I am eagerly looking forward to spending some time during the next couple of days talking with others who are interested and perhaps as excited about the prospects for opening new markets to the possibility of using nuclear energy instead of diesel engines, combustion gas turbines or small coal fired steam plants. It is time to attend the Platts Small Modular Reactor meeting and the DOE sponsored workshop on small modular reactors. The meeting is taking place at the Washington, DC Mandarin Oriental Hotel, not far from the Tidal Basin.
Scheduled speakers include:
- Richard Black, Director, Office of Advanced Reactor Concepts, Office on Nuclear Energy, US Department of Energy
- Michael Mayfield, Director, Advanced Reactor Program, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Daniel T. Ingersoll, Senior Program Manager, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Donald Hoffman, President and Chief Executive Officer, EXCEL Services Corporation (conference chairman)
- Paul Lorenzini, President and Chief Executive Officer, NuScale Power
- Michael Shepherd, Vice President, Business Development, Babcock & Wilcox
- Michael Anness, Manager, Advanced Reactors, Westinghouse Electric Company
- Don Moul, Vice President, Nuclear Support, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
- Andrea Sterdis, Manager, New Nuclear Licensing, TVA
- W. Kenneth Hughey, Vice President, Nuclear Business Development, Entergy Nuclear
- Michael Sellman, Director, Alternate Energy Holdings; Board Member, NuScale Power
- Jonathan Hinze, Vice President, International Operations, Ux Consulting
- Jim Moody, Director, Commercial Services, General Dynamics Electric Boat
- David Blee, Executive Director, United States Nuclear Infrastructure Council
- Chris Hansen, Associate Director, IHS CERA
- Mary Saunders, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Manufacturing and Services, U.S. Department of Commerce
- James Glasgow, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
- William A. Macon, Jr., Army Reactor Program Manager, U.S. Army Nuclear and Combating WMD Agency
- Randall Lee Beatty, Ph.D., Group Leader, INPRO, International Atomic Energy Agency
- M. Hadid Subki, Ph.D., Unit Head, Small and Medium Sized Reactors, International Atomic Energy Agency
- Vladimir Kuznetsov, Ph.D., former Lead Researcher, Kurchatov Institute (Russia); former Unit Head, International Atomic Energy Agency
The list includes a healthy mix of vendors, potential customers, suppliers, and government agencies involved in both research and development and regulation. There are even some government agencies that might end up being direct customers for the technology – like Mr. Macon from the US Army. That organization has a large installed base of fossil fuel generators running in places where delivering bulky and explosive fossil fuels on a regular basis is a bit of a challenge.
There should be some lively conversations. I will work hard to capture some of those conversations and share them with you either here or as audio files from The Atomic Show Podcast. You might also be interested in following Atomicrod on Twitter for some intermittent commentary during the meetings.
If you happen to be attending the meeting, please look for me and introduce yourself. It is always good to meet Atomic Insights readers face to face. Heck, I might even buy you a drink if you are staying in town for socializing this evening.
Thanks, Rod.
The new environment in nuclear energy is one of a surplus of great new ideas against a background of urgency for clean and economical energy. The shortcomings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are becoming ever more obvious in this new environment. True though it may be that the current structure of the NRC is the legacy of another administration and another era, we now have a different administration that has a chance to leave a positive legacy of its own by making the NRC much more responsive, accountable, and helpful in the quest for nuclear energy, all without compromising safety. I hope this happens.
We haven’t had the wholesale “deliming” and “degunking” of the NRC that’s really necessary for a thriving nuclear industry to develop, especially in the area of non-LWRs. I’d love to see some different designs get built that utilize other than LWR concepts. After all, even the various and diverse flavors of LWRs are just the tiniest volume of a massive space of practically unlimited potential – nuclear energy should be a field far broader than just what Admiral Rickover made to work very well. (Not knocking Admiral Rickover at all, of course.)
Putting to Sea in compact “Tiny” nukes is more than a concept. Whether or not the regulators realize this fact is academic. The fact remains, if we (The US) don’t our competitors will. The cheaper and smaller more efficient new concept fusion engines will be the wave of the future regardless of current technology. It is what is not being openly discussed that gives the DOD and DOE fits. Can regulation into oblivion end a great society? Come on and get real. Nice job Rod with coverage and comments.
Different administrations and perceived needs produce the policies that carry the day. I say that not to excuse Stockman or Reagan, but to keep this journey in perspective. Carter canceled used fuel reprocessing and encouraged the vast expansion of coal use. Clinton canceled the IFR funding (remember Hazel O’Leary?) with the able help of Sen. John Kerry.
Our national energy policy has been advanced more by people who have little or no understanding of energy needs and systems to meet those needs than by a sober assessment of the scientific facts – stripped of the fads that persuade some because it’s fashionable to be part of the “Crusade”.
Financial constraints will focus our attention on what really works — nuclear, not wind — and other countries are already making that judgment. Hopefully, the first round of loan guarantees and the event Rod most ably reports about, is an indication that America is waking up from its 30 year stupor like Rip van Winkle.
@DocForesight – you correctly point out that actions that disadvantaged nuclear energy development have been one of the few bipartisan “success” stories over the past 40 years. Another one has been our continuing – and somewhat depressing – ability to overlook almost anything that Saudi Arabia does to its own people and its neighbors because we want their oil and oil money.
Perhaps the two multi-decade efforts are related.
(By the way, I just finished rereading Baer’s eye opening book titled “Sleeping with the Devil”, written by a former CIA operative about America’s long standing relationship with the Middle East and especially the House of Saud.)
I think I might write something about the Advanced Reactor Concepts design on WP one of these days soon. Nice concept, haven’t really seen too much publicity out about it yet, but it’s built on a solid foundation that the US has had experience with before – the EBR-II – and it uses a S-CO2 power generation cycle (which I like…CO2 supercritical cycles are probably pretty efficient). Perhaps it’ll be easier to license than one might think.
Thanks, Rod,
Following with great interest. I am struck by the NRC’s insistence that they be involved right from the start with a design, but they do not give a clear path for approval of designs that are not LWR’s. Sort of like, well you pay us as much as we charge and perhaps we will tell you some day if you really have a design we will approve or not. Who would invest in that?
Not a technical comment, but I wanted to share this.
I went to the dentist yesterday. One of the women (not a dentist) who works in the office is pro-nuclear and has noticed some of my letters in the local paper. So we talk briefly when I come in to the dentist.
So, yesterday I walk in to the office and Amy says: hey, have you ever heard of a company called Hyperion? I hear they are making small reactors…
Word is getting around about small reactor possibilities! Amy does not have broadband, she spends little time on the net, etc. She’s not exactly following the blogosphere on this!
Everyone who is pro-nuclear and hears about small reactors becomes excited about them.
Not to be impatient, but what about the second day?
@Paul – thanks for the reminder and for remaining interested in my impressions of the meeting. I have just returned from a “week” of vacation and am still working my way through the notes that I took during the morning sessions on the 29th. (The Platts meeting actually ended at 1200 on that day. Later in the afternoon, there was a four hour publicly accessible small modular reactor meeting hosted by the Department of Energy office of Nuclear Energy.)
I expect to finish the Platts meeting post tomorrow morning. I hope that is not too late to be of interest.