Help Mom go Nuclear on Mother’s Day

She wants what's best for you . . .

Mother polar bear with cubs Moms protect their children. For better or worse, she does what she thinks best, given her means. She sees to our needs, supports us when we struggle and helps us develop into self-reliant adults, often at great personal sacrifice.

But we are now at a critical junction in human history, perhaps one of the most crucial moments that will determine our trajectory. Our moms, for all their superpowers, may not fully recognize the new threat we face—because it is entirely invisible.

CO₂, the waste emission created by our growing energy usage, is both colorless and odorless. Yet, it is impacting our future. Unlike with most types of toxic emissions that contribute to smog, moms can't see that the emissions from powering things we love—cars, boats, planes, televisions, computers, refridgerators, washing machines, phones, the Internet, websites and especially our homes—has filled our atmosphere with large molecules that serve to turn the heat up on the planet.

Can moms adapt to defending us from the risks posed by climate change?

Mother goose For eons, moms have been perfectly evolved to meet their primary job qualifications: to provide for her child's physical and psychological safety. For as long as we have had recorded history, moms' love has helped populations thrive. But things have changed dramatically. Humanity, empowered with technologies unimaginable mere decades ago, are causing profound changes to our climate and ecosystems for the worse. Weather patterns are changing. Days are hotter and there are more of them. Trees flower earlier in the season. There is less and less rain, more severe droughts and forest fires. Areas that could once be farmed, can no longer grow crops. Fish populations that fed millions have declined. Bees, bats and insects are disappearing. Hurricanes and tornadoes arrive more frequently and fiercely. How can moms defend their children from a heating planet and all of its related effects? The job of protecting children from these climate threats is not straight-forward and may seem quite impossible, yet there are important things moms can and should do.

Focus on root causes and support an effective energy transition.

Many moms are already concerned about climate and fighting back. She may be planting trees, using less paper, fussing to close lights and turning down the heat. She's also probably recycling, refusing plastic straws and plastic bags and composting. Moms with excess resources are likely donating to stem deforestation, habitat loss and species extinction. She may even opt to invest in ESG and impact-focused funds. While laudable, none of these activities directly target the cause of the problem and so are not a good use of moms' time, talents or resources.

Mom, like the rest of us, must focus on the root cause of climate change. Which is the CO₂ emissions from humanity's collective burning of over 100 million gallons of oil per day, 25 million tons of coal and a comparable amount of natural gas each day. It is these daily energy choices that generate over 100 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions waste daily and over 40 billion tonnes annually—an enormous amount that goes almost entirely into the atmosphere, which further heats the planet. This is the real problem and the only way to lessen the threat we're facing is to transition away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels to other types of energy that don't emit CO₂.

Tripling nuclear pledge cop28 The good news: Over 200 countries agreed that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a global imperative. In late 2023, world leaders met in Abu Dhabi, Dubai at COP 28 and specifically agreed on this. It won't surprise Mom at all that it took all 28 of these week-long annual "Conference of the Parties" gatherings to arrive at this generic agreement. It was every bit as difficult as getting a child to agree to clean up his room. But they got it done at last. Some thirty countries committed to triple the amount of nuclear they use. Others committed to increasing their wind and solar. As hard as it was to arrive at this agreement, there's still much disagreement over how to effect this transition and over what period of time.

The bad news: While there's been considerable progress building out wind and solar, these technologies haven't lived up to the hype that they can solve the problem. Everyone hoped they would and, yes, we love getting free energy from the sun and the wind. Sadly, the actual technologies required to capture and convert that natural energy into power are neither free nor efficient. In the "you get what you pay for" department, renewables are cheap but so unreliable that even where they've been fully built out, we still need to burn fossil fuels to meet the 24/7 level of energy demanded by customers. It turns out that our near constant energy demand doesn't pair well with highly intermittent sources like wind and solar. Adding them to the grid has increased costs to end users largely because of the need for significant further expenditures on peaker gas plants and large batteries to try to firm up their very low generation capacity.

What other clean energy options are there?

There aren't many, which is why we need better options. And we need them urgently. Among the options we have are hydro power, geothermal power and nuclear power. Hydro and geothermal power are currently limited to specific geographies, most of which areas are already fully exploited. Traditional grid-scale nuclear is pretty darn good (despite its reputation) but has historically come in a "one-size-fits-all" configuration that can cost billions and take a decade or more to build. Against this backdrop, there's more good news.

Our world in data energy graphic

Entrepreneurs are working to innovate to make nuclear power smaller, modular and safer. And, best of all, these new advanced designs are on the verge of being commercialized, so adding exciting new energy options that can directly replace smaller coal and gas plants. Meanwhile, they are rapidly becoming the most compelling medium-term solution to our energy problems. Just recently, Google, Amazon, Dow Chemical, Nucor and other large companies have begun to place orders for power from advanced nuclear because they see it as helping them meet both their energy growth and decarbonization goals.

Tech companies have but will Moms go Nuclear to protect their children?

Mothers for peace For most of our lives, our moms opposed nuclear power. They feared nuclear bombs and believed that nuclear power plants posed similar risks. The idea that a melt-down accident at a nuclear power plant could explode and contaminate huge swaths of land seemed like an existential threat that had moms everywhere up in arms. Accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima seemed only to prove them right. Protesting moms did their thing and eventually succeeded in preventing new nuclear power plants from being built for most of the last 40 years. At the time, with their then limited understanding of the risks, this seemed like the right thing to do, so it is easy to understand the rationale. But was it?

Kennedy and weinberg Now, more than 40 years later, we actually have a much better understanding. And it turns out it was a huge mistake. Had the original plans developed by Presidents Eisenhower and, later, John F. Kennedy to build out a fleet of nuclear power plants to meet all US energy needs succeeded, we would not have a climate catastrophe on our hands. But, because of public opposition, nuclear grew only to be 20% of our electricity needs and then its growth was halted.

In its place, the fossil fuel industry was allowed to grow unchecked, vastly accelerating CO2 emissions and turning global warming into a full blown catastrophe. We've already seen 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of confirmed warming and there much more to come, as more emissions are added to the existing molecular blanket trapping solar radiation and heating the planet. It is as bad for the health of our planet as it would be if your child had a fever of 102.7 that just continued rising.

While the worst impacts of our use of fossil fuels may still be a ways off, even the current level poses an existential risk to humanity. We are failing to meet our initial goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030, which is five years away and emissions have not declined at all. Not solving this problem by greatly reducing our level of emissions is causing tremendous psychological stress in younger generations. This is why moms everywhere need to act and fast. They need to show their children that they are doing what it takes, which requires thinking outside the box and being willing to do things we may not be comfortable with.

Next-generation nuclear is the disruptive, scalable solution we need.

Things seem bad right now. The Trump Administration is in denial about climate change and the very topic of climate change has become terribly polarized. Progressives want to end fossil fuel use but demand that we replace it with renewables, which clearly aren't up to the job. Conservatives are rightly worried about rising energy prices and energy reliability and love nuclear but they've shown little concern about addressing climate. While thsese differences cause political dysfunction, there is considerable bipartisan agreement about the need to accelerate advanced nuclear. Somehow, between climate doom and climate denial, both sides for vastly different reasons, agree on the importance of accelerating next-generation nuclear.

Gov newsom at diablo canyon This bipartisan support is not new It started with the Obama Administration, which set the stage to support nuclear innovation. Thereafter, the first Trump Administration signed several pieces of legislation passed by the Congress aimed at accelerating the commercialization of next-generation nuclear. Then, in the lead-up to the IRA, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act, which set up the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, with funding to help prevent the premature closure of nuclear power plants. Governor Newsom used these funds to help save Diablo Canyon. The IRA provided further support for nuclear by levelling the playing field and allowing nuclear power to qualify for the same clean energy tax benefits that wind and solar could. Biden also signed the ADVANCE Act, which accelerates the commercialization of nuclear with a series of reforms of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its mission and its process.

In each instance, Congress supported efforts to accelerate the commercialization of next-generation with huge bipartisan majorities, and often just a few nay votes. This shows just how much attitudes have changed around nuclear energy, which has one of the lowest carbon intensities—so is a top solution to climate change—while at the same time, providing energy security, job creation and national security. At the moment, although the Trump Administration has shown no interest in supporting climate goals, the DOE recently re-issued a $900 million funding solicitation left over from the Biden era for advanced nuclear. Nuclear energy is the middle ground we need to solve climate.

Mom will likely be thrilled to support a true climate solution

Supporting the growth of advanced nuclear energy is the ideal pathway for those seeking to solve climate change. Next-gen nuclear is already in demand by tech hyperscalers and others seeking clean and reliable sources of energy. The innovations underway are working to make these new designs safer, cheaper and easier to deploy. The whole nuclear industry is hard at work increasing capacity factors, improving materials, fabricating safer fuels, making operations more efficient and training workers. This makes it the perfect time to invest into these ventures, so that new designs can finally get to market and energy buyers can begin to displace fossil fuels.

Maddy Hilly, a pregnant mom, pictured standing next to nuclear waste

A pregnant Maddy Hilly standing next to a dry cask storage tank holding nuclear waste.

So, for Mother's Day, help your mother get caught up with nuclear's incomparable safety record. Explain the many amazing benefits of nuclear. Show her that nuclear helps reduce ecologic impacts and cleans the air. Clarify why concerns about nuclear waste are a political red herring, since nuclear's waste is already safely stored on site—as shown by Maddy Hilly at the INL—hurting no one and definitely not causing climate change, in stark contrast to fossil fuel waste, which pollutes the air, contributes to millions of premature deaths annually and causes our slow-moving global climate disaster.

Help your Mom go Nuclear on Mother's Day

Help mom become one of the growing numbers of women supporting nuclear. Introduce her to groups like Mothers for Nuclear, and show her how working mothers have launched pronuclear non-profits and permeated the nuclear industry because of their concerns about climate change. It doesn't take a mom to recognize that fossil fuels are well past their "Sell by" dates and need to go! But before that transition can happen, there has to be a much better way to generate reliable energy. That's next-generation nuclear power and why it is so important to get these technologies to market as fast as possible.

Mom will appreciate learning about next-gen nuclear and the many ways that she can help, whether by joining or supporting an organization like Mothers for Nuclear, investing into this sector and funding the companies developing innovative solutions or just by talking to her friends about nuclear power—it will all help. Almost nothing else she can do will be as effective at the global scale. But helping next-generation nuclear succeed can have a direct future impact on reducing carbon emissions.

She already loves you forever. You can now help her do her job to protect your future.

Happy Mother's Day from the Nucleation team!

Elizabeth in vest Thank you for reading this. Love of our children and deep appreciation of what nuclear offers humanity is why we have worked to build the first venture fund that invest in advanced nuclear and deep decarbonization innovations. Nucleation's Fund I is in its fourth year and still accepting new accredited investors every quarter. We have made it easy and affordable. If you or your mom subscribe between Mother's Day and May 30th, 2025 and reference this Mother's Day post, we will send you your choice of a Nucleation Capital T-shirt, vest or baseball cap. Learn more and subscribe here.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Air pollution, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Extreme weather, Fission, Fossil fuel mortality, Fossil fuels, NEWS, Nuclear innovation, Nucleation communications, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, US technological leadership

November 1, 2024

Assessing the Election’s Impacts on Nuclear

By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner

Kh v dt.png

Presidential elections are always important and this year's election is widely considered particularly critical and unusual. There are vast differences of opinion on matters of great national importance—from voting rights and health policies to international relations and national security policies. Less well litigated is where these candidates stand on matters of energy security, the energy transition and future deployments of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. How will the differences in character, knowledge and respect for facts, science and experts play out on U.S. policies towards nuclear power? Based upon various sources, it appears that the election will have a significant impact. For those still making up their minds, this summary assessment may help clarify how numerous pundits view these differences.

Summary

Nuclear energy has enjoyed enduring bipartisan support across both Democratic and Republican administrations for years now. The Congress has passed, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, bills aimed at modernizing and accelerating commercialization of new nuclear.

Nevertheless, in 2024, the two presidential candidates bring potentially unconventional approaches that may differ from the standard positions of their respective parties. Republicans have long valued America's nuclear capacity and have seen the need for the US to maintain leadership to boost both national security and to expand our ability to export our technologies. They recognize that the U.S. needs to counter the geopolitical influence of adversaries like Russia and China which are offering to help developing nations with nuclear power as a means of increasing their influence within those countries.

Democrats have also, if more recently, come around to support nuclear. Both the Obama White House and the Biden Administration have provided broad support for the industry and particularly for the acceleration of next-generation nuclear technologies and American leadership in the energy transition. Front and center of their support is the recognition that nuclear power is a critical, differentiated component of a reliable, 24/7 low-carbon energy grid. They support its expansion primarily as a mechanism to meet growing energy needs and fortify grid reliability while reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, in tandem with renewables.

The question then of which candidate is more likely to support the continued acceleration of nuclear power is thus wrapped up with policies relating to energy security, fossil fuels, geopolitical competition with Russia and China, and support for addressing climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 and signed by President Biden marked the Congress' single largest investment in the economy, energy security and climate change and is widely seen as the most important piece of climate legislation ever passed. It simultaneously rebuilds the U.S. industrial capabilities while incentivizing the growth of clean energy technologies including domestic nuclear power. It is already making an enormous and beneficial impact on the U.S. nuclear indsutry.

Kamala Harris, while possibly more progressive than Biden, has shown her support for Biden's approach to incentivizing the clean energy transition through the IRA, Biden's signature piece of climate legislation, which has received staunch support from industry. She is unlikely to make many if any changes to the IRA's clean energy technology-neutral Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits or reduce the billions in loan guarantees available through the Loan Program Office, which have already stimulated significant investment in protecting and restarting existing reactors.

Because of Biden’s Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, California is proceeding with the relicensing of Diablo Canyon, Holtec has chosen to restart, rather than decommission, Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant, Constellation has inked a deal with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 2, and NextEra Energy is actively considering the restart of Duane Arnold. Meanwhile, Google has signed a deal to buy power from advanced nuclear reactors being designed by Kairos Power and Amazon has signed a similar deal with X-energy, marking the first corporate purchases of next-generation nuclear, thanks to highly motivating tax and financing incentives available through the IRA and LPO.

Harris is clearly committed to addressing climate change. There is no evidence that she rejects the clean energy tech-agnostic approach developed during her term as Vice President, which levels the playing field for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Harris recognizes the geopolitical importance of America's ability to compete with Russia to produce our own nuclear fuel supply and to provide nuclear technologies to developing nations seeking to build their clean energy capacity but wanting to remain free of Russian or Chinese influence.

In contrast, Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," and/or a good thing and cares little about reducing U.S. or global emissions. He previously walked away from the Paris accord and would likely try to repeal, roll back or dilute the IRA. He's publicly allied himself with the fossil fuel industry and—in exchange for donations—has promised to roll back EPA regulations and help them "drill, drill, drill."

There is almost no doubt that Trump would step the U.S. away from its leadership role on climate and this time, that may mean reversing the U.S.'s pledge to triple the amount of nuclear power. This would seriously undermine both the U.S. nuclear industry's momentum to expand to meet growing demand as well as international progress. Given Trump’s overt courting of Putin, he may be disinclined to rebuild the U.S.'s nuclear fuel production capacity or seek to accelerate or support American efforts to build nuclear projects internationally in competition with Russia.

None of this would be good for nuclear power. Any potential efforts to rollback the IRA would slow restoration, development and deployment of reactors. Boosting the fossil fuel industry, whether through supporting expanded access to federal land or price manipulation to improve profitability would have severe impacts on the energy transition. Trump's recent acknowledgement that he didn't believe nuclear was safe also belies the stated "commitment" to nuclear energy expressed by his surrogates and gives considerable fodder to those who persist in opposing nuclear. His shoot-from-the-hip, truth-be-damned leadership style and embrace of conspiracy theorists, contrasts starkly with Harris' stated willingness to consult with scientific experts and even give those who disagree with her a seat at the table.

In sumary, Trump's likely propensity to undermine the IRA, oppose climate action and backtrack on US pledges to triple nuclear, his support for expanding fossil fuel production and his continued disdain for science and technical experts, poses extreme risks to the momentum generated within the nuclear sector over the last few years. Trump's ignorance of nuclear energy's exceptional safety performance make him unlikely to provide Oval Office leadership either to the industry or the NRC in support of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law by Biden.

In contrast, a Harris Administration would likely remain on the current climate glideslope for leadership, technology-neutral funding and the U.S.'s nuclear tripling momentum as stimulated by the Biden Administration. It may be that a Harris Administration does not prioritize nuclear's growth or add billions in new accelerants as Biden has done, but she will not try to trash it. Having been briefed by senior energy advisors over the last four years about the importance of nuclear, she is well-informed and understands the importance of Biden's initiatives for addressing climate.

Based on this analysis, those who support an expansion of nuclear power and enduring progress towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should thus prefer to see Harris elected, rather than Trump, and the existing policies continued.

Sources

You can find more detailed information about the basis for this Summary Assessment from these sources.

Forbes, Trump Plans To Rescind Funds For IRA Law’s Climate Provisions, But May Keep Drug Price Measures, by Joshua P. Cohen, Sept. 9, 2024.
Bloomberg, US Economy Will Suffer If IRA Repealed, Solar Maker CEO Says, by Mark Chediak, Oct. 22, 2024.
Politico E&E News, Trump cites cost and risks of building more nuclear plants, by Nico Portuondo, Francisco "A.J." Camacho, Oct. 29, 2024.
Huffington Post, Donald Trump Takes A Skeptical View Of Nuclear Energy On Joe Rogan’s Podcast, by Alexander Kaufman, Oct. 27, 2024
Bloomberg, Trump 2.0 Climate Tipping Points: A guide to what a second Trump White House can—and can't—do to the American effort to slow global warming, by Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Sept. 30, 2024.
Joint Economic Committee, How Project 2025's Health, Education, and Climate Policies Hurt Americans, August 2024.
FactCheck.org, Trump Clings to Inaccurate Climate Change Talking Points, Jessica McDonald, Sept. 9, 2024.
New York Times, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, Michael D. Shear, June 1, 2017
Cipher: Here's how cleantech stacks up in three swing states: Taking stock of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Sept. 3, 2024.
Bloomberg Green, Climate Politics: Double-Punch Storms Thrust Climate Into the US Presidential Race, by Zahra Hirji, Oct. 11, 2024.
New York Times, Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump, by Coral DavenportLisa Friedman and Christopher Flavelle, published Aug. 1, 2021, updated Sept. 20, 2021
Bloomberg, The Donald Trump Interview Transcript (with quote "Green New Scam"), July 16, 2024.
Google: New nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power, by Michael Terrell, Oct. 15, 2024, and Google's The Corporate Role in Accelerating Advanced Clean Electricity Technologies, Sept. 2023.
The New Republic, Trump Pushes Deranged Idea that Climate Change is Good for Real Estate, by Robert McCoy, Sept. 18, 2024.
Grid Brief: What Was Said About Energy During the VP Debate, JD Vance and Tim Walz Discuss Energy and Climate During VP Debate, by Jeff Luse, Oct. 2, 2024.
CNN: Fact check: Sea levels are already rising faster per year than Trump claims they might rise over "next 497 years', by Daniel Dale, June 29, 2024.
CNN: Fact check: Tramp's latest false climate figure is off by more than 1,000 times, by Daniel Dale, April 2023.
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, YPCCC's Resources on Climate in the 2024 U.S. General Election, by Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, Jennifer Carman, Jennifer Marlon, John Kotcher, Seth Rosenthal and Joshua Low, Oct. 8, 2024.
SIGNED: Bipartisan ADVANCE Act to Boost Nuclear Energy Now Law, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, July 9, 2024.
Rodgers, Pallone, Carper, Capito Celebrate Signing of Bipartisan Nuclear Energy Bill, the ADVANCE Act, July 9, 2024.
The White House, Bill Signed S. 870, July 9, 2024.
Power Magazine, The ADVANCE Act—Legislation Crucial for a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance—Clears Congress. Here's a Detailed Breakdown by Sonal Patel, June 20, 2024
Sidley Austin LLP, Congress Passes ADVANCE Act to Facilitate U.S. Development of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, June 26, 2024.

June 4, 2024

Fossil fuels lose market share when electricity is done right

By Rod Adams, Managing Partner

Screen shot 2021 05 26 at 5.22.09 pm

Mined hydrocarbons, also known as fossil fuels, have been the foundation of modern industrial society for several centuries. But most parts of society don't depend on the specific action of burning hydrocarbon fuels. People need and want the heat that the combustion reaction produces and the services provided using machinery designed to convert heat into motion.

The growing importance of electricity

Most energy use cases can be supplied by alternative sources of heat and mechanical motion, but non-emitting alternatives such as wind and solar have been constrained by temporal and geographic availability. By themselves, they are not as flexible or as deliverable as hydrocarbons. The electrical grid, however, enables a wide variety of non-fossil fuel alternatives (think wind, solar and nuclear) to deliver controllable heat and motion almost anywhere at almost any time.

When electricity is a) clean, b) abundant, c) reliable and d) cost competitive, it can often win in the markets for services provided by burning hydrocarbons. All four criteria are important. But electricity isn't a fossil fuel replacement, and thus cleaner, if is produced using fossil fuel power.

Currently, 60% of U.S. electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels because they have generally been reasonably available and affordably priced. We are now producing most all of our own fossil fuels with enhanced U.S. production but we shouldn't forget those worrying times when the lack of availability and high prices of fossil fuels have threatened the rest of the economy.

Using electricity to replace fossil fuels requires continued reductions in the use of fossil fuels in the electricity sector, and substantial increases in the total amount of electricity produced. Some calculate that electricity production needs to more than triple to enable an energy transition away from fossil fuel dependence.

Several power sources have proven their ability to take significant shares of electricity production from fossil fuels. These include hydropower, nuclear power (from fission) and wind and solar power. Hydro power (essentially falling water) is a well proven way to generate electricity, but due to geographic and environmental constraints it has not grown in the US since 1970. Its production fluctuates with varying precipitation but remains close to 6% of electricity supply. We shall consider the remaining options.

Fission

All nuclear power used today comes from the fission of atoms. When it was initially developed and booming, nuclear energy quickly captured about 20% of the electricity market. Initially discovered in late 1942, fission entered the commercial market in 1957 and grew to 2300 terrawatt hours per year (TWh/yr) of primary energy production by 2000.

Eventually, due to aggressive political opposition, poor project cost and schedule performance, growing regulatory uncertainties – from both state public utility commissions and federal safety regulators – and flat electricity market growth combined to reduce and then halt new nuclear power plant orders by 1978. This was bad enough but, during the 1970s and 1980s, there were a significant number of project cancellations after major expenses had already been incurred. The new nuclear plant construction industry atrophied, nevertheless, ongoing plant operations and services continued to improve, and nuclear capacity factors grew and resulted in upratings on plant generation capability.

Memories of financial losses and periodic abundance of low priced hydrocarbons have helped to delay or derail attempts to revive the nuclear plant construction industry until now.

Wind and solar

Stimulated by Renewable Portfolio Standards, federal production and/or investment tax credits, similar pieces of legislation at state and local levels and tens of billions of dollars in investments appropriated as part of the Recovery Act of 2009, wind and solar have grown rapidly since 2000 to capture about 15% of the US electricity market. Sustained investments and growing markets enabled the supplier (mostly Chinese) and installation industries to achieve economical scale and substantial manufacturing cost reductions. Advocates for wind and solar have lauded these price reductions and have argued that, because these costs are so low, wind and solar are going to be able to grow to replace all of fossil fuel demand.

Unfortunately, the evidence surrounding the growth of renewables show that they are growing rapidly but not even keeping up with the rate of growth of energy demand. Additionally, they are not replacing fossil fuels, which plants are also growing as a function of being needed to supplant the intermittency and low capacity factors of both wind and solar.

The energy transition that we need to achieve has a far greater chance of success in a future where nuclear and renewable energy sources both grow to their potential instead of the historical either-or growth pattern shown to the right.

That binary alternative energy history of growing either nuclear or wind and solar has given us a history of doing very little to reduce fossil fuel consumption or its inherently associated pollution and greenhouse gas production. The graph below shows U.S. historical energy usage and the shifting patterns of growth of coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar.

US historical energy production displaying coal, gas, nuclear, wind and solar This graph leaves out oil because it provides only 1 percent of electricity generation (though it is largely used in sectors like transportation and heating that are not yet seeing much impact from competition with alternative sources delivered to end users via electricity). It also leaves out geothermal because its production is barely visible in the graph. What's clear from this image is that wind and solar have helped enable the growth of natural gas, at the expense of coal usage but they have not caused a net decline in the total amount of fossil fuel use, just a marked shift in type.

Multiple tools needed

Transitioning our energy system from fossil fuel dominance to a system producing far less pollution while retaining the availability and abundance that provides prosperity is a difficult task requiring a full set of tools, including nuclear, wind and solar.

Using available tools to their fullest extent requires application of enabling policies, relying on experience of what has worked and what has failed to work. The undeniable success of the wind and solar build out offers lessons that can be applied to new nuclear as an energy source that is as clean and as safe as wind and solar.

Government policies

It is immensely encouraging to see that there is growing political support and action in this direction. Congresses over the last decade have managed to pass several major pieces of legislation supportive of nuclear energy with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. The parties have even engaged in positive competition boosting support to new nuclear energy. Most recently, the Biden Administrative launched the Nuclear Power Project Management and Delivery working group, an expert group empowered to accelerate the approval, construction and deployment of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. This is just the most recent initiative, yet it goes further than any prior administration, and reflects growing public support for the deployment of nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions and continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Internationally, the progress has been equally as impressive. At COP 28 in the UAE this past winter, the US joined with nearly every other nuclear-powered nation in a pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, even as the entire conference itself agreed to "transition away from fossil fuels."

Investors and innovators

Along with the government enablers, private sector investors and innovators are applying lessons from the early rise (and then stagnation) of nuclear energy and from the accelerating rise of wind and solar. Nuclear energy sources, now both advanced fission and multiple approaches to fusion, are being developed in a wide variety of sizes, shapes and operating temperatures designed to fit the needs of a much larger universe of potential customers.

The term small modular reactor (SMR) has entered the lexicon and been the subject of much discussion within the small community of people that focus on energy. We like to think of the term as meaning smaller, manufactured reactors and believe it should be viewed as covering a market sector as broad and impactful as the terms PC or AI. We also assert that the world has successfully been using SMRs since the 1950s, but strategic and political considerations restricted their use to military applications, such as for powering submarines.

Some SMRs are designed to be small enough to be fully produced inside factories and delivered as complete units. These are often called micro or very small reactors. Many of these will be able to operate for a decade or more without needing new fuel, giving them capabilities that are unobtainable by fossil fuel generators.

Other SMRs are designed to allow various components and systems to be manufactured, fabricated and assembled in factories and then shipped to sites where the parts can be connected into a complete power plant. These are often being designed to reduce or avoid the mega-project risk that has plagued very large nuclear plants.

Some vendors are focusing on producing reactors as heat sources; letting others design and build systems that will either use the heat directly or as the driver for an energy conversion system that produces electricity. There are designs that focus on producing very high temperature heat and others that focus on improving the fuel cycle to make better use of the energy content of natural actinides like uranium and thorium.

Outside of reactor vendors there are emerging suppliers for waste handling, supportive IT and AI systems, improved displays and simulators, better ways to engage with communities and regulators and an emerging group of companies focused on developing nuclear projects. New business models are being developed to better fit a market that is no longer dominated by vertically integrated monopoly utilities.

The opportunities associated with renewed growth in nuclear are enormous and the variety of solutions is almost overwhelming. As someone who believes in the enormous prospects for nuclear power and as a managing partner in Nucleation Capital,, I spend my days focusing on understanding the teams, the improvements, the markets, the obstacles, the mitigations, the political situation and all of the other complexities associated with successfully deploy a new generation of advanced energy technologies to help change the direction of one of the largest segments of the world's economy. We are now in our third year of operations and continuing to assemble a portfolio of investments in companies in this sector with outsized growth potential.

Broadening Participation by Investors into Venture Capital

At Nucleation Capital, we believe a successful energy transition can only be accomplished when attacked with a complete range of the best available tools. This includes advanced nuclear. Plenty of other investors are focusing on wind and solar; we see new nuclear as an under-appreciated sector whose immense value is just beginning to be recognized, so we are focused on investing into this sector and providing access for more investors to participate.

Though some large, public companies will benefit from nuclear energy growth, most of them are widely diversified conglomerates whose nuclear divisions are a relatively small portion of the company. A number of them are working on SMRs of their own. These ventures can usually be accessed through the public markets. We focus our efforts on the younger, smaller and emerging ventures that are targeting nuclear energy innovations and which are raising venture capital to finance their development and growth. By targeting the energy buyers in various niches with products that can compete head-to-head with fossil fuels, they have enormous growth opportunities given the urgency with which the world needs to transition to carbon-free energy sources.

Nucleation Capital is an open-ended fund that has almost unlimited capacity to include new investors (at almost any capital level) that recognize the potential and want to gain investment exposure to this sector. We bring expertise to this sector to synthesize the complexities and make the investment choices for our investors. If this interests you, please make contact to find out how you might prosper with us.

Published by Rod Adams in Advanced Nuclear, Asset manager support, Carbon emissions, Electrification, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Fission, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, NEWS, Nuclear competitiveness, Venture capital support for nuclear

April 2, 2024

Twelve’s Transformational Mission: Obsoleting Fossil Fuels

Nucleation announces its investment in Twelve's Series C through its Fund I.

Twelve's tagline, "a world made from air," seems quite incredible at face value. The average person may not realize that gaseous components of air, like CO2 and H2O molecules, contain the ingredients required for hydrocarbons, namely carbon and hydrogen. Twelve, however, has managed to develop some special technology that finally makes it possible to take CO2 and H2O, run them through an efficient electrolysis process, and get CO and H, which can be blended to create synthetic hydrocarbons that are exact substitutes for kerosene and naptha, which until now, have been produced from oil that has been extracted from the ground.

We all know that burning oil, coal or gas and releasing CO2 emissions is what is causing our atmosphere to warm. With every gallon of gasoline burned, we're releasing 2.7 times that volumetric amount in pollution, most of which converts to gas that is invisible to the eye but which traps solar radiation and warms up in the atmosphere.

Twelve's technology, however, utilizes CO2 that is "captured" rather than released into the atmosphere, and it blends that with hydrogen extracted from water using an electrochemical process powered by clean energy, to create a carbon-neutral high-octane fuel that is chemical identical to kerosene, also called Jet A. Twelve's sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), which it calls E-Jet, can be substituted as a way to enable the aviation industry to achieve carbon-neutrality between now and 2050.

The key for Twelve, which uses a "power-to-liquid" pathway to create its carbon-neutral E-Jet, is to be able to power this production without releasing more carbon dioxide in the process. To do so, Twelve needs to have access to abundant, always-on, affordable and clean energy. Which explains why Twelve opted to build its first production plant not in California, where the power mix is primarily natural gas, but in Washington State, where Twelve can get access to hydropower.

With that source of energy, Twelve's fuel, once deliveries begin later this year, can help reduce aviation emissions by as much as 90%. In the future, Twelve's growing E-Jet production business will benefit from being able to cost-reduce by being sited near sources of supply for its E-Jet, captured CO2 and airports where its customers refuel. We suspect that, in the future, being able to site a small advanced nuclear power plant near where Twelve's factories want to be, could give them yet another competitive advantage.

Meanwhile, the airline industry's projected demand for SAF far exceeds all known production from all sources, so in the short term, Twelve is able to sell its E-Jet fuel at a premium, while also qualifying for a myriad of local, state and federal incentives aimed at helping businesses like Twelve scale up production capabilities in combination with non-dilutive grants and sales of Scope 3 carbon credits.

Twelve's current Series C financing is providing it with the capital it needs to finish manufacturing its initial stock of reactors and complete the construction of its first commercial-scale fuel production plant in Washington State, where Twelve has a firm contract for hydropower sufficient to meet its production needs for now. Twelve is on track to begin this production and begin delivering initial quantities of E-Jet to Alaska Airlines for use on its flights later this year.

Nucleation is thrilled to have co-invested in Twelve's Series C round together with DCVC, Capricorn (Jeff Skoll), TPG (private equity), Pulse Fund and join many other investors, which include Microsoft, Shopify, Alaska Airlines and the US Air Force. In 2023, Twelve was name one of the Climate Tech Companies to Watch by the MIT Technology Review and was featured in this Bloomberg Green article, Microsoft-Backed Clean Jet Fuel Startup Fires Up New CO2 Converter, a Bloomberg Originals Episode: Dusk or Dawn and other press.

In addition to SAFs, Twelve's reactors can produce a range of carbon-neutral synthetic hydrocarbons, especially e-naphtha, that can be sold into other markets as clean ingredients to enable consumer product companies to make a wide array of carbon-neutral manufactured plastics items, reducing their carbon footprint by over 90%. Twelve has already successfully tested their use through partnerships with Mercedes-Benz (for use in car parts), Procter and Gamble (ingredients for Tide) and Pangaia (for the world's first CO2-made sunglass lenses, in a production run that sold out in under two hours).

Soon after we invested, Twelve was in London to jointly announce a 10+ year, 1 billion liter off-take agreement with the International Airlines Group (IAG), the world's largest publicly traded airline group, which was immediately recognized as the "SAF deal of the year." Twelve's deliveries under that contract will help decarbonize five European airlines, which include British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus, potentially as soon as 2025. This delivery contract is a testament both to the level of demand and to customer confidence in Twelve and its final product. It also signals that funding development of future decarbonization technologies can fundamentally transform our energy future and begin to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

[Note: Investor access to Twelve is currently available through Nucleation's syndicate SPV. If you join our syndicate, we will forward the deal details to you.]

Published by Valerie Gardner in Air pollution, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Carbon negative, Carbon utilization, Climate change, Corporate decarbonization, Fossil fuels, Investor activity, NEWS, Public companies, US technological leadership

December 13, 2023

International Conference Agrees to “Transition Away” from Fossil Fuels

For the first time ever, and despite being hosted the United Arab Emirates, the COP agrees to "transition away" from fossil fuels. This is the first time in over 35 years of meeting internationally to address climate change, that the UNFCC has reached an agreement that even mentions reducing fossil fuels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGEaWZL5zL4

Though not the firm commitment to "phase out" fossil fuels that many attendees were hoping for, this agreement nevertheless goes further in specifically calling for nations to begin reducing their dependence upon fossil fuels than any other prior agreement did. Now, the question becomes "how can such a transition happen" without compromising the reliability of the grid? The answer was not provided in the text of the agreement. But the answer was provided in the pledges made during the conference: a tripling of nuclear power, renewables and energy efficiency. Increasingly, nations will be looking to see how they can replace fossil fuels with another energy source that is equally as firm and reliable. They will eventually find their way to nuclear power if they don't already have hydro or geothermal resources.

Read more at Reuters "Nations strike deal at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels," by Valerie Volcovici, Gloria Dickie and William James, December 13, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, International Collaboration, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

October 18, 2023

Protected: Middle East Peace Demands Regional Collaboration

Published by Jason in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Energy abundance, Extreme weather, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, International Collaboration, Solving climate

June 30, 2023

Screen “Nuclear Now”

Nucleation Capital sponsored free screenings of Oliver Stone's timely documentary, Nuclear Now, through June. Now you can stream this film through iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Vudu, Microsoft Store/X-box, and cable-on-demand platforms like Comcast, Spectrum and Cox. Stone finally clears away the myths and fictions about this powerful source of carbon-free energy with a surprisingly positive and even encouraging film. Learn why a growing number of energy and climate experts call for the use of nuclear power in humanity's fight against fossil fuel emissions.

Oliver Stone’s documentary “Nuclear Now” opened in New York, Los Angeles and other markets across the U.S. and Canada on April 27th with great critical acclaim. Many theaters held a panel discussion after the screening, so viewers could continue the conversation. We hosted a series of virtual panel discussions that were well attended. We have one final panel planned for later this summer. If you would like to learn about that and have not previously signed up to attend an event, use this registration link and we will send you an invitation to this event. If you have already signed up for an event, you don't need to do so again.

Schedule of Events

April 27, 2023
May 1, 2023

The film premiers in 350 theaters around the the country. Check for theaters and purchase tickets online through this link.

May 2, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 1st VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to attend a viewing during the film's premier in theaters. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

May 11, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 2nd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to access the GWU screening link. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

May 25, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 3rd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

June 6, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 4th VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

Stay tuned . . .

(Nuclear Movie Director Panel . . . being planned for later this summer.)

Streaming and other licenses

The Nuclear Now Film

(https://nuclearnowfilm.com)

There are many ways that NUCLEAR NOW can be licensed for viewing by groups or institutions through the filmmaker and media partners, including RoCo and Participant Media. Please visit the website to learn more.

Original publication date: April 29, 2023. Updated May 15 and June 30.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Environmental support for nuclear, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, NEWS, Pro-nuclear campaign, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy

June 21, 2023

Sweden adopts “100% fossil-free” target

Sweden has done something very few countries or jurisdictions have done with respect to energy: they have kept their eye on the goal. The Swedish Parliament adopted an energy target of "100% fossil-free" energy—which should be everyone's goal—rather than falling into the trap of focusing on and dictating the means to that goal. This is so rare, it deserves recognition.

In Sweden adopts '100% fossil -free energy target, easing way for nuclear, EURACTIV reports on Sweden's new plan to remove their "100% renewable" target in order to use all available clean energy resources—including nuclear—to meet the expected doubling of energy demand while also meeting a net zero emissions goal by 2045.

“This creates the conditions for nuclear power,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament. “We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system.”

This new policy gives a green light for the government to push forward with plans by state-owned utility, Vattenfall, to build new small modular nuclear reactor plants and refurbish the country's existing plants to extend the their operating lives. Meanwhile, they are also working to simplify environmental permitting to speed up not just the build-out of nuclear but also for wind power and to accelerate other green technologies.

This is a very significant and promising change of focus which every country should adopt, while allowing utilities to find the best path forward for eliminating their use of fossil fuels. As far as we can tell, nothing else will enable the transition to move ahead at maximum speed.

Read more at EURACTIV's Sweden adopts '100% fossil -free energy target, easing way for nuclear, June 21, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Energy abundance, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Politicians supporting nuclear, Regulatory reform, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

February 15, 2023

A Chat with ChatGPT

At the end of 2022, OpenAI introduced ChatGPT to the world and allowed anyone to sign up for a beta account and interact with this Artificial Intelligence. At that time, ChatGPT had been trained on information through 2021. It was noted that it was not accessing the Internet for answers.

OpenAI's beta ChatGPT made a splash when it was introduced in the late winter of 2022. We were pleased to be able to converse with this large language model (LLM) on several occasions on the topic of nuclear energy and efforts to address climate change. Here is our conversation, with our questions in blue and ChatGPT's responses in green bubbles.

Nucleation's chats with ChatGPT

December 12, 2022

Explain why, given the world's growing energy demand and climate crisis, someone should invest in nuclear energy.

There are a few reasons why someone might consider investing in nuclear energy. First, nuclear power is a reliable source of energy that can generate electricity around the clock. Unlike solar and wind power, which are dependent on weather conditions, nuclear reactors can operate consistently, providing a steady stream of energy to the grid. Second, nuclear energy is relatively low-carbon, emitting fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. This makes it a potential tool for mitigating climate change. Finally, as the world's demand for energy continues to grow, nuclear power could help meet that demand in a way that is cleaner and more sustainable than fossil fuels.

Can humanity meet its energy needs with just renewable types of energy if it gives up using fossil fuels?

It is possible for humanity to meet its energy needs with renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power. However, it is unlikely that we could completely give up using fossil fuels, at least not in the near future. Renewable energy sources are still relatively expensive and intermittent, meaning they are not always available when needed. In addition, many of the technologies and infrastructure we have in place, such as cars and airplanes, are designed to run on fossil fuels. Transitioning to a completely renewable energy system would require significant investments of time, money, and technology. That being said, as renewable energy technology continues to improve and become more cost-effective, it may be possible for us to rely more heavily on these sources in the future.

What are the advantages, if any, of deploying some number of advanced nuclear reactors onto the grid?

There are several potential advantages to deploying advanced nuclear reactors onto the grid. First, these reactors are designed to be safer and more efficient than older reactor designs. Many advanced reactors have passive safety systems, which means they can shut down safely without the need for human intervention. This could reduce the risk of accidents. Additionally, advanced reactors can produce more electricity using less fuel, which could save money and reduce the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of. Finally, advanced reactors have the potential to use nuclear fuel more efficiently, potentially extending the life of existing nuclear fuel reserves.

What do you know about Nucleation Capital?

I'm sorry, but I don't have any information about Nucleation Capital. As a large language model trained by OpenAI, my knowledge is limited to what I have been trained on, and I don't have the ability to browse the internet or access any information that is not part of my training data. My training data includes a wide range of general knowledge, but it does not include specific information about organizations or companies like Nucleation Capital.

February 6, 2023

Why should investors consider investing in advanced nuclear innovation?

Investors may consider investing in advanced nuclear innovation for several reasons:

Growing Energy Demand: The world's energy demand is expected to increase in the coming years, and advanced nuclear innovation has the potential to meet that demand with low-carbon, reliable and scalable energy solutions.
Climate Change Mitigation: Nuclear energy is a low-carbon energy source and can help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is important for mitigating the impacts of climate change.
Government Support: Advanced nuclear innovation is receiving support from governments around the world, with several initiatives aimed at promoting its development and deployment.
Technological advancements: Recent advancements in nuclear technology, such as small modular reactors and advanced fuel cycles, have the potential to improve safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, making the industry more attractive to investors.

However, it's important to note that investing in advanced nuclear innovation carries risks and uncertainties, and investors should conduct thorough research and consult with financial professionals before making investment decisions.

Those are all good reasons but what can you tell me about the size of the energy market? If advanced nuclear gets adopted, how quickly and large can it grow to fill the need for clean energy?

The global energy market is large and rapidly growing, with estimates suggesting that the total energy consumption will continue to increase in the coming decades. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that the world's energy demand could increase by around 30% by 2040.

If advanced nuclear innovation is widely adopted, it has the potential to grow rapidly and become a significant contributor to meeting the world's energy needs. However, the speed and scale of its growth will depend on several factors such as government support, regulatory environment, public acceptance, and technological advancements.

Very true! But explain why nuclear power and next-generation nuclear power are important for our future efforts to decarbonize our energy grids?

Nuclear power and next-generation nuclear power are important for our efforts to decarbonize energy grids because they offer several advantages over traditional fossil fuels:

Low-Carbon Emissions: Nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which are a major contributor to climate change.
Reliable Energy Source: Nuclear power is a reliable source of energy that can provide continuous and stable electricity for long periods of time, making it a good complement to intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
Scalable: Nuclear power plants have the potential to be built at a large scale, making them well-suited for meeting the growing demand for electricity.
Technological Advancements: Next-generation nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors and advanced fuel cycles, have the potential to further improve the efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness of nuclear power, making it a more attractive option for decarbonizing energy grids.

It's important to note that while nuclear power offers significant potential benefits, there are also challenges and risks associated with its deployment, including concerns about safety, waste management, and nonproliferation. Nevertheless, next-generation nuclear power technologies have the potential to play a key role in decarbonizing energy grids and addressing the global challenge of climate change.

You are on to something here. Can you explain why the public has such mixed feelings about nuclear?

The public has mixed feelings about nuclear power due to a combination of factors, including:

Safety Concerns: The potential dangers associated with nuclear power, such as radiation exposure and the risk of accidents, have created widespread public concern and fear.
Waste Management: The long-term storage and disposal of radioactive waste is a significant challenge that has generated public concern and opposition.
Proliferation: The potential for nuclear technology to be used for military purposes has raised non-proliferation concerns and created unease among the public.
Perception: The perception of nuclear power as an outdated and potentially dangerous technology has also contributed to negative public sentiment.
Environmental and Health Impacts: The public is concerned about the potential environmental and health impacts of nuclear power, particularly in light of past accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Competition with Renewables: The rapid growth of renewable energy technologies and the declining costs of wind and solar power have created competition for nuclear power, which may have contributed to declining public support for nuclear energy.

It's worth noting that public opinion about nuclear power can vary widely based on geographic location and cultural factors, and that there are also many individuals and organizations who are supportive of nuclear power as a crucial component of a low-carbon energy mix.

In designing future 100% energy grids and comparing the costs and performance of nuclear with the costs and performance of renewables, what is the best way to design these grids, so we balance low cost with reliability, assuming no fossil fuel can be used?

Designing a 100% renewable energy grid that balances low cost and reliability is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration of a range of factors, including technology costs, energy storage capabilities, and grid infrastructure.

In comparing the costs and performance of nuclear with renewables, the best approach is to consider the specific circumstances and requirements of each energy source and how they can complement each other to create a cost-effective and reliable energy grid.

For example, nuclear power can provide stable and continuous electricity, which can complement the intermittency of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. On the other hand, renewable energy sources are typically less expensive and have lower operating costs compared to nuclear power.

In order to achieve a cost-effective and reliable energy grid, a combination of energy sources may be necessary, with each energy source used in a way that leverages its strengths and compensates for its weaknesses.

This may involve a mix of different renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, hydropower, and geothermal, as well as energy storage technologies, such as batteries, pumped hydro, and thermal storage, to help balance the grid and ensure reliability.

In conclusion, there is no single "best" way to design a 100% renewable energy grid, as the optimal approach will depend on a range of factors, including geography, technology costs, grid infrastructure, and energy demand. A comprehensive and integrated approach that considers the strengths and weaknesses of different energy sources and energy storage technologies is likely to be the most effective way to balance low cost and reliability.

In designing future 100% clean energy grids, what is the best way to design these grids, so we balance low cost with reliability, assuming we can use solar, wind, hydro and nuclear but that no fossil fuel can be used? (Restated more accurately.)

Designing a 100% clean energy grid that balances low cost and reliability is a complex challenge that requires careful consideration of a range of factors, including technology costs, energy storage capabilities, and grid infrastructure.

In a scenario where we can use solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear energy but no fossil fuels, a mix of these energy sources is likely to be the best approach for balancing low cost and reliability.

For example, wind and solar power can provide low-cost and renewable energy, but their intermittency may require additional energy storage solutions and backup from other sources. Nuclear power can provide stable and continuous electricity, but it is typically more expensive than renewable energy sources. Hydro power can provide low-cost and reliable energy, but its availability may be limited by geography and environmental factors.

In order to achieve a cost-effective and reliable energy grid, a combination of these energy sources may be necessary, with each energy source used in a way that leverages its strengths and compensates for its weaknesses.

For example, wind and solar power can provide the majority of the energy, while hydro and nuclear power can provide backup and stability. Energy storage technologies, such as batteries, pumped hydro, and thermal storage, can also play a critical role in balancing the grid and ensuring reliability.

In conclusion, there is no single "best" way to design a 100% clean energy grid, as the optimal approach will depend on a range of factors, including geography, technology costs, grid infrastructure, and energy demand. A comprehensive and integrated approach that considers the strengths and weaknesses of different energy sources and energy storage technologies is likely to be the most effective way to balance low cost and reliability.

February 6, 2023

Why should an investor add venture capital to their investments?

Venture capital (VC) is a type of private equity investment that provides capital to startups and early-stage companies with high growth potential. Investing in VC can provide a number of benefits to investors, including:

Potential for High Returns: Venture capital investments can offer the potential for high returns, as early-stage companies with high growth potential can generate significant returns if they are successful.
Diversification: VC investments can provide diversification to an investor's portfolio, as they offer exposure to a different asset class and a different set of risks and rewards compared to more traditional investments.
Access to Emerging Technologies: By investing in VC, investors have the opportunity to gain access to emerging technologies and industries that may not be easily accessible through other investment channels.
Alignment with Social and Environmental Goals: Many VC firms focus on investing in companies that are working to solve social and environmental problems, providing investors with the opportunity to align their investments with their personal values and beliefs.
Networking Opportunities: Investing in VC can provide access to a network of entrepreneurs, investors, and industry experts, which can be valuable for business development and strategic planning.

It's worth noting that VC investments are typically considered to be high-risk and high-reward, and they may not be suitable for all investors. Before investing in VC, it's important to carefully consider one's investment goals, risk tolerance, and overall investment portfolio, and to consult with a financial advisor.

If you wanted to invest in a diverse set of nuclear investments, how would you do that?

There are a few different ways to invest in a diverse set of nuclear investments, depending on an investor's risk tolerance, investment goals, and other factors. Some of the options include:

Publicly Traded Companies: One option is to invest in publicly traded companies that are involved in the nuclear industry, such as utilities that operate nuclear power plants, companies that supply components and services to the nuclear industry, or companies that are involved in nuclear research and development.
Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs): Another option is to invest in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that are focused on the nuclear industry, such as ETFs that hold a diversified portfolio of companies involved in the nuclear industry.
Private Equity Funds: Investors who are willing to take on a higher level of risk and have a longer-term investment horizon may consider investing in private equity funds that focus on the nuclear industry, such as funds that invest in early-stage companies involved in the development and commercialization of advanced nuclear technologies.
Direct Investments: Another option is to make direct investments in companies involved in the nuclear industry, such as investing in start-ups that are developing advanced nuclear technologies or investing in existing companies involved in the supply chain for the nuclear industry.

Regardless of the investment option chosen, it is important to conduct thorough research and due diligence to understand the risks and opportunities involved, and to seek the advice of a financial advisor or professional who has expertise in the nuclear industry.

Can you explain why so many experts love nuclear so much?

Yes, there are several reasons why many people love nuclear energy:

High Energy Density: As you mentioned, nuclear energy is based on the fissioning of uranium, which releases a large amount of energy in a relatively small amount of fuel. This makes it an efficient and effective way to generate large amounts of electricity.
Reliability: Nuclear power plants are designed to operate continuously for long periods of time, and they have a proven track record of providing reliable, baseload power.
Low Carbon Emissions: Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, making it a clean and environmentally friendly source of energy.
Economic Benefits: Nuclear energy can provide a number of economic benefits, including job creation and economic development, as well as energy security by reducing dependence on imported fuels.
Advances in Technology: The nuclear industry is constantly evolving, with advances in technology and improvements in reactor designs that make nuclear energy even safer and more efficient.

It's worth noting that nuclear energy also has its challenges, such as the need for safe and secure storage of nuclear waste, and the potential for nuclear accidents, which can have serious environmental and health impacts. However, many people believe that the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh these challenges, and that it will continue to play an important role in meeting the world's energy needs.

Are ventures innovating in advanced nuclear energy designs an area that is suitable for venture capital investing?

Yes, investing in ventures that are innovating in advanced nuclear energy designs is an area that is suitable for venture capital (VC) investing. The advanced nuclear energy sector is a growing and dynamic field that offers many opportunities for innovation and investment.

VC investment in advanced nuclear energy can help to fund the development and commercialization of new technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), advanced fuel cycles, and advanced reactor designs. These new technologies have the potential to improve the safety, reliability, and efficiency of nuclear energy, and to reduce the cost and complexity of building and operating nuclear power plants.

However, investing in advanced nuclear energy ventures is not without risk. The industry is highly regulated, and the development and deployment of new technologies can be time-consuming and costly. Additionally, the adoption of new technologies can be influenced by factors such as public perception, politics, and economic considerations.

Despite these risks, many VC investors see the advanced nuclear energy sector as a promising area for investment, and are actively seeking opportunities to invest in promising companies and technologies. To maximize the chances of success, it is important for VC investors to conduct thorough due diligence, to understand the regulatory and political landscape, and to partner with experienced and knowledgeable industry experts.

How soon will advanced nuclear reactors reach commercialization under normal circumstances, given the fact that there are multiple regulatory bodies, like the NRC, the CNSC, and others looking at licensing different designs?

The timeline for advanced nuclear reactors to reach commercialization can vary depending on several factors, including the regulatory approval process, the design and technology of the reactors, and the availability of funding.

Under normal circumstances, advanced nuclear reactors can take several years to reach commercialization, due to the rigorous licensing and regulatory requirements imposed by agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the United States, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in Canada, and similar organizations in other countries.

The licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors involves several stages, including design certification, licensing for construction and operation, and ongoing regulatory oversight. This process can be time-consuming, and can take several years to complete, as the regulatory agencies review and approve the design and safety features of the reactors, as well as the plans for their construction and operation.

In addition to the regulatory approval process, the commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors may also be impacted by factors such as the availability of funding, the competitive landscape, and the public perception of nuclear energy.

It is difficult to predict exactly when advanced nuclear reactors will reach commercialization, but many industry experts believe that it will happen within the next several years. As the demand for clean, reliable, and cost-effective energy sources continues to grow, and as advances in technology and regulatory processes continue, the commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors is likely to become increasingly feasible and attractive.

February 7, 2023

How much electrical energy is produced around the the world?

As of my knowledge cut-off in 2021, the total amount of electrical energy produced around the world is estimated to be around 20 terawatt hours (TWh) per year. This energy is produced by a variety of sources, including coal, natural gas, oil, hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear power.

The exact amount of electrical energy produced each year can vary depending on several factors, including global demand for energy, the availability of fuel sources, and the efficiency of energy production technologies. However, it is estimated that the global demand for electrical energy is expected to continue to grow in the coming decades, as population and economic growth drive the need for more energy to power homes, businesses, and industries.

To meet this growing demand for energy, many countries are looking to increase their use of clean and renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and hydropower, while also improving the efficiency and reliability of their energy production systems. Additionally, many countries are exploring the potential of advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced fuel cycles, to provide safe, clean, and cost-effective sources of electrical energy.

Now let's look at total energy used around the world. If we need to decarbonize all of the energy that the world uses, including petroleum oil used for transportation, oil and gas used for heating homes and buildings and coal and gas used for industrial processes, how much more electrical power would we need?

Decarbonizing the entire world's energy use, including petroleum oil used for transportation, oil and gas used for heating homes and buildings, and coal and gas used for industrial processes, would require a significant increase in the amount of electrical power generated around the world.

Estimates vary, but it is estimated that the total amount of energy used around the world is in the range of 550-600 exajoules (EJ) per year. To fully decarbonize this energy use, the majority of it would need to be produced from clean and renewable sources, such as wind, solar, hydropower, and advanced nuclear reactors.

In terms of electrical power, the exact increase needed to fully decarbonize the world's energy use would depend on several factors, including the efficiency of the energy production technologies used, the availability of renewable energy sources, and the energy demands of specific regions and countries. However, it is estimated that the increase in electrical power generated would be substantial, in the range of several terawatt hours (TWh) per year.

The transition to a fully decarbonized energy system would also require significant investments in energy infrastructure, including transmission and distribution systems, as well as storage systems to store the excess energy generated by renewable sources when demand is low. Additionally, there would need to be significant investments in research and development of new clean energy technologies, as well as in the deployment and scaling of existing technologies.

We know that burning fossil fuels has put a lot of excess CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. How much is there are what are the best methods for getting it out of the atmosphere?

The burning of fossil fuels has significantly increased the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane in the atmosphere, leading to concerns about global warming and climate change.

As of my knowledge cut-off in 2021, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated to be around 410 parts per million (ppm), which is well above the pre-industrial levels of around 280 ppm. Similarly, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is estimated to be around 1,830 ppb, which is more than double the pre-industrial levels of around 700 ppb.

To address this issue, several methods have been proposed for removing excess CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, including:

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) - This involves capturing the CO2 emissions from power plants and industrial processes, and storing them underground or using them for enhanced oil recovery.
Afforestation and reforestation - This involves planting new trees and forests, which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) - This involves using biomass, such as plant material, to generate energy and capturing the CO2 emissions from the process and storing them underground.
Direct air capture (DAC) - This involves using machines that directly capture CO2 from the atmosphere and store it for later use or disposal.
Soil carbon sequestration - This involves increasing the amount of carbon stored in soil through practices such as conservation tillage, cover cropping, and agroforestry.

Each of these methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the best approach to removing excess CO2 and methane from the atmosphere will likely involve a combination of these methods. However, to be most effective, it is important to also reduce emissions from fossil fuels and other sources as much as possible, so that the amount of CO2 and methane entering the atmosphere is reduced.

Afforestation may take too much time. If we decide that we need to build both DAC plants, like the ClimateWorks plant, and new nuclear power plants, such as standard 1 GW nuclear power plants, how many new plants of each type would it take to remove the trillion tons of excess CO2 that we have in the atmosphere now?

The number of direct air capture (DAC) plants and new nuclear power plants that would be needed to remove a trillion tons of excess carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere depends on several factors, including the efficiency of the DAC plants and the amount of CO2 that each type of power plant can capture or generate, as well as the cost of construction and operation of each type of plant.

As of my knowledge cut-off in 2021, there is no consensus on the exact number of DAC plants or nuclear power plants that would be required to remove a trillion tons of excess CO2 from the atmosphere. However, it is generally recognized that removing a large amount of CO2 from the atmosphere will require a significant and sustained effort over a long period of time, involving a combination of mitigation and removal technologies, such as renewable energy, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and direct air capture.

It is important to note that while DAC and new nuclear power plants could play a role in removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere, they would not solve the problem of climate change by themselves. Reducing emissions from all sources, including the use of fossil fuels, will be critical in preventing further increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Mature technologies typically have lower costs. New technologies, like advanced nuclear, have not had the benefit of economies of scale in production over decades, so their costs are higher. If we need to shift buyers from cheaper energy sources, like fossil fuels, to more expensive energy sources like advanced nuclear in order to address the climate change crisis, what approaches should be taken to get that change to happen, when it is contrary to how typical energy purchasing works?

Shifting energy consumers from cheaper fossil fuels to more expensive advanced nuclear technology to address the climate change crisis will require a multi-faceted approach, as it goes against typical energy purchasing behavior. Some potential approaches include:

Government incentives and subsidies: Governments can provide financial incentives and subsidies for advanced nuclear technologies to encourage their adoption and make them more affordable for consumers.
Carbon pricing: Implementing a carbon price or a tax on emissions from fossil fuels can make the cost of these fuels more reflective of their environmental impact and make advanced nuclear technologies more competitive.
Education and awareness: Educating the public and stakeholders on the benefits of advanced nuclear technologies and the urgency of the climate change crisis can help build support for their adoption.
Public-private partnerships: Collaborating with private sector companies and organizations to accelerate the development and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies can help reduce costs and increase their commercial viability.
Research and development: Supporting research and development in advanced nuclear technologies can help to improve their efficiency, reduce their costs, and increase their competitiveness in the energy market.

Ultimately, a combination of these approaches, along with continued progress in the development and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies, will be critical in overcoming the challenges associated with shifting energy consumers to more expensive clean energy sources.

I'm concerned that buying cheap fossil fuels is seen as the best interests of those living today but disastrous for future generations. Conversely, implementing policies to force people to use clean energy from just renewables and batteries will raise energy prices and potentially push people into poverty and cause grid outages, which will be bad for people living today but may be a huge benefit for future generations. How do we justify making these sacrifices today?

The trade-off between short-term costs and long-term benefits of transitioning to clean energy is a complex and challenging issue. However, there are several arguments that can be made to justify making sacrifices today in order to protect future generations from the impacts of climate change:

Intergenerational equity: Climate change impacts disproportionately affect future generations, who did not cause the problem but will bear the costs. Implementing clean energy policies today is a matter of intergenerational equity, as it ensures that future generations have access to a liveable planet.
Climate justice: Climate change impacts are not equally distributed and have a disproportionate impact on low-income communities and developing countries. Implementing clean energy policies can help to address climate justice and reduce the disproportionate impacts of climate change.
Health and environmental benefits: The shift to clean energy can also bring significant health and environmental benefits, such as reduced air pollution and improved public health. These benefits can offset some of the costs of the transition and improve the quality of life for people living today.
Economic benefits: The transition to clean energy can also bring significant economic benefits, such as job creation in the clean energy sector and improved energy security. These benefits can help to offset some of the costs of the transition and improve the overall economic well-being of communities.

Ultimately, making the transition to clean energy is a complex and challenging issue that requires a comprehensive and equitable approach. Balancing the short-term costs and long-term benefits of the transition will require careful planning, stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to creating a sustainable future for all.

February 14, 2023

What is physical basis of all of our energy in the universe?

The physical basis of all energy in the universe can be traced back to the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the law of conservation of energy. This law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Energy can take many forms, including kinetic energy, thermal energy, electromagnetic energy, and more. It can come from a variety of sources, including the sun, nuclear reactions, and chemical reactions. Ultimately, all energy originates from the initial formation of the universe and has been transformed, stored, and transferred through various processes and systems over billions of years.

Do you have an opinion as to whether or not humanity will get its act together and solve our climate crisis by putting an end to our use of fossil fuels or will we fail to do this within the necessary time frame, namely by 2050?

As a language model AI, I don't have personal opinions or emotions. However, I can provide information and analysis.

The transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources is a complex and multifaceted challenge, involving many stakeholders and requiring significant investments in research and development, infrastructure, and policy. It's possible that society will take the necessary steps to reduce emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change, but the outcome will depend on many factors, including public engagement, technological advancements, policy implementation, and investment in renewable energy.

Meeting the goal of reducing emissions by 2050 will require significant effort and collaboration from governments, businesses, and individuals. While the challenge is significant, many experts believe that it is achievable with the right policies and investments in clean energy technologies.

The popularity of different energy solutions aside, when looked at based upon sheer energy output relative to energy input to build and power different enregy technologies, which form of energy provides us with the greatest amount of carbon-free energy for our investment in building materials (such as steel, cement, glass, silicon, etc.)?

The energy return on investment (EROI) is a metric that compares the amount of energy produced by a system to the amount of energy required to build and maintain it. The exact EROI of a specific technology can vary depending on factors such as location, resource availability, and design.

In general, nuclear energy has a relatively high EROI compared to other low-carbon energy sources. Nuclear power plants have a relatively small footprint compared to the amount of energy they produce, and the energy output is relatively stable and consistent. However, the production of materials such as fuel and components for nuclear power plants does require a significant amount of energy, and the decommissioning of nuclear power plants at the end of their lifecycle can also be energy-intensive.

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar also have relatively high EROI, and their energy inputs are largely limited to the production of materials such as turbines and photovoltaic panels. The intermittency of wind and solar energy can make it more challenging to balance supply and demand on the grid, which may impact the overall EROI of these technologies.

In conclusion, the EROI of different energy technologies can vary, and it can be difficult to compare them directly. A comprehensive evaluation of the EROI of a specific technology would consider a range of factors, including energy inputs and outputs, as well as environmental and social impacts.

Explain the various individual steps required in the production of solid metal nuclear fuel, from mining to fabrication?

The production of solid metal nuclear fuel involves the following steps:

Mining: Raw materials such as uranium and plutonium are extracted from the earth through mining operations.
Milling: The raw materials are processed in a milling facility to extract the usable fuel.
Conversion: The extracted material is converted into gaseous form, which is then purified and processed to produce a concentrate called yellowcake.
Enrichment: The yellowcake is enriched to increase the concentration of the fissile isotopes, uranium-235 or plutonium-239.
Fuel Fabrication: The enriched material is transformed into solid metal fuel pellets. The fuel is then assembled into fuel rods and arranged into fuel assemblies, which are placed inside the nuclear reactors.
Quality Control: Before shipping the fuel to the reactor site, various quality control procedures are performed to ensure the fuel meets specifications and is safe for use in the reactor.
Shipping: The fuel is then shipped to the nuclear power plant, where it is loaded into the reactor.

What is the history of uranium enrichment technology and what approach is used today?

Uranium enrichment is the process of increasing the proportion of the isotope uranium-235 (U-235) in uranium, which is essential for nuclear power generation and weapons production. The first uranium enrichment methods used in the early 20th century were mechanical methods such as gas diffusion and gas centrifugation. These methods have since been replaced by more efficient gas diffusion and gas centrifugation using lasers, known as laser isotope separation. Today, most commercial uranium enrichment is done using centrifugation, with the most advanced facilities using advanced centrifugation technology known as ultracentrifugation. This method has become the dominant enrichment method due to its high separation efficiency and low cost.

How many times has there been a threatened or actual risk to public safety from a terrorist or illicit use of enriched uranium or plutonium?

There have been several incidents where the potential for illicit use of enriched uranium or plutonium has been a concern for public safety, but to my knowledge, there has not been a confirmed case of a successful attack or release of nuclear material caused by a terrorist group or other non-state actors. The international community, through organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), works to prevent the spread of nuclear material and technology to unauthorized actors, but the threat of nuclear terrorism remains a concern.

If someone has long been antinuclear, what information would be most effective at getting them to revise their position against nuclear, especially in light of the very real threat posed by climate change?

For someone who has long been antinuclear, information that emphasizes the role that nuclear energy can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change can be effective in getting them to revise their position. This can include discussing the benefits of nuclear energy as a low-carbon and reliable source of energy, and highlighting the advancements in safety and security measures that have been implemented in the nuclear industry. Additionally, highlighting the fact that many countries are embracing nuclear energy as a key component of their transition to a low-carbon energy mix and pointing to successful examples of advanced nuclear reactors being developed and deployed around the world can help to build a more favorable perception of nuclear energy.

If an investor holds many different types of asset classes and investment products and believes in diversification but does not hold any investments in the nuclear space, what information would you provide to convince them to allocate some of their capital to nuclear energy?

An investor could consider the following points when deciding to allocate capital to nuclear energy:

Growing demand for low-carbon energy: With the world moving towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there is increasing demand for low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear.
Reliability and stability of nuclear energy: Nuclear energy is a reliable and stable energy source, which can provide a consistent and constant energy supply, unlike some renewable energy sources that are dependent on weather conditions.
Energy security: Nuclear energy can enhance energy security by reducing dependence on energy imports from other countries.
Economic competitiveness: The cost of nuclear energy is competitive with other forms of low-carbon energy, and its cost competitiveness is expected to improve in the future as new and advanced nuclear technologies become commercialized.
Support from governments and international organizations: Nuclear energy has the support of many governments and international organizations, which recognize its role in meeting energy demand and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In conclusion, the combination of low-carbon energy demand, reliability, stability, energy security, economic competitiveness and government support makes nuclear energy a viable investment opportunity for a diversified portfolio.

What are the biggest obstacles to the expansion of nuclear energy in the US? In the world?

The biggest obstacles to the expansion of nuclear energy in the US include:

Public perception and concerns over safety: There has been a public stigma against nuclear energy due to the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, as well as concerns about nuclear waste and proliferation.
Cost: Nuclear power is often more expensive to build and maintain than other sources of energy, such as fossil fuels.
Regulation: The nuclear industry is heavily regulated, and the licensing process for new nuclear facilities can take a long time.
Competition from cheaper alternatives: The growth of natural gas and renewable energy sources have made it more difficult for nuclear power to compete in the energy market.

The biggest obstacles to the expansion of nuclear energy globally include:

Public perception and concerns over safety: As mentioned, there are concerns about nuclear accidents, waste and proliferation that are prevalent in many countries.
Cost: Nuclear power is often more expensive to build and maintain than other sources of energy, such as fossil fuels.
Regulation: Regulations for the nuclear industry vary greatly from country to country and can be a barrier to expansion.
Competition from other forms of energy: The growth of renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, has made it difficult for nuclear power to compete in some countries.
Nuclear weapons proliferation: The concern that nuclear energy could be used to produce nuclear weapons has made some countries hesitant to invest in nuclear energy.

When will fusion energy become a commercial source of energy?

Fusion energy is still in the research and development stage and there is currently no commercial-scale fusion power plant in operation. The timeline for when fusion energy will become a commercial source of energy is uncertain, but most experts believe it will take several decades of continued development and demonstration before fusion energy becomes a commercially viable source of energy. The challenge in fusion energy is to produce more energy than what is required to initiate and sustain the fusion reaction, which has not yet been achieved on a commercial scale. The development of fusion energy is ongoing, with multiple private and public organizations investing in research and development to bring fusion energy closer to commercialization.

What are the advantages of fast breeder reactor?

Fast breeder reactors (FBRs) are advanced nuclear reactors that have several advantages, including:

Increased fuel utilization: FBRs can use depleted uranium and other nuclear waste as fuel, which extends the supply of energy available from existing nuclear fuel.
Improved fuel economy: FBRs generate more fuel than they consume, leading to greater fuel efficiency and reduced waste.
Improved reactor safety: FBRs have a more stable and safe operating condition compared to traditional reactors, due to the use of liquid sodium coolant and the design of the fuel.
Enhanced non-proliferation: FBRs have the potential to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation by reducing the amount of weapons-grade material produced.
Potential for closed fuel cycle: FBRs can enable a closed fuel cycle, where the spent fuel is reprocessed and reused, leading to further reduction of waste and increased fuel utilization.

What are the advantages of a thorium molten salt reactor?

Thorium molten salt reactors (TMSRs) have several potential advantages over conventional nuclear reactors:

Thorium is a more abundant fuel source: Thorium is more abundant in the earth's crust than uranium, making it a more widely available fuel source.
Improved safety: The liquid fuel of TMSRs is circulated through a passive cooling system, meaning that there is less risk of a meltdown or explosion in the case of a loss of power to the cooling system.
Reduced nuclear waste: TMSRs can "burn up" existing nuclear waste, reducing the amount of long-lived radioactive waste that needs to be stored.
Improved fuel utilization: The liquid fuel in TMSRs allows for the easy recycling of unburned fuel, improving the overall fuel utilization and reducing the amount of nuclear waste generated.
High-temperature operation: The high-temperature operation of TMSRs enables their use as a source of process heat for industrial applications, potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in these sectors.
Potential to breed fuel: TMSRs have the potential to breed more fuel than they consume, leading to a self-sustaining fuel cycle and reducing the demand for new fuel.

Why do advanced nuclear reactor developers prefer to use HALEU as fuel, rather than LEU?

Advanced nuclear reactor developers prefer to use High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) as fuel instead of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) because HALEU has a higher concentration of the isotope U-235, which is required for sustained nuclear reactions. The higher concentration of U-235 in HALEU makes it a more efficient fuel for advanced reactors, as it reduces the amount of fuel required to reach criticality and produce power. Additionally, advanced reactors have the ability to extract more energy from the fuel due to their advanced fuel cycle and cooling systems, which can handle the higher temperatures and longer-lived isotopes produced by using HALEU. Using HALEU as fuel can also increase the economic viability of advanced reactors, as it reduces the amount of fuel required to produce the same amount of energy, thus reducing the cost per unit of energy produced.

When will ChatGPT and other large energy-using applications be powered by what used to be called "Cold Fusion," but now is called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), Solid State Energy, Metallic Lattice Energy and other tentative names?

[To see how ChatGPT answered this question, send an inquiry to admin@nucleationcapital.com and let us know what you thought of this conversation and your interest in learning more.]

Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Artificial Intelligence, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, NEWS, Solving climate, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy

September 13, 2022

DOE finds that 80% of US coal plants could be converted to nuclear

According to a new DOE report, hundreds of coal plant sites could be suitable for conversion from coal to nuclear energy in an economically-viable way. In fact, as much as 80% of qualifying retired and operating coal plants appear to have the capacity to undergo what the report calls the "Coal-to-Nuclear" (C2N) transition. (Note: we have previously reported on efforts to develop standardized and efficient processes for this conversion to happen quickly.)

Amy Roma, an attorney with Logan Hovells writes:

"The 127-page DOE report concludes that hundreds of United States coal power plant sites could be converted to nuclear power plant sites, adding new jobs, increasing economic benefit, and significantly improving environmental conditions. As part of the study contained in the report, the research team examined over 400 retired and operating coal plants based on a set of ten screening parameters, including population density, distance from seismic fault lines, flooding potential, and nearby wetlands, to determine if the sites could safely host a nuclear power plant. After screening, the research team identified 157 retired coal plants and 237 operating plants as potential candidates for a coal-to-nuclear transition. The report determined that 80% of those potential sites, with over 250 GW of generating capacity, are suitable for hosting advanced nuclear power plants, and that while these nuclear power plants vary in size and type, they could be deployed to match the size of the site being converted. See DOE Report at pp. 2, 22, 71."

According to the DOE's Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants into Nuclear Plants report, a coal-to-nuclear transition could increase nuke capacity in the U.S. to more than 350 GW.

Power Magazine reports that, depending on the technology used, nuclear overnight costs of capital could decrease by 15% to 35% when compared to a greenfield construction project, through the reuse of infrastructure from the coal facility.

In a case study replacing a large 1200 MW coal plant with NuScale’s 924 MWe of nuclear capacity, the study teams found regional economic activity could increase by as much as $275 million and add 650 new, permanent jobs to the region analyzed. Nuclear can have a lower capacity size because it runs at a higher capacity factors than coal power plants.

In general, DOE says the occupations that would see the largest gains from a coal-to-nuclear transition include nuclear engineers, security guards, and nuclear technicians. Nuke plants could also benefit from preserving the existing experienced workforce in communities around retiring coal plants sites.

Read more at Reuters: About 80% of U.S. coal plant sites suitable to host nuclear reactors -U.S. DOE report, published September 13, 2022. Power Magazine, "DOE study finds hundreds of U.S. coal plants could convert to nuclear," by Kevin Clark, published September 14, 2022. And Hogan Lovell's Engage, with analysis by Amy Roma, entitled "New DOE Report shows former coal plants can support new nuclear plants and a just energy transition," published September 20, 2022.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Construction costs, Energy abundance, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, Land Use by Energy, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Reduced ecosystem impacts, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

Older Posts ›

She wants what's best for you . . .

Can moms adapt to defending us from the risks posed by climate change?

Focus on root causes and support an effective energy transition.

What other clean energy options are there?

Tech companies have but will Moms go Nuclear to protect their children?

Next-generation nuclear is the disruptive, scalable solution we need.

Mom will likely be thrilled to support a true climate solution

Help your Mom go Nuclear on Mother's Day

Happy Mother's Day from the Nucleation team!

The growing importance of electricity

Fission

Wind and solar

Multiple tools needed

Government policies

Investors and innovators

Broadening Participation by Investors into Venture Capital

Schedule of Events

April 27, 2023 May 1, 2023

May 2, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

May 11, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

May 25, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

June 6, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

Stay tuned . . .

(Nuclear Movie Director Panel . . . being planned for later this summer.)

Streaming and other licenses

The Nuclear Now Film

(https://nuclearnowfilm.com)

Nucleation's chats with ChatGPT

December 12, 2022

February 6, 2023

February 6, 2023

February 7, 2023

February 14, 2023

April 27, 2023
May 1, 2023