TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Francesco Tassi [00:00:59] Hello and welcome to another episode of Titans of Nuclear. I am Francesco Tassi, and today we have Brian Woods, the head of the School of Nuclear Science and Engineering at Oregon State University. We are very excited to hear from his story, and maybe in Titans fashion, we might start with... Tell us a little bit about your background before you got to nuclear.

Brian Woods [00:01:26] Well, first of all, thanks for having me, Francesco. I really appreciate it and really appreciate you spending the time with me. Well, if we go back to the beginning... I grew up in New York, the New York City area. I ended up going to undergraduate school at the University of Virginia. I was not a nuclear engineer; I was a mechanical engineer for my undergraduate degree. I didn't really think...

Brian Woods [00:01:50] I mean, I knew about nuclear. Clearly, we had Indian Point up in New York near where I grew up, and there was, of course, the race course, the Shoreham Power Plant, which was a little bit of a fiasco when I was in high school on Long Island, but I didn't really have a lot of thought about a career in nuclear. So again, a mechanical engineer...

Brian Woods [00:02:10] I ended up working for DOE for a couple of years. I was in the Navy for a number of years, and then also supported the Navy as a civilian contractor when I got out. But in the intervening years after I graduated with my undergraduate degree, from then around the mid-'90s, I really started doing a lot more investigation into nuclear power.

Brian Woods [00:02:31] And it was around '96 when I decided that I thought I wanted to go back to grad school and pursue a graduate degree in nuclear engineering. I didn't realize at the time, or didn't think at the time that I necessarily wanted to go into academia, but I think by the time I got to graduate school and had been doing research for a few years, I thought that eventually I would like to make my way to academia. So, it was a long process for me to come around to nuclear engineering, but it was certainly worth the wait.

Francesco Tassi [00:03:02] I think there's a lot to unpack there and some very interesting experiences along the way. I guess, also, my curiosity within the Navy. Was that any exposure to the submarines? The Navy operates one of the largest fleets of SMRs in the world.

Brian Woods [00:03:29] But for me, no. None at all, really. I went into the Navy in 1990 and did one tour, so I was finished by 1994. But I was actually a diver. The ship I was on, ultimately, was a mine countermeasure ship, and so it was a diesel ship. We had a gas turbine and a number of diesels, but nothing nuclear. Very conventional, very mechanical, actually. A lot of mechanical engineering stuff onboard there, but nothing related to nuclear energy at all. So, definitely no. In my case, I got zero exposure to nuclear engineering while I was in the service.

Francesco Tassi [00:04:10] Amazing. Thank you for expanding on that. Honing back into that moment where you first sort of realized your interests, that path was closer to nuclear, what initially drew you to nuclear engineering? And then, maybe a little bit about how your passion has evolved over the years.

Brian Woods [00:04:30] Sure. As I mentioned, growing up in New York, I used to run cross-country in high school. And there was a place called Blue Mountain Reservation up in the Hudson River. And once a year, we'd have a meet up there. And actually, you can see Indian Point from that course. And so, my first exposure was literally doing a cross-country race every year in the shadow of a nuclear power plant. But again, never really thinking much about, "Hey, that's a career I want to go into."

Brian Woods [00:05:08] And even when I was a mechanical engineer, I took a course in power plant system design in my senior year... And I actually still have the textbook, ironically. I really loved the class, and there was a chapter on it in that book on nuclear power, but we didn't cover it in class. It was something that I think I read just on my own that term, but we never really covered anything about it in class. But again, still somewhat agnostic about nuclear; I didn't really have a strong opinion either way about it.

Brian Woods [00:05:37] I think what really happened with me was around the early '90s, or maybe was the late 80s... It's been so long now, I can't exactly remember the moment when this happened. But around the late '80s, early '90s, I was in a library. As I said, I worked at the Department of Energy. And in their building up in Gaithersburg, Maryland, they had a library in the basement. It may have been in that library or it may have been at another library; again, I can't exactly remember. But I found a report. It was a Department of Energy report, I guess probably from the late '80s.

Brian Woods [00:06:13] And what the report did was it basically did an analysis that tried to monetize the environmental impact of a variety of different energy technologies. I vaguely remember that I think the report was commissioned by maybe the Office of Renewable Energy or something like that. So as you could imagine, if you looked at the list at the very end when they looked at the technologies which had the lowest environmental cost, it was solar photovoltaic and wind power and so on and so forth. So, it wasn't necessarily a surprise what the list looked like. And at the very bottom was nuclear power. I think either the last or the second-to-last was nuclear power in this monetization of environmental impact.

Brian Woods [00:07:03] However, next to nuclear power, there was an asterisk, right? And so being curious, I said, "Well, what is this? I'll look at the footnote." And the gist of the footnote was, "Well, when we first did this, nuclear power actually was number one; it had the lowest environmental impact. But we wanted to then take into consideration the potential for severe accidents." Bottom line is they changed the algorithm for nuclear power when they compared it to everybody else.

Brian Woods [00:07:29] And I thought that was really weird, actually. And I was like, "Well, that doesn't really seem right if the algorithm they used for everybody else ended up with a very favorable outcome for nuclear." And so ultimately, that was the very beginning of me getting curious about nuclear power. And I think, again, that was either the late '80s or early '90s. And then, I had my stint in the Navy, but I always started continuing to read about different stories in nuclear.

Brian Woods [00:07:56] When I got out of the service, I was living in Maryland and I think I went to the University of Maryland, the library, a few times and pulled some books on nuclear power. And by 1996, I was pretty convinced that nuclear power really should have a large part to play in our future energy needs. This was also the time when climate change was really becoming a hot topic.

Brian Woods [00:08:23] But even before that, I'd always been really interested in clean air because I read a story, again probably in the late '80s, about how the government was recommending you only eat two servings of fish a week because of mercury contamination from coal-fired power plants. And I had always thought that didn't seem like a great position to take. "Well, we'll keep producing this energy, but we've got to change the way we eat because of what it's putting out in the air." And so, a number of reasons by the mid-'90s that I had really come to the belief that nuclear power could and should have a large part to play when it comes to clean air. And that's what led me then into grad school and where I am today.

Francesco Tassi [00:09:08] Thank you for that journey. And I think we really see the aspect of the inquisitive mind and the curiosity, right? Even from just seeing it on a cross-country hike to continually being curious and asking questions.

Francesco Tassi [00:09:22] You mentioned about the role that you envisioned nuclear energy should play. Has that changed in any way from '96 to today, from your perspective? How do you envision its evolution?

Brian Woods [00:09:44] No, philosophically, I don't think it's changed. I mean, I'm still a believer in having clean air, right? Being able to breathe air and not have to worry about what's in it, you know? But also then, of course, we do know more about climate change now than we did in the mid-'90s and the late '80s, and what we know is not made the story any better for us. So certainly, I'm still a believer that, philosophically, nuclear has definitely got to be part of that solution.

Brian Woods [00:10:14] I think the thing that has changed for me, though... You remember in the mid-'90s you had maybe three nuclear power vendors, right? General Electric, Framatome, Westinghouse, and that was really it, these very, very large reactors. What's really changed for me, though, the way I look at nuclear... And it's also the evolution of the industry itself. It's really this ability for the markets to unleash ingenuity and creativity of people, to come up with different ways to crack this nut.

Brian Woods [00:10:49] Clearly, getting commercially-viable electricity or power, any type of power out of a nucleus... It's not an easy proposition. Just like it's not an easy proposition for really any energy source. If it was easy, we would have been doing this for millions of years, or hundreds of thousands of years anyway. But it's not easy, right? So, it takes a little bit of work to think how we can do this and make it commercially viable.

Brian Woods [00:11:11] And I think to some extent I've become a little bit more optimistic in the sense. Whereas before, I felt, "Well, it's controlled by some larger groups," and you never know how that's going to play out. But the fact that I think we've been really unleashing the market and the people in it and their creativity and ingenuity to look at this problem from a different perspective, I am optimistic that we will come to a place where we'll have commercially-viable nuclear power that's really going to be able to compete with all the other ways to generate electricity and power and be able to do it in a fashion that's going to help our air be clean.

Francesco Tassi [00:11:55] Absolutely, and an exciting time at it. So, after the early start of your career, maybe you could speak a little bit to your experience at the School of Nuclear Science and Engineering at Oregon State. That seems like something quite pivotal in your experience and your current role. And if you'd like to share a little bit about the school and about your experience in it.

Brian Woods [00:12:22] Sure, I'm happy to do that. Maybe just also, I'll give you a little bit of a preamble of the intervening years from grad school to when I came out here.

Brian Woods [00:12:31] So as I mentioned, in the mid-'90s I went to grad school at the University of Maryland; I was at the nuclear engineering program there. I got my master's in '99. I was still working on my Ph.D., but I ended up getting a good job offer down with Dominion Energy, the old Virginia Power, down in Richmond, Virginia, as a safety analyst.

Brian Woods [00:12:50] I went down there and I guess it probably was actually January, 2000. I finished up my Ph.D. then while I was working full-time. I ended up working there for a number of years. I really liked the people; really liked the work. It was actually a great place to work as a safety analyst, but an opportunity came up.

Brian Woods [00:13:10] And at the time in the mid-2000s, there weren't a lot of openings for academic positions in nuclear engineering, for a number of reasons at the time. Maybe one a year, if you were lucky. And so, I ended up in Nuclear News. Back before the internet or Indeed, when we would look for our jobs online, I ended up seeing an ad for the job out here at Oregon State in Nuclear News and applied. Not necessarily thinking that I was going to go or get it, but really at least wanted to see and perhaps explore it.

Brian Woods [00:13:43] It actually took a while for that job search to work out. I think it had been maybe eight months after I sent my application in and my resume before they contacted me. So, I'd almost forgotten about it. But then ultimately, got an opportunity to come out here to Oregon State. I got to see some of the great things they were doing here. This was right around the time that the research project that eventually became NuScale was in its... They were in the middle of that initial research project. So, I got to chat with Jose Reyes about it a little bit when I came out here and interviewed. But there was a lot of other really exciting stuff going on out here.

Brian Woods [00:14:24] By the time my wife and I were flying back to the East Coast after the interview, I was really excited. I was really hoping I was going to get the job. Coming out, I was somewhat, "If it happens, it happens. You know, I've got a great job; I love the people I work with." But by the time I was flying back, I was like, "Man, I really hope I get this job," because it was really so exciting what they were doing out here at Oregon State. And again, going back to that idea of working to change that paradigm of three big companies doing everything and controlling everything, to maybe unleashing a lot of other folks to look at these problems.

Brian Woods [00:15:01] Ultimately, I was lucky enough to get offered the job and came out here in 2003. So, I got an opportunity to work on the tail end of that project, which ultimately became NuScale. It was a DOE-sponsored project through... At the time it was INEL. I think I'm getting correct... Before it became INL. I got to work on that project a little bit towards the end of 2003. As we were trying to keep that technology alive before NuScale started up as a company, I got to work on those problems as well. I got to work on some of the Westinghouse AP1000 work that we were doing out here. Since 2010, I did a lot of gas reactor work as well. So, a lot of really neat research.

Brian Woods [00:15:48] And of course, a lot of really great students over the years, both undergraduates and graduate students. I've really enjoyed working with them over the years. Students are wonderful in the sense that they really still have a lot of that sense of wonder. They haven't been around in the industry for 30 years, maybe like myself, and we can get cynical sometimes. But they're all very much still very... They look at the world with very different eyes, I think, than a lot of folks do. And so, it's always great to work with them and their energy, whether it be in a class or whether it be a research project.

Brian Woods [00:16:23] So yeah, I've been here since 2003. I've kind of worked through the ranks, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor. I've been now the school head here since 2020. I actually took over, at least as the interim school head, the week that we shut down for Covid. So, the very beginning of my time as school head was somewhat challenging. But obviously, things are certainly, thank goodness, a lot better now. So, it's been a great journey. I think I just finished 21 years here at Oregon State, and it's been a pretty awesome journey over those years.

Francesco Tassi [00:17:03] Excellent. It really made me think of the value and the importance of research and of universities to something as specific as the nuclear industry, but also other energy generation.

Francesco Tassi [00:17:24] Speaking to that, you mentioned this past where you just had these three major companies, and now there's a future in this present where we have multiplicity. From your perspective, what does it take to unleash some of these new companies? A university or an institution like Oregon State University, how is that a piece of that puzzle of unleashing?

Brian Woods [00:17:57] You definitely have to have a paradigm shift, right? I mean, you have to really stop thinking of a particular industry as, "Oh, it's just a traditional, stagnant industry. There's not a lot going on." So on, so forth. Instead of telling students or researchers who work in an area... Instead of telling them what they can't do. "Oh, well, we can't do that. We've never done that." You change the way you approach these things and change it from a negative approach to, "Okay, what would we need to do to get that done?" So, essentially... "No, that can't be done; it's too hard." Or, "We tried that before; it didn't work." Or, "No, let's not do that. No one wants to do that." Start asking the question then, "Okay, well, that's an interesting idea. What would we need to do to actually make that happen?" Or, "What would we need to do to find out whether that would be a viable idea?" And so, really just change that approach, I think, to how we look at different problems.

Brian Woods [00:19:01] I think that is largely the value of research in the sense that... A lot people want some very, let's say, "Give me the answer now what the research is going to be. How long is it going to take? What's the answer going to be?" And so on and so forth. And what I try to explain to folks is that, "Well, if we actually knew the answer, we wouldn't need to do any research on it." The whole idea of research is to really try to push the envelope a little bit to find out what we can do, find that boundary, find that limit.

Brian Woods [00:19:38] Or, maybe we find that there is no limit and we can really largely keep pushing it as long as we have the passion to do so. That's why that mindset of "Yes, we can," versus, "No, we really can't." I mean, I think that's where research really comes into play. Actually at its core, research is all about trying to find ways to make things work that we didn't think were possible before.

Brian Woods [00:20:05] At a university level, a four-year doctoral institution like Oregon State... And clearly, there are a number of other ones in the United States. But the value of these institutions is just that research proposition, right? It's not just about teaching stuff out of a textbook that we already know, but it's like writing the new textbook. Let's find the new stuff to modify the textbook or write a new textbook with the things we don't actually know right now or don't know very well. That's really the value, I think, of these four-year doctoral institutions and what actually really excites me a lot about what I do.

Brian Woods [00:20:38] I mean, I love teaching classes in the classrooms and whatnot and watching people grow and students grow, but what I really like more than anything is watching a graduate student come in with their undergraduate degree and then watching them grow over a period of three or four years where they really move from this idea of, "Oh, these are the limits of what we can do," to, "Oh, I don't know where the limits are of what we can do. And I'm going to push the boundaries to find out what those limits actually are." And I think that, to me, has been the most satisfying thing, certainly, in my career.

Francesco Tassi [00:21:11] That's amazing. You put an important shift to it. The research is just as important as the researchers and the people. When you're thinking about the next generation of nuclear engineers, do you have any strategies that you find most effective in fostering this interest and understanding for the future nuclear engineers, the students you're currently working with?

Brian Woods [00:21:40] That's a really good question. I'm not sure I've actually ever really thought about it a lot. But I think certainly what I really try to do is... And it's also at the undergraduate level too, and certainly with graduate students, I try to foster this idea that... They've been told that there are all these limits. And just foster the idea that maybe there aren't. Or, maybe these limits are much farther along than where we're at right now.

Brian Woods [00:22:03] I try to give them some examples of, again, what we thought we could do at some time or what the limit was of what we could do versus what we do now. I mean, one easy example is growing up with a telephone with a cord on it, how I grew up. The whole idea now of walking around with a cell phone, it's closer to the communicator from Star Trek than it is to what I used when I was a kid. And so, this idea that just because we've done something this way for ages doesn't mean we always have to do that. And just try to spur that in them and show them some examples.

Brian Woods [00:22:36] And the other big thing too is when they come up to me with ideas. "Hey, what do you think about this, Dr. Woods?" Don't just say, "No, we can't do that." Or, "That's a terrible idea." Even if I actually don't think it's a great idea, talk to them about it and just find out what their thinking is, what they're trying to do with it, where they're going with it. Maybe just guide them a little bit along the way, but at the same time, try not to stifle that curiosity and that passion. Because I think to some extent, the worst thing you can do for people who are passionate and curious is to tell them, "No, you can't see that, or "No, you can't do that." But really just try to to help them find the right doors to go through so they can keep moving forward. That's all I think I really try to do, largely, is just try to not close the doors on the students and really guide them as they make their way on their journey.

Brian Woods [00:23:29] And of course, they have to have the technical tools as well, right? It's one thing to have great ideas, but you also have to make sure that technically they can work through these ideas. And so, a large part of what we do also is making sure that they actually have the toolbox that is going to allow them to actually do the real science and engineering to make these dreams a little bit of a reality.

Brian Woods [00:23:52] Going back to this idea of universities, a lot of times we hear a lot of talk about... There are some folks from which you'll hear, "Oh, university professors. All they want to do is research and they don't want to teach." And I always push back on that because what I try to tell folks is that, "Yeah, no, teaching in a classroom is very, very important. But the reality is that as a university, everything we do is teaching." I mean, whether it be research or teaching in a classroom or labs, it's all teaching, it's all education. And when it comes to graduate students and creating the next generation of innovators and researchers...

Brian Woods [00:24:28] As as you said, it's not just about the researchers, but it's also about the research itself. You can't create a great researcher if they've never done research. And if it's not important or not relevant, it's not good research, right? I mean, no one is going to learn anything by doing research that is trivial. And so, you want to have good, relevant research for the graduate students to learn how to do research on. And that's why it is so important at universities to have research, because that's really the only way you make researchers... MS, PhDs, because these are research degrees. And the only way you make them is by giving them good research to do.

Brian Woods [00:25:10] And at the same time, I think what I've noticed over the past 20 years especially is that... And we probably knew this beforehand, but I think nowadays... I think at Oregon State we do a really good job at getting our undergraduates involved in research as well, because learning in a classroom is wonderful, but actually doing research even at the undergraduate level also really, really helps that educational process as well, and it also keeps them really passionate and really involved. Because, again, they're realizing it's not just about the constraints in the textbook, but rather, it's about pushing the boundaries that we do in research.

Francesco Tassi [00:25:49] Absolutely. And maybe an element as well is also not necessarily commercial applicability of research, but that is one aspect that... If you're able to see your research also have a commercial application or an impact into then further developing that... And it seems like you briefly mentioned earlier that some of the past work was actually, if I heard that correctly, sort of adopted into NuScale. And that project... If you can speak just a little bit about the experience of taking research within the lab and that commercial connection.

Brian Woods [00:26:33] Sure. It's one of these things. I don't know if they had a plan in 2000 that this was going to happen. I think, to some extent, there was some serendipity going on here. But we had this DOE project. We ended up building a test facility, which was a scale model of...

Brian Woods [00:26:55] Well, it was called the Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor, MASLWR. It's a little bit of a mouthful, but that's ultimately the concept of having a small modular reactor with the vessel inside of an integral type of containment vessel itself. And so, that was the genesis of that concept through this project. And I think what happened was...

Brian Woods [00:27:21] We had the test facility already built. Jose actually was out for a year on a leave of absence at the International Atomic Energy Agency. I don't remember exactly the title or what his office title was, but I think largely he was working at developing this idea of naturally circulation driven reactors.

Brian Woods [00:27:46] A number of countries had different concepts. I mean, some used natural circulation only in normal operations, some used it only in emergency situations. And again, I don't know when I say "natural circulation," if all the listeners would understand; maybe they would or not. But natural circulation is just the concept of moving water or fluid around by thermal gradients. So, you don't need pumps, right? We know that hot water rises and cool water falls in the presence of gravity, and you use that to move fluid around a reactor. And that's essentially so you don't need any pumps.

Brian Woods [00:28:23] And this was an interesting concept for the MASLWR design we had. It used natural circulation both during its transient conditions or its accident conditions, but also during normal operations, which I think was interesting and had a lot of interesting technical problems and technical analysis involved in that as well.

Brian Woods [00:28:48] But yeah, so Jose was at the International Atomic Energy Agency coordinating efforts around different countries' programs within natural circulation in regards to nuclear reactors. And ultimately, based on a lot of that discussion with that group, I think there was a realization that perhaps there maybe could be a commercial need for a reactor of this type. And I think I was talking with our dean at the time...

Brian Woods [00:29:18] I think the story goes that Jose and the dean were flying back from DC on a plane. I think the dean just offhandedly mentioned, "You should look at commercializing and patenting this technology." And I think that was probably around 2005, 2006. And that's kind of when the ball got rolling.

Brian Woods [00:29:37] So, I don't think any of us really were thinking, "Hey, this is going to be this very large company 20 years from now," but we just thought it was a really neat technology. We wanted to keep it alive, so we got some funding to continue to do some experiments and collect some more data on the test facility, do some numerical simulations, do some publications on it. We were kind of keeping it alive, but then I think around the 2006, 2007, finally, then Jose really got serious about working with the university to spin it out.

Brian Woods [00:30:09] I don't even remember the name of the office here, but we have a technology development office at the university. And so, they worked with him to develop some patents and some intellectual property, and then worked with him to basically start this company up. And I think it was 2007, about 7 folks were...

Brian Woods [00:30:26] Corvallis is not a very large town, but they ended up renting out an old bank. There were about 7 folks over there, I think, to start the company, and that's how it started back then. And here we are now. So again, I'm not sure that it was always definitely something that we were thinking about back in the early 2000s, but over time, I think we all came to the realization that there was a need for this type of technology. And that's how it was born.

Brian Woods [00:30:55] I would also say that at the university, or at least at Oregon State... And I'm pretty sure we're not alone in this. There are definitely a lot of folks in our administration who are interested in obviously doing really great research, but it's also important to be able to try to take that research and implement it in a larger societal context. And so, I think when it's viable and when it makes sense, I think the university here... And I'm sure other universities are the same. They're very helpful in trying to get us to get this technology out when it's ready to be able to use it in society at large. Because I think it's important, right? We have this research mission; it's all about education. But at the same time, if we have this technology that can be used to better society, we should do that.

Francesco Tassi [00:31:43] That's really interesting to hear. I imagine there are currently plenty of different work streams, but is there something you're currently exploring or developing within the field of nuclear engineering that you're particularly excited about or are interested in?

Brian Woods [00:32:01] I've largely been doing a lot of admin work recently since I took over this job. So I think for me, I'm still very interested in gas reactors; I still have some work that I do in that space. I'm also interested in helping out in some of the other SMR reactors. TerraPower and Kairos, the sodium and the molten salt reactors. I'm always interested in any type of work that's going on there in relation to thermal fluids.

Brian Woods [00:32:26] I am pretty excited about the micro modular reactors. You could even bring these down a little bit smaller. I think that actually is potentially going to be a really exciting application of nuclear power, and we'll certainly see how that goes. So, that is something that I'm watching. I'm not doing any research personally in that area, but I'm certainly watching that area with a lot of excitement because I do think that has a potential for some significant success and applications for us.

Brian Woods [00:32:54] But for me, I think I've largely been doing a lot of admin work lately and have not been as much involved in some of the research that's been going on. If I look at some of my colleagues around here, I think some of the really exciting parts when it comes to nuclear energy, nuclear science and engineering is... And I think we're probably in the same boat as a lot of other industries. The application, perhaps, of high performance computing, AI, digital twinning. I think these are areas which are super exciting.

Brian Woods [00:33:29] When I was an undergraduate and certainly in graduate school, so much of the research that we did was experimental because really you needed to be able to do that because the computational resources really weren't there to do a lot of the work in any type of economic fashion. But I think nowadays, with some of the computer resources and tools we have, they really have taken off in our industry. And I think a lot of the work in that space is very exciting. Certainly, that is something that I also look at with a lot of excitement to see, some of the stuff that folks here at Oregon State are doing around high performance computing and AI in relation to nuclear science and engineering. So, that's something I'm very excited about as well.

Francesco Tassi [00:34:17] Absolutely. AI is really bringing some paradigm shifts in that aspect. And then, even also from a demand aspect, right? AI and data centers also have a power demand, so it's from all sides, if one wishes.

Francesco Tassi [00:34:37] Now, of course, many listeners on here are well aware of the opportunities and the really exciting developments that are currently being experienced from all different kinds of SMR technologies. But at the same time, challenges remain. And the nuclear industry is an industry that's, I think, familiar with challenges. From your perspective, what could be some of the largest challenges that remain, both on the research and development aspect and maybe more on the just commercial, having the reactor built?

Brian Woods [00:35:20] Yeah, sure. I'll speak to both sides. And certainly, not necessarily being an expert on all things nuclear. There's an awful lot going in our industry that I'm not all that familiar with, necessarily. But I think one of the things for newer reactors which it does appear to be one of the things that we have to really focus on is materials. I think a lot of the challenge is for the engineering for some these newer reactors. We're pushing the envelope on temperatures, pressures, or type of potential interactions between coolants and structural materials. And I think materials really is going to be the area where it's very important, I think, going forward for some of these newer reactor designs. Just making sure that the materials are available, right? I think some of the bigger challenges are focused in there.

Brian Woods [00:36:15] And certainly also, we did talk about AI and high performance computing. And certainly, there is no doubt that these are going to play a primary role going forward, both in design and regulation for nuclear energy. But also, we just also want to remember... From my perspective, I do have an experimental background. And we do want to always make sure that we have really good confidence in those tools, right? So, it's one thing to have tools, but it's another thing to make sure that you actually know how confident you should be in those tools. What's the uncertainty? What's your confidence in those tools? So, I think we do want to make sure that we don't allow those tools, the computing assets to kind of get ahead of the car, right? Because then the tools may not be as effective as they could be.

Brian Woods [00:37:07] So, I think the other thing just to keep in mind for folks as we move forward is just to make sure that we have a really good handle on what kind of confidence we have in those tools. And I think that is going to rely also on a decent amount of experimentation and making sure that we have the data to back those tools up going forward.

Brian Woods [00:37:25] So from my perspective, I think those are maybe the two biggest things that we just want to, from a technical perspective, make sure that we deal with going forward. There are probably a number of other things. My expertise is more in the area of thermohydraulics. There are plenty of challenges there, but they're probably a little bit more nuanced. But I think the materials, and then also, the confidence in your tools are the bigger things.

Brian Woods [00:37:52] From a commercial aspect, I don't think it's necessarily a secret that we have not necessarily, from a financial perspective, had the best performance for nuclear power. And there are a number of reasons for that. Largely, it ends up being the capital construction cost. That's what's largely hurt us over the year. I guess the Vogtle plant, their final cost was quite a bit different than what they initially budgeted. A lot of reasons for that; I totally understand it. And especially when it's a first-of-a-kind versus an "Nth-of-a-kind," a very different type of proposition. But I do think that we're really going to have to start...

Brian Woods [00:38:33] And I say "really going to have to start," but we've already started. I mean, a lot of people are really thinking about this. And I think SMRs, actually... One of the selling points for SMRs was to actually look at this problem of capital cost. If you're building smaller modules, you're going to naturally build more modules for the same amount of power, and it gets you to "Nth-of-a-kind" much more quickly than if you're just building one reactor every couple of years or one module every couple of years. And so, I think there are a lot of folks looking at how we manufacture and design and build these reactors, and how we can basically get this capital cost to a point where it's going to be competitive with our other competitors, whether they be renewables or natural gas or whatever.

Brian Woods [00:39:21] I mean certainly, we can argue and we can talk about subsidies and different regulations and this and that depending on the different industries. I totally get that. So, there is a lot of nuance in there. But I think ultimately, we have to be competitive in the marketplace. So whatever rules are in place, that's the ballpark we have to play in. And so, we've just got to make sure that we are economically competitive. And that's ultimately, I think, one of the challenges that faces us going forward.

Brian Woods [00:39:55] Part of that... I said NuScale started in 2007. They got their design cert, I think, in 2020 or 2021. I can't remember exactly the year, but it's been relatively recent. So, you're looking at 12, 13, 14 years. And largely, NuScale, although it relies on natural circulation, I mean it's basically a pressurized water reactor. The fuel product is maybe a different height, but it's largely the fuel product we've been using for quite a long while. So, with a technology which is relatively well-developed, it still took almost 15 years, and this plays into the cost piece.

Brian Woods [00:40:36] And so again, it's important for us to be able to, I think, as best we can, especially with the technologies which we have maybe less of a history with, to be able to try to shrink that time from startup to actual design certification, and then certainly, to build. And so, whether that means we look at the research programs and how we could streamline those or collaborate or whatever, but I do think that any effort we can have to shrink that timeline from decades to maybe just a decade or less, I think would be really great from a perspective of capital cost as well. Because it is a long-term, both money and in time, investment. If you're going to decide to roll out a new fission technology, it's a long haul. And so, anything we can do to make that less of a long haul, I think would be beneficial going forward.

Brian Woods [00:41:36] But at the same time, my background is in safety. And at the end of the day, no matter what we do, we don't compromise safety. I think that's the other thing too. We have to make sure that the public doesn't question our safety culture of our designs. For me, largely, I think that's building safety into the designs, intrinsically. And as much as we can do that, I think we've got to really do that. Because we don't want the public to have any questions about whether we're a safe technology or not. We really want them to be able to live near a nuclear power plant and sleep very soundly at night. Because I think at the end of the day, the people are who we're serving. We've got to make sure that not only we can provide cost-effective electricity, but we also make sure that it's done safely and that it's perceived to be safe.

Francesco Tassi [00:42:28] Absolutely, fascinating. And also very much, there might be links between each of those categories, if you will, that you planned out. Maybe the materials might be both availability and reliability and safety, but then also, the cost. So, it's quite connected. But that's also exciting because there are opportunities for both new research and both new commercial opportunities at aiming to realize this trivium of safety, cost, and then also, reliability.

Francesco Tassi [00:43:09] Maybe to end on a note... If you have any last thoughts to share, specifically with listeners who might be thinking about nuclear or thinking about maybe wanting to research nuclear engineering or just nuclear more broadly. Really, just any thoughts or some words of inspiration for that?

Brian Woods [00:43:37] Well, if you're looking for words of inspiration, what I tell students sometimes is, "This is not my grandfather's nuclear industry." As I mentioned early on, when I was originally thinking about nuclear power, I think of the old movies of NASA engineers where they've got these big glasses, pocket protectors. They're all wearing white shirts and they're all white guys wearing white shirts and suits. This is not that industry anymore. I mean, the nuclear power industry is super vibrant. Lots of different folks in here in this industry. Lots of different perspectives, a lot of different ways of looking at these problems. Especially for younger folks, if anyone on this podcast is thinking about a career in nuclear, this is not a 1960s industry anymore. It is very much a 21st century industry, both in the makeup and the way we think and what we're doing. That's, I think, really maybe the biggest thing to take away. We are an industry that I think has really made it into the 21st century, and I think that's great.

Brian Woods [00:44:47] And that's why ultimately, I think I said early on I am pretty optimistic about the industry because of that, because of all these great people and their great ideas. It's one of these things where really it can't fail because there are just too many great ideas and too many great people working in it. And so, I'm actually super optimistic for the future of nuclear.

Brian Woods [00:45:09] And again, if there are people on the podcast who are nuclear ambivalent or nuclear agnostic or something of that nature, what I would always recommend to folks is don't let one group of people make up your mind. I mean, you can listen to me on this podcast, but certainly listen to folks on the other side, the people who don't like nuclear. And try to find other references or other publications that talk about the whole spectrum of perspectives when it comes to nuclear. Because I think at the end of the day, people who are well-informed, generally, my experience has been, make the best decisions. And so, I would always encourage folks on this podcast to don't limit yourself to any one perspective on nuclear. Try to understand the whole problem as best you can, and you'll probably end up with a pretty good perspective after that.

Francesco Tassi [00:46:01] On that note, Brian, we thank you for your time on Titans of Nuclear, and we hope to have you on in the future again.

Brian Woods [00:46:08] Perfect. It was great, Francesco. I really appreciate coming on and you giving me this opportunity. I had a great time. I can't believe that 45 minutes went by that quickly.

Francesco Tassi [00:46:15] Perfect.

‍

This transcript is pending.

Hannah McGrath [00:00:58] Hi everyone, and welcome back to Titans of Nuclear. I'm Hannah McGrath, and our guest today is Paul Wilson, who is the founding principal of the Computational Nuclear Engineering Research Group and Grainger Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Chair of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Which is a mouthful, but we're going to dive into a lot of your research today, Paul. So, thank you so much for joining us. And we'll also be talking a little bit about your role in bringing a new generation of engineers and scientists into the field of nuclear engineering.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:01:33] So, it feels only appropriate to start with a little bit of a background intro. So, if you could tell us a little bit about yourself. Where'd you grow up? Where'd you go to school? How did you get into nuclear engineering in the first place?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:01:47] Sure. Yeah, nice to be here, Hannah. It's fun to chat with you and share some of the things we're going to talk about here. I grew up in western Canada, near Edmonton, in the province of Alberta. For American listeners, I like to sort of compare Alberta to being like the Texas of Canada. And whatever you think about Texas, you can probably apply to Alberta, and I'll let you make your own conclusions about how you feel about that. But oil-man ranchers, and a lot of the same sorts of sentiments.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:02:15] I went to university, then, at University of Toronto, in an engineering science program, and specialized in the nuclear energy option in that program. I was one of only about six students at that time in that option. And in fact, the option has faded away since then, about three years after I finished. Then after that, I came to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin. And after a few years here at University of Wisconsin, I was super interested in accelerator transmutation of waste. And that was a topic that was on the decline in the US and on the rise in Europe. So, I went to my advisors here and I said, "I'd really like to do this research. Can you help me find some way to do that in Europe?"

‍

Paul Wilson [00:02:59] In hindsight, I'm shocked that they were so supportive because they had already invested a bunch of time in me and they were happy to help me move along. And so, they did help me find a spot in Karlsruhe, in Germany. So, I went to what is now KIT; it was then the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe. It was a federal research center at the time. It's now part of the university system. And I did my PhD there.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:03:23] It turns out I did a very similar topic there that I might have done if I'd stayed at Wisconsin, but I didn't do that accelerator transmutation waste after all. But then, I had a great few years living in Germany, came back to UW, and then a couple of years later got hired as a faculty member. So, I've been a professor here for about 23 years, and I do research in computational methods and teach courses in nuclear engineering, often related to some of the computational and policy-driven things.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:03:53] Wow, cool. Can you just really quickly break down what is accelerator transmutation of waste for our listeners?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:04:00] Well, this is a concept that's still around. And the idea at the time was that we would use large particle accelerators to produce a whole bunch of neutrons that would then be able to take the waste, radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and try and convert it into something more benign so the disposal pathways would be easier.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:04:22] Various groups are still interested in these ideas. Most nuclear engineers think the best way to do this is actually in a reactor rather than with a big accelerator. And then, there are all kinds of subtle technical arguments about why one is better than the other and so on and so forth. I'm kind of on the fence now about which would be the best way to do it. It all requires a whole bunch of reprocessing, and that's probably the biggest obstacle, rather than the system where the transmutation would actually happen.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:04:49] And given the current system of storing waste for long term in really carefully sealed containers, is this better? Is this something that's appropriate for a future where there's more nuclear energy and waste being produced? What's the goal of that?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:05:04] Right. I mean, it is definitely looking at a future where you have concerns about the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. Part of my research, actually, is in modeling the nuclear fuel cycle, and tools that model the transition from one type of fuel cycle to another. And I got into this because I feel that in a society with a large share of electricity coming from nuclear energy, we will ultimately need to explore reprocessing, closing the fuel cycle, doing something different with used nuclear fuel.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:05:40] There's a spectrum of opinions on this within the nuclear engineering community. There's one camp of people who believe that it will never be economic and it will always come with undue risks and we should never do reprocessing. There's another camp of people who think we should have always been doing reprocessing and it's too bad we aren't doing it today. And I kind of fall in the middle where I don't think the drivers for reprocessing are really there.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:06:02] If you look at the economic and political drivers, it really doesn't make sense to do it today. But I do believe there will be a time in the future when it does. And so, one of the things that motivates part of my research is trying to understand what will the conditions be when it is time to do reprocessing and how will we know? How will we be able to see it coming early enough so that we can be ready for it and not be caught on the back foot, suddenly trying to figure out what to do?

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:06:30] Well, I know this is an ongoing area of work, but do you have any initial ideas on how we might know when it's time?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:06:36] Well, I think there's going to be three main drivers, and I think these are well-understood. One is going to be the cost of uranium, the availability and the cost of uranium. And in the history of nuclear energy, this was always imagined to be the primary driver. That running out of uranium was going to be a reason we need to close the fuel cycle. Now, that looks to be a couple hundred years away, and maybe longer. Humans are amazingly resourceful at finding more minerals when we start to need them. And so, I would say we've got at least 200 years and probably more if we start looking.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:07:06] The other one is waste management. And depending on the strategy you use and the kind of repository you build and your philosophy around ultimate disposal, the benefits of reprocessing are fuzzy. There's a lot of work that I got connected to and involved with about 10 or 15 years ago that looked at this idea of how much benefit there was in a geologic repository from reprocessing. And really, to get a major factor, you had to have a pretty dramatically different fuel cycle. And then, it comes with economic costs that are unclear.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:07:37] And then, the last one is going to be nonproliferation. And this one's a little more complicated, and it's unclear how if and when this would ever be a driver. There was a program in the 2000s called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP for short. And this imagined a world in which there was a need for a different kind of fuel cycle to support a growing international nuclear energy enterprise, and a sentiment that there were certain parts of the world where we were more comfortable with some of those fuel cycle operations happening than others. And so, how could we set up an international fuel cycle and create the kinds of security and safeguards that would allow the global community to feel comfortable with a different kind of fuel cycle emerging? And so, that could end up being a driver.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:08:25] I like to characterize that one as saying that there could be a global benefit to reprocessing, a global reduction of proliferation risk, by accepting a modest increase in some specific countries where we think that it can be well-managed.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:08:41] Very cool. Well, that opens a lot of doors to talking about your current research, so let's jump right in. Can I ask a little bit about that fuel cycle reprocessing simulation work that you're doing? I think Cyclus is what it's called?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:08:56] That's right. One of the main products of my research group is a tool called Cyclus. It was developed in about the 2010 timeframe, a little bit later. The vision was to create a tool that was very flexible to lots of different ideas about nuclear fuel cycle modeling. Up until that point, there were a number of tools that were being developed within the US DOE complex. Most of them were designed to answer specific questions. And then when the question changed, it was a major lift to take that tool and sort of reconfigure it to ask a different question. So, that's why one of the main design features of Cyclus was to really aim for flexibility and make it much easier to plug in different ideas and different concepts. And the other thing we wanted to do was to make it open source and accessible.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:09:44] To date, there's been a handful of institutions that have used it in different capacities, probably six or seven different organizations. Both universities and National Labs have contributed to it and participated. We have a new project just starting up right now primarily focusing on the front end of the fuel cycle and adding more realism so that we can actually have a tool that's useful for exploring some of the questions of today, like sanctions of uranium from certain countries, like the supply constraints of certain services in the front of the fuel cycle, and potential disruptions.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:10:19] Everything I do in my group is software development and methods development, and so it was also a fun project to really try out some new ideas from a software side as well.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:10:30] Cool, cool. And can you maybe walk us through what it looks like to simulate a fuel cycle? What are the inputs? How does the software work at a high level and what is the output and how you might use that to make a decision?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:10:46] Right. So, part of that flexibility that we built in is that the Cyclus itself just acts like a big broker of material moving between facilities. And the user and developer get to design what the facilities actually do. All they really need to be able to do the work in Cyclus is be able to request material of a certain type and offer material of a certain type, and Cyclus puts all those together; it's like a big commodity market.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:11:16] Those are the things they're required to do. And then possibly, they can do other things. So if it's a reactor facility, it also will simulate what happens in a reactor. And it will turn fresh fuel into spent fuel. If it's a reprocessing facility, it will turn spent fuel into multiple streams of different nuclides coming out, different elements coming out the other side. If it's an enrichment facility, it will turn natural uranium into enriched uranium. And so, people can develop those facilities with as much fidelity and as much detail as they want.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:11:45]  And then, a whole fuel cycle model would start with a source, maybe a mine, and you would follow the nuclear material as it went through from facility to facility over time and explore what happens as we add more reactors to the mix. For example, do we need to add more fuel fabrication plants? And when do those need to be added? And how does that affect the flow of material?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:12:09] Probably the main place that these were designed for is looking at, as I said earlier, moving from today's light-water reactor fuel cycle to some future advanced fuel cycle. And there, there are a lot of questions about how quickly you can do that. If you're relying on reprocessing light-water reactor fuel to provide the plutonium and the fissile material for your fast reactors, then you can only start fast reactors about as fast as you can reprocess the fuel. And so, you've got these bottlenecks that are built into the system. And different bottlenecks can lead to different outcomes as to the accumulation of certain kinds of material as a function of time and so on. So, that's kind of what the whole thing is about.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:12:51] One of the real advantages of Cyclus that comes with that flexibility is we can really easily add new technologies into the mix without having to retool the entire infrastructure.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:13:03] Cool, cool. Okay, so it's about really understanding the network of all the different players in a fuel cycle and how they all balance together at an ecosystem level, maybe to use a nature analogy.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:13:15] Exactly.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:13:16] Cool, neat. And in terms of the different products... If we talk about the end stage, the reprocessing, how exactly is it that you end up with fuel for a Gen IV reactor, a fast breeder reactor, from an existing light-water reactor? Can you talk a little bit about that?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:13:37] Sure. So, in the real world as it's being done today, the country in the Western world that does most of the reprocessing is France. And it's a chemical engineering process, largely. And so, you take the used fuel, you dissolve it into an acid, and then you use various technologies to separate different chemical elements from each other. In the process that's been used historically in the US in the weapons complex and a similar process being used in France today called the PUREX process, they largely focused on extracting of plutonium. And so, in the end you basically take the used fuel, put it in, and what you get out is a stream that's mostly uranium with a little bit of whatever comes along with it, a stream that's mostly plutonium, and a stream that's everything else. And in France, they use that plutonium and mix it with uranium to put it back into light-water reactors.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:14:27] If you were to move to a fast reactor system, you would maybe mix that plutonium with natural uranium and put that into a fast reactor, probably with a blanket of natural uranium where you would breed new plutonium and you would have material sort of going in a cycle, coming into that reactor as plutonium, partly, and it's partly natural uranium. And the stuff that came in as natural uranium would have bred some plutonium. That would be reprocessed to make the plutonium for the driver, and so on and so forth.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:14:55] Gotcha. Is it the potential, then, to have a fully circular fuel cycle? Like, a completely closed loop?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:15:02] Yeah, there are many different ways to design them. And a big study done in the early 2010s or so called the Evaluation and Screening Study looked at and classified nuclear fuel cycles into 40 main categories. And it turns out that you can capture every possible idea in these 40 main categories. And some of them involve fully circular fuel cycles, where the only thing going in at the front is natural uranium, and the only thing coming out at the back are fission products that need to be stored or disposed of for orders of magnitude of hundreds of years, maybe a thousand years.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:15:38] Right. Cool. And are all 40 of these in Cyclus?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:15:44] I mean, Cyclus is able to model most of them, I think. I talked about how it's easy to make new modules for facilities. Some of the facilities may need to incorporate some degree of fidelity and modeling that we don't currently provide. We've never had the funding and the opportunity to try and do all 40 of them, but we have modeled two or three... Well, I shouldn't say that. That study was done to evaluate which ones were deemed the most promising, and six or eight of them rose to the top. Cyclus has been used to model at least half of those.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:16:22] Gotcha, cool. All right, I'm seeing how the fuel cycle analysis and the nuclear security nonproliferation policy side of the research in your lab are tying together. But I want to talk a little bit about the radiation transport in complex geometries and understand how that goes with the other two or maybe stands on its own.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:16:45] Sure. I mean, it is largely separate. I can weave a narrative and we can come back to that. But the network is really driven by performing radiation transport calculations on complex geometries, as you just said. And really, what started that off was work for ITER, the big fusion experiment in the South of France. As they were finalizing engineering drawings and wanted to understand what the radiation environment would be around the device, they needed to find a way to build models to perform radiation transport calculations. And historically, in the late '90s, early 2000s, they had humans reading engineering drawings and manually creating the input for a tool like MCNP, which maybe people have heard of, the Monte Carlo radiation tool that's sort of the gold standard out of Los Alamos.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:17:35] It was like one or two person-years of effort to take an engineering model and create an input file that MCNP could use to perform radiation transport. And as you can imagine, as you're finalizing this engineering design and you're tweaking things and making changes, now you've got to figure out how to close the loop. And so every time you make a change, you can't afford two more person-years of effort to update that model. And the models were so complicated, it wasn't easy to figure out how you make changes.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:18:00] And so, this really spurred an international effort, and three or four different groups responded to automate the way that we take CAD models that were built by engineers for really complicated design work and be able to directly incorporate them into Monte Carlo radiation transport. Most of the solutions around the world took an approach to translate the CAD models into the language of those radiation transport tools. There was one called MCAM, in China, which became SuperMC. There's one called McCAD, in Germany, which still is sort of around. There's a newer one that was developed in Spain called GEOUNED.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:18:39] But our solution we call DAGMC took a very different approach and said, "We're going to use a different representation of the geometry. Rather than converting it to this form that the Monte Carlo codes already know, we're going to make a little software library and we're going to use a form that's much more convenient. And we're going to allow those Monte Carlo codes to directly access our software library to figure out the answers it needs, where that complex geometry is."

‍

Paul Wilson [00:19:07] We've been doing this for... I don't know, 16, 18 years. And we've incorporated this library with MCNP and offered that up to different people. We've incorporated it in Geant4, which is international open source code. We've incorporated it as a demonstration into Tripoli, which is the French code, although that now is about 14 years out of date, that implementation. But most excitingly, it's being incorporated as what we call a first-class part of OpenMC, which is a relatively-newer open source Monte Carlo tool that's available in the United States and largely driven by Argonne National Labs. It's seeing a lot more use now because it's available off the shelf in OpenMC. And users can just download it and run it and they don't have to do a lot of work to make it work.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:19:57] Cool. What's the advantage of the approach you took having the Monte Carlo codes access that software library as opposed to translating the CAD models in? Is it easier on your computer?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:20:10] Right. There are a couple of advantages. It sometimes can be a little harder on the computer. Computationally, it may or may not be much better, but we think it actually saves human time more so than it saves computer time. Gotcha. So, one of them is that in certain CAD models, engineers can design things to have shapes that simply can't be represented in the native representation of these Monte Carlo codes. They're generally limited to spheres and cylinders and cones and planes and things like that. And if you've got some fancy shape... Think of the aerodynamic shape of an automobile. You can't represent that as spheres and cylinders; you have to make a lot of approximations. And often, humans need to spend some time and use their engineering judgment to decide what's the right kind of approximation to make that work. So, that's one advantage.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:21:00] Another advantage is if you want to do multiple kinds of physics simulations on that same model, then you're going to have different ways that you represent that model. For finite element analysis, you're going to build some sort of mesh, probably. And it's going to be derived from this geometric model. And if you have to convert that geometric model to be a slightly different shape, then you're going to need to have a mesh derived from that slightly different geometric model if you want to be consistent. And so, it adds a little complexity in making all those things fit together.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:21:28] Since we developed this tool, another approach that has become more common is just to generate a mesh of the entire model and use that to do the radiation transport calculation. And that's a perfectly good approach, and that can also be useful in connecting with finite element analysis. But what we have found is if you don't need to resolve either variations in your model or variations in your solution within certain regions of the problem, then that mesh can be cumbersome and can be overkill. And so, what we found in our approach is some regions can be meshed, but some regions can just rely on our surface representation. And then, we can sort of marry the best of both worlds.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:22:15] Cool, cool. Can you give an example of an area that you might need to mesh versus one that you could just leave as a surface? Is there a physical property that makes one need that increased resolution?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:22:26] In many of the problems that we do that are not reactor problems, like a shielding problem for a fusion power plant, then you may care about the damage to a given layer of your system but not care about the radiation damage to other parts. And so, you can represent many of the regions from the first wall and the blanket as whole cells. And they're homogenized, so they have homogeneous material compositions. And then, it's the layer at the back, maybe the magnets or the vacuum vessel, where you need to know what the 3D distribution of the radiation damage is. So, you only have to mesh that layer, and the other layers can be represented as whole objects.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:23:09] Cool, cool. And I skipped over this a little bit, but I think maybe for listeners who are interested but not entirely familiar with the Monte Carlo method, could you explain a little bit how that code is applied to radiation transport?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:23:23] Sure. I like to think of it as sort of the most intuitive way to do radiation transport. I like to tell students, "You're riding on the back of a neutron. And it gets emitted from some source, and then you are using random sampling, random numbers, to track what that neutron does. So, it has some probability of traveling a certain distance, and you roll the dice and you figure out how far it travels. And when it reaches that point, it's going to have a collision. Then, you roll the dice and figure out what kind of collision happens and which way it scatters off and which direction it goes and how much its energy changes. And you just keep doing that over and over again."

‍

Paul Wilson [00:23:59] For a given neutron, you do that until it leaves your system, and you do that for millions or billions of neutrons. And then from that, you can take the average behavior of each of those and figure out where the neutrons go and what impacts they have, either causing radiation damage, activation, heating, things like that.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:24:19] Cool, cool. I can imagine that for a nuclear reactor with many, many tens of millions and billions of neutrons, that must be, computationally, very intensive.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:24:31] Right. If you want to simulate a nuclear reactor and you care about more than just whether it's critical or not, then you probably are going to have some mesh in which you're trying to figure out where the power distribution is or things like that. And as that mesh gets more and more fine, you need to simulate more and more of these neutrons to get a good answer. And so, often that leads to highly-parallelized simulations where you may run a billion particles on each of 100 processors so you get 100 billion total particles and get enough detail for your solution.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:25:07] Right. Okay, so the Monte Carlo as applied here is an approximation of the system. It's something so complex that you couldn't actually sit down and do the exact math on the direction of every single neutron in the system and know for sure where they're going to go, but this is very close.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:25:27] Right. I mean, there are two main approaches to doing radiation transport. And historically, we have used approaches that formulated as a big mathematical equation. But there, you have to make approximations about how you represent the whole system in both space and energy and direction. And those approximations can be tolerable for certain kinds of systems and can be challenging for other kinds of systems.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:25:55] Monte Carlo radiation transport doesn't have to make approximations in space, energy, or angle. But as a tradeoff, you've got to run many, many, many histories to get a statistical analysis that is reliable. And so, in one case you're trading off making a really big problem because you have to divide up in space, energy, and angle in really fine ways to get the right physics. And you're trading that off with many fewer approximations in space, energy, and angle, but many, many more particles that you have to simulate.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:26:28] Gotcha, gotcha. Very cool. I know you hinted a little bit earlier at adding some realism at the front of your fuel cycle analysis tool. What are you working on right now? What do you expect to be working on soon? What are you excited about?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:26:45] Sure. I mean, I'm really excited about the fuel cycle work that I hinted at. There are a few things that we want to add in at the fundamental level. One of them is a more realistic representation of costs. When we developed Cyclus, as a proof of principle... Maybe I'll say a little bit more about a key part of Cyclus... At every point in time, each facility that needs new material issues a request and says, "I would like to have some quantity of material that has some composition." And all the facilities that are able to provide that kind of material will offer up what they have; they'll make a bid. And the quantity that they have available and the composition they have may or may not exactly match the request.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:27:28] But the consumer receives all of those requests and they get to use their own calculations of the physics and of the preference to decide which of those offers is the best match for them, if any. And they assign a preference to that, then the whole system collects all these preferences and resolves it and ideally tries to get everyone their most preferred material. So, that's sort of in a nutshell what's happening over and over and over again.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:27:59] We would like to convert those preferences into a cost. We would like to say that rather than this generic notion of a preference, every facility is going to have a real or perceived cost to accepting a certain offer. And then, we want the whole system to minimize the cost. And so, rather than maximizing preference, we're going to minimize cost.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:28:19] And so, the first step to that is adding places for the user to define elements of the cost of doing actual things and ways to accumulate costs. If you're an enrichment facility, you're going to have costs of the feed that come into your system, plus you're going to have costs of the process you're providing, and you're going to have to add those together to offer some cost to your customers. And so, figuring out how to get that notion of cost in there. That's one feature we want to add.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:28:46] Another one which builds on that is the concept of long-range contracts, long-term contracts. Right now in Cyclus, every time step, let's say typically every month, this whole commodity transaction takes place and consumers choose their best choice based on what's available that month. So, that's a good approximation of a spot market, but it doesn't really incorporate the realism that exists with long-term contracts.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:29:14] Typically, if you're a nuclear utility, you've got all kinds of long-term contracts, for uranium that you're buying, for enrichment services that you're buying. And so, we want to have a way to build in the idea that we form long-term contracts, and potentially put in things like penalties so people can choose to break long-term contracts paying some penalty because they perceive that the alternative that they're going to switch to is going to be cheaper, even accounting for that penalty. So, obviously we need costs to be realistic before we can do that, and then incorporate long-term contracts.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:29:47] And then, the final piece I'll say that sort of has been in from the beginning is the notion of sanctions and tariffs and things like that. So from its original design, Cyclus had this hierarchy of facilities being operated by institutions which represent companies, operating entities. And those institutions operate within a region, which represents some geopolitical region. And so, this notion of cost and preference can be influenced by whether or not the two facilities that are trying to trade material are in the same region or not.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:30:24] If we look at the headlines of today, with growing interest in restricting uranium access from Russia, then the question is can we simulate that and see what the impact would be of either an all-out sanction or some sort of tariff or some sort of financial mechanism that will perturb the flow of material and where it's coming from, where it's going?

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:30:43] Right. And I imagine that shifting the rest of the model from a preference-based distribution towards everything having a cost might make that easier?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:30:52] Yeah, it'll make that easier. I think one of the challenges is figuring out how to translate preference into cost in some cases. If a consumer gets two offers of material, neither of which is a perfect match physically, both of which have a real cost associated with it, the consumer is going to have to add some sort of virtual cost to represent why they prefer one of those to the other. So, that's going to be one of the research questions, how do we bring that key part to bear?

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:31:25] Right, right. Assigning cost of preference, one of those minor economic questions that haven't been troubling the whole field since it began. That's really cool, though.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:31:35] I would love to take a step back. You are the chair of this program. I imagine that beyond your own research, you are also noticing what other people are working on. And we'd love to know how you've seen the field of nuclear engineering, and maybe nuclear science, more broadly, depending on how far your scope is, how it's evolved in the past couple of decades. What are people focused on now that they weren't before, or something that they used to be focused on and aren't anymore?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:32:06] It's a great question. I mean, I think there are lots of little changes. I think at the very high level, the general trajectories don't look very different. The broad area that I think has been going on throughout my career is research in advanced reactor concepts.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:32:22] Back at the beginning, in the 2000s, I was involved with the Gen IV roadmap effort. Before that, the main advanced reactor idea that was on people's minds was sodium fast reactors. Since Gen IV, there's been sort of a bigger portfolio of concepts that have been of interest, and there's a lot of R&D that goes into understanding how we can advance those designs into something we might actually want to build.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:32:44] A big part of that, and has always been true, is in materials. Nuclear materials is a hot area of research. I think it always will be. I like to tell people in any engineering field, materials are often our biggest constraint. And so, if you're a material scientist and you can make a better material, then you can probably unleash all kinds of opportunity, both financially and technically. And so, a lot of interesting things are going on in nuclear materials.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:33:09] Certain events cause particular changes in direction. I think if you look at Fukushima, it precipitated this whole research area in what's called accident tolerant fuels. Really, how do we design fuel in different ways to be less sensitive to accident conditions? Some interesting work has gone on here, some patents have come out of here in that area.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:33:34] When we look at advanced reactors, the one thing that has changed dramatically is a focus on smaller reactor concepts and broader applications of nuclear energy. The sodium fast reactors of the early 2000s were all multiple hundreds of megawatts, 300, 600, whatever the case may be. And now, we see a lot more interest in small modular reactors. Some of which could be light-water reactors, like Last Energy, like NuScale, and some of which are more advanced concepts that look at different coolants.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:34:07] And with that, I think the most exciting thing that really is coming around is alternate applications of nuclear energy beyond electric utility customers. In this country, I now believe that those alternate applications are maybe going to be what drive nuclear forward. Electric utilities are kind of conservative, a very economically competitive business to be in. It's difficult for electric utilities to take risks on brand new technologies.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:34:40] I think if we look at what X-energy and Dow Chemical are doing... I think if that's successful... And cross our fingers... If that's successful, that combined heat and power application... There are many potential customers in our economy that have potentially deeper pockets than electric utilities and a very different risk tolerance profile. And we could see things like the industrial applications of nuclear energy and dedicated customers like data centers and things like that be the places that really, separate from the utility business, the electric utility business, allow some of these new ideas to be demonstrated. And then, following a handful of those demonstrations, utility customers may be more interested in following suit and adding them to their portfolio. So, that's a pathway that seems increasingly likely to me, and we'll see if that proves true.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:35:43] Yeah, I see a little bit of an analogy to some other renewable energy sources where you have some private group. And maybe with solar, it's people putting it on rooftops that take a while to test and prove the technology, and then the utilities are ready to scale it up and make it a significant part of their portfolio. So, that's really good.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:36:00] Yeah, I think especially with microreactors. One of the other things that I think is true for microscale reactors is that they become a technology that can be considered on a community scale. Large light-water reactors have been technologies that require large corporate operators, a lot of regulatory infrastructure. And individual communities in the United States have ways to weigh in on that decision making process through all of our public intervention processes, but really aren't in control of those decisions. It's the utilities and public utility commissions and state governments and things like that that really have a say. And it creates, historically, a societal dynamic that puts nuclear energy in this special category of things that seem remote and distant from people.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:36:51] Microreactors that are on the scale of tens of megawatts... Here near Madison, we've got tens of megawatt-scale solar facilities going in with great community involvement, investment, and engagement. And so, I think it's possible for communities to actually choose to adopt technologies at that scale and be in the driver's seat as to whether or not they want or don't want those technologies. And I think it really changes the societal relationship with nuclear energy.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:37:21] Cool, cool. Kind of a community nuclear program, it would be.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:37:26] Right.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:37:26] Really cool. Great. Well, I wanted to take some time as we get further into our conversation to talk a little bit about your work getting young people interested in nuclear and getting more nuclear scientists, more nuclear engineers. So, have you gotten the sense that young people are more interested in nuclear energy now at a societal level? And do you think that has trickled into people actually choosing nuclear science for their education and for their career and profession?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:37:57] Yeah, I mean, I think it's been pretty static for the last decade or so, but things are starting to look up, even just in the last couple of years. What we saw in our program was a big jump last year in enrollment. It's hard to explain exactly, it's hard to do the experiments to know exactly what's causing that. But my best assessment is that the national narrative really changed in the last couple of years. Up until 2020, let's say, we've saw a decade where the headlines were about plant closures, nuclear power plants being closed down around the country for various reasons. There wasn't necessarily that many of them in the grand scheme of things, but that's all that people were seeing about nuclear energy, and it led to a lot of... As high school students are making career choices, it doesn't seem like a wise choice. Even though if they'd asked me, I could have told them that even with those plants closing down, there are going to be plenty of career opportunities for them for the rest of their lives.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:38:51] But in the last couple of years, we've seen a real shift in the narrative for a long list of reasons. But I think probably the top of them is a growing concern for climate change. And what that has led to is really a strong bipartisan support for nuclear energy at the national level. And that bipartisan support really, I think, trickles into the psyche of the population in a way that it didn't before. And that has then come to fruition in a number of major pieces of legislation where nuclear energy is getting substantive support as part of the legislative process. And so, I think that is really what is changing, and then the message getting out that nuclear energy is an important part of a climate change solution.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:39:36] It's shocks me, still, sometimes to read surveys, including some just from this year, that some fraction of the population misunderstands and believes that nuclear energy contributes to climate change. And so, we'll have to keep working on that narrative. But the people who do understand that difference really, I think, recognize that one of the biggest ways to make a difference in the future energy-climate relationship is by expanding nuclear energy.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:40:07] Our tagline for our department is "Saving this planet and exploring the rest." And so, we really use that a lot when we're talking to public audiences, high school students, prospective students. We're in the season right now of meeting with admitted students who've been admitted to come to college, and I like to point out to them that in their lifetimes, over half of all the low-emission electricity that was generated in their lifetime has been from nuclear energy. And so, as much as they may be excited about other alternative energy forms, the track record is that nuclear has really been carrying the load.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:40:45] Absolutely. And it's crazy to see things like Palisades reopening. That's something completely new.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:40:52] Right, yeah.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:40:54] As a young person, that's exciting for me to see, and I imagine that it's just going to snowball even further.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:41:01] And a state like California choosing to keep Diablo Canyon open. I think the story behind that really hits home pretty strongly in a state which has a reputation for being way out in front of our energy system, banning natural gas, heavy on wind and solar. And coming to the realization that given the constraints they've created in other parts of their energy system, they can't do without nuclear energy. It's just a necessity for their system to survive.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:41:32] Can you talk a little bit about your involvement with Young Generation in Nuclear and how that came to be? In addition to the broader societal trends of climate change... We're keeping our nuclear plants open. People are seeing a different side to nuclear energy. What does it look like to actually put effort into getting people more interested and more supportive of nuclear energy? What was your role in that?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:41:57] Sure. So, I was in on the ground floor of NAYGN, North American Young Generation In Nuclear. When I was still a graduate student, I was active as a young member in the American Nuclear Society. And at that time, in the late '90s, sort of ahead of us was in the European Nuclear Society, they created this Young Generation Network.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:42:18] Some of our ANS leaders had been over in Europe and seen the empowerment of these young people and the role it was having and came back and said, "We need to find some young people to empower in the United States and take the charge." In its early form, that resulted in sending a small group of us, at that time, younger folks, to go to the UN climate change meetings. So COP 4 in Buenos Aires in 1988 and COP 5 in Bonn, Germany, and a few since then. And really, what we did there was work with our European Young Generation counterparts to put on programming and change the view of nuclear energy to help all the delegates and all the participants recognize that there were young people who saw this as a technology of the future. And it wasn't just a dying technology, it was one that was sort of vibrant and we were excited about.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:43:10] And that led in 1999 to the foundation of NAYGN as a new organization. There were about seven of us involved in sort of the founding group to kick that off. And the vision there was really to create an organization that embraced this vibrancy, the idea that this was a vibrant industry. There were lots of exciting things going on. And to be inclusive of a much broader set of people than a typical nuclear society had been.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:43:42] And I'm still a very active member in ANS. I think each of our professional societies have a lot of importance in our professional careers as engineers and other disciplines. But NAYGN was a way to bring all of these different professions together even beyond engineering. Finance people, HR people who worked in the nuclear industry to really bring that youthful energy together and find a way to help support this thriving industry.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:44:09] And so, from the beginning, NAYGN's mission was to really provide a place for young people to gather and connect across disciplines while also being active members in their own professional societies, whichever made sense to them. We never imagined it would be as successful as it is today. It's the 25th anniversary of NAYGN this year. I know they're planning a big celebration at their conference in June. And there are thousands of members and a lot of interesting things that NAYGN is doing. It's really settled in to be a premier place for young people to gather around their interests in their own industry.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:44:50] Cool. Well, I know we're coming to the end of our time, so I'll wrap up with an advice question. From your experience in your lab and NAYGN and this youth engagement that you've done in your career, could you offer some advice to, let's say, maybe someone who's just starting high school and thinks to themself, "I want to do nuclear engineering. I want to work in a lab, and I want to be publishing papers and conducting research in a department like yours." How do they position themself for success?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:45:24] Oh, that's a big question.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:45:27] An easy last question.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:45:29] Yeah, just do everything right. I mean, I think if you go back to the high school level, obviously, there are sort of the obvious questions about engaging all the math and physics you can to be prepared academically. I think one of the big things I would say to students at that stage is really think about whether you've learned how to learn and the way that you approach taking on new knowledge.

‍

Paul Wilson [00:45:54] I think another thing that's sort of a passion of mine is it's never too early to start understanding how this technology fits in a societal way. I think nuclear energy is in a special place where all of its applications really come with sort of societal conversations. There's a lot of different kinds of engineering you can do and you can get into industries where everyone just takes it for granted and nobody really has much conversation about it, but nuclear energy isn't really in that place. So, the sooner people understand how members of their family, people they grew up with who are not nuclear engineers, what they think about it and what's important to them... And then, try and incorporate that into how you approach nuclear engineering. How can that steer what you think are the priorities... If you're going into research, what are the priorities for improving the nuclear energy enterprise in a way that's going to have a positive societal impact? You kind of have to know what all those other stakeholders think about it to really to make the right choices.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:46:59] Right. And I'll add, as someone who got interested in nuclear energy even after finishing undergrad, that I've found the field to be really welcoming of people who want to make a switch and dive in later. And I wonder if you agree with that?

‍

Paul Wilson [00:47:15] Yeah, I think that's true. I mean, it's a small field. I guess it could go either way. But fortunately, what I've found is, as a small field, it is very welcoming. We sort of market that to our prospective students. We sort of point out to them that up here at the University of Wisconsin, we have this close-knit community within the discipline. I tell incoming first-year students that if they choose nuclear engineering, I and most of the other faculty are likely to know their name and say "Hi" to them in the hallway by the time that they graduate. And that's not true of other engineering disciplines where they have 1,500 students in a major. And so, I think that's a real point of pride for our program and for the relationships we can build with students.

‍

Hannah McGrath [00:48:00] Very cool. Well, I think we've come to the end of our discussion time for today. But Paul, thank you so much for joining us on Titans of Nuclear.

‍Paul Wilson [00:48:08] Thanks for having me.

This transcript is pending.

This transcript is pending.

Adam Smith [00:00:59] Welcome to the Titans of Nuclear Podcast. Today, we have a very exciting episode with Reed Clay, the President of the Texas Nuclear Alliance. Reed, welcome to the show.

Reed Clay [00:01:09] Thank you. Adam. Happy to be here.

Adam Smith [00:01:11] Now, can you start us off by telling us a little bit about yourself? Where'd you grow up? We'd love to hear a little bit about your background.

Reed Clay [00:01:20] Yeah, sure. I'm a proud born-and-raised Texan. I was born and raised in Fort Worth, Texas. For those not familiar with the area, it's about 30 miles west of Dallas. But please don't call it Dallas; we've got a real chip on our shoulder about that. But yeah, I spent the first 19 years there, a great place to grow up. And I went away for school, but made my way back here pretty quick.

Adam Smith [00:01:51] You missed the Fort Worth area; had to go straight back.

Reed Clay [00:01:56] Fort Worth is a great place. It's a cow town, where the west begins. It's a great combination of big city resources but that small town, easy living. If I weren't so tied to this city, I might be living there now.

Adam Smith [00:02:14] Now, guide us through your career a little bit. After college, you came back to Fort Worth. What did you start doing, and how did you get where you are today?

Reed Clay [00:02:22] So as I mentioned, I went away to school. I spent the better part of eight years in North Carolina. I did undergraduate at Wake Forest University and was a philosophy major. I didn't know what I was going to do with that in the real world, so I decided I would go to law school. I went about two-and-a-half house east to Durham. I went to law school at Duke University.

Reed Clay [00:02:46] And then actually, my first gig out of law school was in Washington, DC, working for the Department of Justice. I was there for five years and did some time as a litigator, as I like to say, and was representing federal agencies and commercial disputes there. And like I said, I did that for about five years.

Reed Clay [00:03:06] I got a great opportunity to come back to Texas, to the capital city, Austin, and work for the Attorney General of Texas, who was Greg Abbott at that time. I got an offer to work in his solicitor general's office, which is a really well-respected appellate shop, a litigation shop. And really, I was a fish out of water.

Reed Clay [00:03:32] I had incredible colleagues who had incredible pedigrees. Ted Cruz was the head of that office, and some of my colleagues have gone on to really great things. A couple of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, a Supreme Court of Texas judge. A really great place for a young lawyer like me. Like I said, I really was a fish out of water.

Reed Clay [00:03:54] Because of my time at DOJ, and because the office was embroiled in a lot of litigation with the federal government at the time, fighting some EPA regulations around greenhouse gases, actually, interestingly enough, and Obamacare and some other federal-state lawsuits that were going on... They put me on a lot of those cases because of my familiarity with the other side, or DOJ.

Reed Clay [00:04:22] And when there was some turnover in the office, I kind of got my supervisor's position and became Senior Counsel to the Attorney General, which put me in sort of a C-suite level-type position, and my job from there grew more and more outside the courtroom and more kind of advisor to the attorney general.

Reed Clay [00:04:46] And then, he was elected as governor in 2014. I moved over with him and was his Senior Advisor, Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer, which are all just kind of ridiculous titles for being a jack of all trades and a master of none, as people told me at the time.

Reed Clay [00:05:07] And really what that meant for him was I was helping him implement his policies at the administrative level, helping him pass his legislative priorities, and putting out the occasional fire. The last of which was managing the response and recovery to Hurricane Harvey, which was, at that time, the largest tropical rain event that the country had ever seen. And I did that for the last year I was with him and it really took a bite out of me, so to speak.

Reed Clay [00:05:43] And in October of the following year, he was nice enough to give me my leave, and I took it after nine years with him. I struck out and started Crestline Group, which is a consulting business that we run here in Austin that's really sort of a traditional government affairs consulting business and public policy advocacy business. I've been doing that for five-and-a-half years. So, that's the career.

Adam Smith [00:06:17] Yeah, thank you for walking us through that. It seems like you have this really deep set of relationships and experiences within the legal and the government sectors. How did you become interested in nuclear?

Reed Clay [00:06:31] I think the short answer is... At some point I just realized how self-evident of a solution it was to what I like to call "the energy Rubik's Cube." It's clean, it's abundant, and it's certainly reliable. The real world answer's a little bit longer. Through my work in government, I was exposed to some of the anti-nuclear advocacy stuff here in Texas and never really quite understood it. But I viewed it mostly as sort of a practical issue I was dealing with in my professional life and didn't think a whole lot of it.

Reed Clay [00:07:11] And then, when Uri happened here, which was the winter storm, as you probably know, Adam, that caused some major blackouts here in Texas back in 2021... I had not done a whole lot in the power market space and really got interested in that. And I think when I reemerged from that rabbit hole, I think it was just very obvious to me that we had made a big mistake as a state, and I think, frankly, as a country in stopping building nuclear 20, 30 years ago. And if we had not stopped that trajectory that we were on many decades ago, some of the issues that we faced because of Winter Storm Uri may not have been quite as bad as they were, if had happened at all.

Reed Clay [00:08:06] There's a chart that was an epiphany moment for me, Adam. ERCOT, which is our grid here, publishes a generation mix, a fuel mix. And you can almost confuse this very flat black line at the bottom of the graph as the X-axis, but it's just showing the stability of nuclear. But unfortunately, it's so close to the bottom of that graph because it's just not a huge part of our generation mix here in Texas. I think that was the epiphany for me during Uri, is that that needed to change going forward. So, that's how I became interested in nuclear.

Adam Smith [00:08:49] And now you're leading the Texas Nuclear Alliance. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Reed Clay [00:08:55] Yeah, sure. So I think around that time, obviously I looked around and I remembered my exposure to the anti-nuclear crowd and had gotten a little more familiar with that in my study of nuclear power generation. And I just looked up and there was no counterpoint in the state. I mean, obviously at the national level, we've got great groups like NEA and USNIC, and ANS that are doing fantastic work at the federal level. But here at the state, no one had picked up that baton to be the counterpoint to some of the anti-nuclear crowd. That's what I guess inspired me or sparked my interest in at least starting a movement to have a counterpoint to that.

Reed Clay [00:09:48] So, we started this group about a year and a half ago. And really one primary goal, which is to make Texas the nuclear capital of the US and nuclear capital of the world. I think it's a fantastic opportunity for the state for multiple reasons. We like to think of ourselves as the energy capital of the world. Obviously, a huge oil and gas state; have been for quite some time. Leaders in wind and solar; really prolific building of both, in West Texas in particular. And in my mind, there's no reason... And every reason, that we should be the leader in nuclear energy.

Reed Clay [00:10:28] So, we deploy two main strategies to try and accomplish that. And one is a grassroots movement. The history of nuclear is, unfortunately... We've not traditionally won the grassroots movement. I think we've made a lot of headway recently. And my goal is to, at least here in Texas, to make sure that we shore that up and keep it in place as the industry starts to regrow itself.

Reed Clay [00:10:56] And then, the second, obviously, is kind of what my background is, which is public policy advocacy. It's getting with the decision makers at Public Utility Commission and ERCOT, and inside this building behind me to make sure that we're enacting policies that are going to drive the industry forward here in Texas.

Adam Smith [00:11:18] Yep, that makes complete sense. And yeah, I completely agree that if there's anywhere in the US that has the greatest potential to become the nuclear leader... Certainly in the US, if not the world, it's Texas. You have the deepest energy experience, you have some of the largest construction force within the US as it relates to energy infrastructure. I mean, you have everything going for you. Friendly business policies for energy generation projects... I mean, you have everything. The stars are aligned there, we just have to be able to build.

Reed Clay [00:11:52] Yeah, couldn't agree more.

Adam Smith [00:11:53] And can you tell the viewers a little bit about what the Texas Nuclear Alliance has accomplished so far since you've established it?

Reed Clay [00:12:01] Like, I mentioned, we're a pretty nascent organization, and a lot of our time is really focused on coalition building at this point. We're trying to bring as many people under the tent as possible. Our timing was... Like I said, we created ourselves in late 2022, heading into our legislative session. Our legislature meets every two years, which is somewhat unusual. We had a very modest legislative program because of that.

Reed Clay [00:12:35] And so, a couple of things that we did get accomplished... We were pretty instrumental in establishing the Texas House Nuclear Caucus, which is a caucus of House of Representatives members who are pro-nuclear and are interested in fighting for nuclear. That started with 9 or 10 members or so and it's doubled in size. It's bipartisan, and it represents, geographically, a wide swath of the state. So, I'm really proud of that.

Reed Clay [00:13:04] We did dabble in some legislation. We did pass a budget rider to essentially figure out what we could do as a state to assist our friends in South Texas who are mining uranium. That's a big asset that we have here. It's had its ups and downs over the years, and we wanted to figure out ways that we could support it. So, we did that.

Reed Clay [00:13:29] One of the first real applications of the House Nuclear Caucus was called The Nuclear Bill. That was sponsored by Senator Parker from North Texas here. And that bill flew out of the Senate. But really not because of the substance of the bill, but just because of the larger issues going on in the energy space. That bill kind of lost traction in the House. And we sort of turned that caucus on and were able to push that bill through at the very last minute.

Reed Clay [00:13:58] Unfortunately, for reasons really unrelated to the bill, it was vetoed. There were some...

Adam Smith [00:14:07] Politics.

Reed Clay [00:14:08] Yeah, I think this one... We could chalk it up to politics for sure. There were some issues about how some of the governor's key issues didn't get resolved towards the end of the session. And there was some, like you said, politics that kind of played out.

Reed Clay [00:14:26] The good news is one of the other bills that we really pushed was a bill that would have established a working group at the PUC. Not dissimilar from what we were trying to do on the uranium front, but trying to figure out how we can sort of catalyze more nuclear development here in the state. That bill was not focused explicitly on advanced nuclear or small modular or micro, it was really just nuclear writ large.

Reed Clay [00:14:50] That bill did not pass, but I think the governor, being pro-nuclear as he is, decided that he didn't need a bill to do that. And last August, he sent a directive to the PUC to start the Advanced Nuclear Working Group, which has been just an incredible conversation starter and piece here in the state. Well, that's obviously on the governor's initiative. And thanks to his leadership, that bill is something that we've started to sort of introduce the last legislative session.

Reed Clay [00:15:30] And then, as I said, I think lastly, we're really focused on coalition building. Getting new stakeholders inside the tent, organized with us so that when we head into the next legislative session, we're in a much better position to make headway.

Reed Clay [00:15:50] Some of that is traditional public awareness stuff. We sponsored a showing of Nuclear Now. We had a panelist panel discussion after that with a member of the House of Representatives, Commissioner Glotfelty, who is leading up that Advanced Nuclear Working Group. And then, Doug Robison, who is with Natura Resources, and doing great things at Abilene Christian University.

Reed Clay [00:16:18] And then, we did two panels at South by, which got great attendance and lots of buzz around it. So, just trying to continue that coalition building and drive an interest in nuclear ahead of next session.

Adam Smith [00:16:32] Absolutely. It really seems like there's a lot of, or, at least a growing body of interest within Texas for nuclear. And I believe you also just recently announced that you have a new member of the alliance, right?

Reed Clay [00:16:47] Yeah, we have two, and just in the last couple of weeks. And we're very, very excited about their participation because of just their stature inside the nuclear industry in the state of Texas. And one is the Texas A&M University System. They've got, and have had for decades, a research reactor and have done great work through their engineering program around nuclear there. They are in the research consortium, along with Abilene Christian and Georgia Tech and UT, that is doing some of the work with Natura Resources. And really, I think the chancellor of the system has got big plans for nuclear and big plans for his research institutions around nuclear. So, very excited to have them.

Reed Clay [00:17:37] And then, we have CPS Energy, which is the publicly-owned utility in San Antonio. And they are a 40% owner of South Texas Project, which is one of our two generating sites that do nuclear here in the state of Texas. South Texas Project has two large reactors, and I think it's about 2,500 megawatts worth of energy for us. And that represents half of the state's nuclear power generation. So, very excited to have them.

Reed Clay [00:18:13] They've been doing traditional nuclear for quite some time. I think Rudy Garza, who's CEO of CPS Energy, has got his eye on the future and advanced nuclear and what San Antonio may be able to bring to bear with respect to the development of this advanced nuclear stuff. So, it's very exciting; we're happy to have both of them. And I think, hopefully in the next couple weeks, you'll see a couple of more big announcements out of us. So, lots of momentum, and we're thrilled about it.

Adam Smith [00:18:46] Absolutely. It sounds like you really have a ton of tailwinds from different directions at this point pushing you all forward ahead on nuclear.

Reed Clay [00:18:55] I think so, yeah.

Adam Smith [00:18:58]  I'm curious because when you think about nuclear, it's typically some large, government-led, gigawatt-scale project that got to go through the NRC. These are all things that happen at the federal level. How can the efforts that you're putting forth, locally, at the state level... How do those fit into the project deployment that's typically been a federally-driven process?

Reed Clay [00:19:27] Yeah, I think a couple things. That's a great question. I mean, obviously, the work that NEI and USNIC and ANS and others are doing in DC is fundamental; it's of fundamental importance to the industry. And one of the things that we want to do our part of is supporting that. And that's where I think our grassroots strategy comes into play.

Reed Clay [00:19:50] Obviously, Texas is one of 50 states, and it is a particularly large one of the 50 states. And we want to make sure that we have our backyard shored up, so to speak. So, that grassroots effort that we're pushing... All politics are local. We want our representatives in DC, our two US senators, and our 38 congressmen and women to know that they've got the support back home to make the decisions that they need to make to push nuclear forward at the federal level to continue with the reforms that we're seeing out of the NRC. So, that's one thing.

Reed Clay [00:20:25] But I think the second is... You mentioned this at the beginning, Adam. We believe Texas is particularly well-suited to lead this resurgence in the nuclear industry and the development of nuclear in particular, because the sheer number and type of offtakers that the state of Texas has is pretty staggering. It's everything from the Permian Basin needing 16 gigawatts of electrification to Samsung's $200 billion development outside of Austin manufacturing chips. It's the AI revolution that's coming. Texas has always been a big home to data centers, and I think we'll continue to be, so long as we've got the electrons to power it. To space exploration, with SpaceX, to the large industrial manufacturing complex on the coast where Dow and X-energy have got their partnership brewing.

Reed Clay [00:21:28] One of the things that we can do here is start talking about the marketplace while the DC reforms proceed on a parallel track to make sure that we're creating as fertile a development ground as possible here for businesses to choose nuclear when they start to look for their future power needs. Because there's no shortage of options that are available here from an offtaker perspective.

Reed Clay [00:21:56] So, Adam, I guess to sum up... It's really looking at the marketplace, right? There are things that we need to be doing here in Texas. Going back to Uri for a minute... We have allowed the marketplace to favor wind and solar to our detriment. I'm not going to say too much bad about wind and solar, but the heavy federal incentives have led to a pretty over-reliance on that. And the marketplace needs to be rebalanced towards reliable energy sources like natural gas and, in our case particularly, nuclear.

Reed Clay [00:22:35] Obviously, in this state everybody's a fan of natural gas. This building behind me is very supportive of natural gas. And one of our main goals is going to be to get them to be as supportive of nuclear as they are to natural gas. The two are, frankly, very complementary. Natural gas can act as a peaker, very easily. That's the path that Texas is pursuing in the short run.

Reed Clay [00:23:01] Nuclear offers the ability to provide incredibly stable, long-term base power. And those two can also work hand in hand from a time perspective. You'll see a lot of natural gas deployed in the state over the next 10 years. And that gives us the opportunity to really pave the way for nuclear to pick up shortly thereafter.

Adam Smith [00:23:26] Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed that on the head from an ideal energy mix perspective. You have nuclear doing all of the baseload generation, and then you have just a fleet of peakers coming online as needed. So, that gets you to a pretty stable electrical grid, and clean, at that point.

Reed Clay [00:23:49] The other reason that we're so bullish on the alliance is... Some of the main things happening in nuclear are happening in this state right now. I alluded to Natura Resources. They're moving at "the speed of Texas," I like to say. I mean, they're moving very, very quickly to bring their molten salt reactor online. That's obviously one of the most promising things out there right now. We've got the partnership with Dow and X-energy.

Reed Clay [00:24:23] And lastly, Texas A&M announced recently that they've put out a request for information, soon to be followed by a request for proposals for a nuclear testbed at their RELLIS Campus in College Station. Really to sort of be, like I said, a testbed for new nuclear technology. So, really exciting stuff happening here. And that's why we're doing the things that we need to do to create the marketplace here in the state of Texas that can proceed on a parallel track with the reforms that are going on in DC. And that's why we're excited to be doing the work that we're doing.

Adam Smith [00:25:10] It's amazing. Amazing. And can you talk a little bit about the goals for this year, and maybe the next, for the Alliance?

Reed Clay [00:25:20] I think it's continued coalition building. We've got great momentum with bringing people inside the tent, organizing that group so that we can... Like anywhere, in this building across the street here, strength in numbers goes a long way. So, trying to organize the industry as the legislators start to look at other types of energy. There's interest in hydrogen, geothermal. We need to have a presence, and an organized presence, over there to make sure that they see that nuclear is a tested technology that is real ready for the taking, and they need to start enacting the policies that are going to really support its development here in the state of Texas.

Reed Clay [00:26:09] And then, I think I alluded to this... In the marketplace, we've got to do some things to rebalance the playing field, so to speak, so that nuclear is not disadvantaged by the incredible subsidies and other sorts of preferences that wind and solar have enjoyed over the years so that we're properly pricing in the value of a reliable baseload that lasts for decades. And right now, the marketplace doesn't really show that. So, certainly we want to work on that.

Reed Clay [00:26:46] And then, the state, as I mentioned, has been very supportive of natural gas peakers. The Texas Energy Fund has been a very successful thing that they've done to try to attract the development of natural gas peaker plants. And I think one of the things that we'd like to see happen is something similar for first-of-a-kind development of advanced nuclear projects here in the state of Texas.

Reed Clay [00:27:10] And frankly, I still have this fanciful... Maybe it's fanciful, I don't know... Dream that we can have Comanche Peak 3 and 4 and South Texas Project 3 and 4. So really, it's just trying to get the state engaged on catalyzing the development of nuclear.

Reed Clay [00:27:28] As you know, Adam, it is a technology that's been around a long time; it's very safe. And the best time to start building nuclear was 20 or 30 years ago; the next best time is is right now. So, that's what we're going to really be trying to impress upon the folks across the street come January of next year.

Adam Smith [00:27:51] Could not agree with you more on that one. And I believe the first ever Texas Nuclear Summit is coming up, right? When is that and where is that happening at?

Reed Clay [00:28:02] Yeah, we just announced it yesterday, formally. If you want more information, I'll do a little plug for the website, nucleartexas.com. It's got all the information about so-far confirmed panelists, which I can run down in a minute. And obviously, some additional information about tickets and sponsorship options and things of that nature.

Reed Clay [00:28:22] But yeah, so it'll be in November, the 17th through 19th, right here in Austin, Texas. We've already got a good list of participants. The goal here is to bring public policymakers and legislators into the room with industry to have that collision of ideas ahead of the next legislative session. And then, I think the other part of this is really what I call a pep rally, which is getting everybody very excited about it just as we head into the legislative session.

Reed Clay [00:28:52] It should be around the time of a couple of things that I think will make it an even more energetic atmosphere, which is the release of at least a draft report from the Advanced Nuclear Working Group that Commissioner Glotfelty is heading up. And then, the lieutenant governor has asked the Senate Committee on Business Commerce to look at advanced nuclear as a power generation source, so they should have a report to the legislature around that time. And so, we're excited about the ability to talk about the recommendations in there and how we can push those forward in the legislative session.

Reed Clay [00:29:30] So far, we've got great attendance. We have Chief Nim Kidd, who is the Chair of the Texas Energy Reliability Council. We've got Commissioner Jimmy Glotfelty, who as I said, is running the Advanced Nuclear Working Group over at the PUC. Representative Cody Harris, who's the Vice Chair of the House Nuclear Caucus. Senator Perry, who is the head of the water committee in the Senate. And several others who are going to be participating with us.

Reed Clay [00:30:01] I forgot... Brooke Paup, who chairs our Texas Water Development Board. We're excited about how nuclear can help solve another big issue that's facing the state of Texas, which is meeting the water needs. So, it's going to be a great event, and we hope everybody listening will buy a ticket and be there.

Adam Smith [00:30:21] Yeah, it sounds like you've got a real A-list team for that.

Reed Clay [00:30:25] I think so.

Adam Smith [00:30:26] And do you have any insights about the goals for the next session?

Reed Clay [00:30:35] We're watching that report very closely that's going to come out of... We're engaged with the PUC and Advanced Working Nuclear Group. We want to see what the industry comes up with out of that. I think that's the primary platform right now. What's so exciting about that is it's the first time we've really been able to get everybody in the same room. We know there are going to be some great ideas out of there.

Reed Clay [00:30:59] But going back to what I was mentioning a minute ago, Adam... I think really what we need is the state to look at catalyzing first-of-a-kind development, or new development of nuclear. Whether that be small modular nuclear or whether it be large-scale nuclear. We need some initial investment from the state, so that's certainly one of the things that we're going to be looking for.

Reed Clay [00:31:26] And I think really just creating a regulatory certainty around it. It's been a long time since we've built nuclear here in the state, and making sure that we've got the regulatory environment streamlined and ready to go for the industry is going to be an important thing. The advent of distributed small modular creates some new issues in the electric electricity market that we'll have to work through. I don't think it's anything we can't work through, but there are some reforms that probably need to take place there.

Reed Clay [00:31:58] And then, if we've learned anything from the great work that's going on in Georgia, I think it's that we've got to have a workforce that's ready to go and is skilled and understands how to execute on these projects. So, we'll be looking at ways to shore up the workforce here and ensure that we've got the best workforce possible as we start to develop these projects.

Adam Smith [00:32:24] Sounds like you've got a lot on your plate.

Reed Clay [00:32:27] It's a lot; a lot to do.

Adam Smith [00:32:30] Well, if you had ultimate authority here or you could just wave a magic wand and change anything within the nuclear industry or the energy market at large, what would that be?

Reed Clay [00:32:44] Well, I'd go back in time, I think. That's the first thing I would do. I'd go back in time and talk to the folks who decided we were going to stop building nuclear and wave my magic wand and say, "No, we're not." There were lots of lessons to be learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima, but one of them was certainly not that we should stop building nuclear.

Reed Clay [00:33:08] But failing that, if we're looking ahead, I think it's.... I think it's right-sizing and leveling the playing field here in Texas. We have the offtakers, and if we can level the playing field in a way that recognizes nuclear's reliability and longevity, I think that's going to go a long way. And then, as I mentioned, some state investment on first-of-a-kind projects, I think is going to be pretty key. So, if I was king for day, those are probably the two or three things I would be looking at to make sure that we're advancing nuclear here in Texas.

Adam Smith [00:33:56] Sounds like a pretty good set of magic wand wishes. Well, this has been great, first off. Thank you for the insights here. Thank you for coming on the show and telling us more about what the Texas Nuclear Alliance has been up to. Before we go, do you have any messages that you'd like to leave with our viewers?

Reed Clay [00:34:20] First of all, thanks, Adam, for having me. I love the podcast; I love what you guys are doing. And I'm not sure I'm a titan of nuclear, but I'm still thrilled to be here.

Reed Clay [00:34:32] I would say just pay attention to what we're doing in Texas and try to get involved. Like I said, we want as many people under this tent as possible. Strength in numbers is the way to get things done. Check out our website, texasnuclearalliance.org. Check out the Summit website, which is nucleartexas.com. And just sign up for staying abreast of what's going on here. And reach out if you have any questions or any desire to get involved in anything we're doing.

Adam Smith [00:35:09] Reed Clay, thank you for coming on the show.

Reed Clay [00:35:11] Thank you, Adam.

‍

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:00:59] Well, hello, and welcome to another episode of Titans of Nuclear. My name is Maddie Hibbs-Magruder and I'm your host today. And I have the pleasure to be joined by Juliann Edwards, who's the Chair of US Women in Nuclear. Juliann, welcome to the show; so happy to have you.

Juliann Edwards [00:01:13] Thank you for having me. Pleasure to be here.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:01:15] All right, so we're going to take it back to basics, really the building blocks of you and your background. Can you tell me a bit about yourself, and specifically, where you grew up and went to school?

Juliann Edwards [00:01:25] Sure, sure. I'm from a small town in Florida. I'm the oldest of four; I have three younger brothers, two hard-working parents. And yeah, I just went to school in Florida, started off at a community college, and then ultimately landed at University of South Florida; go Bulls! I majored in business marketing and finance because I didn't know what I wanted to do when I grew up, but obviously found my pathway through waitressing.

Juliann Edwards [00:01:54] I was a waitress in Central Florida at a restaurant called Bonefish Grill. And that really started my whole journey of understanding my aptitude in networking and just people pleasing and selling. And yeah, that's where I learned about the energy market, literally at this small, little restaurant in Lakeland, Florida.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:02:14] That's fascinating. Yeah, tell me a bit more about that. How did you connect that back to energy?

Juliann Edwards [00:02:21] Yeah, there was a guy who came into our restaurant who was, honestly, looking for new talent. And I was a week away from graduating from college at USF and I didn't have my career mapped out yet. I just was very vulnerable and naive and believed everything that he said. And he's like, "We'll hire you after you graduate." And I was like, "All right, well then give me your phone number and business card."

Juliann Edwards [00:02:43] And long story short, he ran a steel distribution business. And he focused on commodities and selling to the energy market in the Southeast, which was predominantly gas plants, some coal. There were paper mills as well, manufacturing. And I picked up the phone and called him at like 6 AM the day after I graduated. I was like, "Where do I report for work?" And he's like, "Okay, I guess we're going to do this." And he hired me and I worked for him for seven years and had so much fun.

Juliann Edwards [00:03:12] I got to become a QA auditor. And he actually convinced me to move to Charlotte, North Carolina, because there was going to be this thing called the nuclear renaissance in 2008. I moved to Charlotte, North Carolina, started auditing steel mills, and built our ASME Section III program from scratch with a few others. And that's where I really had an introduction into nuclear and just fell in love with the people, the security. Really, just the industry at large was just so much more unique than anything I'd ever seen, and sadly, I didn't know about it before I started my college career. But I was fortunate to meet somebody that coached me and pulled me in.

Juliann Edwards [00:03:49] So yeah, I worked with him for seven years, and then got recruited to go into small modular reactors after that time, when it was very conversational. Sadly, that company, mPower, ran out of DOE funding and it dissolved. And so, I decided to remain in energy. And since the nuclear renaissance was essentially on pause, I worked on the phase out of coal. And in the early 2000s, I started developing and executing natural gas power plants... Simple cycles, combined cycles with a company called Chicago Bridge & Iron. And, obviously, with that influx of gas buildout, there was a drive down of energy pricing. And so, sadly, the nuclear renaissance that then came was decommissioning.

Juliann Edwards [00:04:35] I was recruited and felt I didn't have the knowledge and expertise on the back end of the fuel cycle, so joined a company called Energy Solutions and learned everything about asset retirement obligations and actually had a lot of fun on a number of interesting transactions, one of which was in Wisconsin, since you mentioned you're from Wisconsin. Kewaunee Nuclear Station was an asset transfer that I led with Dominion Energy and was just so fascinating and one of the most complex deals I had ever been a part of.

Juliann Edwards [00:05:07] But then, fast forward, there were rumors coming out about the Inflation Reduction Act. And so, the nuclear decommissioning renaissance was then going to come to a halt; thank goodness. And so, I had joined a company called TransCanada that rebranded itself as TC Energy, who at the time wanted to fill one of their board seats at Bruce Power, which is the largest nuclear facility in the world in Canada, and they were wanting to grow their clean energy business.

Juliann Edwards [00:05:35] But since then, I've left and am currently advising a couple of energy companies as well as serving as a board advisor to Solstice, which is a women's-owned energy consulting business. And they have an amazing bench of women and just a culture that I've only dreamed of. So, I'm enjoying that, as well as my time as Chair for US Women in Nuclear.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:05:57] I love that. No, that's so interesting. Especially the desire to especially stay in the nuclear industry as we had that initial renaissance that didn't really come to fruition. Can you reflect a bit, at least from your perspective and the role you had at the time? What were some of the hindrances that made it so that we couldn't realize that renaissance? And timeframe-wise, was that the 2010s, like early 2010s?

Juliann Edwards [00:06:21] Yeah, exactly. It was just around that timeframe. Honestly, what I think was the final thread was Fukushima, at least from my perspective at that time. I wasn't in high ranks; I was still an individual contributor. And what I recall was just this ripcord being pulled on the perception of nuclear because of what occurred at Fukushima Daiichi and the other facilities in Japan because of that tsunami.

Juliann Edwards [00:06:51] I did see an insurgence of work related to the FLEX program that was introduced at the US plants and globally. But there was just a fear that nuclear couldn't grow because we needed to then solve for that safety concern. I did see a rallying, though, around still carbon emission reductions with the phase out of coal, like I mentioned. But nuclear sadly took another backseat.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:07:18] Yeah, yeah. It's definitely unfortunate, but I think a lot of people talk now about being in a new nuclear renaissance. Do you share that perspective and think that things will be different this time around?

Juliann Edwards [00:07:32] Yeah, I think all of us who are in this industry pray that it's different this time around. And I do feel different. I mean, obviously, I'm more mature in my career; I've gotten older. I'm probably paying attention to things at a deeper level than I did in the past. However, I do think there's a massive pivot and for a multitude of reasons. One, I think the industry has proven it can be safe and reliable. Two, you're seeing this marriage of just a need... And really, it's an arms race, globally, on data and clean energy and nuclear energy, particularly. And I think that those two challenges that we have as a country, to really hone in on artificial intelligence and data centers, as well as the need for clean energy, is a perfect time and opening for nuclear to really stretch its wings.

Juliann Edwards [00:08:22] And I obviously think we now have more diversity at the top that are thinking things differently. Different ways to advocate, different ways to just communicate the value proposition that nuclear brings to education, to communities. And I think those things combined are just giving us the perfect opportunity and stage that we need.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:08:45] Perfect. Yeah, I definitely agree and share the hopefulness. And looking back over your career, what has been the through line that you've seen, especially for women in nuclear? I can only hope and guess that you've seen it grow. Or, do you take an opposite perspective in that it was actually pretty strong even when you started, just not as recognized? What has that looked like for women in nuclear over the course of your interaction with the industry?

Juliann Edwards [00:09:14] I'd say, the organization of Women in Nuclear... Well, one, it's on its 25th anniversary. Most people don't know that; we were founded in 1999. And so, just like anything, any organization, any enterprise, any human being, 25 years... It's a long stretch to grow and evolve and change. And I would say the organization at large has just really helped shape the role women play in the industry. And I'm praying that I can leave my mark and contribute in ways that I feel like I can through my toolkit and my proficiencies over my career, and to making sure that we continue to leave our mark and a lasting impression.

Juliann Edwards [00:09:54] But we've grown tremendously. Back in 1999, we started with like 15 members, and now we're at close to 5,500 across 36 states. And we now have a seat at the table with all the executives, solving massive industry problems that they feel can't be tackled in silos within their own companies or within their own working committees. But they need to be stretched out beyond to support organizations like Women in Nuclear or American Nuclear Society, or NAYGN, which focuses on the younger generation.

Juliann Edwards [00:10:31] To me, the fact that we've been asked to take a seat at the table and we have had some success through various programs and initiatives, I think is something that we've got to hold on to, and we have to just continue to build upon so that our voices can continue to grow and be sustainable.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:10:49] No, I totally agree. Are there any pieces of advice you would have for any younger female listeners to the show? Maybe they have an interest in nuclear, whether it's on the engineering or business side, but are intimidated by it being mostly a male-dominated industry.

Juliann Edwards [00:11:08] I have three brothers, so I think male-dominated attracted me to it because I know how the male psyche works. And so, that drew me in because I had a comfort level. I would say, if you're a young female in high school or college or even middle school... We target all of that whole spectrum in terms of workforce development. I would say there are just so many amazing individuals, both men and women, in this industry who want to give back. And they want to mentor; they want to share what they've learned throughout their 10, 15, 30-year career.

Juliann Edwards [00:11:47] I think Women in Nuclear itself, the organization, its web page has so many amazing touch points and working deliverables that can be accessed for free. So, going to that site, obviously; I'm going to have to throw out an endorsement to WIN.

Juliann Edwards [00:12:01] But also, start to educate yourself and read more and listen to podcasts like this one just to develop a little bit of a comfort level. For me, I always found my confidence grew the deeper my knowledge got on any given topic. I, myself, would read a lot or listen to... Back then, it was YouTube channels and videos; now it's evolved to podcasts. And so, with each day, you're going to feel more confident to ask the right questions or to reach out to that person through a very unsolicited, raw conversation. And what do you have to lose? The worst they can do is not respond, but the best thing that can happen is you develop a network within this amazing industry.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:12:46] So true, so true. Have you had any mentors like that throughout your career who have helped you either get to the next spot you were looking for, or more clarity?

Juliann Edwards [00:12:56] Oh, yeah. I have had so many. And some have worked for me. Some have worked beneath me and beside me, and some have been former bosses. They've been men and women. I would say one of the most impactful ones was the gentleman that hired me out of the restaurant, just because he opened up my eyes to a whole new world. Otherwise, I probably would have been working at Publix, which is headquartered in my hometown.

Juliann Edwards [00:13:19] But there were old bosses who are still in the industry as well. One of the EVPs at GE, Sean Sextone, has been someone who I've tapped into on almost a weekly basis. There are women who have since retired who are serving on boards like Maria Lacal, who I talk to on, probably, a monthly basis. And I would say, without their voice in my head or access to them, I probably would have stumbled and maybe even taken a few steps back. And I really owe them a lot for letting me use them as a sounding board and letting me just vent at all hours of the night.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:13:58] That's perfect. Yeah, that is really good. But for you, what really keeps you motivated or excites you most right now?

Juliann Edwards [00:14:08] I would have to say there's a program, an initiative that was developed by Women in Nuclear called NEXT, Nuclear Executives of Tomorrow. And we're on our fifth year. I bring this up because it's continuing to evolve and grow. And we're actually seeing success where we're changing the numbers, we're changing the metrics of women at C-suite, site vice president, director level across everything from utilities to vendors to the labs. And it's just cool to see something that was an idea a couple of years ago has manifested into changing people's careers. And that investment in women has just manifested into more women reaching out to their networks and continuing to grow that space for us.

Juliann Edwards [00:14:56] And so, NEXT, Nuclear Executives of Tomorrow, is this 12-month program. We've partnered with this beautiful woman, inside and out, Carla, who owns a company called Intend to Create. We've partnered with her and allow 12 to 15 women, annually, to go through this very... It's a little bit of a hybrid mix between in-person and virtual where we focus on self-reflection, like, "What are some of your superpowers and skillsets that you need to focus in on and continue to sharpen and ways you can give back?"

Juliann Edwards [00:15:33] And through that self-confidence, obviously, you get to network with other women, you get to continue to grow in your career. And what we have found is through those programs, we've had a massive success rate. So, 60% of women that go through this program are promoted within their organizations within just 1 to 3 years. So out of the 12 women... Let's say that's the cohort for this year... 7 of them within 1 to 3 years will become officers of the company that they're in. And that's just a testament to both the investment by the company who's promoting that individual to be in that cohort, but also the support organization that's creating that safe space and opportunity to grow their network and activate parts of their brain and muscles that they haven't activated before. And that's just such a beautiful testament to collaboration.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:16:26] No, that's great. I'm always in favor, especially, of understanding your own strengths, and then, the weaknesses. And then, if you're in an organization, what are the needs of that organization and how do they really line up? Would you say that there's a certain set of characteristics or experiences that's currently missing from the nuclear industry writ large and in the workforce there?

Juliann Edwards [00:16:50] Good question. Every company is different, right? But the industry at large, I think we're continuing to get better. We're becoming more informed of, again, the value proposition of nuclear. And I think that was a gap we've had for years where nuclear just hid in the shadows and in the closet and didn't really want anybody to know about us because you didn't really have a good census. People in the communities were either 50/50, or maybe even more weighted towards a fear of nuclear versus a support of nuclear.

Juliann Edwards [00:17:23] So, I would say one thing we need to do is not take that for granted and continue to ensure that everybody who's in this industry knows the data, knows the metrics, understands the weak spots that we have, and continues to build upon our current success. Because, yes, we've got amazing legislation both in place and pending that's going to allow us to grow, but it's going to take one accident or it's going to take one incident that could perhaps curtail this success. And I think we've got to focus on safety. We have to focus on remaining operationally excellent. Continue to strive and obtain those INPO 1 ratings and WANO 1 ratings, and continue to remind ourselves of what got us here so that we don't, again, get too overly confident in our role today.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:18:16] No, that's so true. And I think one of the major advantages of SMRs does result in a higher degree of public acceptance. Because, let's say, it's smaller; less impact on the environment, visually. Maybe it's SMRs or some other technical advantage, but is there something currently in the market either being innovated on or worked on from a technical perspective that's really interesting to you right now?

Juliann Edwards [00:18:43] Oh my God, there's so much. I constantly am a nerd, and I scroll the NRC website to see what public meetings are going on. That just tells you so much about what's on our regulator's plate. And I will say, I've gotten to spend a lot of time with our regulator, both the Inspector General's office as well as the various commissioners and working staff. And I would say they're ignited, and so excited to find efficiencies and ways that they can do their part. However, there's got to be a renaissance there within that environment.

Juliann Edwards [00:19:13] So, anything that I find fascinating... Again, the marriage between AI and nuclear. There's a company called Atomic Canyon that just launched. A gentleman out of San Luis Obispo worked with the NRC to download all the NRC ADAMS documents. There are like 100,000 pages of just history and license amendment requests and RAIs going back and forth. And he's created this safe space inbox through this tool called Neutron to allow anybody, for free, to use it as a search engine to find a document that you need inside the NRC ADAMS site in light years-like speed compared to what it used to be. And so, to me, those are going to be the small efficiencies and wins that we're going to have to have just to enable us to not only build micros and small modular reactors, but to also continue to have subsequent license renewals and to continue to go from 60 to 80 years or 80 to 100 years of our existing fleet.

Juliann Edwards [00:20:18] Just that open mind that the NRC is having to the AI discussion, as well as companies like Shepherd Power, which is a spinoff of National Oilwell Varco... What they're trying to do to decarbonize the oil and gas sector and how they're working with the NRC to find a streamlined approach for microreactors, which are 1 to 5 megawatts... I mean, these are the out-of-box thinkers that we need. And we need to make sure we make them successful and don't push them away and think that they're crazy and mad scientists, because we need some mad scientists in the house.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:20:54] No, I totally agree. That's a really interesting way to look at it. And over your experience, previously, is there one project you've directly worked on that you've been most excited about or felt such a high degree of ownership over? Which are you proudest of, the different projects you've worked on in your career?

Juliann Edwards [00:21:15] I would say one of the most rewarding experiences I had was when I was at Bruce Power on their board for a very short stint and seeing, honestly, how well-oiled that machine is. They're conducting two massive projects right now. One is called an MCR, major component replacement, and another one is a life extension. They're both trying to increase the output of their of their CANDU reactors as well as prolong the operational life of those facilities. And actually, you guys had members of Bruce Power on this podcast before.

Juliann Edwards [00:21:53] And I'll say, how that team comes together in project controls and HR with recruiting, the financing mechanisms in which they've opened up this green bond market... Just being able to witness that and help with decisions on approving certain stage-gated processes, to me, was amazing. And to see that it can work. Things can occur within nuclear on time and on budget and within quality. To me, that's a testament to what we need to see and need to continue to just give a microphone to so that more investors, more communities want to have this in their backyard and to continue to finance its growth.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:22:34] Yeah, that is so interesting. And Bruce Power, they're primarily based and deploying in Canada, correct?

Juliann Edwards [00:22:41] Correct. They're up in Ontario. Eight reactors, all CANDU, with intentions and interest to maybe even grow their footprint since they have the adequate space to do so. So, it could be even larger in 5 to 10 to 15 years, depending on what technology they decide to deploy.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:22:59] That's so interesting. And was Bruce Power your first non-US, more internationally-focused project and company? And what were the differences you observed between how, let's say, the NRC does it or the Canadian regulator?

Juliann Edwards [00:23:14] Yeah, great question. And yes, it was my first venture... I'll call it international, even though it's our neighbor, right above. But vast differences, I would say. But I'm seeing them even collaborate, the NRC and the CNSC.

Juliann Edwards [00:23:27] I would say the CNSC is more outcome-based in their rulemaking, where NRC is more rule-based in their guidance. And I would say that, right now, they see a value to finding synergies together and showcase how the other side's working both sides of the border.

Juliann Edwards [00:23:46] I would say the CNSC is obviously structured much differently than the NRC is in terms of their staffing levels. They have a smaller footprint of nuclear facilities in Canada, but we hope to see that grow. But I would say both are phenomenal organizations and both are trying to pull their weight and recruit and make sure that we have enough staff members to ensure that we continue to safely monitor and build out nuclear capacity.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:24:16] Great, yeah. And in your capacity, currently, as Chair of US WIN, do you have any touch points with the other global WIN organizations?

Juliann Edwards [00:24:26] Yeah, yeah. So, the way our US chair position works is you serve as a vice chair for two years to get your feet wet, understand the board of directors, the cadence that you have with the steering committee and the leading groups, and just get to know the chapters that are, again, spread across 36 states. Then, you serve two years as chair. So, I'm in my current capacity as chair. And then, you go on to serve as two years past chair for the US chapter.

Juliann Edwards [00:24:54] And so, we're a subsidiary of WIN Global, which is 36,000 members, globally. I can't remember how many countries, but I think about 140 and growing, obviously with more and more interest in nuclear. And so, when you serve in that past chair role, you actually run two parallel paths and responsibilities, and you serve on the WIN Global board. And you get a way to have a touch point with far more chapters on a global scale and share, what is the structure here? How does our culture work? How do we engage with the industry directly? How do we build out our mentoring program like GROW, which is what we have in the US, and can that just be rinsed and repeated in a different country? And so, we do that cultural mapping together, ensuring that we're not reinventing the wheel and not plagiarizing, but close to it. Making sure that we use the success of other women, globally, and bring that home as well as share.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:25:53] No, that's perfect. And yeah, I've gotten a chance to actually attend the WIN conference a couple of years ago, and I tell everybody it was the most enjoyable, easygoing, accessible conference I've been to. The atmosphere is highly inclusive, I would say. Of course, there are more than just women there. But yeah, the events and the focuses of the different panels were incredibly enlightening.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:26:18] But beyond, I know you mentioned NEXT, and then of course, the annual conferences. How else can women get involved in WIN?

Juliann Edwards [00:26:30] There's a whole litany of projects and initiatives. We just rolled out, actually, a set of amended objectives for our organization, as well as added a new objective around workforce. Really, because we saw the challenge that's ahead of us. NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute actually put out an amazing document, a strategic workforce planning document that maps out what should we expect over the next couple of decades and lays out all of the challenges that perhaps we can raise our hands to solve for.

Juliann Edwards [00:27:00] And so, I would say we have chapters at the student level where we go into universities. And we've got, I think, roughly 10 or 12 different universities that have set up chapters and are continuing to grow their footprint. But if you don't see one at your local school, I would say just reach out to myself. My contact information is on the WIN web page.

Juliann Edwards [00:27:22] But we also have different committees that focus on various aspects of nuclear. We have one for DE&I. We've got one for professional development. We have a committee for communications. Let's say you're a communication student, or even in high school, and you're trying to get a sense of how to navigate social media and you want to just dip your toe. We have volunteer positions where you can work with a group of women in putting out that media content and helping us become more innovative in how we communicate with both current members and future members. And so, there are so many opportunities, and we have a deep bench and continue to grow and continue to welcome more members to come in.

Juliann Edwards [00:28:05] And I would say if you're in Pittsburgh in July, July 22nd to the 25th, that's where we're going to have our next annual conference. And again, it's our 25th anniversary, so we have some pretty amazing speakers lined up. We're actually going to rent out a pretty phenomenal space for our big extravaganza and highlight some good wins for the industry. So, I would encourage you all to join, if you can.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:28:29] Definitely. Yeah, I couldn't second that enough. It's an incredible conference. And outside of WIN, is there anything that you're personally working on in the nuclear industry that we should be on the lookout for?

Juliann Edwards [00:28:44] Always. Yeah, I mean, through the board advisory positions, I'm getting to see just all these different players that want to understand what nuclear is about. And I would say, I'm going to probably continue to grow my footprint in that space, nontraditional companies that want to understand nuclear, both through Solstice or through companies like Atomic Canyon or Shepherd Power. I think whatever I can do to help educate and inform so that they can be a part of this community is probably where you're going to start seeing me leave my mark.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:29:16] I love that, I love that. And are you part of any other organizations? I know Chief is one that you're also chairing. If you want to talk a bit about that as well.

Juliann Edwards [00:29:25] Yes, oh my gosh. I joined Chief in 2020. My family and I had just moved to Phoenix, Arizona, from Charlotte, North Carolina for my husband's job. And that's when Covid hit, literally the week after we touched down. And it was the first time I didn't have a revolving door of people in my office, because my office was my spare bedroom... Other than my husband asking what time dinner was. And so, I was like, "I'm going to invest in myself and do something completely outside the industry."

Juliann Edwards [00:29:53] And this LinkedIn post came up around Chief and talking about helping women get to C-suite positions and board seats. And yeah, that was always a dream of mine, and still is. I'm 39 years young, and by the age of 50, 55, I would love to be serving on a few boards of directors because I want to be able to spend more time on eradicating Rett syndrome, which is a diagnosis my daughter has.

Juliann Edwards [00:30:20] And to achieve that, I thought she could help me, one, validate do I really want to do that? And I spent the last three-and-a-half years meeting with other C-suite across various industries, health care, cosmetics, transportation and everything in between. And I have learned that it's definitely something I want to continue to grow my network in and understand, so much so that I'm starting to go through my NACD certificate. It's essentially a board certificate where you understand the financial responsibilities of a board member. And I would say, if it wasn't for the encouragement of that Chief group and that little tribe, I probably wouldn't have dabbled into as many things as I have been lately.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:31:08] That's so cool. Is there one industry that you think that the nuclear industry can really learn a lot from that you've gotten to encounter through Chief?

Juliann Edwards [00:31:17] Yes. Actually, health care, believe it or not. And maybe just because I have a bias there. I spent so much time in healthcare, just again, due to our daughter, Lilly. But I've since learned that...

Juliann Edwards [00:31:28] Health care has very similar challenges that nuclear does around security, particularly cyber security, just data breaching. And I would tell you, they just went through this process of having to infuse artificial intelligence into their networks, and they're probably a few years ahead of us. And to me, what better way to learn from their lessons, from their successes and challenges and failures than to fold them into the conversation? So, you might see some folks in the health care executive world come to the US Women in Nuclear conference to speak about that directly so that we can say, "Okay, this is how we navigate this." Or, "Here's how we can perhaps shave off a few years on implementation of 'X' product." So, I'm very excited about that.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:32:15] Yeah, that is really interesting. I've reflected a bit... Mostly not on strictly health care, but let's say, pharmaceuticals. Of course, pharmaceuticals have a high risk or hazard if they're not manufactured correctly or if they don't go through sufficient trials. And yet, we have new drugs entering the market multiple times on an annual basis. There's a high degree of assurance among the population that these are safe and that we can take them. And of course, there's a whole radiological medicine overlap there. But yeah, in terms of regulation, harmonized regulations, I think there's so much that can be learned from health care and pharmaceuticals, specifically. So, I totally agree. Definitely.

Juliann Edwards [00:32:56] Yeah. And we have a natural bridge, right? Medical isotopes. I mean, that was another thing that was so fascinating to me at Bruce Power, the percentage, globally, of cobalt-60 that comes out of that one facility... Or, out of Ontario, I should say, because OPG, Ontario Power Generation also produces medical isotopes. And how they're continuing to add more isotopes to their program. And so, we naturally have a conversation starter to leapfrog into healthcare and say, "Hey, we have a commonality here. Let's continue to grow that and educate ourselves on how we both can become better."

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:33:29] I totally agree. And then, just looking forward a bit, what do you think that the nuclear industry is going to look like 5, 10, 20 years from now?

Juliann Edwards [00:33:38] I think it's going to be women-dominated.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:33:40] Oh, you think? Oh, interesting.

Juliann Edwards [00:33:43] I think so. It's going to be vast. I really do hope that it becomes something that just continues to grow, but in a very safe and sustainable way. I don't want us to get ahead of ourselves. And you see these lofty goals out of massive companies and countries that are trying to decarbonize by 2030, which is less than six years away in 2050. And you look at the time scale it takes to site and permit and engineer and design, bid, build these facilities and commission them. And it's like, you've got to put reality with that goal.

Juliann Edwards [00:34:19] And so, as long as we're doing things in a safe and proficient manner, we're going to completely phase out even elements of combined cycle power plants if we can do so. And I'm very much excited about just more nuclear on a global scale and more women in those facilities.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:34:39] And is there any last message or thought that you want to leave our listeners with today?

Juliann Edwards [00:34:47]  I would say... A mantra I've told myself is to get on a path to success, you need a plan. And to achieve success, you have to be agile to that plan. And I have always told myself just because I have the next 5, 10 years mapped out doesn't mean it's going to be the same road or curve or trajectory I think it's going to be. So, just be flexible and realize that that's part of the fun, and actually sometimes more fun than actually getting there.

Juliann Edwards [00:35:14] I have found the people I have gotten to know over the last 15 years, I never envisioned would have the impact they have had on my life, personally and professionally. And so, just recognize that each one of those moments and engagements and individuals... Honestly, that's what it's all about. So hopefully, you pay attention to that network that you're building.

Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:35:36] Terrific. Well, thank you so much for joining us. This has been a really incredible conversation.

Juliann Edwards [00:35:41] Likewise. Thank you for having me, Maddie. Nice to meet you.

‍

Adam Smith [00:06:46] Welcome to Titans of Nuclear. I'm Adam Smith, and today we have a very special episode with Stefano Buono, the founder and CEO of newcleo. Stefano, welcome to the show.

Stefano Buono [00:06:57] Thank you very much. Welcome, everyone. I'm very happy to be back here.

Adam Smith [00:07:02] Yeah, as you say, I should be saying, "Welcome back." Actually, this is your second time coming onto the Titans of Nuclear podcast. For those who haven't listened to our previous episode, Stefano, could you give us a little bit of background about yourself? Where did you grow up? How did you get into the nuclear industry or just the energy industry, broadly?

Stefano Buono [00:07:22] Yes, I'm an Italian physicist. And after my thesis, I went to work at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research. And after three or four years, I started to work with Carlo Rubbia, who was a Nobel laureate and was Director General at the time, on the idea to make a nuclear reactor that was very innovative because it was supposed to be very safe. And this technology was linked to the use of lead as a coolant, so that would pass the reactor using lead. And actually, we got to know a lot of things about lead. And this has been, essentially the project that, just a couple of years ago, became a company, and now we're engaged with newcleo.

Adam Smith [00:08:16] Perfect. Wow. Just to clarify, you've gone with the lead breeder fast reactor, right?

Stefano Buono [00:08:24] Not really breeder.

Adam Smith [00:08:26] Just fast reactor.

Stefano Buono [00:08:28] Yes, in the sense that when, in the '90s, there were fast reactors, they were conceived to be breeders, actually, to produce more plutonium than what is used. After 35 years, maybe the situation in some countries, the opposite. There is a lot of nuclear waste, so there is a lot of plutonium in this nuclear waste. And maybe a lot of countries prefer to burn the plutonium. Essentially, we designed the reactor to be a small burner. So, to burn slowly, the plutonium, but to be negative with respect to the plutonium stockpile. Which is good because we need to eliminate the big stockpiles of plutonium that are on Earth, rather than putting plutonium underground, or even worse, using for military purposes. It's better to make energy; that's really what we want to do.

Adam Smith [00:09:31] Yeah, absolutely. Would you say the focus of newcleo then is being able to minimize the waste from nuclear that has traditionally accumulated?

Stefano Buono [00:09:42] Exactly. And for some countries, even to eliminate the need of a geological repository because, of course, with such a hard spectrum that we have using land, even harder than sodium, we can control the quantities not only of plutonium, but also the manner of actinides, all of them. So, we actually eliminate that part of the waste that is the long-term waste. And I believe only with the fission fragments. It's a minimal part in volume and weight.

Stefano Buono [00:10:18] I remember that one gigawatt electric of power, of any nuclear power, produces only 900 kilograms of fission fragments per year. So, that's less than a cubic meter. It's really a very good amount of waste. So, if we engage into multi-recycling, that was the dream of the engineers in the '70s, the '80s. If we engage in that, we can really get to the point where the final waste remains only fission fragments. And so not only that they are a small quantity, but the toxicity is very small. And essentially after 150 years, the toxicity can come back to the level of natural radioactivity of the material that was extracted. So, we can really close the cycle of the waste for nuclear.

Stefano Buono [00:11:20] And I think now it's time to transform this dream into reality; we can. Technically, we can do it. Of course, burning the plutonium, it's easier because for more than 60 years now, well, there has been MOX manufactured, so only a mixture of uranium and plutonium oxide. And this has been successfully used in fast reactors, but even in PWRs, especially in France. So, there is a lot of experience and it's relatively easy to manufacture this kind of fuel. But we cannot even imagine a situation in which we can also put, in different forms, the other types into the fast reactor and keep also the quantity of these elements controlled.

Adam Smith [00:12:18] Wow. This seems like a very versatile reactor in terms of fuel source. I mean, PWRs... You've can use a little bit of MOX in the system, but my understanding is you can't use a 100% MOX fuel load, at least currently. So, it seems like you can use other fuels, you can use MOX, you can use low-enriched. I'm assuming you can use high-enriched as well.

Stefano Buono [00:12:42] In the beginning, we wanted to use 20% enriched uranium as a first load because it's more difficult to produce plutonium. But in Europe, after the invasion of Russia in Ukraine, then uranium became very difficult to get. I think close to the US, it's quite difficult to get. So, we elevate the MOX program. And actually, we found huge support from France, and this helped us in accelerating this program and going directly to a more sustainable approach on the fuel, is what we consider.

Adam Smith [00:13:20] And do you receive a longer fuel cycle as well because you're using... In an ideal world, you're using some either MOX or higher plutonium content since you're trying to burn that up. Do you receive a longer fuel cycle when you use those elements?

Stefano Buono [00:13:36] We can. The more plutonium we want to burn, the shorter is the resonance of our reactor, so if you go to easier mode, I would say, the timing is slightly longer than the normal uranium fuel. So of course, if you accept a little bit of breeding, that would even produce a very, very long fuel cycle for your fuel inside the reactor. But as I mentioned, we prefer to be negative in the amount of plutonium in these quantities.

Adam Smith [00:14:19] Amazing. If there was a breeder reactor out there using lead, what kind of fuel cycle would you see? Or, how long a fuel cycle do you think something like that would last?

Stefano Buono [00:14:33] Well, I give you the example of France. The uranium extracted and recycled that is present in France can allot 2,000 years of power for all of France, 100% of their electricity needs.

Adam Smith [00:14:53] Oh, man.

Stefano Buono [00:14:55] Only if you do the multi-recycling because the past recycle has created so much depleted uranium that you can go. And having the lead reactor allows, actually, to use any kind of plutonium. So, even if you accommodate the pairs, 24, and 242, into and PWR, it's still good to be burned in our reactor, even better. We can really enable, for example, or use the MOX from the French second pass, I would say, that is resident into the French pool today and is accumulated because there is no strategy at the moment for this kind of fuel. This could go through our reactor and then used MOX in our reactor could either be used again in a PWR or to be recycled into the fast reactor.

Stefano Buono [00:16:16] And this is really the dream of the past. In the '70s, the nuclear engineers were thinking that the water reactors, the thermal reactors were only a passage, a phase of the development of nuclear. That in the future only fast reactors would have survived because of the nature of the fuel cycle, the possibility of this multi-recycling and the better use of resources. So, we are trying to make this, finally after so many years, this dream a little bit true.

Adam Smith [00:16:53] Yeah, yeah. You're building the future of it. Going straight to the fast reactors.

Stefano Buono [00:16:59] Yes, yes. Exactly.

Adam Smith [00:17:02] Wow, that's amazing.

Stefano Buono [00:17:05] To make this strategy successful, you have to solve another problem, that is the cost. We all believe in nuclear that the use of lead is key for that. Why? Because when we approach the same strategy using sodium, we have to control the chemical risk of the materials. So, the fast reactors became very cumbersome and very expensive.

Stefano Buono [00:17:35] In France, in '84, let's say, EDF was ready to order four new fast reactors of the Superphénix kind if the cost would have been capped at 20% more expensive than PWR at the same power. But the reality was that the consortium that created Superphénix was not able to go below 160% more expensive. 60% was not justifying the virtuous recycling of the fuel. 20% more would have justified, financially, the recycling; 60% was not justified. So, EDF in '84 didn't order four new reactors of the faster type and they remained with the thermal reactor because of a reasonable cost. And of course, when there was no need for decarbonization the cost was everything. So of course, fast reactors remain very non-interesting because of the higher costs.

Stefano Buono [00:18:58] But in '94 when we started to use lead, we realized that many Russian submarines were built using lead. And one characteristic of these submarines were they were very compact. So, the submarine was much more compact and powerful. The submarines did 48 knots underwater. They beat every record for these kinds of machines.

Adam Smith [00:19:33] Yeah.

Stefano Buono [00:19:38] But the compactness is also a synonym of less steel, of less material, and less cost. These show the way that there was a possibility to change the design in order to reduce the cost. And that's what we did. And I think the optimization lasted, essentially 25 years. Because more and more ideas came in order. We had to go away from the concept that was developed for sodium and make the better out of the properties of lead.

Stefano Buono [00:20:17] And I think that the process has really been optimized so far that we are at the end of the journey and we are ready to deliver reactors that, in our goals, have to cost €4 per watt installed. That's our goal, which is very competitive today with PWR. It's much less expensive. I think that is a winning move that we need to do, make these reactors not only safer but also less expensive.

Adam Smith [00:20:55] Yeah, absolutely. That's how you grow the entire industry. And it seems like you're really leading the charge there with the lead0cooled fast reactor. Do you have any milestones over the past year that you can talk to about your developments of bringing this technology to market?

Stefano Buono [00:21:16] Yes, one year ago we started the regulatory process with the French authorities, both for the reactor and the fuel factory. And the French system has decided to try to accelerate the process because everyone is trite, I think, by the fact that new nuclear projects are taking too much time. And of course, longer investment phase in a reactor is also not good for the industry because it is making bad use of capital, so we have to reduce also the time of the full process.

Stefano Buono [00:22:06] And so, the French authorities are engaged into a new process that goes through frequent meetings and also the possibility to have a pre-authorization. So we have this run into three phases. We are almost at the end of the first phase, and we have to enter the second phase that will lead to a pre-authorization. This we will be starting in September, and this could last as little as two years. So in two years, we could have the equivalent of a generic design assessment authorization UK, or I think there is a similar authorization also in the US. Not a construction permit, but a design certificate.

Stefano Buono [00:23:05] So we are, I would say, two-and-a-half years away from this goal. And of course, this process can be started only at the level of the basic design, so we are entering into the basic design for our reactors. We will be starting a process in parallel in France, UK, and Slovakia, another European country, because we have plans to deploy a reactor in these three countries. And we became almost 700. If we spoke 1 year ago, maybe we were at least 200 people less.

Adam Smith [00:23:48] That's amazing.

Stefano Buono [00:23:49] The company is really growing. As part of our strategy, we are also making use of our capital by investing in existing companies and consolidating the market. And we are investing in those companies that can become part of our supply chain. So, maybe they have an activity of sales or services in nuclear, but then work for us, of course, and become one of our suppliers or providers of a system for us.

Stefano Buono [00:24:31] And that means that in 2024 we should reach about 50 million, five zero million of turnover. We are in a strange position of being, at the same time, a company producing revenues but also innovating in the field, which is, I believe, a little bit rare. Sometimes either you are a consolidated company like EDF or Rolls-Royce, you have a new project, or you are a startup and you only have a project on paper and you are spending money. So, we are entering into this situation, where we have building and expanding a turnover in the field while we are, actually, our main focus is to develop this reactor in this industry.

Adam Smith [00:25:26] That must be an interesting story to tell investors, since you are, as you said, in that middle position where you are pre-revenue on the SMR side, but you are a well-established company. If you look at your equipment suppliers or your partners, you've vertically integrated through your company. Have you seen any specific interest out of investors because of that story? Do you see that as a positive growth story for you?

Stefano Buono [00:25:56] Well, by chance is how I grew my previous company in nuclear medicine. We wanted to develop nuclear medicine drugs, treatment. But that was longer and complicated. And after two years, we started to produce fluorodeoxyglucose. That is another drug diagnostic and was generating pre-revenues. When we finally registered the drug... So, we reached the big goal of having a nuclear medicine treatment for cancer... Very successful treatment for neuroendochrine tumors. We had 160 million of pre-revenues, so it was important very much.

Stefano Buono [00:26:50] When you make a new drug, it's a little bit like making a new company in nuclear. You have to spend maybe 10 years of development and at least 1 billion in expenses. But if you have pre-revenues, you are already building a company underneath this. So, it's the same mechanism. So, I think that investors are also looking at my previous success because the company was then sold to Novartis after being listed on the NASDAQ for $3.9 billion.

Stefano Buono [00:27:27] By looking at my background as also an entrepreneur... And at the end, the same strategy adopted in the nuclear field, which is of course different, because there's medicine and energy. But there's a very high level of complexity, of nuclear complexity as well. I think, this is encouraging investors to support us financially.

Adam Smith [00:27:57] Yeah, you can certainly tell the story well to them; you can draw those parallels. And are you out raising in the capital markets right now to raise more money for the company to build the SMRs, or are you fully funded today and you're ready to go and you've got your investors onboard?

Stefano Buono [00:28:16] We are. We are fully funded in the sense that we have a runway of a few years. But I think we will never end raising money. Yes, we are in the process of raising money. There is a nice momentum for us. We are in the middle of a raise. I think we're going to announce an important milestone by the end of the summer. That is building up, so we are actually getting subscription and so on. So, I think we're going to communicate on that by the end of the summer as a first step of, let's say, two tranches of the operation that we have in mind.

Adam Smith [00:28:59] Amazing. I was looking at your history before this interview. And one pervasive issue with the nuclear industry is raising enough capital, especially through the private capital markets. And it seems like you've been fairly successful with your previous raises. I always love to see more private capital markets investment into some of these newer Gen IV, or just broadly, SMR companies.

Stefano Buono [00:29:26] Yes. One important thing is that you don't have to deceive the investor, ever. We try not to overpromise and we of course try to deliver a little bit more, more than what we promised.

Adam Smith [00:29:42] Underpromise, overdeliver.

Stefano Buono [00:29:45] Yeah. Sometimes it's difficult because if you are fair, you have to tell them that they're not going to see a reactor being operated before '31, which is already for Europe, an aggressive schedule, especially for an advanced nuclear reactors generation. But we cannot miss these dates and we have to work on that, otherwise we will not have the support. We have to be delivering on the milestones that will lead to these results. So far, we were lucky because we managed to deliver on these milestones. And I think that our strategies of also consolidating the industry was a little bit of a surprise for our investors. A positive surprise, because if they see contribution from revenues supporting their investment, it's nicer than just having a cash burn.

Adam Smith [00:30:48] Yep, yep. It's all about the cash flow at the end of the day. And is that 2031 timeline... Is that your timeline for the first 30 megawatt system to go online?

Stefano Buono [00:31:01] Yes. The nice thing is that by the end of '26, we will be having a non-nuclear reactor operating. That is a machine that will be heated by heated rods. But it will contain all of the elements of our reactor up to the turbine. Which is important for us because the operating temperature of a lead reactor, quite peculiar. We cannot go below 350 degrees in every part of the system. Meaning that if we connect the steam generator to the reactor, it has to be fed at that temperature control.

Stefano Buono [00:31:49] So, all of the BOP is peculiar to our use. The operation, the startup of the reactor. There are other things that need to be tested and integrated in its integrity. We decided to build and operate this precursor, we call it, essentially for five years before before finally having the real reactor operating. The components will have a longer qualification, I would say. Some components will be the same scale, some others will be in a little bit smaller scale. We are not going to produce 100 megawatt thermal, of course, because it would be too costly. The power scale is one-tenth.

Stefano Buono [00:32:45] We are also building and we actually already have some equipment, lead loops, to test the components and qualifying the components separately. We have already completed two of these installations, these loops. We are going to install the first one by the end of this year, a fourth one at the beginning of next year. So, we are building a huge qualification and testing facility that is useful for the demonstration of our reactor. And it's going to be useful for the future because we would like to increase the operating temperature of lead. Lead is boiling at 1,742 degrees, so it's a very high boiling point. We could go higher in temperature if you have the right materials. So, this facility will be useful not only to qualify the full system, but also to test new materials for the future.

Adam Smith [00:33:50] What are the benefits of going with a higher temperature system using lead?

Stefano Buono [00:33:57] Of course, we plan to use the reactors not only for producing electricity, but also for producing heat to combine in industrial processes. As far as the electricity is concerned, the thermal cycle of Superphénix had a higher temperature of 520 degrees. And with this temperature, the efficiency of electricity production was 42%. So, we want to at least reach this 42% that has been demonstrated like 50 years ago. It's a minimum goal for us.

Stefano Buono [00:34:42] But then, of course, the higher we can go with higher temperature, the higher the temperature of the heat that we can provide. So, to improve the efficiency in some industrial processes. Of course, some of them, they need low-temperature heat. Our machine is already doing a good job in providing steam. At the same time, for example, for the production of sustainable fuel and so on, or even green chemistry. Just simply, chemical process to produce chemical product as well. So, for this we are already, of course, providing a solution, but the higher we go with the temperature, the wider is the solution we can provide. For example, if you want to decarbonize the steel industry, the higher you go with the temperature you provide, the better it is because you save energy in the process.

Adam Smith [00:35:42] Yep, capturing the entirety of the heavy industrial processes.

Stefano Buono [00:35:51] At the end, the small modular reactors don't have competitors in the renewables on industrial application because producing... Being on the side of an industry with windmills and solar is not possible because you have an industrial environment and already you don't have the space, or you connect with a long line. Then, to have the accommodation. In industrial processes, you have to work 24/7. So, you need accommodation; that's another cost.

Stefano Buono [00:36:29] And then at the end, you have to create the heat from the electricity, which does not make any sense. So in the field, I think that there is a unique role that we can play with the nuclear industry. While in the production of electricity, we have to be level with renewable energy to be complementary to these energies. We can help by having a little modulation of our energy output during the day. And this is also what we are integrating into our system, the possibility to provide more power or less power during the day without changing the power of the reactor itself, but having accumulation on the BOP.

Adam Smith [00:37:25] And this sounds like you've done quite a bit of work already on not only the customer side, but the construction or the partners that you might use for construction of your units. Do you have or are you able to say publicly who you're working with for delivery of your units?

Stefano Buono [00:37:43] Well, with many companies. And I don't want to forget some, so I won't...

Adam Smith [00:37:49] Fair.

Stefano Buono [00:37:51] But they are European, I would say, mostly companies. And of course, in France, the big companies like Framatome. But also smaller ones. But I really don't want to forget names.

Adam Smith [00:38:12] No worries, no worries.

Stefano Buono [00:38:14] I see that in companies that are really partners. Maybe they are less known in the US, these kinds of companies. And a few companies are also very active in fusion systems, because the technology that they produce is very high-quality technology. And some of the nuclear companies in Europe are supporting also the fusion research because of their projects in the past.

Stefano Buono [00:38:45] Now, I think that will be fully booked for many years, honestly, so we have to rebuild capacity. We have to, to start from the education. We have to, again, push the younger generation to become nuclear engineers or just simply engineers and technicians because we really need a lot of people in Europe. In France, it's estimated that 220,000 people work in the nuclear industry. We have to have 100,000 people in less than 10 years. So, it's a huge challenge, and it's also a huge opportunity for Europe.

Adam Smith [00:39:29] Yeah, absolutely. I personally believe that nuclear over the next 10 or 15 years will end up being a major component of every European country's baseload power, so you're going to need hundreds of thousands of workers across the European continent to really run these facilities, to build the facilities, to do additional research as you build out and look at other technologies. It doesn't matter where you're at... Even in the US, I don't think we have enough people on this just because the wave of new technologies and new power plants that will be built. We've got to start getting people into these nuclear engineering programs.

Stefano Buono [00:40:14] Well, it's exciting to have these problems. Let's think 10 years back with the drama.

Adam Smith [00:40:22] It's certainly a better problem to have in the reverse.

Stefano Buono [00:40:25] Yes.

Adam Smith [00:40:29] At newcleo, it sounds like you're working on demonstration project coming up. Are there other exciting announcements that you're looking at or exciting projects that you're thinking about in the next year or so?

Stefano Buono [00:40:44] Yes, we started to work with the industry. One nice aspect is a collaboration we have with the chemical industry, MAIRE Tecnimont. They're investing a lot in what they call green chemistry that is producing ammonia, sustainable fuels, through the production of hydrogen. They're also working on the reuse of CO2 after carbon capture.

Stefano Buono [00:41:20] And this is a big company, a big, public company in Europe. And they really believe that nuclear is the solution to be put close to their plants in order to be successful economically, and to be able to do this green chemistry at reasonable cost. This company is coming from the oil and gas industry. I hope more and more investment from this industry will power our own nuclear industry, because I believe the fears on nuclear are really dropping one after the other in Europe. I see the excitement.

Stefano Buono [00:42:12] We have interacted with other oil companies; we have interacted with Solvay, and of course the steelmakers. There are really a number of entrepreneurs that need a lot of energy that are getting excited about nuclear. And I think this is where we are going to play a relevant role in the next few years to build opportunities that are going beyond electricity production.

Adam Smith [00:42:46] Yeah, it's exciting right now in the industry. You can really feel the tailwinds pushing at your back with this. It's just more announcements of countries increasing their threshold for nuclear within their energy generation mix. And you have all the SMR companies or even some of the gigawatt scale manufacturers making all these announcements about where they're building these plants, how many they're going to build, all the decarbonization benefits that you receive from it. So, it's definitely a very exciting time in the industry.

Adam Smith [00:43:20] Well, we're almost out of time here. Do you have any last thoughts or messages that you'd like to leave with our listeners?

Stefano Buono [00:43:29] No, I think just another testimony from Europe. Even the European Union is changing, a little bit, their mind. We had an announcement of the European Investment Bank coming back to invest into nuclear. We have a lot of interest with the European Commission to support the development of nuclear.

Stefano Buono [00:43:51] And we have the G7 in Italy this year. Italy is a country that left nuclear in '87 after the accident of Chernobyl. It is back on track with the idea of supporting nuclear. And nuclear is on the agenda of the G7. This Sunday, we are going to have the first announcement being made. We are hosting an event for the G7, all of the nuclear industry, including of course, the American industry as present. And we are making a common declaration on Sunday that will be signed by four ministries as well. Very happy, so stay tuned for the text of this declaration.

Adam Smith [00:44:40] I look forward to that announcement. Stefano, thank you for coming on the show.

Stefano Buono [00:44:45] Thank you very much for hosting me.

‍