My personal opinion only... I'm very pro-nuke. I also feel it should be considered a key way forward. Unfortunately, a very few number of accidents created a negative perception of nuclear power. [Disclosure: I have friends that are nuclear engineers so perhaps I'm a little biased, and not everyone would agree.] The recent and fast-moving achievements towards fusion may be the long term answer, and the innovations around smaller modular reactors may offer nearer term solutions.

As for why it wasn't included in the aluminum white-paper, it really comes down to the fact that the majority of the largest aluminum producing countries relay on other fuels and haven't indicated solid plans to move forward with nuclear. China relies on coal for close to 60% of their energy, North America (in the locations where smelters are located) are either hydro power or coal, India is 45% coal, 21% biomass, 25% petroleum, Russia is 60% fossil fuel, 20% hydro power. And so on.

Nuclear is out of favour with most countries. Europe now relies on renewables for the majority of power, with natural gas as a backup. Only recently did Europe propose to start reinvesting in nuclear. That could influence others to follow suit. 

Finally, reactor builds take an incredibly long time. Until we see some movement to build net new nuclear facilities, it's not worth mentioning since it's so far out compared to other potential energy sources. But I'd personally be all for it.

-----

Dear Midtownguy,

I read with great interest your overvieuw article concerning Pyrogenesis Aluminium Industry Process and further content.

I wondered why nuclear power is not mentioned anywhere in the article as a solution to shortage and high costs of supplying electricity to smelters.

I take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation for your commitment to Pyro.