Part 4 of 4 Parts (Please read Parts 1, 2 and 3 first)
    Small modular reactors have aroused great interest among venture capitalists who are interested in investing in nuclear fission reactors.
     MIT’s Parsons said “These are going to be very expensive at first. But the goal is to find something that is a product that’s much more flexible, can go on to the grid in many more different places and serve different functions, and go off grid also.”
     Similarly, fusion startups claim that they will generate energy much faster than government research projects like ITER which has already been in progress since 2007.
     This quick-return approach to investment is certainly stimulating experimentation. New generations of nuclear reactors will have different sizes, different fuels, and different coolants. Some reactors are being designed for companies or communities in isolation areas. Others are being made to operate at extremely high temperatures for industrial processes.
     Matt Crozat is the senior director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute. He said, “It really is expanding the range of what nuclear can mean. Many won’t succeed, but time and the market will figure out what’s needed and what’s possible.”
     Because venture capitalists are hungry for returns, this also stimulates nuclear startups to chase multiple revenue streams as they are getting their big-bet technology up and running.
     Nuclear innovation company TerraPower is working on a demonstration of its advanced reactor in Wyoming in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE). In the meantime, TerraPower is using its capacity to produce isotopes that are also used in medical research and treatments. Advanced nuclear company Kairos Power is developing the technology to produce salt for molten salt reactors, both for internal use and to sell to other companies.
     Critics of this new wave of investments in nuclear power say that venture capitalists are ignoring the troubled history of nuclear power as a business.  
     David Schlissel of the Institute for Energy, Economics and Financial Analysis said, “Investors have forgotten or are ignoring the lessons from earlier generations of nuclear plants which cost 2 to 3 times as much to build and took years longer than was promised by the vendors.”
     A project to put two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia was originally estimated to cost fourteen billion dollars and ended up costing more than thirty-four billion dollars. It took six years longer to complete that expected.
      Harvard’s Oreskes says that the nuclear industry is a “technology with a long history of broken promises.” She said that she was skeptical of the sudden investor interest in the nuclear industry. She also said, “If you were my daughter, and you had a boyfriend that had made repeated promises to you over months, years, decades, constantly breaking them, I would say, ‘Do you really want to be with this guy?’”
      Oreskes is not categorically anti-nuclear. She supports the continued operation of nuclear power plants that already exist. However, she is particularly skeptical of nuclear fusion as a power source. It has been promised to be “just around the corner” for decades. She said that this new round of investments in fusion “doesn’t pass the laugh test.”
      Ultimately this new crop of nuclear startups has to figure out how to create nuclear energy in a cost-competitive way or nothing else matters, according to Rothrock. He said, “More money means more startups and to me that means more shots on goal (improving odds of success). The issue in nuclear is economics. Plants are complicated and take a while to build. Some of these new startups are tackling those issues making them more simple and thus cheaper. No one will buy an expensive power plant, especially a nuclear plant. Economics drives it all.”

First Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor ready for delivery bbc.com

Japan turns back to nuclear power to tackle energy crisis reuters.com

PM Modi’s Views On Nuclear Weapons Impacted Russia Amid Ukraine War ndtv.com

Westinghouse and Poland’s PEJ sign agreement on AP1000 ‘next steps’ world-nuclear-news.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ambient office = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Yukon gold potato from Central Market = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Part 3 of 4 Parts (Please read Parts 1 and 2 first)
     In recent years, private investors and venture capitalists have been putting their money into nuclear startups. They seem to driven by a newfound sense of urgency to respond to climate changes. Although nuclear power plants do not release greenhouse gases as they operate, a lot of carbon dioxide is release when they are constructed and when their fuel is processed and transported. Venture capitalists are also attracted by the opportunity to fund underdog companies with a huge upside.
     The venture capital model is based on big bets. Venture capitalists spread their money across many companies. Most of these startups are expected to fail or, at most, break even. However, if one or two companies grow to an enormous size, the funders will more than cover the costs of all losses. This is the investing model that supported the rise of Silicon Valley giants such as Apple, Google and Tesla.
     Some venture capitalists are especially excited about the possibility of nuclear fusion as a power source. It is, after all, the process that fuels all the stars in the sky. It also, for the most part, generates no long-lasting radioactive waste. However, some of the proposed types of fuel such as deuterium and tritium can produce neutrons which will brittle metal components and make them mildly radioactive over time. It has been extremely difficult to create a lasting fusion reaction on Earth. The generation of net energy from a fusion reaction has just been accomplished after seventy years of research. There is still a long way to go to develop a fusion reactor which can produce enough steady energy for commercial applications.
     Vinod Khosla is a venture capitalist. He said that, “It’s far better than nuclear fission. It’s far better than coal and fossil fuels for sure. But it’s not ready. And we need to get it ready and build it.”
      Khosla is not the only venture capitalist interested in nuclear fusion. The private fusion industry has received almost five billion dollars of funding, according to the Fusion Industry Association (FIA). More than half of that has been since the second quarter of 2021 said Andrew Holland, CEO of the FIA.
     Others are excited about new advances in nuclear fission. Fission is the more traditional type of nuclear power that is based on breaking atomic nuclei apart.
      Zachary Bogue is the DCVC founder. He has invested in the micro-nuclear reactor company Oklo. He said, “Advanced nuclear fission is a quintessential deep-tech venture capital problem. There is technical and regulatory risk, but if those problems are solved, there are just massive-scale returns … all of those elements are a perfect recipe for venture capital.”
     While these bets seem expensive and risky compared with venture capitals recent focus on software and consumer technology, they will still bring a faster and more agile approach than the old-line nuclear industry. Most of the nuclear fission power reactors operating these days are approaching the end of their originally licensed life spans.
Please read Part 4 next

Russia installs shield over Zaporizhzhia nuclear storage site reuters.com

Nuclear engineers at Virginia Tech excited for safety research Richmond.com

Iran Says Enriched Uranium Capacity Hits Record voanews.com

IAEA Chief in Korea: Nuclear Energy, Safety and Safeguards iaea.org

Ambient office = 50 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 81 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 88 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 84 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 65 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 4 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Some of the rapid pace of increase in investment in the nuclear sector is explained by its starting point which was virtually zero.
     David Schlissel is a director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a market research firm. He said, “This is still pretty small compared to the private investments in renewables,” like wind and solar, for example.”
     The venture market slowed overall in 2022. Nuclear power investment is no exception. Concerns over the war in Ukraine, inflation, a wave of layoffs and hints of a coming recession have made investors nervous in the public and private markets.
     Brett Rampal is a nuclear energy expert who evaluates investment opportunities and consults for nuclear startups. He said, “At the beginning of the year, we were looking at a much different financial paradigm for nuclear startups seeking funding. Now, following a war, and inflationary related forces, the fundraising market is just not what it was earlier and that is challenging for everyone seeking funding and support, nuclear or otherwise.”
     More than three hundred billion dollars flowed into the venture capital industry in 2021. Rothrock estimates that there will be about one hundred and sixty billion dollars in 2022. According to Rothrock, “I’m sure that some funds that pull back may never come back. But most investors who are putting money into a nuclear company understands that it will not be a quick investment. Entrepreneurs and investors at the level we are talking for nuclear are playing the long game, they have to. These projects will take time to mature and to generate real cash flows.”
     The Inflation Reduction Act which was signed by Joe Biden in August included three hundred and sixty-nine billion dollars in funding to help combat climate change. This legislation has given nuclear power investors a very significant positive signal. Rampal said, “The IRA investment and production tax credits are not nuclear specific credits, they’re clean energy credits that nuclear is now considered a part of, and that sends a real important message to people and investors that would consider this space.” According to Rampal, the vote by the European Union in July to keep some specific uses of nuclear energy and natural gas in its taxonomy of sustainable sources of energy in some circumstances also encourages investors.
     The nuclear power industry in the U.S. was launched as a government project after the U.S. constructed the first atomic bombs during World War II. In 1951, a nuclear reactor produced electricity for the first time in Idaho at the National Reactor Testing Station which would eventually become the Idaho National Laboratory.
     In the 1960s and 1970s, large conglomerates constructed huge nuclear power plants. Almost all of those projects ran over budget. According to a 2011 report from the Congressional Budget Office, “As a consequence, most of the utilities that undertook nuclear projects suffered ratings downgrades—sometimes several downgrades—during the construction phase.”
    Generation of electricity in the U.S. peaked around 2012 with one hundred and four operating reactors. This information was provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Please read Part 3 next

Pak Minister’s “Responsible Nuclear State” Defense After Atom Bomb Threat ndtv.com

Majority of Poles support construction of nuclear power plants thefirstnews.com

Fortum and Kärnfull to explore SMR deployment in Sweden world-nuclear-news.org

India gives update on nuclear construction projects world-nuclear-news.org

Ambient office = 56 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 134 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 24 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 92 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 4 Parts
     Venture capitalists in Silicon Valley and other tech hubs are investing significant money in nuclear energy for the first time. That is changing the pace of innovation in the nuclear industry. Ray Rothrock is a longtime venture capitalist who has personal investments in 10 nuclear startups. He said, “There has not been a resurgence of nuclear power, ever, since its heyday in the late 1970s. Now that is changing. I have never seen this kind of investment before. Ever.”
      Jacob DeWitte is the CEO of the micro-reactor startup Oklo. He says that the landscape has changed dramatically since he began raising funds in 2014. At the time, he was a part of the Y Combinator startup incubator. He added, “More investors are interested, more investors are excited by the space, and they’re getting smarter to do the diligence and know what to do here — which is good.”
     John Parsons is an economist and lecturer at MIT. He said, “I think having fresh perspectives is really good.  Nuclear energy is a very complex science, and it’s been supported by the federal government and at these national labs. And so that’s a very small circle of people. And when you broaden that circle, you get a lot of new minds, different thinking, a variety of experiments.”
     Parsons continued, “In any industry, there can be a ‘groupthink’ or ‘narrowness’ in the way things are done over time. With private investment in the space, there will be out-of-the-box thinking. Maybe that out-of-the-box thinking doesn’t produce anything useful. Maybe it turns out that the old designs are the best. But I think it’s really wonderful to have the variety of takes.”
     In spite of the enthusiasm of the previous quotes, not everyone is so optimistic that the recent flow of venture dollars will actually lead to significant progress.
       Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University. She said, “Investors have often invested in stupid things that didn’t work. Because the reality is that in a 75-year history of this technology, it has never been profitable in a market-based system. If investors are putting money into nuclear now, that’s because they think they can make money, and I can only think they believe they will make money because they think that there’s a big opportunity to have the federal government pick up a big part of the tab.”
     From 2015 to 2021, total venture capital deal flow in the U.S. has increases fifty-four percent in terms of deals actually closed and two hundred and ninety four percent by dollar value. This is according to data compiled by the private capital market research firm Pitchbook. In that same time period, climate investing deal flow in the U.S. rose by two hundred and fourteen percent in terms of volume and one thousand three hundred and forty-eight by dollar value. In the nuclear space, investments rose even faster by three hundred twenty five percent by volume and three thousand six hundred forty-two percent by dollar value.
Please read Part 2 next