GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GVH) announced today approval from the Province of Ontario and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to proceed with deployment of the first small modular reactor (SMR) in the Western world at the Darlington nuclear site in Ontario, Canada. This milestone marks a significant step forward in advancing nuclear innovation and reinforces GVH’s leadership position in scaling SMRs commercially.
Energy is extremely big business and growing. But dominating in the fossil fuel industry is so very "last century." As such, it is encouraging to see the state of Texas, which prides itself on being the "energy capital of the world," setting itself up to become the "epicenter" for deployment of advanced nuclear. The state has taken some impressive steps to achieve this goal, but the question is why? What is behind this push? And where does this leave other states vying to compete for this business? This article provides pointers to the state of state competition to lead in nuclear innovation in the U.S.
Lessons learned the hard way
Serious interest in nuclear energy for Texas seems to have been sparked in 2022, in the aftermath of Winter Storm Uri that resulted in extended power outages that caused many cold-related fatalities. Soon after, an industry group got together to form the Texas Nuclear Alliance dedicated to the advancement of nuclear technology in Texas and a mission to make Texas the "Nuclear Capital of the World." TNA's underlying premise was that, to meet the need for low-carbon and reliable energy, neither Texas nor the world could afford to turn its back on "clean, safe, reliable and secure" nuclear energy.
By late 2023, Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, directed the Texas Public Utility Commission to establish a working group to study advanced nuclear. A year later, in November 2024, the Governor and the PUCT announced the release of the Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group’s final report on Texas’ plan to build a world-leading advanced nuclear power industry. The report's multiple goals sought to enhance electric reliability and energy security, promote economic development, and unleash new opportunities for the growing Texas workforce. In commenting on the PUC's report, Governor Abbott said:
“Texas is the energy capital of the world, and we are ready to be No. 1 in advanced nuclear power. By utilizing advanced nuclear energy, Texas will enhance the reliability of the state grid and provide affordable, dispatchable power to Texans across the state. As we build an advanced nuclear industry in our great state, we will ensure Texas remains a leader in energy and strengthen the Texas grid to meet the demands of our growing state.”
If you click on the report image on the right, it takes you directly to the report package, which is a thing of beauty. The Executive Summary finds five key benefits to making Texas the epicenter of advanced nuclear in the U.S.: 1) Enhance energy security; 2) Improve grid reliability; 3) Expand economic development opportunities; 4) Capture first-in-nation advantages that bring jobs, revenue and industrial growth; and 5) Capture international trade opportunities as the world works to triple the amount of nuclear available by 2050.
How will Texas take this lead? By doing what Texas does best: cutting "red tape" and establishing major "incentives" to "attract investments," accelerate advanced nuclear deployments and overcome regulatory hurdles. It's a very good plan . . . and far exceeds efforts by any other state to attract advanced nuclear development to itself.
Best of all, Texas isn't merely posturing. The Texas Nuclear Alliance has partnered with the Texas A&M University System (TAMUS, which boasts eleven universities, eight agencies and an enormous 2100 acre parcel of land called the Rellis Campus devoted to supporting technology innovation) and announced that they have selected four advanced nuclear ventures to build their own advanced reactor at Texas A&M. These companies, called TNA Founding Members, include: Kairos Power, Natura Resources, Terrestrial Energy and Aalo Atomics. These companies responded to an RFP in the summer of 2024 to bring their designs to the Rellis campus and were accepted. While there are unknowns about what this selection means for these companies, solving the siting issue can provide a significant advantage in the highly competitive race to be the first to deploy.
[Click here to see how beautifully Texas A&M promotes the Rellis campus.]
Status of State Competition for Advanced Nuclear
So where do other states sit in the effort to compete for this future economic activity? There are currently 28 U.S. states that generate nuclear power to meet some portion of their electricity. Of these 28, Texas is at the bottom, comparable only to California, with only 7% of capacity provided by nuclear. (In contrast, it gets 51% of its power from gas, 13% from coal and 22% from wind.)
Starting in the late 1970s, as many as 16 states enacted moratoriums on building more nuclear power in the state. Of those states that enacted bans, only nine states (California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont) still have state-wide moratoriums or cannot build more without legislative approval. Four states—Wisconsin (2016), Kentucky (2017), Montana (2021) and West Virginia (2022) recently repealed their bans entirely and enacted legislations to open the door for new reactor construction, largely to meet economic, energy and climate goals. New York, Connecticut and Illinois have unique legislative approaches, where nuclear construction is allowed but under certain conditions.
Illinois, one of the largest nuclear generating states, which produces 53% of its electricity (and 90% of its clean energy) from nuclear power, recently passed HB 2473, lifting the state’s moratorium on building new nuclear reactors—but only for small modular reactors (SMRs) rated for 300 megawatts or less. This measure was signed by Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat.
New York has no statewide restriction but still has a narrow ban on new reactor development in the service territory of the Long Island Lighting Company, which covers Nassau, Suffolk and some of Queens counties. Although New York's disgraced former governor, Andrew Cuomo, forced the premature closure of Indian Point which eliminated 80% of the then available clean energy for downstate New York, New York's current Governor, Kathy Hochul appears to be bringing nuclear back. She announced the state's largest and most ambitious initiative to tackle the climate crisis with a new master plan. This includes a commitment of $1 billion by the state and specifically includes NYSERDA's Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies, which outlines a process for the inclusion of advanced nuclear in the state's Master Plan consideration process. Additionally, New York State will co-lead a multi-state initiative to support nuclear refurbishment and new nuclear development. This seems to place New York State firmly in the race to attract next-generation nuclear developers.
Connecticut has a state-wide ban but passed an exception in 2022 that allows more nuclear construction at the site of the state's one operating nuclear power plant, the Millstone Power Station. This specifically allows Dominion Energy to build advanced nuclear at the Millstone site. Dominion has shown interest in SMRs and recently announced a deal with X-energy to build their advanced design, in partnership with Amazon.
Alone among the most populated, industrial and progressive U.S. states, California remains mired in antiquidated antinuclear politics. Although there is a large fraction of advanced nuclear innovation happening at startups located in California, California's moratorium on new nuclear plants will force these ventures to seek alternative states in which to build their technologies. California's leadership has shown no interest in competing to win the race to attract all of the talent, federal funding, jobs and economic development that will accompany the growth of this innovative sector and, by all appearances, the state has now fallen behind Texas, Wyoming, Illinois, New York and even Connecticut.
But, there are signs of attitudinal shifts happening even in deep blue California. Both California's progressive Governor, Gavin Newsom, who for years workd to force the retirement of Diablo Canyon, and the state's legislature reversed their decisions at the last minute and delayed the closure of the nuclear facility for five more years. They recognized, if reluctantly, that the plant had reliably provided almost 20% of the state's zero-emission power and 8% of its electricity for decades. Shutting it down would expose the state to dire and life-threatening power outages without the plant's high capacity-factor reliability and highly differentiated, non-intermittent generation. It would also set back progress on the state's climate goals.
Sadly, despite several attempts over the years by elected legislators to bring the state into competitive parity with the country and do away with its 49-year old nuclear moratorium, make exceptions for SMRs, and/or conduct feasibility studies about SMRs, these bills have not made it out of committee. Thus, the state appears poised to miss out on the energy revolution made possible by next-generation nuclear, even with many advanced nuclear ventures being located in California.
An Associated Press survey of state energy policies in 2022 found that about two thirds of the states consider nuclear power as an option to help take the place of fossil fuels. Of the U.S. states which have repealed their moratoriums, most have done so while actively exploring the possibility of adding more nuclear power to their energy mix, recognizing that solar, wind and burning wood or waste is not enough to keep the lights on.
In 2023, with the BIden Administraion pitching coal communities to transition to nuclear power, seven states considered measures related to small modular nuclear, including Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Virginia, Oregon and New Jersey. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimated that there were actually about 200 "nuclear-friendly" energy bills considered by legislatures in 2023, a huge increase from prior years, when just a handful mentioned nuclear. Many of those bills are laying foundations that will be seen later, just as prior years' efforts towards nuclear power are now being seen in a number of key states, that are leading the way towards building new nuclear.
Wyoming, seen as an "early mover," is one that began laying the groundwork to attract and build next-generation nuclear prior to 2020, when Republican Gov. Mark Gordon, signed a bill forbidding coal plants to close but allowing small modular reactor capacity to replace the coal generation capacity. Subsequent legislation in 2022 and 2023 provided regulatory streamlining for advanced reactor deployment and authorized the state to match private funds up to $150 million. These actions helped the state win over TerraPower, the advanced nuclear venture owned by Bill Gates, which is now building infrastructure for what may be the first advanced nuclear power plant near the site of a retiring coal-fired power plant, in Kemmerer, Wyoming. It helped Wyoming a lot that Bill Gates was friends with Warren Buffet whose Wyoming-based company, PacifiCorp owns many struggling coal plants and so found a site they were willing to let TerraPower use.
Michigan and Virginia have also worked to protect and increase their nuclear power and sit at the forefront of resurgent state interest in nuclear energy. Michigan's Democratic Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, worked to prevent the closure of the Palisades nuclear power plant. But, when a mechanical problem forced the plant's sudden closure, the state legislature agreed to put $150 million toward the potential restart of Palisades, in what would be the US' first-ever restart of a shuttered generating station. Under the Biden Adminstration's Civil Nuclear Credit program, the plant subsequently received a $1.5 billion conditional loan commitment from the U.S. Department of Energy, to help fund the repairs and restart and potentially enable Holtec to build several SMRs on the site as well.
Virginia’s recent pro-nuclear moves include state funding for an energy “career cluster” and a state-supported energy lab that help enable deployment of advanced nuclear reactors near former coal mines. These efforts are designed to attract workers, jobs and investments by companies in the growing advanced nuclear sector, which is poised to begin building SMRs at the country's already shuttered and retiring coal plants. Similar efforts have been underway in an growing list of states, now including Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virgina where officials are working to provide economic and regulatory conditions that will attract development of next-generation nuclear. It is clear that the competition to win this still nascent but highly promising business will be fierce.
In Wisconsin, several lawmakers introduced a resolution calling on the Legislature to publicly support nuclear power and fusion energy. They intend that the state, in passing the resolution, makes what could be deemed a formal declaration that Wisconsin is open for nuclear industry business.
[Note, this article has been and will continue to be updated with more recent information.]
Sources
Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott, Texas Leads As Energy Capital Of The World In 2024, December 27, 2024.
Texas Nuclear Alliance, Texas Nuclear Alliance Members Selected to Build Nuclear Reactors at Texas A&M University System's RELLIS Campus, press release of 2/4/25 by the Texas Nuclear Alliance and Time to Build. (See video of the announcement.)
Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group, Deplying a World-Renowned Nuclear Industry in Texas: Considerations and Recommendations for Action, November 18, 2024.
DOE, Office of Nuclear Energy, What is a Nuclear Moratorium? Sept. 20, 2024
Governor Kathy Hochul, Governor Hochul Commits More Than $1 Billion to Tackle the Climate Crisis – the Single Largest Climate Investment in New York’s History, January 14, 2025.
CALMatters, Artificial intelligence is bringing nuclear power back from the dead — maybe even in California, by Alex Shultz, January 30, 2025.
NYSERDA, Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies, January 2025
LexisNexis, States Take Another Look at Nuclear Power to Combat Climate Change, Dec. 17, 2023.
Associated Press, Majority of US states pursue nuclear power for emission cuts, by Jennifer McDermott, Jan. 18, 2022.
Utility Dive, As states increasingly look to advanced nuclear, Wyoming, Virginia and Michigan lead the way, by Brian Martucci, April 17, 2024.
Stateline, Federal money could supercharge state efforts to preserve nuclear power, by Alex Brown, February 12, 2024.
Hannah Ritchie, Data Explorer: US State-by-State Electricity Sources, updated in 2025.
Wisconsin Public Radio, 2 GOP state lawmakers pushing to advance nuclear energy in Wisconsin, by Joe Schultz, Feb. 13, 2025
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Advanced Nuclear Customers, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Government support, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation
Amazon has announced a signed agreement with Dominion Energy in Virginia to explore the development and construction of one or more small modular nuclear reactors to use to provide clean power to Amazon Web Services data centers. It is anticipated that Dominion will contract with X-energy to host X-energy's new high-temperature gas reactor at Dominion’s North Anna nuclear power station. This is intended to increase access to clean power for AWS, Amazon’s cloud computing subsidiary, which has escalating energy needs as it expands its services into generative AI. The agreement is also a part of Amazon’s path to net-zero carbon emissions.
Amazon Web Services has agreed to invest more than $500 million into advanced nuclear power, through three related projects, that will result in as much as 600 MW of new power generation at locations from Virginia to Washington state. In the process, Amazon is partnering with Dominion Energy, Energy Northwest and X-Energy to explore the development of an X-energy small modular nuclear reactor, or SMR, near Dominion’s existing North Anna nuclear power station.
Amazon, together with Energy Northwest, a consortium of 29 public utility districts and municipalities across Washington, will help fund the deployment of four reactors developed by X-energy totalling approximately 320 MW of new electricity generation. Additionally, Amazon also is making an equity investment into X-energy as part of an approximately $500 million fundraising round announced today by the nuclear technology company and they've signed a separate memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Dominion Energy “to explore innovative new development structures that would help advance potential [SMR] nuclear development in Virginia.”
[Read more at the sources listed below.]
Sources
UtilityDive: Amazon announces small modular reactor deals with Dominion, X-energy, Energy Northwest, by Brian Martucci, Oct. 16, 2024
CNBC: Amazon goes nuclear, to invest more than $500 million to develop small modular reactors, by Diana Olick, Oct. 16, 2024.
PR Newswire: Dominion Energy and Amazon to explore advancement of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear development in Virginia, Oct. 16, 2024.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Advanced Nuclear Customers, Corporate decarbonization, Energy transition, LINKS, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Public companies
Fourteen of the world's largest banks and financial institutions, including Bank of America, Citi, Parabas, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, are pledging to increase their financial support and backing for nuclear energy. This announcement was made at an event held in New York City during Climate Week, in a long-awaited recognition by these financial institutions that the nuclear sector has a critical role to play in the transition to low-carbon energy and provided direct support of COP28's pledged goal of a global tripling of nuclear power.
The announcement occurred at a gathering in the Rockefeller Center, which brought together heads of state, ministers, and top executives from the nuclear and finance sectors. John Podesta, White House climate policy adviser, introduced the sesion by saying, “Our mission is clear: to ensure nuclear energy plays its role in building a sustainable, secure future. If we work together, we can make nuclear a cornerstone of our climate strategy.”
The banks did not commit to any specific funding but their pledge is an acknowledgement that the availability of funding is critical in the transition to low-carbon energy. In particular, high financing costs have been an obstacle to the construction of new plants and lack of availability of funding interest contributed to the decline in new projects for most of the last four decades. with the majority of the world's reactors built in the 1970s and 1980s.
We believe that this new bank pledge is a reflection of the demand inflection point that nuclear is experiencing, with increasing customer interest demonstrating the value that nuclear has for both reliable energy and carbon-free energy. Banks are increasingly aware that, rather than being controversial, nuclear power is becoming increasingly popular, especially for those fully committed to decarbonization.
Bank of America has already begun to recommend nuclear investments for its clientel, having previously issued its "Nuclear Necessity" report. It will naturally follow, then, that BofA and other banks that have done their homework, will be willing to provide direct lending, project finance and investment banking support to utilities and other nuclear companies looking to deploy new nuclear generation.
This announcement should help to shift attitudes at other international and multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank and IMF, which still do not provide any finance to nuclear projects. What is becoming increasingly clear is that there is virtually no scenario in which the world can achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 without nuclear power, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These banks have heard that message and are ready to deal.
[Read more at the below sources.]
Sources
Financial Times, World’s biggest banks pledge support for nuclear power, by Lee Harris and Malcolm Moore, September 22, 2024
World Economic Forum, Center for Energy & Materials, World's biggest banks back nuclear power, and other top energy stories, Roberto Bocco, updated Oct. 9, 2024.
Environmental Energy Leader, 14 Major Banks Pledge Support to Triple Nuclear Capacity by 2050: Leading financial institutions unite to accelerate global nuclear energy expansion, September 24, 2024.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Asset manager support, Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Central bank support, Energy abundance, Energy transition, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Solving climate
By Rod Adams, Managing Partner
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.
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.
President Biden efforts to build a coalition pledging to triple the world's production of nuclear energy by 2050 has succeeded! We've learned from several attendees at the COP 28 conference (through their Twitter activity) that the following twenty-two countries have joined the coalition and signed the Pledge Declaration as of December 2nd:
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Canada 
Czech Republic 
Finland 
France 
Ghana
Hungary
Japan 
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Netherlands
Poland 
Republic of Korea 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia
Sweden 
United Arab Emirates 
Ukraine 
United Kingdom 
United States 
Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy
December 2, 2023
Recognizing the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions / carbon neutrality by or around mid-century and in keeping a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach and achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7;
Recognizing the importance of the applications of nuclear science and technology that contribute to monitoring climate change and tackling its impacts, and emphasizing the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in this regard;
Recognizing that nuclear energy is already the second-largest source of clean dispatchable baseload power, with benefits for energy security;
Recognizing that analyses from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and World Nuclear Association show that global installed nuclear energy capacity must triple by 2050 in order to reach global net-zero emissions by the same year;
Recognizing that analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows nuclear energy approximately tripling its global installed electrical capacity from 2020 to 2050 in the average 1.5°C scenario;
Recognizing that analysis from the International Energy Agency shows nuclear power more than doubling from 2020 to 2050 in global net-zero emissions by 2050 scenarios and shows that decreasing nuclear power would make reaching net zero more difficult and costly;
Recognizing that new nuclear technologies could occupy a small land footprint and can be sited where needed, partner well with renewable energy sources, and have additional flexibilities that support decarbonization beyond the power sector, including hard-to-abate industrial sectors;
Recognizing the IAEA’s activities in supporting its Member States, upon request, to include nuclear power in their national energy planning in a sustainable way that adheres to the highest standards of safety, security, and safeguards and its “Atoms4NetZero” initiative as an opportunity for stakeholders to exchange expertise;
Recognizing the importance of financing for the additional nuclear power capacity needed to keep a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach;
Recognizing the need for high-level political engagement to spur further action on nuclear power;
The Participants in this pledge:
Commit to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050, recognizing the different domestic circumstances of each Participant;
Commit to take domestic actions to ensure nuclear power plants are operated responsibly and in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, and that fuel waste is responsibly managed for the long term;
Commit to mobilize investments in nuclear power, including through innovative financing mechanisms;
Invite shareholders of the World Bank, international financial institutions, and regional development banks to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in their organizations’ energy lending policies as needed, and to actively support nuclear power when they have such a mandate, and encourage regional bodies that have the mandate to do so to consider providing financial support to nuclear energy;
Commit to supporting the development and construction of nuclear reactors, such as small modular and other advanced reactors for power generation as well as wider industrial applications for decarbonization, such as for hydrogen or synthetic fuels production;
Recognize the importance of promoting resilient supply chains, including of fuel, for safe and secure technologies used by nuclear power plants over their full life cycles;
Recognize the importance, where technically feasible and economically efficient, of extending the lifetimes of nuclear power plants that operate in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, as appropriate;
Commit to supporting responsible nations looking to explore new civil nuclear deployment under the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation;
Welcome and encourage complementary commitments from the private sector, non-governmental organizations, development banks, and financial institutions;
Resolve to review progress towards these commitments on an annual basis on the margins of the COP;
Call on other countries to join this declaration.
"We know from science, the reality of facts and evidence that we cannot achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 without nuclear power."
— John Kerry, US Climate Envoy
“First, i want to reiterate the fact that NUCLEAR ENERGY IS CLEAN ENERGY. it should be repeated. Nuclear energy is also a stable form of energy which means it’s a perfect complement to renewables. Because of nuclear energy, our (France’s) electricity is one of the cleanest in the world.”
— Emmanuel Macron, President of France
"We aim to build new Nuclear Energy equal to 2500 MW by 2035 & equal to at least x10 large reactors by 2045. In other words, Sweden is open for business in new Nuclear Energy."
— Ebba Busch, Deputy Prime Ministera of Sweden
To receive this reporting from the #COP28 conference in Dubai, you can follow members of this crowd (and others not shown) on Twitter:
@isabelleboemeke
@NuclearHazelnut
@Dr_Keefer
@energybants
@Dr_A_Stein
@W_Nuclear_News
@ryan_pickering_
@sollidnuclear
@econucleares
@ia_aanstoot
@Nuklearia
@IAEA
@RafaelmGrossi
@Africa4N
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Government support, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy
Marc Andreessen, Cofounder and General Partner of Andreessen Horowitz, a phenomenally-successful $35 billion venture capital firm dubbed "a16z," has shared a litany of views of where humanity is and where it should be vis-à-vis technology in a post entitled "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto." Writing in Nietzsche-like style, Andreessen covers topics such as lies, truth, technology, markets, intelligence, energy, abundance and much more with bold pronouncements regarding our future. This manifesto is a wake-up call to us all to not presume our future's doom and allow pessimism to handcuff action. In fact, Marc posits that we have all the tools we need to create a better future, if we are optimistic and brave enough to use them.
There is much to appreciate about someone of Andreessen's stature putting his views out there in unapologetic style. We take the liberty of sharing an extract from Marc's manifesto on the topic of "Energy," which we agree with entirely and which informed our reasons for founding Nucleation Capital, but we urge everyone to take a moment to read the entire manifesto to refresh your brain and recharge your perspective.
Energy
Energy is life. We take it for granted, but without it, we have darkness, starvation, and pain. With it, we have light, safety, and warmth.
We believe energy should be in an upward spiral. Energy is the foundational engine of our civilization. The more energy we have, the more people we can have, and the better everyone’s lives can be. We should raise everyone to the energy consumption level we have, then increase our energy 1,000x, then raise everyone else’s energy 1,000x as well.
The current gap in per-capita energy use between the smaller developed world and larger developing world is enormous. That gap will close – either by massively expanding energy production, making everyone better off, or by massively reducing energy production, making everyone worse off.
We believe energy need not expand to the detriment of the natural environment. We have the silver bullet for virtually unlimited zero-emissions energy today – nuclear fission. In 1973, President Richard Nixon called for Project Independence, the construction of 1,000 nuclear power plants by the year 2000, to achieve complete US energy independence. Nixon was right; we didn’t build the plants then, but we can now, anytime we decide we want to.
Atomic Energy Commissioner Thomas Murray said in 1953: “For years the splitting atom, packaged in weapons, has been our main shield against the barbarians. Now, in addition, it is a God-given instrument to do the constructive work of mankind.” Murray was right too.
We believe a second energy silver bullet is coming – nuclear fusion. We should build that as well. The same bad ideas that effectively outlawed fission are going to try to outlaw fusion. We should not let them.
We believe there is no inherent conflict between the techno-capital machine and the natural environment. Per-capita US carbon emissions are lower now than they were 100 years ago, even without nuclear power.
We believe technology is the solution to environmental degradation and crisis. A technologically advanced society improves the natural environment, a technologically stagnant society ruins it. If you want to see environmental devastation, visit a former Communist country. The socialist USSR was far worse for the natural environment than the capitalist US. Google the Aral Sea.
We believe a technologically stagnant society has limited energy at the cost of environmental ruin; a technologically advanced society has unlimited clean energy for everyone. [Emphasis added.]
As investors in next-generation nuclear, we were thrilled to see Marc Andreessen rail in support of nuclear. Yet, a mere two days after the release of Andreessen's almost poetic Techno-Optimist Manifesto, Ryan McEntush from the a16z team published an even more significant piece, a profoundly well researched and comprehensive analysis called "How to Scale Nuclear." This article received almost none of the social media attention but is definitely well worth reading. To us, this article is evidence that Andreessen Horowitz is actively investing human capital into understanding and building expertise in nuclear fission and, if they aren't already, may soon become a fission investor.
Source:
Andreessen Horowitz, "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto," by Marc Andreessen, October 16, 2023.
Andreessen Horowitz, "How to Scale Nuclear," by Ryan McEntush, October 18, 2023.
Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Asset manager support, Brilliant thinkers, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Investor activity, LINKS, Venture capital support for nuclear
Jessica Mathews, writing for the Fortune Term Sheet Newsletter, alerted us to the change just made by CalSTRS, one of the largest pension funds in the world. In "CalSTRS taps Sapphire Partners, with an office in Menlo Park, to manage its new emerging manager VC investments," we learned that CalSTRS has hired Sapphire Partners to manage its five emerging manager-focused funds, with $1.4 billion in assets. Sapphire will bring sole focus to CalSTRS' growing investment into emerging managers, a distinct asset class (of which we are a member). We are delighted to hear this news and applaud the decision and its rationale.
Though it may be obvious, when some of the largest and most successful investors in the world decide to redouble their focus on a certain asset class, there's usually a good reason for it. In this case, there are highly compelling economics—in the form of superior returns—coming from emerging managers. New managers, while they don't have an investment "track record" by definition, are often launching new funds because of some kind of significant shifts in markets for which they don't see viable options or for which they have a competitive advantage or discernable investment edge.
The challenge for LPs is being able to select which emerging teams to invest in, since there is a good distribution between top emerging managers and run-of-the-mill emerging managers, who have very little differentiation or specialization.
According to Beezer Clarkson, who leads Sapphire's fund investing business, a key piece for them is simply having an emerging GP being able to articulate why an entrepreneur would pick them as an investor to join a round and why an LP should be interested in their thesis as an investor.
According to David Zhou, in an interview published by Adam Metz of D.F.A. on his Substack, emerging managers regularly outperform. "My suspicion is that emerging managers have that chip on their shoulder. They have something to prove to the world. They’ll hustle for deals. When founders pick who they want on the cap table, they want people who care about them and their space."
We tend to agree. Nucleation remains the only venture fund focused on nuclear, especially the fission kind. And when you are the only fund focusing on the specific tech sector (namely advanced nuclear in our case) that a venture is in and you bring decades of experience, deep connections, plus expansive knowledge of the in's, out's, pro's, con's, competition, suppliers and regulators, history and a vision for what will be and a commitment to making it reality, the answer to these questions becomes apparent.
Nucleation Capital has completed eight quarters of investing, has made ten very promising investments and is starting its third year of operations. If you would like to receive a copy of our newly released Two Year Report, please send your request to us using this link.
Sources
1. TERM SHEET: CalSTRS taps Sapphire Partners to manage its new emerging manager VC investments
By Jessica Mathews
September, 13, 2023
When the California State Teachers’ Retirement System makes any kind of change to its portfolio, people pay attention.
With more than $321 billion in assets under management, CalSTRS is one of America’s largest public pension plans and therefore one of the world’s most important limited partners, with approximately $50 billion in capital strewn across private funds and, naturally, some of the world’s most influential private companies.
CalSTRS’ core private equity portfolio is littered with all the usual suspects: TPG, New Enterprise Associates, Thoma Bravo, Blackstone, and, as of 2021, Tiger Global, to name a few. But 21 years ago, the pension plan also began setting aside a small portion of capital to back first-time fund managers. It has hired out that responsibility to three third-party partners over the years: HarbourVest, Muller & Monroe, and Invesco.
Now, CalSTRS says that one of those partners—Invesco—is getting out of this line of business, so it is bringing on Sapphire Partners, the $3.6 billion LP arm of enterprise software-focused VC Sapphire Ventures, to manage five funds and $1.4 billion in assets focused on emerging managers. With the change, CalSTRS will, for the first time, have a fund class solely focused on emerging venture capital investors. (Invesco declined to comment for this story.)
“Standardizing one group to focus on venture—because it’s so specialized from an emerging manager standpoint—made a lot of sense for us,” Rob Ross, a private equity portfolio manager at CalSTRS, told Term Sheet in an interview. He added: “We just haven’t been as specialized as we should be, given the nuances of venture capital.” Ross pointed out that, while Invesco did make investments in emerging VC, PE, and growth investor managers over their 18 years working together, this will be the first time emerging VC managers will be singled out.
Beezer Clarkson, who leads Sapphire’s fund investing business, says that Sapphire will invest CalSTRS’ capital exactly the same way it deploys its own. Sapphire Partners backs VCs raising one of their first three funds, targeting a 3x net return for Series A funds and a 5x net return for seed funds. While Sapphire will look at both specialists and generalists, Clarkson says it’s important that a GP can articulate why an entrepreneur would pick them as an investor, and why she should be interested as an LP.
“I think the authenticity of that answer is the differentiator,” Clarkson says.
CalSTRS is currently investing out of its fifth fund, a $250 million fund from 2021, and Ross estimated there is approximately $80 million from that fund left to deploy. (CalSTRS filed with the SEC for a sixth fund vehicle in order to shift management responsibilities to Sapphire, though Ross clarifies this is not a new fund and CalSTRS has not set aside any additional capital at this time.)
The change at the pension fund will likely be a welcome one for first-time managers, as fundraising has been pretty dire for those just getting their start. As I wrote about last month, emerging managers are on track to raise less than they have in a decade, based on data from the first four months of the year.
Part of that has to do with risk. Emerging managers, by definition, have fewer than three funds, meaning they don’t have much of a track record to show investors. “Only about 17% of funds make it to fund four,” Clarkson says, citing data from PitchBook. Not to mention, the current market uncertainty has made price discovery more difficult, and LPs are being choosier across all their GPs.
“I think all LPs are being more selective than they had been in the past,” Ross says.
At the same time, a high-risk bet on a first-timer can turn into an enormous return. Cambridge Associates reported in 2019 that 72% of the venture industry’s highest-performing funds were run by emerging managers. (This is the most recent metric. Cambridge Associates didn’t respond to my request for updated figures.)
“There’s no guarantee it’s going to work out well. And because there are so many emerging managers every year, the challenge of picking the ones that will continue is extraordinarily hard—and that’s probably the nugget of why most LPs don’t do this,” Clarkson says.
For CalSTRS, returns for this class of funds have been strong so far. Here’s a look (I didn’t include the 2021 fund because it didn’t have a long enough track record to judge it fairly):
As it’s become more and more competitive for LPs to get exposure to top-performing funds, it makes sense for large-scale limited partners to be building relationships with promising investors earlier on. And there’s nothing preventing a pension plan or institutional LP from outsourcing most of the work. Just earlier this year, one of California’s other major pension plans, CalPERS, had said it was now working with TPG and GCM Grosvenor to deploy $1 billion into emerging manager funds.
Sapphire Partners will assume management of the CalSTRS New and Next Generation Manager Funds, which includes managing available capital to make new investments into emerging managers focused on early-stage venture capital
WEST SACRAMENTO and MENLO PARK, September 13, 2023 / PRNewswire: The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), the world’s largest educator-only pension fund with more than $320 billion in assets, and Sapphire Partners, the fund investing strategy of Sapphire, a specialized technology investment firm with over $11 billion in assets under management,(1) today announced a partnership to invest in emerging managers focused on early-stage venture capital. As a part of this partnership, Sapphire Partners will assume investment management responsibilities of five CalSTRS “New and Next Generation Manager Funds” existing funds, representing approximately $1.4 billion in assets under management.(2) Sapphire Partners will also have capital available to continue making commitments to new and emerging venture capital managers.
“Emerging managers are critical to the venture ecosystem and an LP’s portfolio, and both CalSTRS and Sapphire Partners have long histories of supporting them on their journey,” said Beezer Clarkson, Partner, Sapphire Partners. “Sapphire believes we are well positioned to identify the next class of rising talent early and help them grow and scale their businesses.”
The announcement comes amid one of the most challenging fundraising environments in recent years, with 91% of emerging managers finding fundraising “difficult or very difficult” in 2023. With many LPs constrained on allocations, Sapphire Partners is excited to be an active and supportive partner for emerging managers seeking to fundraise in this environment and has invested in emerging managers since the strategy’s inception nearly twelve years ago.
“One of CalSTRS’ primary goals since the program’s inception in 2005 is to partner with diverse GPs that represent the demographics of California, and we know greater diversity is a natural byproduct of focusing on small emerging managers,” said Christopher J. Ailman, CalSTRS’ Chief Investment Officer. “This partnership with Sapphire aligns with our long history of finding diverse investment managers. We look forward to partnering with Sapphire on this important mandate.”(3)
Sapphire Partners has been an active Limited Partner since 2012, investing in early-stage venture capital (Seed to Series A) funds within the US, Europe and Israel, with, more recently, a focus on identifying managers Sapphire believes may become the “New Elite” in early-stage VC.
Managers may benefit from Sapphire’s industry insights, its experience investing in emerging managers, and its efforts to demystify the “LP Perspective” through OpenLP, a Sapphire-led resource for the VC community. In addition, the broader Sapphire technology investing platform, featuring a multibillion-dollar direct VC investing strategy, provides managers with market and industry insights from the investment and Portfolio Growth teams and a scaled firmwide infrastructure to tap into where relevant.
This partnership will allow Sapphire to expand its ability to support emerging managers while continuing to focus on established managers through its existing investment platform. Of note, approximately 60% of Sapphire Partners’ relationships began at the emerging manager stage.(4) Since its inception, Sapphire and the New and Next Generation Manager platform have partnered with approximately 300 funds over their combined history. Today, approximately 70% of Sapphire Partners’ portfolio of existing managers have checkwriters from diverse backgrounds.(5)
About Sapphire Partners
Sapphire Partners has been investing in early-stage venture capital funds since 2012 and seeks to identify and support the “New Elite” managers across the US, Europe and Israel who are uniquely suited to invest in the next generation of technology category leaders. Through its underlying managers, Sapphire Partners has indirectly invested in over 3,200(6) companies since inception. Sapphire Partners looks to partner with managers across their journey as a GP and is focused on adding value beyond its capital commitments through value-add services, industry insights, and its efforts to demystify the ‘LP Perspective’ through the OpenLP initiative. Sapphire Partners is part of Sapphire, a specialized technology investment firm with approximately $11 billion in assets under management across three distinct strategies and with team members across Austin, Menlo Park, San Francisco and London. To learn more, visit the Sapphire Partners website.
About CalSTRS
CalSTRS provides a secure retirement to more than 1 million members and beneficiaries whose CalSTRS-covered service is not eligible for Social Security participation. On average, members who retired in 2021–22 had 25 years of service and a monthly benefit of $4,809. Established in 1913, CalSTRS is the largest educator-only pension fund in the world with $321.3 billion in assets under management as of July 31, 2023. CalSTRS demonstrates its strong commitment to long-term corporate sustainability principles in its annual Sustainability Report.
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
France appears to wins another round against Germany in the fight to have nuclear included as a clean energy source within EU Commission rules. The EU has agreed that nuclear energy powered hydrogen will be classified as "green," so long as the carbon-intensity of the country's electricity is below 65 grammes of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour.
Early reporting on the EU Commission's decision regarding classification of hydrogen as "green" indicates that, once again, the EU will be recognizing low-carbon nuclear power as "green."
For more than a year, the EU has been assessing and evaluating the best way to ensure that hydrogen producers can't easily claim "green" production by using existing renewable energy, in a form of greenwashing, that simply takes credit fo renewable power that was being used elsewhere. This has forced the EU to look closely at both "additionality" and "carbon intensity."
The new rules, a draft version of which leaked out but which have not been formally published, seek to ensure that that green hydrogen is made only from “additional” renewable power, by forcing the producer to correlate its production in time and space to prevent cannibalisation of existing sources of clean energy. The Commission has finally arrived at a decision and set out two important additionality criteria:
- By 2030, hydrogen production must be matched to renewable energy production on an hourly basis. Until then, the correlation is set on a monthly basis.
- By 2028, hydrogen producers must prove that their electrolysers are connected to renewable energy installations no older than 36 months.
This decision enables investments in new hydrogen production to move forward with a clear understanding of how that production can benefit from the benefits available to clean energy until 90% of electricity production in a given country is produced from low-carbon sources.
While Germany has sought to exclude nuclear energy as a clean power source, France has been lobbying Brussels on the opposite side, arguing that hydrogen produced by nuclear power is also be considered "green." It appears that France has won its case in the draft rules.
In recognition of nuclear's low-carbon production, the EU has agreed that hydrogen produced in a country like France with the intensity of electricity is lower than 18 gCO2eq/MJs (or approximately 65 grammes of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour), then the hydrogen can qualify as green.
Among all 27 EU countries, only France and Sweden meet this criteria. In 2021, when its nuclear fleet was almost fully operational, French power was 70% of its energy, 85% low-carbon and emissions stood at 56g CO2e per kWh. Sweden, for its part, powered predominantly with hydropower, stands at an average of 28gCO2e/Kwh.
Not only is this EU rule a win for pronuclear countries, it is laying an important precedent in setting out a base level of carbon-intensity that recognizes that what matters is the carbon-intensity of the total grid, not the amount of renewable energy. We believe this will be of increasing importance over time.
Read more at EURACTIV LEAK: France wins recognition for nuclear in EU's green hydrogen rules, by Nikolaus J. Kurmayer, Feb. 11, 2023.
Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Climate policy, Future of Energy, Government support, Green hydrogen, History Timeline, History-making, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear-inclusive energy policy, Politicians supporting nuclear, Regulatory reform, Solving climate, UK Climate Policy, Zero emission energy
Sign up to receive Nucleation Insights
For New Investors
For Donors & Advocates
For Current Investors
(Note: Must be logged in at AngelList)
Nucleation Direct Messages
Nucleation (Fund I) Posts
Your Portfolio Dashboard
Your Funding Page
How to Contact Us
© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies
