Investing in atomic fission to make world a better place
An increasing number of major corporations and famous individual investors have announced plans to make their money work harder to address environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals.
These plans are not about philanthropic giving. The individuals and organizations believe that careful targeting of their money can produce both financial and social returns.
By investing in companies and entrepreneurs seeking to address and solve real problems, their returns can be made more durable and predictable than if they simply follow fads or back the latest bright and shiny phone ap.
With few exceptions, however, impact investors – the generally applicable term for people who invest their money in ways designed to improve multiple bottom lines – have avoided atomic fission.
While everyone knows that Bill Gates started investing a portion of his immense income stream into TerraPower more than a decade ago, most of the fission developers I know have been struggling mightily to find sufficient backing to rapidly develop and deploy their products.
It’s time to change the paradigm and work to reverse the effects of 60+ years of negative propaganda.
Fission Works
Entities that sincerely want to ensure a healthy environment must be reminded that atomic fission works well. Since 1956, fission has been producing reliable electricity without any associated air pollution or carbon dioxide emissions.
It uses fuel materials that are abundant and rarely used by other industries.
If impact investors want to put their money to work and have an immediate positive impact on the world’s energy supply and its greenhouse gas emissions profile, they don’t have to wait for the technology to be developed.
Currently operating plants produce vast quantities of electricity without pollution every day. Some of them are economically challenged, but could be improved and “fixed up” if more investment dollars were available.
Fission has a bright future
Some investors have shied away from atomic fission opportunities because they have been convinced that fission is obsolete. Maybe they think fusion is the future.
Meanwhile, there are some bright fission folks who have been diligently working to remove barriers and straighten the paths towards successful new fission ventures.
A formerly firm assertion was that it takes 10-20 years and a billion or more dollars to develop a new fission power system, obtain permission and complete construction on the first unit. One of the more lengthy and indeterminate parts of that process was the regulatory process.
But within the next few weeks, Oklo, a small start-up company that was founded less than 5 years ago, will submit an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The expected review time for that application is approximately 2 years.
This extraordinary development is the result of quiet, diligent, intelligent effort to peel off layers of bureaucratic habit and return to fundamental principles of ensuring safe and reliable system operation.
Oklo founders chose not to follow the frequently offered advice to go to China if they wanted permission and support for their product. Instead, they chose to help the US NRC polish its “gold standard” and develop a reasonable, repeatable process for reviewing and approving refined technology.
Oklo isn’t alone as a nuclear system developer. The trail it has blazed so far will be followed by an uncounted number of additional developers who have designed their systems with the factual knowledge and systematic understanding that has been accumulated during 70 years worth of fission system invention, development and operating success.
Waste isn’t as unsolved as we’ve been taught
Everyone – including investors – has been taught to worry about fission waste and told that “no one” knows what to do with the material. We’ve been taught that the material will be hazardous for longer than the accumulated experience of human history.
But the reality is that used nuclear materials are carefully stored and isolated from the environment. After a period of cooling in a deep tank of water, used materials are placed into dry storage containers. Experience and detailed engineering reviews have convinced regulators that the dry storage systems will provide adequate protection of the public and the environment for a century or more.
Fission technology has been used in more than 1000 power systems –including naval vessels. Operations began in 1953. No one has ever been harmed by exposure to improperly handled used materials left over from power plant operations.
That safety record is extraordinary, and it’s reproducible. It comes from understanding the nature of the material and using simple methods to protect people and the environment.
A number of companies produce reliable storage systems today. Several of them are nearing completion of application reviews for sites that will allow them to consolidate the material from a number of power plant sites. Those sites will keep the dry storage systems on or near the earth’s surface where they can be monitored, repaired or replaced as needed.
Taking advantage of developments in other fields
Several companies, including Deep Isolation, are working on ways to achieve deep geologic material disposal without the controversy and cost of building a single centralized repository for each country.
They’re using one of America’s most well proven core competencies. We have an industrial sector that has drilled well over a million holes into the ground. Some of the most sophisticated can aim bits into selected geologic layers that are only a few feet thick through more than 10,000 feet of rock and sand.
For current purposes, the drilling industry chooses layers with high potential for holding natural gas and oil, but they can just as readily choose layers that have no such potential and have been stable for hundreds of millions of years.
A commonly understood trait of existing US nuclear plants is the fact that their control rooms are filled with analog equipment that most other industries replaced decades ago. After many years worth of effort, there are finally some indications that nuclear fission power plants are entering the digital era.
Reluctance to dump analog equipment has had its advantages. Unlike so many other industries, nuclear is relatively isolated from network vulnerabilities. Though there have been some well-publicized efforts to infiltrate some of the limited connected systems at nuclear plants, those attacks have never posed a significant risk to plant safety or reliability. Air gaps offer solid protection.
But traditional analog devices have real disadvantages as well. Innovative, creative thinkers who are knowledgeable about atomic fission and power plant needs have developed hardware hybrids that combine features of analog and digital components.
Details are beyond the scope of this article, but some of the systems now being introduced offer vast potential for reducing the effort required to maintain old systems. They also offer the potential for efficiently converting the isolated measurements formerly recorded by manual log keeping into useful data that can be quickly processed to provide insights for maintenance and operations.
Fission can directly replace combustion
Unlike many of the more popular and publicized alternatives to fossil fuel combustion, atomic fission is a source of controlled heat. That means that it can often do the same jobs that fossil fuel has always done.
In many cases, it’s possible to replace just the fossil fuel-burning heat sources in a system with a fission based heat source. Major portions of existing industrial infrastructure can thus continue operating, but without producing the harmful emissions that come from burning mined hydrocarbons.
Ocean transportation is one of the most polluting sectors of our current economy. It is responsible for approximately 6% of global carbon dioxide emissions and a much greater share of sulfur dioxide emissions. That’s because it has been allowed to burn the cheapest, dirtiest, bottom-of-the-barrel products. Out of sight, out of mind.
Nuclear fission has been powering reliable naval vessels since 1955, but most of the trial and demonstration programs to use fission in commercial ships were abandoned by the early 1970s when oil cost less than $5 per barrel.
Those demonstration programs were not technical or even economic failures; there simply did not develop the momentum required to overcome focused opposition from competitive fuel suppliers.
Even though ocean shippers have good reasons to be skeptical and slow to adopt unproven technology, there are well-proven and fully tested ship propulsion systems that could be introduced into the commercial shipping market. Impact investors could help develop the political decision process to enable this environmentally beneficial product to be marketed.
If you are concerned, take action
Most impact investors would put themselves into the concerned category. They know there are challenges in the world. They know that human activities harm the environment and that some human activities pose a significant future threat.
They also know that money has power and that a lot of money moving in similar directions can have a lot of power. When the monetary flows are directed with purpose by people who really want to make a difference that power can do a lot of good.
Fission is a powerful force. It can do almost unimaginable good when properly influenced and directed. Let’s make an impact. It helps when we use the best available tools.
“required to overcome focuses opposition”
Catching typos as I wait for my breakfast to heat up.
Thanks. Corrected
If you want to become an advocate for nuclear energy, here is a list of organizations which do this work. Find the one that’s best for you and sign on. https://neutronbytes.com/pronuclear/
Dan – who is your target for that comment?
Anyone inspired by your blog post
It looks like the nuclear district heating idea is getting ready to go global: it’s getting some serious attention in Finland.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Project-launched-to-develop-Finnish-SMR-for-distri
FTA:
For reference purposes, that’s an average of about 1.4 GW(e), about 900 MW(t) (average, peak will be much higher) and about 450 MW worth of hydrogen. At 141.7 MJ/kg HHV and 43 kWh/kg required for electrolysis, it would take another ~500 MW(e) to produce the hydrogen.
All in all, it looks like about 2.1 GW(e) would power Helsinki. Using LWRs would require about 7 GW(t) so there would be plenty of heat left over for space heating. Looks like 35 NuScales would do it.
With Canada’s ACR-100 reactor probably just a few years away from deployment, the spent fuel from current commercial nuclear technology will suddenly become a valuable commodity. Bill Gates (an ACR-100 investor) has previously estimated that current levels of spent fuel are probably worth $100 trillion in carbon neutral electricity production.
If existing nuclear sites in the US were allowed to increase their capacity up to 8 GWe, the excess capacity could be used for the production of renewable methanol (eMethanol). Methanol can be used in natural gas electric power plants cheaply modified to use methanol. Methanol can power marine vessels modified to use methanol. Methanol can be converted to dimethyl ether (a diesel fuel substitute). Methanol can be converted into high octane gasoline, renewable gasoline for existing vehicles. And methanol can also be converted into various types of jet fuel for military and commercial use.
More than 50% of California’s electricity consumption is carbon neutral. But if California modified its natural gas power plants to use renewable methanol produced from out of state nuclear facilities, 85% of its electricity use would be carbon neutral.
newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2019/11/an-existing-site-policy-for-small.html
@AtomicRod
Oklo does make strong marketing claims. I understand that you are rooting for team [of four] Oklo, but the presentation Oklo gave to the NRC in December 2019 doesn’t imply that “within the next few weeks… will submit an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” The presentation (177 slides) is very high level – PIRT-stage content.
https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML19344A003
Calling the foreshadowed Oklo document an “application to the USNRC” isn’t really fair, knowing that the NuScale Design Certification Document is thousands of pages in length and was prepared by an army of (my guess) 250+ engineers at a cost to exceed $1B. It would certainly change the current paradigm if Oklo’s design didn’t remain in regulatory purgatory indefinitely – need more money – need more need for such a product.
Of course, the USNRC WILL review whatever Oklo gives them tho… at a rate of $200/man-hour. As an institution of public service, they must accommodate all comers, hear all voices, at all levels of engagement from concerned citizens to large wll-funded conglomerates. Well-funded conglomerates tend to champion realistic designs, while “startups” nearly always champion odd schemes targeting nebulous markets or remedying perceived/subjective shortcomings of status quo LWR designs.
The micro-reactor thing is an anti-nuclear distraction at worst, or a means to employ post-docs at best. While there is quite a market for engines that deliver 1341 shaft horsepower, pragmatists must admit that there is no market for nuclear powered devices of that size. The guy living on the edge of the arctic circle in Alaska is not a market for a nuclear reactor.
One last thing… Count how many times the phrase “Einstein oscillator” occurs in the Oklo core design patent (10 times). It is very pretentious to describe a negative power coefficient as the result of a heady concept invoking the name of Einstein. This smells a lot like TransAtomic ‘a brewing all over again. Millennial hubris.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/68/cd/ba/523c499e122517/US20170249999A1.pdf
Michael
I realize my description of Oklo’s design certification application to the NRC sounds almost fraudulent to a career nuke who knows a great deal about the way it’s always been. For many, the idea of a 500 page application reviewable in ~24 months seems like something out of a fictional novel about the way nuclear energy should be regulated.
But I not only heard Jake describe his company’s progress in person, I heard the NRC’s Daniel Dorman describe the NRC’s side of the story about a change in regulatory approach made possible by scraping away 50 yrs worth of accumulated “guidance” in form of staff memos, Reg Guides, Regulatory Review Plans, letters and probably some other document types.
Instead, Oklo and the NRC have worked together for more than 2 years to develop a risk-informed, performance based framework that is guided by written regulations and fundamental design criteria.
Be skeptical. But please recognize that change is possible.
From my point of view, Oklo saw the winding, steep, tortuous trail up the mountain to an SMR DCD that NuScale blazed. (You may have seen that slide out of NuScale’s frequently presented deck.)
Instead of meekly attempting to follow that path, Jake and Caroline followed a path similar to the one I often recommended when I saw that slide.
They took an example from the coal mining industry and (figuratively) blew up the mountain to reveal a more direct path to their goal.
From the time that JCP&L decided to build Oyster Creek till the plant delivered power to the grid was only in the neighborhood of ten years. Shipping Port had only gone on line twelve years before Oyster Creek and Indian Point went on line. Admittedly that was under the AEC, Atomic Energy Commission and not the Anti-Nuke NRC. Four Decades plus of operation for both of those plants and neither had any significant safety violations, incidents or problems.
More people die from from a career in Accounting than from Nuclear Power. I have twenty years in the Nuclear Navy, submarines, and that was over 30 years ago. I now get emails from my various Submarine organizations informing me of a recent death. And so far none have been about the nuclear trained crew members standing watch on the Nuclear Reactor with me. The fear of Nuclear Power is unfounded and pure anti-nuke hype.
Bret Kugelmass and the Energy Impact Center have announced a business seeking to connect US capital to nuclear energy development around the world.
https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/25/last-energy-raises-3-million-to-fight-climate-change-with-nuclear-energy/
It’s part of their Open100 open-source, standardized reactor design intended to be a model for rapid nuclear power deployment.
https://www.open-100.com/
It turns out to be a LWR scheme. I went through the presentations and didn’t see where it implemented passive safety. Despite this, it’s supposed to be sited within cities… WITHOUT a serious shield building?!
Also, the fan-driven cooling systems would generate noise and not dissipate urban heat very well. TBH, building a natural-draft cooling tower around and above the plant would be superior in multiple ways, from providing structural support for residential/office towers on the outside to pulling heat and criteria pollutants from ground level and exhausting them well above the altitudes of concern to the locals. Somebody Ain’t Thinkin’.
@E-P
Did you notice the project name OPEN100? As Bret Kugelmass explained in a special episode of Titans of Nuclear that introduced the project, it is an open-source project. One of Kugelmass’s key take aways from two years worth of talking to nuclear energy experts all around the world (more than 1500 interviews) is the need to introduce successful ideas from other industries.
He asserts – with good justification in my opinion – that the design of a power plant is analogous to a large software product. It is thus amenable to using open source concepts where all design details are made available for both use and contributory improvements from interested and skilled participants.
Of course, the contributions have to be accepted by the “community” that is controlling the design.
IOW, don’t just lob criticism here on Atomic Insights, as useful as that might be. Participate and share your ideas.
https://medium.com/@EnergyImpact/saving-the-world-just-got-easier-10a57b45e108
Thanks E-P. I can see that too – and I think the video unnecessarily limits people’s thoughts by showing a downtown installation. It would take more video production work, but having the landscape changing while the construction was going on would illustrate the range of applications.
I did, but I can see problems with that. Somebody has to be in charge, because a hundred individual tweaks on a basic design is going to make affordable NRC certification nigh-impossible. There needs to be ONE basic design, maybe with a few variants. That’s all the certification and training systems can handle.
I think NuScale and possibly PRISM are the way to go. Factory-built modules taken to the site on transporters.
Unless the legal regime is changed to resemble other industries, I don’t see how that’s going to change the economics.
I couldn’t find any obvious way to join the conversation.
Unless Kugelmass has a way to cut costs more than NuScale does (and with Sheffield Forge Works going into electron-beam welding to slash construction times and costs on the NSS unit, OPEN-100 is starting from behind), I don’t see a separate new LWR effort as being worth it. The economies of scale will go with NuScale. The next steps are going to be in metal-cooled or molten-salt units both for higher electric efficiency and some industrial process heat, possibly using reprocessed LWR fuel to get rid of the “what to do with the waste” question. I think NuScale or the BWR equivalent is about the end of the line for LWRs.
Once again, nicely done!
A good optimistic article. I liked the district heating link by Mr. Poet as well. The US has 4.29 percent of the world’s population. No reason all the innovations in nuclear technology will take place here.