Atomic Energy Wells
Petroleum – a term includes oil, gas and derivatives – wells have been going dry for more than 150 years. Until the late 2000s, the solution to that problem of resource depletion has been to find a new place to drill. We now have the alternative of drilling deeper and using hydraulic fracturing techniques to reach previously known but inaccessible formations.
Though there is still a lot of oil left inside the Earth, it is getting more difficult to reach. Even the booming fields made available by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are beginning to degrade; people in the field are reporting that many of the best locations have already been exploited.
Even if there was an unlimited and magically refilling source of petroleum, it is becoming increasingly clear that the waste products from petroleum combustion, including CO2, are causing major damage to Earth’s livability. We need clean power sources with greater longevity.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reminded all of us of the importance of a broad base of fuel suppliers that can overcome politically driven changes in global production and distribution. Low cost producers will always find a way to market their product unless there is a coordinated effort to prevent their output from being sold.
Few people would dispute the fact that the oil and gas that has been discovered and extracted so far is the most accessible portion of the available resource. It was relatively easy to find and it was located close enough to human populations or transportation routes that it was reasonably easy to deliver to the ultimate customers. The petroleum that is still left underground or underwater is the harder portion. It is more challenging to find, it is deeper underground, it is in tighter formations, it is lower quality, or it is located in areas that make it difficult to move to markets.
Petroleum alternatives – coal, wind, solar, biomass – have been available for hundreds to thousands of years. New technologies have evolved to make them more affordable and competitive, but those technologies have only partially overcome inherent disadvantages in many applications. Petroleum is still the world’s dominant energy source because it is readily transported, it’s more energy dense than non-nuclear competitors, it burns more cleanly and thoroughly than coal, its output can be controlled, and it has an enormous base of equipment designed to operate with refined hydrocarbons derived from oil.
The realization that the easy oil is gone has led to volatile energy prices that have tended to ratchet up for the past two decades.
Increased prices have put hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of petroleum producers, but they have not led to a large increase in production. An increasing portion of the slowly increasing petroleum supply is in the form of natural gas liquids (NGLs) and not conventional crude oil.
Petroleum producers know that there are not many opportunities to make major new discoveries so they are focused on maintaining their current production levels. In many cases, there is a growing supply of unused capital waiting for an appropriate place to invest.
Oil executives would be wise to consider investing their human and financial resources in nuclear reactors, which can be considered to be modern, near zero emission energy wells. When nuclear reactors are used as advanced heat sources to produce synthetic fuels and hydrocarbons, a substantial portion of the capital infrastructure and core competencies are directly transferrable from the conventional petroleum industry.
Short historical digression
When nuclear power first entered the energy market during the mid 1950s, several oil companies invested heavily into the uranium and fuels processing portion of the business. This was the portion of the new energy system that seemed to fit with their core competencies of finding and producing the raw materials needed to produce useful energy. For the most part, these investments were not successful.
Part of the problem is that the cost structure for nuclear power is different from the one historically associated with producing electricity with fossil fuel power stations. With nuclear, a most of the cost and risk is incurred at the beginning of the project. Once the plant is fully operational, the recurring fuel cost is minimal. With fossil fuel power plants, capital and operating costs are often minimal compared to the ongoing expense of purchasing new fuel. In some natural gas plants, fully 90% of the electricity production cost is purchasing delivered natural gas.
Building nuclear plants is analogous to drilling oil wells
The path that fossil fuel producers take between finding a promising new field and selling finished product from that field into the market is a tortuous one full of regulatory hurdles, government agreements, massive capital investments, and significant risk. That path description should sound familiar to nuclear professionals.
Once the challenging process has been successfully negotiated, the producer and his investors can look forward to an uncertain number of years worth of selling the product at an uncertain price that depends on a number of external factors. The incentive for making those up front investments and taking the risk is that sometimes those factors lead to market price increases. For an already producing asset, there is little risk that the actual cost of operating that asset will change very much, so price increases due to market conditions fall directly to the bottom line.
Fossil fuel companies have the necessary assets to make successful investments in nuclear energy wells. They can raise capital from investors that are comfortable with risk, work their way through the regulatory wickets, buy the steel and concrete, develop the necessary agreements with local governments and ensure that their suppliers meet exacting specifications. They live and breathe safety based on long experience with massive quantities of volatile materials. After their new energy wells begin operation, they can look forward to many decades worth of reliable production and sales – energy is not a fad and people will always find new ways to use whatever quantity is available.
Sea-going or floating nuclear plants are especially well-matched to the current infrastructure and skill set of fossil fuel companies. They will be produced in the same shipyards that currently produce off-shore platforms, tankers, support vessels, and barges. In some cases, the production platforms will closely resemble floating petroleum or natural gas processing plants.
There are increasing pressures on fossil fuel companies to slow or stop their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel companies can legitimately meet their fiduciary responsibility to maximize their investor returns by directing their capital budgets to a new generation of energy production and distribution capability.
That new energy production capacity should include:
- Systems using heavy metal fission to directly supply heat and power
- Installations that use fission to produce heat and power for synthetic fuel production that combines hydrogen from water and carbon that is captured from the atmosphere.
At Nucleation Capital, we are focused on investing in advanced nuclear energy, synthetic fuels and macro energy integration systems that can all help decarbonize our energy and power sources. The transition from hydrocarbons to clean energy will be challenging, but nuclear energy investments will enable its success with lower costs than attempting to complete the transition without nuclear energy.
If you are and accredited investor who is interested in opportunities in private companies in our target sectors, please make contact. We’re happy to help.
Yes, synfuel produced from H2O and CO2 —> C10H20 This is the best use of existing infrastructure to produce truly carbon neutral fuel. We can all keep driving cars, using trucks and airplanes using the exact same gas stations we already use. That Exon Mobile has not yet done this is a testament to how intensely negative perceptions of Nuclear have dominated the energy discussions. At the same time – the unlimited liability of a 30 million dollar bracket to repair excess vibration due to NRC calling the bracket a design change makes nearly all companies hesitant.
Yes, synfuel produced from H2O and CO2 —> C10H20 This is the best use of existing infrastructure to produce truly carbon neutral fuel. We can all keep driving cars, using trucks and airplanes using the exact same gas stations we already use. That Exon Mobile has not yet done this is a testament to how intensely negative perceptions of Nuclear have dominated the energy discussions. At the same time – the unlimited liability of a 30 million dollar bracket to repair excess vibration due to NRC calling the bracket a design change makes nearly all companies hesitant.
I was enjoying the proposal until you went full nonsense about the bracket. I like the idea of keeping the ICE…. very reliable.
I was enjoying the proposal until you went full nonsense about the bracket. I like the idea of keeping the ICE…. very reliable.
Why did you call David’s reference to the cost of installing a bracket on a U.S. nuclear plant nonsense?
I got the information from Jack Davenney’s Substack.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jackdevanney/p/a-30-million-dollar-pipe-brace?r=kv29i&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I got the information from Jack Davenney’s Substack.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jackdevanney/p/a-30-million-dollar-pipe-brace?r=kv29i&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Would you elaborate on the specific instance where a bracket cost an operator $30M? I was under the impression this was hyperbolic. If a steam generator tube begins to leak and causes a 30-day unplanned outage, costing the operator $30M in purchased power and more in wages, is that a $40M leak? If safety related equipment is vibrating unacceptably because mounts have deteriorated – you better fix it and document the fix in accordance with the regulator’s expectations. Drive with a headlight out and you’ll get a ticket. Your readership loves to blame the executive branch of government when it is the financial system that makes construction impossible.
Would you elaborate on the specific instance where a bracket cost an operator $30M? I was under the impression this was hyperbolic. If a steam generator tube begins to leak and causes a 30-day unplanned outage, costing the operator $30M in purchased power and more in wages, is that a $40M leak? If safety related equipment is vibrating unacceptably because mounts have deteriorated – you better fix it and document the fix in accordance with the regulator’s expectations. Drive with a headlight out and you’ll get a ticket. Your readership loves to blame the executive branch of government when it is the financial system that makes construction impossible.
Yes, the tube leak is a $40 M repair.
In restructured markets, that cost is not the cost of purchased power because merchant operators are not required to provide reliable electricity and to purchase whatever power is needed from the open market to supply their customers.
But every minute that a plant is unexpectedly unavailable is another minute where the plant is not producing and selling its product at the rate expected by the owner and green eyeshades people at the company.
I agree that vibrating pipes detected during testing must be fixed. After all, the purpose of testing is to discover and fix problems before they impact safety or reliable operations.
The question is how long should corrective action take to implement? Will the government reviewers involved in the process work at the speed of business or at the leisurely pace of typical bureaucrats? (As a former bureaucrat I have a basis for that description of typical bureaucrat behavior. I not only watched my colleagues, but I slowly developed similar habits.)
Back in my submarine Engineer days, there weren’t any financial people breathing down my back. But we had operational commitments and a need to fix things properly and promptly. In certain cases, I convinced the chain of command that we needed to do a particular job on a PTF basis. (Paperwork To Follow) There were a few memorable instances when I made the decision and told my chain of command after we had made the repair, met our commitment and filled in the paperwork – in that order.
I’m trying to find someone who can help me understand how much of the estimated month of delay is caused by the physical aspects of the job – design, installation and inspection/QA – and how much of the delay will be waiting for approval of the license amendment. I’m also trying to find out why a license amendment is needed for what appears to be a fairly routine repair in industrial facilities that have thousands of feet of high pressure pipe that needs to be properly supported.
Yes, the tube leak is a $40 M repair.
In restructured markets, that cost is not the cost of purchased power because merchant operators are not required to provide reliable electricity and to purchase whatever power is needed from the open market to supply their customers.
But every minute that a plant is unexpectedly unavailable is another minute where the plant is not producing and selling its product at the rate expected by the owner and green eyeshades people at the company.
I agree that vibrating pipes detected during testing must be fixed. After all, the purpose of testing is to discover and fix problems before they impact safety or reliable operations.
The question is how long should corrective action take to implement? Will the government reviewers involved in the process work at the speed of business or at the leisurely pace of typical bureaucrats? (As a former bureaucrat I have a basis for that description of typical bureaucrat behavior. I not only watched my colleagues, but I slowly developed similar habits.)
Back in my submarine Engineer days, there weren’t any financial people breathing down my back. But we had operational commitments and a need to fix things properly and promptly. In certain cases, I convinced the chain of command that we needed to do a particular job on a PTF basis. (Paperwork To Follow) There were a few memorable instances when I made the decision and told my chain of command after we had made the repair, met our commitment and filled in the paperwork – in that order.
I’m trying to find someone who can help me understand how much of the estimated month of delay is caused by the physical aspects of the job – design, installation and inspection/QA – and how much of the delay will be waiting for approval of the license amendment. I’m also trying to find out why a license amendment is needed for what appears to be a fairly routine repair in industrial facilities that have thousands of feet of high pressure pipe that needs to be properly supported.
I do appreciate your perspective as a submariner.
In the case of the tube leak outage at a big PWR, the unit must be shut down and fixed because the problem could progress into a design basis rupture (worst case). While depressurized and “in there” all the tubes will be inspected to 1) find the leak and 2) find extent of condition – the inspection is required with ~5-year frequency by the regulator for good reason. It takes weeks to do this at a 4-loop PWR. The structure of some ‘markets’ does require purchase of replacement power with penalties.
I recently read most of Simpson’s “Nuclear Power form Underseas to Outer Space” (skimmed the space stuff), and he describes the first stress test of Mark 1 where a 24 hour run was extended to 96 hours to simulate a trans-Atlantic crossing. A feedwater controller failed and one steam generator went dry; the plant became quasi-stable at 50% power. They restarted the feedpump in manual control, filled the generator, returned to full power and finished the run with a massive condenser leak that presumably would have loaded the secondary system with salt, ruining it, had it been at sea. There were numerous accidents during the early days: fuel melt at Fermi1 and EBR1, excursion at SL1, fire at Windscale, etc. Rickover’s team escaped this with luck – maybe talent was a factor.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to draw comparisons between the old days and the current day and conflate with military experience. Regardless of real/perceived danger, cleaning up an accident may cost more than the plant is worth and render land into unusable deer and coyote sanctuaries. People argue that electric cars/semis and renewable power would never be able to compete with ICE and thermal generation without massive subsidy and incentives, BUT the state/federal legislatures are obviously committed to continuing to provide them making the point moot. This is how things work in centrally planned governance. When the elites do mandate away civilian’s ICE, gas stoves, gas heat, we will need more nuke plants. That time is not now – we need more crisis and woe. Maybe the tree of liberty will be refreshed before that time.
I definitely like this idea of using CH3OH for ICE fuel (maybe use in fuel cells) although it has half the power density of petrol. Seems production of methanol from CO2 work better if we got the atmospheric CO2 concentration up to 1200 ppm first, although I don’t think it would be steady there (Axolla bloom, etc.).
I do appreciate your perspective as a submariner.
In the case of the tube leak outage at a big PWR, the unit must be shut down and fixed because the problem could progress into a design basis rupture (worst case). While depressurized and “in there” all the tubes will be inspected to 1) find the leak and 2) find extent of condition – the inspection is required with ~5-year frequency by the regulator for good reason. It takes weeks to do this at a 4-loop PWR. The structure of some ‘markets’ does require purchase of replacement power with penalties.
I recently read most of Simpson’s “Nuclear Power form Underseas to Outer Space” (skimmed the space stuff), and he describes the first stress test of Mark 1 where a 24 hour run was extended to 96 hours to simulate a trans-Atlantic crossing. A feedwater controller failed and one steam generator went dry; the plant became quasi-stable at 50% power. They restarted the feedpump in manual control, filled the generator, returned to full power and finished the run with a massive condenser leak that presumably would have loaded the secondary system with salt, ruining it, had it been at sea. There were numerous accidents during the early days: fuel melt at Fermi1 and EBR1, excursion at SL1, fire at Windscale, etc. Rickover’s team escaped this with luck – maybe talent was a factor.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to draw comparisons between the old days and the current day and conflate with military experience. Regardless of real/perceived danger, cleaning up an accident may cost more than the plant is worth and render land into unusable deer and coyote sanctuaries. People argue that electric cars/semis and renewable power would never be able to compete with ICE and thermal generation without massive subsidy and incentives, BUT the state/federal legislatures are obviously committed to continuing to provide them making the point moot. This is how things work in centrally planned governance. When the elites do mandate away civilian’s ICE, gas stoves, gas heat, we will need more nuke plants. That time is not now – we need more crisis and woe. Maybe the tree of liberty will be refreshed before that time.
I definitely like this idea of using CH3OH for ICE fuel (maybe use in fuel cells) although it has half the power density of petrol. Seems production of methanol from CO2 work better if we got the atmospheric CO2 concentration up to 1200 ppm first, although I don’t think it would be steady there (Axolla bloom, etc.).
I like to call geothermal Atomic Energy Wells.
I like to call geothermal Atomic Energy Wells.
I like this link you gave
https://www.terrapraxis.org/projects/clean-synthetic-fuels
One thing I would like in that webpage is links to articles on how hard it is to convert diesel & spark ignition engines to run on ammonia
I like this link you gave
https://www.terrapraxis.org/projects/clean-synthetic-fuels
One thing I would like in that webpage is links to articles on how hard it is to convert diesel & spark ignition engines to run on ammonia
A large fuel refinery inputs about 5 GW of chemical energy, and outputs about 4 GW of products. The other gigawatt is used to create process heat, pressure and lighting at the cost of emissions and feedstock. Such a refinery could start by installing one or two SMRs, then adding more as the bean counting dictates. By the time the refinery processes have adapted to a nuclear powerplant supplying a gigawatt of clean power, other chemical processes would emerge as benefiting, and so other modules would be added. Deficiencies in the thermal quality of feedstock could be made up with more modules, until eventually the feedstock consisted entirely of recycled material, including CO2. The refinery then has its own “Atomic Energy Well” on site.
A large fuel refinery inputs about 5 GW of chemical energy, and outputs about 4 GW of products. The other gigawatt is used to create process heat, pressure and lighting at the cost of emissions and feedstock. Such a refinery could start by installing one or two SMRs, then adding more as the bean counting dictates. By the time the refinery processes have adapted to a nuclear powerplant supplying a gigawatt of clean power, other chemical processes would emerge as benefiting, and so other modules would be added. Deficiencies in the thermal quality of feedstock could be made up with more modules, until eventually the feedstock consisted entirely of recycled material, including CO2. The refinery then has its own “Atomic Energy Well” on site.
Yes, using methanol is a good option especially as so many cars can burn that today. However, we also need diesel and jet fuel. Yes, a high concentration of CO2 is more efficient but for efficiency just use Coal as the carbon input. If our goal is to reduce CO2 then pulling it from the atmosphere or the ocean is the best way to access carbon. Did you see the project that the Navy did to produce jet fuel directly from sea water using a small device that collected co2 and used electricity to produce the fuel? At at test level it worked. Rod wrote an article about this several years ago. I understand very well the limits to building Nuclear today. Michael you often question why people are frustrated with the NRC’s regulations. You see them as reasonable. I have have two basic problems with the way the NRC regulates. 1. They regulate the design not safety. That is to say like the bracket mentioned above the NRC considers this a DESIGN change. That style of monitoring an industrial facility has nothing to do with safety. It actually obstructs safety. It makes the operator hesitant to do things that would improve the facility because they have to submit a design change before they can make the move. An extra bracket is NOT a design change. 2. You have debated Jack to a degree over the As Low As Reasonable standard for radiation. The basic problem is that Nuclear power plants are already a low radiation environment. Pushing legal limits of exposure to below background levels is a power and money grab. Also, it regulates Nuclear power radiation differently than it regulates the exact same radiation coming from Natural Gas or Coal. This difference is immoral and expensive. If there is no concern about radiation coming out of these other power generation systems why nuclear power? Almost all power used to manufacture solar and wind comes from Coal. The NRC is an obstacle to using Nuclear power to repower the world. Oklo is a clear example of this. Nuscale is another. These contrasting approaches to the NRC illustrate the deep sickness that infests the organizational culture. You keep saying that using small reactors is too expensive. I have lived in countries where the cost of power exceeded 20 cents KWH and was unreliable. I have visited places that used diesel generators for 40 to 50 cents a kwh and was unreliable. These small Nucs are very viable in several contexts. So, regulation to design rather than safety and using a focus on radiation levels that constantly drives them down rather than setting a specific level that can be designed to are the two elements of culture that make the NRC deeply corrupt. By the way, corrupt cultures can have many very nice and highly competent people in them while the overall structure is essentially corrupt.
Yes, using methanol is a good option especially as so many cars can burn that today. However, we also need diesel and jet fuel. Yes, a high concentration of CO2 is more efficient but for efficiency just use Coal as the carbon input. If our goal is to reduce CO2 then pulling it from the atmosphere or the ocean is the best way to access carbon. Did you see the project that the Navy did to produce jet fuel directly from sea water using a small device that collected co2 and used electricity to produce the fuel? At at test level it worked. Rod wrote an article about this several years ago. I understand very well the limits to building Nuclear today. Michael you often question why people are frustrated with the NRC’s regulations. You see them as reasonable. I have have two basic problems with the way the NRC regulates. 1. They regulate the design not safety. That is to say like the bracket mentioned above the NRC considers this a DESIGN change. That style of monitoring an industrial facility has nothing to do with safety. It actually obstructs safety. It makes the operator hesitant to do things that would improve the facility because they have to submit a design change before they can make the move. An extra bracket is NOT a design change. 2. You have debated Jack to a degree over the As Low As Reasonable standard for radiation. The basic problem is that Nuclear power plants are already a low radiation environment. Pushing legal limits of exposure to below background levels is a power and money grab. Also, it regulates Nuclear power radiation differently than it regulates the exact same radiation coming from Natural Gas or Coal. This difference is immoral and expensive. If there is no concern about radiation coming out of these other power generation systems why nuclear power? Almost all power used to manufacture solar and wind comes from Coal. The NRC is an obstacle to using Nuclear power to repower the world. Oklo is a clear example of this. Nuscale is another. These contrasting approaches to the NRC illustrate the deep sickness that infests the organizational culture. You keep saying that using small reactors is too expensive. I have lived in countries where the cost of power exceeded 20 cents KWH and was unreliable. I have visited places that used diesel generators for 40 to 50 cents a kwh and was unreliable. These small Nucs are very viable in several contexts. So, regulation to design rather than safety and using a focus on radiation levels that constantly drives them down rather than setting a specific level that can be designed to are the two elements of culture that make the NRC deeply corrupt. By the way, corrupt cultures can have many very nice and highly competent people in them while the overall structure is essentially corrupt.
Jack’s been writing a lot of colorful things lately. Not sure how he became such an ‘expert’ in things nuclear having never worked in nuclear energy. To say it’s a $30M pipe brace is hyperbolic.
Jack’s been writing a lot of colorful things lately. Not sure how he became such an ‘expert’ in things nuclear having never worked in nuclear energy. To say it’s a $30M pipe brace is hyperbolic.
Thanks Michael, Thorcon on line two. Would like a word: https://thorconpower.com/team-2/
Michael, Rod traced this down and showed it was not a design issue but an error in the installation. Still expensive but the 30 million was the top estimate of the repair cost with lost days.
Michael, Rod traced this down and showed it was not a design issue but an error in the installation. Still expensive but the 30 million was the top estimate of the repair cost with lost days.
I like your concept of pairing a SMR as an energy input for a big refinery complex. In many ways, this would be analogous to how the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have commissioned the al-Barakah Nuclear Power Plant with 4 KEPCO AP-1400 reactors. This action preserves the ability for the UAE to export hydrocarbons for a longer time. I suggest the use the carbon dioxide from combustion in one part of the refinery as an economical input for creating hydrocarbons for use in ICEs (instead of atmospheric CO2 capture.) Similarly, the SMR could be used to power an electrolyzer to make hydrogen, which is an important input for refineries instead of using methane from natural gas in conjunction with steam reforming to make hydrogen.
I like your concept of pairing a SMR as an energy input for a big refinery complex. In many ways, this would be analogous to how the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have commissioned the al-Barakah Nuclear Power Plant with 4 KEPCO AP-1400 reactors. This action preserves the ability for the UAE to export hydrocarbons for a longer time. I suggest the use the carbon dioxide from combustion in one part of the refinery as an economical input for creating hydrocarbons for use in ICEs (instead of atmospheric CO2 capture.) Similarly, the SMR could be used to power an electrolyzer to make hydrogen, which is an important input for refineries instead of using methane from natural gas in conjunction with steam reforming to make hydrogen.