fan may wonder why Tolkien wrote in a change of wardrobe at all.

In Unfinished Tales, a collection of essays and story fragments Tolkien left behind, it was the Maia Olórin who became incarnated as Gandalf. He was proposed for the task by Manwë, wisest of the Valar, though Olórin initially begged not to be sent. He wasn’t up to the task, he insisted, and he feared Sauron. But in Manwë’s eyes, that was all the more reason Olórin should go. Thus ordered, he arrived as the third of the Istari (wizards), appearing the smallest and most aged of them. Yet Círdan the shipwright, who greeted Olórin upon his arrival, perceived him the greatest of the Istari and gave him the Elven Ring of Fire to aid him in his labors. But the ring, and the power he still possessed, were kept veiled in weathered gray robes.

While Saruman the White settled in Orthanc, Radagast the Brown in Rhosgobel, and the two Blue Wizards beyond reach into the East, Gandalf the Grey (as the Men of Middle Earth named him) wandered throughout the West, where the Elves and the descendants of Númenor opposed to Sauron were strongest. He became a good friend to the Elves and to hobbits, while with Men he could be warm and irascible by turns. If Lady Galadriel of Lorien had her way, Gandalf would have been the head of the White Council formed to unite the West against Sauron. But Gandalf refused the position in favor of independence. He did stir the Council to put forth its power to drive the Necromancer – Sauron in disguise – from the fortress of Dol Guldur in Mirkwood, a business which took him away from the dwarves’ quest in The Hobbit. That quest was one he had helped to organize as a means to take Smaug away as a potential ally for Sauron. All this holds true in Tolkien’s books and Jackson’s films, though the timeline and details differ markedly.

The site, also called “Door to Hell,” is located in the middle of the desert about 160 miles north of the capital, Ashgabat, and has become an attraction for the country’s few visitors.

The hellish hole, which measures 190 feet wide and 70 feet deep, was formed in 1971 following a Soviet Union gas drilling collapse, according to Turkmen news site Turkmenportal.

Geologists reportedly set fire to the site to prevent the spread of gas. It was expected to burn out after several weeks.

“First, let’s stipulate to an undeniable truth of history,” writes talk host, Steve Deace in a series of Twitter messages about the media, “whoever has control over the flow of information in any society ultimately has control.” And it’s why Mark Zuckerberg and his cronies want to have a bigger stake in local news.

During the last couple of days, PJ Media has highlighted an effort by the Facebook (now Meta) founder and other moneyed interests and foundations to save local newspapers and local news sources. Their idea has been to spend millions of dollars to embed reporters, in a program called Report for America (RFA), in America’s newspapers and public radio stations. Their stated objective is to tell “under-covered” stories in those cities, hamlets, and burgs out of the goodness of their hearts. //

But Zuckerberg’s overtures via the Report for America program can’t help but remind us of what Journalist H.L. Mencken is credited with once saying. “The urge to save humanity,” he said, “is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” He continued in the lesser-known second part of his axiom saying, “Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.” And so it is here.

And they use the one thing from which all local news sources suffer: a lack of money.

Because the news outlets must come up with only 25% of the salary of the Report for America soldier at first, the bait goes down easily. But, if past is prologue, there’s a hook. As I’ve forecasted, there will be trade-offs like there were when Democrats allowed Zuckerberg’s “Zuck Bucks” to buy their way into local election offices before the 2020 elections. //

Their bias isn’t in favor of objectivity or what we used to know as media fairness; it goes only one way. Their goal is to achieve political objectives, which they frame as the only true “democracy.” The term is being redefined in real-time.

Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon, Jr. in a Washington Post piece called “The rise of pro-democracy media” claims that “America’s news media is increasingly covering the growing radicalism of the Republican Party and its democracy-eroding behavior.” [emphasis added]

Canadian lawyer and popular YouTuber David Freihart has a term for that. He calls it “confession through projection.”

Now, what is this “democracy-eroding behavior”?

Well, coincidentally, it turns out that “democracy” is what the Left wants! This appears to be the destruction of norms, voting sanctity, borders, traditions, institutions, faith, the individual, the Constitution, and objective truth. For the moment, it is, Bacon claims, the “questioning of election results, targeting of election officials and push to ban discussions of race relations in schools [critical race theory, DEI] … and support for voting restrictions as the dangers to democracy that they are.”

The “pro-democracy” news media, Bacon says, is therefore no longer wasting time doing “a problematic ‘both sides’ approach to covering politics.” He says that the media could dispense with that “after Donald Trump became president,” because he claimed, reporters “couldn’t avoid covering him very negatively.” //

I have no doubt that some good coverage will come from this program, but let’s not kid ourselves; don’t expect any reportage on the “under-covered” areas of any western faith, preserving private property rights, border security, the U.S. Constitution, how farmers use water to grow food for the world, heroism, or individual freedom.

The erosion of trust in the Fourth Estate has been coming for a while as the mainstream media adopted a change in the way it does business.

Before there was English, or Latin, or even Greek, there was Proto-Sinaitic.

Considered the first alphabet ever used, the Proto-Sinaitic script was derived in Canaan, around the biblical Land of Israel. It was repurposed from Egyptian hieroglyphs that were commonly seen in the area (its name comes from Mount Sinai), and used to describe sounds instead of meanings.

As the first Semitic script, Proto-Sinaitic soon influenced other Semitic languages. It was the precursor to the Phoenician alphabet, which was used in the area of modern-day Lebanon and spread across the Mediterranean and became the basis for Arabic, Cyrillic, Hebrew, and of course, Greek. //

And the study of linguistics shows us why using Greek letters in English isn’t completely farfetched. This visualization from Matt Baker at UsefulCharts.com demonstrates how the modern Latin script used in English evolved from Greek, and other, alphabets.

Mollie
@MZHemingway
Jill Biden was given her own entrance music and there is some dispute over how that came about (and whether it's atrocious or not), by @BecketAdams
‘Fanfare for the First Lady’
tbecketadams.substack.com
2:55 PM · Jan 5, 2022

The United States Marine Corps Band was instructed last fall to come up with an entrance theme for the pretend doctor, a source told the Washington Examiner. And just like that, the band now has in its repertoire an original composition titled “Fanfare for the First Lady.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/jill-biden-now-has-her-own-hail-to-the-chief-style-entrance-theme-courtesy-the-marine-corps-band

For Lt. Commander Colin Maclntyre, it began as a routine training flight over the Moon. For Dahak, a self-aware Imperial battleship, it began millennia ago when that powerful artificial intelligence underwent a mutiny in the face of the enemy. The mutiny was never resolved-Dahak was forced to maroon not just the mutineers but the entire crew on prehistoric Earth.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is fighting to preserve her right to trade stocks despite the blatant conflict of interest, and it’s obvious why: She and her husband have done well under the rules as they stand. Very well.

As The Post’s Lydia Moynihan and Theo Wayt report, the speaker — whose estimated worth tops $100 million — and hubby Paul Pelosi have amassed as much as $30 million from Big Tech stock trades, even as she’s supposed to be regulating that industry.

From 2007 to 2020, the speaker and her spouse raked in between $5.6 million and $30.4 million (the rules don’t even require exact disclosure) from just five Big Tech firms: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft.

Never mind that the companies’ fortunes depend on laws Congress may or may not pass. As The Post has also noted, for example, Pelosi has been stalling legislation to ban Internet firms from favoring their own products in search results. Maybe it’s a coincidence she and her husband have also bet on Google, but it sure makes you wonder.

Remember, too, lawmakers are privy to info the public doesn’t see, so they may have an edge when trading stocks. (Perhaps that explains why the Pelosis have generally outperformed the market so nicely?)

Letting pols trade individual stocks, rather than investing only in index funds, raises such questions as whether they “have access to insider information” or if their trades will “impact policy-making,” warns the Revolving Door Project’s Jeff Hauser. //

It’s a strong argument for banning stock trades by lawmakers and their families altogether. Let them place their holdings in a mutual fund or blind trust. That’s smarter investing in any case (unless you, unfairly, have inside info). And if they don’t like it, well, consider it the cost of representing voters in Congress.

A man in Hong Kong was assaulted by angry fans after shouting out spoilers to people lining up outside a cinema to see “Avengers: Endgame,” according to multiple reports.

According to Deadline, which cited reports in Taiwanese media, the unidentified man shouted major aspects of the plot at the fans before he was attacked.