TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Modernizing Comanche Peak and More (0:38)
0:38-10:49 (Clinton Carter discusses how he was involved in modernizing Comanche Peak, building the largest industrial wireless network, and expanding the idea to other locations over the course of his 35 year career there.)

Q. How did you get into the energy and nuclear sector to begin with?
A. (0:42) Clinton Carter grew up in Kansas and worked for an engineering firm. He became fascinated with the technology behind nuclear engineering and the “nuclear magic” that happens to generate power. Clinton remembers when Wolf Creek, the only nuclear reactor in Kansas, was being built and found the technology interesting.

He completed his degree in Nuclear Engineering from Kansas State University. Shortly after, he went to work for the Comanche Peak nuclear power station that was under construction in Texas. The plant was a 2-unit 4-loop pressurized water reactor Westinghouse design. He started in an emergency planning role and worked his way through the plant in the 20 years he worked there, working on projects in operations, licensing, engineering, nuclear administration, reliability programs, and as senior reactor operator.

In Clinton’s first role in emergency planning he had to prepare for any potential risk, as it’s required by law to protect the health and safety of the public and respond to any design basis scenario. He spent his days writing emergency plan scenarios and running drill scenarios to demonstrate Comanche Peak’s readiness to the nuclear regulatory commission in order to receive their operating license and safely operate the plant. Those scenarios include responding to a leak from a reactor coolant system and needing to protect the core, dealing with offsite power outages, and evacuation procedures for both the plant and the public up to a 10 mile radius.

Clinton doesn’t believe the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) has been reconsidered after the Fukushima event because it’s a product of analysis identifying areas in most direct harm. After an accident like Fukushima or a similarly devastating event, long-term action would be taken up to 50 miles from the site.

Clinton had an interesting experience while he was in operations at Comanche Peak. He became involved in a new technology-based initiative to modernize internal plant processes, which lead to the development of the world’s largest industrial wireless network in one of the most complex environments in the world, a nuclear power plant. They used the infrastructure of almost 400 access points across the plant to enable more point-to-point communication, improve workforce efficiencies, allow mobile computers and install equipment condition monitoring through wireless sensing technologies. When that project wrapped up at Comanche Peak, the company wanted to expand the success beyond the plant so they built a corporate advanced monitoring and diagnostics center for their entire generating fleet throughout Texas, which they called the Power Optimization Center.

For the last 15 years, he’s been at the corporate offices working to scale the robust 24-7 monitoring facility to optimize each nuclear power plant’s safety, reliability, and performance. They are currently monitoring over 50 stations and over 100 operating units coast-to-coast.

It was a complex project to complete because nuclear regulations are designed to preserve the power plant environment and ensure that everything is in the state it needs to be to respond. Clinton needed to prove that installing a wifis system would never interfere with each particular component.

Nuclear Safety Requirements and What Needs to Change (10:50)
10:50-16:30 (Clinton Carter and Bret Kugelmass discuss how antiquated regulations slow innovation in the nuclear sector and what can be done to change the outlook of nuclear energy in the future.)

Q. At some point, are we too ridiculous with our requirements?
A. (10:52) Clinton thinks that is part of the challenge that the legacy nuclear industry is facing today. If you rewind a few decades, the message was that nuclear power was going to be too cheap to meter, and nuclear energy was not far off from that until disruptive technologies turned the tables and collapsed market prices. While nuclear is still relatively inexpensive by former standards, nuclear energy can’t sustain economic competitiveness with natural gas right now. Over time, as events have happened and the nuclear industry has learned, more and more regulations have been added. The nuclear industry is carrying 30 years of burden and it finds itself stuck in a place where it’s difficult to change.

In order to change that, the nuclear industry needs to look at innovative approaches to comply with regulations and engage regulators. Clinton offers this up as an example; For example, after 9/11, the nuclear industry made a tremendous investment in nuclear security. Even though the threat hasn’t materialized, most of the regulations are still in place. There are some initiatives now to unbundle some of those regulations, but the reality is that these changes take time.

In the interim, part of what they’re doing under their DOE remote monitoring project is looking at new and innovative ways to satisfy regulations. For example, operators currently take local temperature readings in over 100 rooms twice a day to verify temperatures are within a safe range. By installing wireless sensors, the same work can be done at the push of a button.

In America historically, the nuclear industry has done things in a manual fashion. Formal procedures and processes have been built to sustain what works, but now the opportunity is to take all of this manual maintenance and optimize the process to improve efficiency and drive costs down.

We have many examples where other industries have moved forward with technology without the regulatory overhead that the nuclear power industry has to manage. The nuclear industry is dedicated to preserving nuclear safety. If that takes time, it takes time but they will never compromise reactor safety for economic benefit.

A New Industry Demonstration and the Role of Machine Learning in Nuclear (16:30)
16:30-28:30 (Clinton Carter shares the Utility Service Alliance’s $14 million industry demonstration funded in part by the Department of Energy. Clinton and and Bret discuss if there is a necessity for AI or machine learning in the nuclear industry.)

Q: What happens next in your career? When did you move on?
A: (16:34) Clinton was contacted by the president of Utility Service Alliance about three or four years ago. The industry was looking at how to respond to the emerging economic crisis. He began work on an initiative called Delivering the Nuclear Promise together with other members of the industry and the Nuclear Energy Institute. The Utility Service Alliance began asking if they could take the learnings from Clinton’s work on power plant monitoring from Luminant to modernize, centralize, and ultimately drive costs out of the business. The project evolved into meetings with the Department of Energy to seek funding to move in that direction. They built a framework and strategy for how to modernize the fleet using advanced technology and offered the Utility Service Alliance as an industry demonstration, making their findings available to the entire industry after the project.

The project is just getting started. In May 2019, the Utility Service Alliance was awarded a grant from the Department of Energy towards the $14 million dollar cost share industry demonstration. They are currently in contract negotiations with the Department of Energy but expect those negotiations to be completed in the next few weeks, implementing the project at the beginning of 2020.

The objective of the project is to demonstrate how to apply advanced technologies to nuclear businesses and nuclear programs in power plants through the use of advanced field sensing technology that emulate human senses to minimize walk around inspections, data collection, and analysis. They will use cameras, video cameras, infrared sensors, acoustics, and vibration monitoring technologies to emulate human senses. Modern sensing technologies exceed the ability of human monitoring and they are inexpensive compared to a full-time employee.

They are also working with Idaho National Labs, a lab that has many impressive technologies already ready for demonstration in the nuclear environment. Together, they’d like to develop machine learning algorithms to take the data from the field sensors to identify when something warrants human attention.

Clinton says the project is really a three phase initiative. First, basic monitoring and alarm technology. He’s been doing this for 15 years now at Luminant. Now, we’re at a point as an industry where we need to take the next step to derive further value. Secondly, they’ll create a shared services technology platform for USA members. As they develop modules that will pull in data from the plant, analyze them, and deliver results, they’ll learn things through the machine learning algorithms.

Bret discusses his concern in using AI and machine learning for the nuclear industry because the regulator requires that it understands the technology going into each plant. AI and machine learning as understood today inherently undermines that because we literally don’t understand what happens inside the computer. He fears that a rush to bring the technology to fruition welcomes an expensive and prohibitive NRC review.

Clinton will be at NRC tomorrow to have a similar conversation with their R&D department. He encourages Bret to view the machine learning as supplemental monitoring. They are still complying fully with regulatory requirements capably and confidently, but this is above and beyond that to learn something about the environment. It’s not required by regulation to learn that information, but Clinton believes that it will improve the nuclear industry to understand. When nuclear regulations were created, this type of technology didn’t even exist. It wasn’t considered as a possibility. Predictive technologies is the right place to be for satisfying PM requirements and taking credit for monitoring the plant currently, but it may not always be.

The Importance of the Legacy Fleet (28:13)
28:13-32:06 (Clinton Carter shares the importance of the legacy fleet of existing nuclear generating plants to ensure the future of nuclear and the nation.)

Q: Clinton, what are some other problems you see in the industry throughout your career?
A: (28:44) Clinton believes we need to take a closer look at the larger nuclear industry. He sees congress promoting and supporting R&D, and enhancing regulatory processes to support next generation reactor technology and small modular reactor technologies. Clinton finds that fantastic, but worries that he doesn’t see any legislation whatsoever focused on existing nuclear generating fleet. Clinton says the legacy fleet has achieved a safety level that is unparalleled and has never been matched by any other industry in the world. Simply because of economics, ¼ of the generating fleet is most likely going to shut down if nothing changes in the very near future. He says it may be sexy to invest in next generation technology but here you’ve got a fleet of generators that is the envy of every other industry and every other nuclear operation around the globe. Clinton believes that it is important to preserve current nuclear systems to allow next generation nuclear time to develop, test, and scale up. He finds this important to the future of our country, not only the nuclear industry.

Plasma Physics & Magnetic Reconnection (0:29)
0:29-12:07 (Scott Hsu reflects on his early interest in energy and how it led him to study plasma physics and magnetic reconnection)

Q: Where did your interest in fusion first come up?
A: Scott Hsu remembers the oil crisis of the 1970’s even as a very young child growing up in the Los Angeles areas. In high school, Scott did a research project on fusion, which flipped the switch on his interest in energy and fusion. Scott later took multiple physics classes taught by plasma physicists during his time at UCLA, leading him to work in the lab of Dr. Francis Chen. The discipline of plasma physics was largely invented and developed because of the chase to do fusion. Plasma is a collection of charged particles in which the electrons are stripped off the nucleus, forming a sea of electrons and ions. Enough of the electrons need to be stripped off so that the charged gas has its own set of collective behavior governed by the electromagnetic field. Typically, a temperature close to 10,000 degrees Kelvin is needed for a plasma to exist. Usually, plasmas have much lower densities than solids and even air.

After deciding he wanted to pursue fusion while at UCLA, Scott proceeded to study fusion at Princeton, the top plasma physics program in the country, if not the world. Early on, he had a big interest in the theoretical aspects of fusion heating systems. The year after Scott got to Princeton, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) was on the page of The New York Times for setting the world record in fusion energy produced. Eventually, TFTR got to about 10 megawatts of thermal energy power production, if only for a very short duration. The TFTR used deuterium and tritium in the fusion process. The lightest elements are the most acceptable; deuterium-deuterium (DD) and deuterium-tritium (DT) are the most common elements used in these experiments. Tritium is hard to come by because it has a 12-year half life and it more difficult to handle. Tritium can take the place of hydrogen and form water molecules, so it cannot get into water systems or into a person’s body, but the legitimate dangers of it are not that severe.

Scott’s area of focus during his PhD was in magnetic reconnection, a very fundamental piece of plasma physics. If magnetic fields are brought together in a way that they have opposing directions, they will cancel each other, but the energy contained in a magnetic field will then be converted into plasma motion. Scott took direct measurements of what was going on in that layer as the fields cancel each other out. The canceling of the magnetic fields provide heating of the plasma, which can be harnessed in good ways, but it takes a lot of energy to slam the plasmas together. This is typically not enough to get to where you need to be for net gain fusion energy. The instantaneous, impulsive heating must be maintained for a certain duration at a certain density to have a chance at net gain fusion.

Fusion Programs at ARPA-E (12:07)
12:07-26:40 (How the fusion program at ARPA-E was formed and how it has impacted the development of fusion technology)

Q: What became of your studies with magnetic reconnection?
A: Scott Hsu focused on the effects of magnetic reconnection during his PhD studies at Princeton, leading to some very good scientific results. One of the luminaries in the field of fusion, Dr. Russell Kulsrud, stopped by Scott’s lab during a measurement of the profile of the magnetic field across the reconnection layer. He called Scott’s work the most exciting result in plasma physics in 20 years. Scott then went to Caltech to do a post-doc on an alternate fusion concept called a spheromak. Like a tokamak, a spheromak has a donut-shaped magnetic configuration, but it doesn’t have a solid center rod and it requires internal plasma dynamics to create the field structure, rather than strong applied fields from toroidal field magnets. However, spheromaks have not shown the heat confinement properties as a tokamak. After his post-doc, Scott went to Los Alamos, where he has now spent 17 years. Since the mid-1990’s, Los Alamos is not allowed to do integrated tests of the full system. There are international agreements to abide by which set the rules for this testing.

Pat McGrath, at ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), decided he wanted to formulate a fusion program around 2013. At the time, the breadth of things being studied in fusion was winnowing due to pressures from different directions. Some concepts reached their performance limit with the current physics knowledge, but there were also new concepts that didn’t have a well-developed scientific understanding until much later. There is an effort to compile the information about fusion concepts as a working history of the technology. Scott has been going around to the different fusion communities to identify legitimate opportunities. ARPA-E’s Alpha program funded three different areas, including integrated concepts to push fusion performance. One of these projects, the Stabilized Z-Pinch, made tremendous progress and got an award in the 2018 ARPA-E Open program, allowing them to continue their work. Z-Pinch was one of the earliest concepts ever studied: driving a current through a plasma or a wire, creating an electromagnetic force that pinches it. ARPA-E was able to push performance of this project by increasing current.

Experiments in Electromagnetic Physics (26:40)
26:40- (A review of some past and present fusion experiments and how they are being used in costing studies)

Q: Are we learning new things about fundamental particles themselves or physics itself?
A: These fusion experiments are not necessarily providing new information about fundamental particles or physics. Plasma physics is classical electromagnetic physics, a complicated N-body system. In a plasma, all the particles cannot be followed for a meaningful experiment and one can’t predictively calculate what is going to happen. In the Z-Pinch project, the difference in flow between the center and outside of the wire stabilizes the “kink” in the “sausage”. Other opportunities include the concept called LINUS. The Naval Research Lab (NRL) studied LINUS in the late 1970’s, a spinning liquid metal that also compresses a plasma to fusion conditions. The problem at the time was the ability to complete the operation at a certain speed with the required precision. Later on, the use of advanced electronics understanding can be used to power the implosion and an improved plasma physics understanding used to get the right plasma inside the compression.

Through the years, a series of government-sponsored reactor costing studies called ARIES were performed. Scott finds himself arguing fusion people down in cost and energy advocates up in cost, since it’s not a fair comparison to pit fusion, or nuclear, against the cheapest natural gas since they provide different benefits. There is a key difference between fission and fusion. On a fusion power plant, there should not be any fissile materials present, which is a binary advantage. Fission plants use fissile material as the fuel. The microreactor class-size concept has not been questioned enough, because it would be difficult to track the widespread fissile materials.

ARPA-E’s Alpha program focused in general on the class of magnetized pulsed concepts, called magneto-inertial fusion. The main approach at Sandia National Labs is based on this idea of imploding concepts with a magnetic field. With the role of ARPA-E in the energy funding ecosystem, ARPA-E is tasked with higher risk, higher reward approaches and going back to looking at fundamental ways of making fusion more attractive. This could be with advanced fuels or finding legitimate ways to control the fusion cross-section. There is evidence that the nuclear fusion cross-section in a condensed matter environment. Two bare hydrogen ions or isotopes, which have the same charge, need to be slammed with enough energy that they get close enough that the probability of quantum tunneling is big enough to cause them to fuse. This effective area provides the probability.

Technical and Economic Feasibility of Fusion (40:04)
40:04-53:53 (How the marriage between technical and economic feasibility of fusion can bring change to the world)

Q: If an isotope of an element has a lot more neutrons than protons, why can’t it be put towards another element or isotope that also has a lot more neutrons to hold each other together?
A: Neutrons do not keep everything together, but instead a subatomic particle called a gluon. If two neutral atoms are close together, there is no electromagnetic repulsion; this may be a gas. However, if they were in a solid, a lattice holds everything together through chemical bonds. The understanding of nuclear fusion cross-sections has been largely developed in a high energy, two-body picture. One question is if this picture is applicable in a low energy, condensed matter environment. A recent Google study aimed to do careful, rigorous, scientific measurements of loading hydrogen into palladium samples and doing careful calorimetry. There is very sparse data on the fusion cross-section, whether it is in condensed matter or not, below a few keV of energy. The cross-section gets so small that it is hard to get a meaningful signal. ARPA-E insists on a really good, credible science basis, even if they don’t understand it yet.

LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, looks at whether nuclear reactions can happen at chemical relevant energies and whether nuclear binding energies, which are typically MeV, with only eV level energy inputs. LENR doesn’t necessarily have to be fusion, but could also be other nuclear transmutations of nuclear capture processes. Scientists and physicists know fusion works in a star; it’s a matter of harnessing it on Earth in an economic way. Fusion has an opportunity right now due to a spread of opinions. One side just wants to demonstrate technical feasibility at all costs; the other side wants to focus on making it commercially and economically attractive. The opportunity right now is for the U.S. as a country, and for the whole world, to decide how urgent and bold they want to be to find the right spot in the spectrum. The world is focused on technical feasibility, but the private companies are looking for economic feasibility. Scott Hsu went to ARPA-E to accelerate the meeting of the minds of the two ends to allow fusion to have an impact in a timescale that matters for our problems this century.

Julian’s journey (1:46)
1:46-7:10 (Julian explains how he became involved in the nuclear sector via sociology.)

Q. What brought you into the field of sociology?
A. Julian Gadano was first attracted to public policy because he wanted to work on things that mattered. He became involved with the nuclear sector when studying the social side of the industry ten years ago. Julian is fascinated by the difference between perception of nuclear risk and actual risk. He then focused his research on political science, turning to nuclear security and international perspectives of the nuclear sector. After working at the regulator for seven years, Julian was appointed to the position of Deputy Secretary of Nuclear Energy for the Argentine Republic by Mauricio Macri in 2015. He is currently responsible for the execution of nuclear policy in Argentina, however, this position is politically appointed and will end when the next administration takes office. Julian is sure he will stay in the nuclear sector after leaving this job.

The Argentinian nuclear industry (7:11)
7:11-10:19 (Julian discusses the Argentinian nuclear industry and how he manages being both President of the Board of Directors and Deputy Secretary.)

Q. What is the structure of the Argentinian nuclear industry?
A. The public sector is very important in Argentina, so the utility is public owned. Argentina’s three nuclear power plants are all owned and operated publically. Julian is the President of the Board of Directors for the utility in addition to being the Deputy Secretary. While these roles are quite different, Julian says his strong teams make it work. Argentina has a strong group of nuclear professionals, particularly those nearing retirement age and the younger generation. Due to a lull in nuclear development in the 1990s, Argentina’s middle aged nuclear workers are lacking. In addition to the publicly owned utility and strong workforce, Argentina’s private companies are also strong. These are well balanced with the NGOs that ensure balanced discussions take place within the sector.

Leaving his mark on the nuclear sector (10:20)
10:20-18:49 (Julian discusses how he found the mark he can leave on the world and how he wants to restart the Argentinian nuclear industry.)

Q. What did you think your current role would be like and how does it differ from what you actually do?
A. Julian wants to leave his mark on the world. He does this by finding a way to bring the different entities within the nuclear industry together by facilitating conversations and ensuring information flows. He also hopes to restart the nuclear industry. Between the 1950s and 1980s, the nuclear industry worked well with the Argentinian Navy. But after the 1980s, the navy took a step back from nuclear, and the Atomic Energy Commission lost some political support. Julian is trying to reinvigorate the nuclear sector, but with a different agenda than the militaristic one of the Cold War Era. Julian wants to see more transparency and efficiency along with economically viable projects.

The CAREM project (18:50)
18:50-27:58 (Julian explains the CAREM reactor and how it represents the nuclear industry moving forwards.)

Q. What is the CAREM reactor?
A. Julian sees Argentina’s industry becoming a CAREM factory. While he acknowledges the importance of innovation and fusion, Julian sees financing CAREM as more important. The CAREM reactor is the third power reactor design in Argentina. Argentina already has a well developed research reactor sector. However, a power reactor has different objects and conditions than a research reactor. The CAREM project is the first Small Modular Reactor to be designed in Argentina. SMRs may not be perfect, but they represent the new thinking that is pushing the nuclear sector forwards. SMRs are smaller, meaning crisis are better dealt with. They are modular, meaning 12 reactors can be placed in one unit and managed from a single control room. Additionally, all parts of the reactors are integrated into the vessel. This means they can be manufactured in one factory, decreasing production costs.

Commercializing the CAREM (27:59)
27:59-35:24 (Julian explains the future commercialization of the CAREM reactors. He also discusses that while much safer than other reactors, safety should not be the focus of public discussion.)

Q. Will Argentina build a factory and export CAREMs?
A. Exporting CAREMs is currently in Argentina’s future, but the new Deputy Secretary may have alternate priorities. The CAREM project is currently in the second stage, meaning the prototype is beginning to transform into a commercially viable model. This will require a different group of people to take on the project to move it from the R&D approach and into the commercial space. Julian envisions a new organization with strong engineering abilities and international ties to be part of this transformation. Successfully selling reactors requires an organization to first have strong financial backing and Julian explains that international ties helps secure this. While not particularly set on if the organization will be public or private, Julian notes that the organization must be well organized, have a strong framework and have intelligent people involved.

Julian also states the advantages of the smaller CAREM reactor. It has a passive safety system, meaning the reactor can be cooled without external assistant for 26 to 36 hours. The decay heat can dissipated naturally without harming structural materials. An external pump is not needed and any potential crisis can be isolated. While the CAREM introduces a new level of safety to the industry, Julian emphasizes the need for the sector to work on public communication to move away from the idea of nuclear power being dangerous.

Creating a need for nuclear (35:25)
35:35-45:09 (Julian explains how learning from the aerospace industry can help the nuclear sector show people that they need nuclear energy.)

Q. Is it possible that behaving calmly and rationally is the answer to public communication?
A. Julian points out that humanity is living in the post-industrial period and many people are against big industry. The nuclear industry must look to aerospace to understand how to change public perceptions. In general, people like airplanes and easily move on from newsworthy airplane disasters. This is because people like to travel and know that planes are a necessity. The nuclear industry must work towards influencing a change of mind about the necessity of nuclear power. Increasing the desire for nuclear power, however, is difficult. It can be achieved by creating pride in a country’s nuclear industry. Young influences could help create this change. While the industry has traditionally been old fashioned, Julian is optimistic in the sector’s ability to improve public perception.

Supporting younger nuclear leaders (45:10)
45:10-53:27 (Julian discusses how younger minds are being supported to take on higher positions in nuclear and how this strategy will bring about a nuclear renaissance.)

Q. Why don’t young people take over the industry?
A. Julian tells the story of looking within a company to replace a retiring reactor manager with a younger worker rather than an older professional. This allows for sharp, younger minds to rise to the top to move the industry forward. Julian sees the need for more conversations to take place to convince people that nuclear power is a great industry. Nuclear needs to move past the desire of acceptance and, in the words of Suzanne Jaworowski, “make nuclear cool again.” In 15 years, Julian sees a nuclear renaissance bringing about a cleaner world. Julian is optimistic, predicting a world with more technology and a different mindset.

The Past and Present Plans for Nuclear in the UK (0:34)
0:34-8:23 (Andrew Sherry and Bret Kugelmass discuss the history of nuclear technology research and support in the UK starting with a three phase plan using magnox power stations and advanced gas-cooled reactors through the “dash for gas” in the 1980s and through to today’s Nuclear Innovation Program.)

Q. I would love to learn about your origin story in the nuclear sector.
A. (0:37) Andrew Sherry, currently the Chief Scientist at the National Nuclear Laboratory in the UK, fell into the nuclear sector after seizing the first job opportunity offered to him after his studies, one at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, in 1987. Prior to that, he studied metallurgy, the study of metals and alloys, and completed a PhD on aerospace metals, specifically single crystal turbine blades, both at the University of Manchester. He says the nuclear industry could learn a lot from the aerospace sector.

When Andrew was at the UKAEA in the 1980’s, the research organization was responsible for developing the UK’s future reactor systems. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority operated prototype reactors like sodium-cooled fast reactors and high temperature gas-cooled reactors among others. Andrew was in the materials/engineering/metallurgy department working on pressure vessel steels, in particular the pressure vessel that is now used in Sizewell B, the first pressurized water reactor used in the UK.

Bret discusses how the UK has a special nuclear history, born at the same time the U.S. nuclear history was, from developing intellectual nuclear capability and the bomb together during that time period. Then, the UK launched its own effort in commercial nuclear application using all of these different types of reactors just like the US.

Andrew thinks that the United Kingdom would like to design a new type of reactor if they could. Throughout the history of nuclear power in the UK, they’ve tried a variety of different reactor systems, resulting substantially in gas-cooled reactor technologies because they were more efficient. He explains that magnox reactors weren’t only used in the UK and were used more globally in the early stages of nuclear. While the rest of the world moved towards light water reactor technology, the United Kingdom held on to this magnox reactor technology. He cites Canada as an exception with their CANDU system.

The UK eventually landed on the high temperature gas-cooled reactor technology in its first two phases of nuclear development. Andrew explains that phase three was going to be pressurized water reactors.

Andrew explains that the cabinet office was having discussions in the late 50’s and 60’s around how to deliver the electricity that the United Kingdom needed. The plan even went as far as to define how many gigawatts of nuclear electricity they would want to generate during the 1960s using magnox power stations. In phase two, the UK shifted to advanced gas-cooled reactors and experimented with higher temperatures and different fuels and materials.

The next phase in the plan was going to be a fleet of pressurized water reactors, the first of which was at Sizewell B. Sizewell B became the only one to be built because of the “dash for gas” and influences of North Sea Gas. In the 1980’s and 90’s, the United Kingdom lost interest in building nuclear power stations and conducting research to advance nuclear power systems.

Andrew explains that he joined the organization when they already were pioneering research, testing reactors, using prototypes and had many sites around the country. Shortly after, the nuclear vision changed for the country making the UKAEA obsolete. There was less and less R&D and facilities closed throughout the 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s.

Andrew explains that it wasn’t until the 2005-2010 period in the UK when people started to believe nuclear power was really important to the future of the country. In order to have a nuclear power program, you have to think about future research for next generation reactors and fuels. The tide started to turn. People like the government’s Chief Scientific Advisor at the time, John Beddington, and others, began to map out a research portfolio for the 21st century.

Andrew explains that the United Kingdom is now essentially about three years into the first phase of a new nuclear R&D program called the Nuclear Innovation Program.

Andrew explains that the program focuses on the key technologies and options for the future of the UK nuclear sector. It covers short-term factors like advanced manufacturing, covers medium-term factors like advanced fuel technology, particularly around accident tolerant fuel, and covers future reactor technologies and fuel cycles. It covers near-term building today’s power stations, like at Hinkley Point C, the potential for small modular reactors, and on to sodium-cooled fast reactors and high temperature gas-cooled reactors. The program is about asking “what do we need to do now to maintain those possibilities for the future?”

Net Zero Carbon Emissions and Nuclear Affordability (8:23)
8:23-14:51 (The UK is the first country to agree to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Andrew believes nuclear could be more affordable using a fleet approach, advanced manufacturing, modular construction and learning from building experience.)

Q: If you had a magic wand, where would you be investing time and effort to address the challenges that the nuclear industry faces?
A: (8:42) Andrew and Bret agree that it comes back to economics. Different countries have different energy policies, but the UK is the first country to sign up to a “zero target” or net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Andrew explains that the UK is coming up towards a general election and different parties have different views on how aggressively to drive the net zero agenda, but the net zero target for 2050 is written in UK law either way. The UK will need to find a way to get there, but will need to get there in a way that is affordable.

Andrew believes that this is where nuclear faces a challenge. He cites the model produced by the Committee on Climate Change published in May 2019 which claims that net zero is possible and affordable. It said that, in order to maximize electricity use, not just in the way it is used today but in transport, heat, and more, the country will need twice as much electricity we have today. There are three ways to deliver that electricity currently. One is renewables, another is gas technologies with carbon-capturing storage, and the third is nuclear.

Andrew explains that renewables, particularly off-shore wind, has really driven an aggressive cost-reduction program over the last few years. Andrew demonstrates this by comparing offshore wind costs with costs from Hinkley Point C. 5 years ago, off-shore wind cost about 150 pounds per megawatt hour. Hinkley Point C with one PWR, which will come onstream in 2025, costs 92.5 pounds per megawatt hour at a fixed rate for the next 30 years. The latest auction in off-shore wind, which will come onstream in 2025 also, is now 39.5 pounds per megawatt hour, less than half the cost of nuclear. They’ve driven this aggressive cost reduction program by learning by building and by increasing the scale of wind turbines.

Bret explains that wind is an amazing example to look towards in terms of showing how manufacturing at scale could reduce your capital cost, but points out that any power source has a problem when it starts to saturate the grid as well.

Andrew agrees. He explains a model that the Committee on Climate Change have proposed for 2x the electricity by 2050 which includes 60% of the electricity coming from renewables, gas with carbon capturing storage, and a little bit of nuclear (but the Committee on Climate Change actually suggests less nuclear than we have today) with some overlap to balance that intermittency.

Andrew believes this is a risky strategy because gas with carbon capturing storage has not been demonstrated affordably at scale. He believes that half of the balance needed should be nuclear power to mitigate risk. Andrew explains that this requires a nuclear power to take a different approach in the UK so that it can be more affordable.

Andrew believes that many models take a conservative approach towards nuclear because they use today’s current price. He thinks the UK can learn from some of the studies that have been done on how to drive out costs on nuclear projects. For example, Andrew has seen that taking a fleet approach, learning from building experience, and getting into advanced manufacturing and modular construction can start to see the cost of nuclear reduce. He states that the largest part of the cost of nuclear today is actually the cost of the capital. Andrew explains that after cost reduction is demonstrated in one plant, the cost of capital and risk in investing in a second plant is reduced. He provides the example of EDF Energy’s aggressive targets for if they built the same plant they’re building at Hinkley Point C at Sizemore C the cost will be substantially lower. The fleet build approach is absolutely crucial for the UK.

6 Ways to Promote Nuclear Innovation and Affordability (14:51)
14:51-36:16 (Andrew shares six key ways to promote nuclear innovation and affordability after a cross-sector innovation roundtable including technology, leadership, collaboration, risk, financing, and regulation).

Q: And what’s the role that NNL plays in how to make nuclear affordable?
A: (15:08) When Andrew joined UKAEA in 1987, it was a national laboratory funded by the government, but he saw it go through an interesting transition towards commercialism. It had to learn how much things cost. It had to compete for work. The NNL now operates commercially, but doesn’t operate like a purely commercial organization because it has to think about the UK not just itself. It bids for work, works with regulators, works with industry and works internationally, but the NNL also works with government to provide the best advice as possible. The NNL separates the commercial business and the government consultation to avoid conflict.

Andrew likes to use the phrase “doing both.” The NNL is both a commercial organization and a national laboratory. Any profits made go back into science and technology and research for the future. Increasingly, because the UK government has increased funding for long-term research in nuclear, the NNL is doing substantial research around nuclear innovation around fuels and fuel cycle programs.

Bret wants to discuss priorities on innovation. We’re both on the same page about economics, economics, economics. If climate has a future, it needs nuclear. If nuclear has a future, it needs to reduce costs. What are the areas to prioritize to reduce costs?

The NNL have created a program around thought leadership in this space because Andrew believes that nuclear power cannot just carry on as is or there simply won’t be more nuclear power stations in the UK. They brought together a whole range of sectors to talk about innovation at the Royal Academy of Engineering. In addition to technical leaders in nuclear, Andrew brought together technical leaders from other industries like shipbuilding, space, medical and digital. He encouraged those representatives to disrupt the thinking of the nuclear industry. The sector leaders gave talks on why they innovate, how they innovate and what the benefit of innovation is. The group learned about blockchain technology and food technology, miniaturization of satellites, advanced materials, modular construction in shipbuilding, and the transformation of the construction sector.

There were six areas to focus to drive out cost coming out of the innovation roundtable. The first one was advanced technology which includes manufacturing, industry 4.0, artificial intelligence, and robotics. Andrew emphasizes that technology is only one of the six takeaways though. The second is leadership and culture. Andrew quotes Bill Macwood saying “if you brought back someone who worked in 1978 to an operating nuclear plant, they could pretty much pick up where they left off.” Andrew urges that, for a high-tech industry, that is unacceptable. Andrew quotes another Bill, Bill Gates saying that the great thing about nuclear is that nuclear hasn’t innovated, and now, it’s ripe to do so. Andrew calls this a real wake up call. He describes how many people who have worked in the nuclear industry have worked in it for many, many years and are resistant to change. It’s a cultural issue. Andrew says it comes down to leadership, commitment and what he calls a “relentless nudge” in one direction.

There are many models for developing leadership and culture. Andrew recommends a book called Turning the Ship Around by David Marquet, a US submarine captain who was put in charge of a submarine he was unfamiliar with. He realized that if he was going to change the performance of that boat, it was down to the people who worked for him. If he could empower them and become leaders themselves, he could do it. Andrew believes that the same principles apply for the nuclear sector and is applying them at NNL.

He explains that over time any industry can become complicated, cumbersome, and bureaucratic which adds time and cost. At NNL, they are currently running an experiment in a laboratory to empower people to problem solve for better efficiency and less waste without reducing standards right now. He calls for a change of culture from compliance to ownership.

Andrew’s third area of focus out of the innovation roundtable was around collaboration. As a nuclear sector, there is often collaboration with supply chains but rarely outside of the sector. Andrew encourages the sector to take technology that has been proven and bring it into nuclear so that the nuclear industry doesn’t have to invent everything itself.

The fourth area of focus to come out of the innovation roundtable is around and program management. How do we manage risk and what is our risk appetite in the nuclear sector? How can we do that differently? Andrew gives the example of regulation and innovation. How can we still demonstrate a target for safety but do it in a much simpler way? How do we simplify it and therefore improve it?

People point to the regulator and say “will they allow this?” but Andrew believes that the more important question is if industry will adopt it, because the industry has to do all of the work and holds the ownership.

Bret asks a provocative question about why - after Fukushima when the worst possible scenario happened and still not enough radiation was released into the air to hurt anyone - why wasn’t that brought up to challenge the regulator?

Andrew chocks it up to different countries and cultures having different approaches. The regulator in one sense is there to protect the public. They act on that in any industry. They are independent and trusted by the public. They are open and transparent. But with the nuclear industry, the public has a particular perception. NNL has done a lot of work in asking how to talk about the risk associated with nuclear power stations or radioactive waste with the public who might need nuclear energy one day.

(29:54) I know this isn’t going to sound nice, but is it possible that the very act of talking about risk makes them more afraid?
(30:01) Andrew thinks Bret is probably right. Airlines don’t talk about what happens when you crash, but interestingly the car industry does use safety as a selling feature.

(30:23) The next area of focus for the NNL is commercial models of financing. How do we finance these big long-term build programs in a different way. As part of the workshop, the NNL did a workshop with bankers and investors and pension holders. Andrew tells a story of the first question he was asked, the question of “why are we even here?” Then, the participants said “there are other things we can invest in that will give greater returns with less risk faster, but these small modular reactors. We like the sound of that.” Andrew emphasizes that innovation in financing is not just the financing model but what is being financed.

(32:03) The sixth and last area of focus for cost-saving innovation is enabling regulation. The regulator is an enabler of all of the other things spoken about already and has to be involved. The NNL brought together regulators from other sectors to learn how they might apply some principles from other sectors. One of the principles Andrew noticed was a duty for growth. The regulator isn’t there to shut industry down but to enable it in a safe and secure way. Bret and Andrew discuss how the US regulatory culture is one that doesn’t encourage economic growth but conservative decision-making. Andrew explains that the UK regulatory system is different because it doesn’t write the rule for industry to follow but simply writes principles. Another principle of regulators is one of FAIR which stands for facilitate, advise, influence, and regulate.

Implementing Change in the Nuclear Sector (36:16)
(36:16-43:55) How to implement innovation from other sectors and what the nuclear industry can learn from the US space industry and Elon Musk

Q: Now we’re actually wondering how we implement these things in practice.
A: (36:20) It’s not just a blueprint. If we’re going to change the way nuclear energy delivers low-carbon electricity or heat or hydrogen into the economy, these issues need to be addressed. Andrew says that at the moment there is a massive opportunity in the UK, but nuclear is just too expensive.

Andrew does see a higher level of competition in other sectors, particularly in the space sector. He encourages Bret to look at the space sector in the US where you have a space industry in NASA that has become bureaucratic and slow. Then, in comes disruptors who believe passionately in the future of space and commit large sums of personal wealth to deliver a new space industry in a new way. Bret argues that the nuclear sector isn’t allowed to test until failure like Elon Musk does in the space sector, even though he believes there is no good reason why we shouldn’t. Andrew reiterates that the industry sector does have a principle to innovate in a safe space. He continues saying that many of the physical tests have already been done. He encourages mining the history of what has already been tested in the past.

Andrew looks at the UK and it’s 10 gigawatts of nuclear power today. He says that in 10 years they will hardly have any because it will all be shut down. We talk of 50 gigawatts by 2050 in three streams of nuclear technology, like large nuclear like Hinkley Point C with a fleet approach, small modular reactors with a massive export opportunity, and advanced reactor technology. The fourth he would throw in is fusion, despite massive engineering challenges. He ends by saying that nuclear simultaneously needs to be concerned with the legacy and environmental consequences of these streams.

Jumping to success (1:48)
1:48-10:49 (Adrienne describes growing up in Scotland and how riding horses taught her that success only comes after hard work.)

Q. Where did this all begin for you?
A. Adrienne grew up near Glasgow in Scotland. Her father was a mechanical engineer and her mother did not work for many years due to an illness. When Adrienne was 5 years old, she rode a donkey and fell in love with horses. Her parents were able to support Adrienne through riding lessons and eventually bought her a pony when she was 12 years old. Her show jumping experience gave her a strong sense of discipline. The sport also taught her that failing is okay, especially when trying new things. While her first competition did not go well, Adrienne went on to win third place in a competition and later secured a scholarship with an Olympic show jumping coach. Adrienne uses this example to emphasize that becoming a success requires many hours of hard work.

An unconventional path to the nuclear sector (10:50)
10:50-20:06 (Andrienne explains that she does not hold a university degree and instead rose to upper management roles through the Lottery Fund.)

Q. So you then went to university?
A. No, Adrienne dropped out of college and does not hold a degree. She found the pace of school too slow and instead pursued a job as a personal assistant in England. Adrienne then worked as a temp for several years and was often presented with opportunities to learn new skills. Adrienne is driven to be useful and is attracted to the public sector and nonprofit work. This passion led her to the Lottery Fund, where she worked for 15 years. Her work focused on the distribution of funds to disadvantaged groups, which was important to Adrienne after becoming familiar with social inequities. During her 15 years at the Lottery Fund, Adrienne took on many different roles, from research to upper management. No matter the role, Adrienne found her time at the Lottery Fund to be emotionally engaging and, although humbling at times, enabled her to support many organizations doing great work in the UK. While Adrienne’s journey strengthened her emotional intelligence and managerial skills needed for her current position as the Chief Executive at the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), she is always looking for ways to grow.

A modern vision for the ONR (20:07)
20:07-27:03 (Adrienne describes how she became the Chief Executive of the ONR and the vision she presented during her interview.)

Q. How did you come into this role?
A. A headhunter approached Adrienne in 2016. She had little knowledge of the nuclear sector at the time, but decided she wanted to work with the ONR after reading about them. Her interview involved giving several presentations; Adrienne focused on the vision of the ONR and spoke about increasing accessibility by becoming less insular. She made three main points about this vision, the first being that the ONR is not in place to serve either government or industry, but serves the public. The second point emphasized that while the ONR focuses on ensuring a safe and secure nuclear industry, they must also modernize. The last point stressed competence and capability of staff, especially when replacing retiring inspectors and increasing diversity in new hires. The ONR has hired more than 400 new employees in the past 4 years and is recruiting different skill sets.

The ONR’s approach to new nuclear (28:04)
28:04-39:54 (Adrienne outlines the ways that the ONR approaches innovation from industry, emphasizing the need to engage in conversation early to save time and money.)

Q. How is the ONR engaging with the changing sector?
A. The ONR is supporting the UK government with the competition on Advanced Nuclear Technologies (ANTs.) The ONR must become engaged in this new technology to successfully advise government. The UK is technology agnostic, meaning technologies that meet standards are generally deployed, opening up opportunities to accelerate new technologies in the UK. This approach also includes a more flexible regulation process. Unlike many regulating bodies, the ONR publically states their regulation guidelines online. The ONR also works in collaboration with companies to avoid decisions that could lead to financial loss. They do this by first explaining the entire regulation process to a company. The company would then reach out to the UK government, who would in turn ask the ONR to conduct a general design assessment of the new technology. Adrienne emphasizes that companies should never assume anything from the regulator. They should instead ask questions because regulators are constantly modernizing.

The ONR is moving away from only speaking about compliance and towards a conversation to better understand industry. This is especially important considering the emerging technology of drones and cyber threats and the security issues they present for the nuclear sector. Industry engaging with the ONR is important for improving the ONR’s understanding of how industry views threats and how they approach security. Through these conversations, the ONR encourages industry to look to other sectors for inspiration on how to approach risk in a cost effective way.

It is especially important for companies working on emerging technology that could present a paradigm change to begin discussions with the ONR early. Adrienne believes that innovation opens the door for new opportunities and regulators should be working together to share emerging ideas. Adrienne emphasizes that while the ONR is open to new paradigms, safety and security are still a primary focus of the regulator. Overall, the ONR’s focuses on outcomes supports innovation, something that will gain more strength as the organization continues to modernize.

Life at the ONR (39:55)
39:55-43:52 (Adrienne describes what it is like to work at the ONR.)

Q. What is it like to work at the ONR?
A. Adrienne states that each employee experiences a different day to day. The team is diverse and the ONR generally hires new employees based on the recommendations made by current employees. While Adrienne loves working at the ONR, she does see some room for improvement in terms of encouraging employees to speak out and be themselves. For Adrienne, the ONR has presented her with many opportunities, including engaging in public service and inspiring the next generation of nuclear workers.

The ONR’s future (43:53)
43:53-46:23 (Adrienne discusses her views on the future of the nuclear sector and how she foresees the ONR becoming a leading, accessible regulator.)

Q. What do you see for nuclear ten years from now?
A. Adrienne believes the many cultural and economic impacts stemming from political uncertainties makes the future of nuclear unclear. However, she sees a need to tackle carbon emissions and move beyond the UK’s Net Zero Target to address climate change impacts on livelihoods. Nuclear power can address this issue by providing clean, affordable energy. By 2025, Adrienne predicts ONR will rise to become a leading, accessible regulator in the industry. The ONR will achieve this because of the strong staff members that will modernize the organization, ensuring the ONR has a bright and secure future.

From Engineering to Nuclear Licensing Regulation (2:28)
2:28-5:30 (Tristano Sainati discusses how he transitioned from engineering to an interest in nuclear licensing regulation and what regulatory licensing is.)

Q. You are this rare combination of having both a nuclear background and a law background. Where does it all start for you?
A. (2:46) Tristano Sainati started his career in engineering, studying industrial engineering at both a bachelor’s and master’s level, focusing on project management. He wasn’t initially interested in nuclear energy but had the opportunity to complete his master’s dissertation overseas comparing different licensing frameworks around the globe during the nuclear renaissance in 2008-2009. In collaboration with STUK, the nuclear governing body in Finland, Tristano compared the regulatory framework in the United States, South Korea, France, Italy and Finland.

Q: For people who aren’t in the nuclear industry, what does regulatory licensing actually mean?
A: (4:00) Tristano explains that licensing frameworks are specific rules for building nuclear power systems, including laws, international conventions, and specific institutions that control nuclear safety called regulatory bodies. These regulatory bodies monitor the compliance to the regulations, particularly concerning nuclear safety. Tristano clarifies that international principles and conventions are common across all countries, but that each country has their own specific legislation providing different powers and responsibilities to different bespoke institutions.

Two Distinct Approaches to Nuclear Regulatory Systems (5:14)
5:14-12:24 (Tristano Sainati explains the two distinct schools of thought around nuclear regulatory approaches. Bret and Tristano discuss the merits of each and their effects on innovation and competition against other power sources.)

Q: Tell me about some of the differences that exist between these various frameworks.
A: (5:30) At the time Tristano was researching, the most visible difference among the countries was the steps needed to build nuclear power. He explains that in some countries, they have specific steps like getting a license for construction first, then getting a license for operations later. In other countries, they certify the design, then apply for a combined license for the construction and operation of the nuclear power plant.

Tristano expounds on two distinct approaches to nuclear regulatory systems, a prescriptive-based approach and a performance-based approach. The prescriptive-based approach is very detailed, outlining a sequence of very detailed steps with explicit tests to control the safety of nuclear power stations. This is opposed to a performance-based approach, like that of the English system, where the regulatory body is generally open-minded. Tristano explains that this approach doesn’t provide a straightforward test but requires the applicant to demonstrate the safety of the power station with a specific safety case.

Q: Do you find that the regulator in the case of a performance-based approach expects the same things as a prescriptive-based approach or is it truly “you set the rules, you tell us your approach?”
A: (8:02) Tristano believes that the performance-based framework does change the attitude of the regulator in their ability to accept risk, but that still doesn’t mean they are completely open and welcoming as one might think.

The only real example of the performance-based system is the English system as most regulatory bodies employ a prescriptive approach. Tristano explains that the industry sometimes favors this the prescriptive approach because it gives the advantage of reducing uncertainties. The applicant knows exactly what they need to do to comply, as opposed to the performance-based system which is often very difficult to approach. Tristano points out that, in the U.K., he often sees that it’s harder to introduce a very novel technology and approach. More likely, the applicant will try to mirror an example from the past. He concludes that while the performance-based system is more flexible, it is more difficult to prove that a new technology will match the safety requirements.

Q: Bret compares the United State’s NRC contract stating the need to provide “adequate protection.” Does the U.K. system have a phrase like that to know when enough protection is enough?
A: (10:28) Tristano shares that the equivalent principle in the U.K. is the acronym ALARP which stands for “as low as reasonable or practical.” Bret suggests that “as low as reasonable or practical” would put nuclear energy at a disadvantage to other less expensive power systems. Tristano explains the specific measure that the U.K. practically applies in this case. The threshold is met if the technology improves the safety standards, if the new nuclear design actually increases the safety.

Bret shares his initial reaction that if the standards for safety in nuclear keep getting higher and higher, nuclear power will be less economically competitive and less widespread, enabling other technologies which don’t have those same safety standards to exist more. The net effect is decreasing the safety for society. Tristano explains that he agrees with this from a techno-economical perspective, but that the actual focus of the nuclear regulatory bodies are nuclear safety.

The History of International Nuclear Regulation and Its Effect Today (12:24)
12:24-31:32 (Tristano explains how the history of international nuclear regulation began and it’s lasting legacy on how nuclear energy is licensed and viewed today)

Q: Do we know why nuclear went down this road of not looking outside it’s own area when considering hazard and risk?
A: (12:39) If we look at the history of nuclear technology development, we know that nuclear technology was mainly developed for nuclear weapon purposes at the beginning. Further development meant that nuclear became a commercially available technology for energy production, but some countries still used a mixed approach to regulation combining military purposes and electrical applications. He cites Russia as an example of this.

Tristano says that Chernobyl revealed a very big regulatory problem, mainly that a nuclear incident is not just the concern of one country. It is the concern of neighboring countries and to the credibility of the nuclear industry in the larger sense.

After the Chernobyl accident, the International Atomic Energy Agency had a detailed discussion decided to develop safety standards that would work for the world. The licensing process was an essential element of that. The IAEA developed the idea of having a unique regulatory body and a unique operator. The operator would take 100% of the responsibility for safety, regardless of if an accident happened during construction or even as an Act of God to ensure that there was a single point of responsibility and that any future legal proceedings would be clear and fast-moving.

From there, each country developed their own set of legislations that complied with the IAEA standards. Nuclearized countries, or countries that have nuclear programs for civil purposes, all follow these principles.

Q: What about countries that don’t yet have nuclear programs? Do they need to apply the same framework?
A: (15:57) If a non-nuclearized country, or a country that has no energy production from nuclear power, wants to start to develop nuclear power for energy purposes, Tristano explains that the most sensible thing for them to do would be to seek advice from the International Atomic Energy Agency on how to develop their nuclear regulatory body or would start with a proper relationship with a country exporting nuclear energy first. Often, the newcomer country would consider the existing legislations and specific rules in the exporting country and mirror them.

From the IAEA perspective, the main concern is that the safety standards are controlled all over the world because of the effect of the nuclear industry if there is an incident in any country.

Q: Bret shares a moving story about an empassional political official in Ghana discussing his country’s desperate need for energy, saying “if you make this too hard for us, we’re not going to buy solar panels. We’re going to buy coal.” What if a newcomer country disregarded the IAEA standards when developing a nuclear program?
A: (19:01) Tristano would be skeptical, because the country would need the support of global experts. Nuclear technology is not something you can develop from scratch. The main concern of the IAEA would be to ensure there is sufficient scrutiny and safety assurance rather than a competition with coal. They exist just to focus on the safety. Tristano also explains that the IAEA’s main effort is to take a balanced view, not to be biased towards a specific strategy or another. He believes that the IAEA is very willing to support newcomer countries, but they are not responsible for the legislation or the way that those countries develop nuclear, finding that to be the responsibility of the governments and countries themselves.

Tristano believes the real problem here is speed. At the time of Cherynobl, the number one priority was to show that the nuclear industry was a safe industry. To do that, they put in place many instruments but now, if we are in a different phase, where the actual number one priority is global warming and climate change, the speed is essential.

Tristano explains that it’s going to take time to redirect the focus and change the framework because, actually, the framework designed to address safety concerns. Even though the nuclear standards put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency are not enforceable per se, they in a way inspire and inform nuclear legislations in each country.

Q: Could nuclear energy be part of a larger, combined energy agency or ministry of energy so that we could have a fair assessment of risk across all energy sources?
(23:36) Tristano clarifies that among the key principles of IAEA regulation is the independent status of the nuclear regulatory body.

Q: What is the legal justification for it being completely independent? What are they trying to show when they prove independence, that they don’t have industry influence?
(24:41) Tristano explains that the regulatory bodies need to be able to demonstrate there is safety in the system regardless of economics, lobbying, or political actions. The regulatory body is designed to have sufficient checks and balances and that this independence also keeps the budget for nuclear energy separate. The regulatory body tries to avoid any undue influence from stakeholders or people having a specific interest in the nuclear industry.

Bret challenges the idea that having influence from stakeholders leads to less safety as stakeholders are the ones who know the system the best and are already economically incentivized to maintain safety standards due to material costs. By allowing input from the stakeholders and allowing more flexibility, Bret argues that the industry would innovate safer solutions. It seems to him that we take for granted that independence means more safety, that not talking to stakeholders means more safety, when it might be the exact opposite.

Tristano argues that the basic idea of an independent regulatory body is an organization which has the capability and power to check the system and and have a say, during the construction, licensing, every 10 years for safety reviews and during the extension of a license. Tristano expounds that an organization of this type, serves the purpose of providing checks and balances very well, but is a little bit blind which might have a negative effect on the nuclear industry by being too conservative in their decisions. He defends the system, saying that this conservatism is the reason that they exist, to be very concerned about safety and to ensure that no nuclear accident takes place because a nuclear accident is very negative for the whole nuclear industry.

Tristano outlines the difficulty that an independent regulatory structure would lead to. First, because it challenges this idea of an independent nuclear regulator that provides an unbiased check system. Secondly, because of the potential implications of public opinion of appearing to reduce safety standards.

Tristano calls this an institutional trap. He shares his enthusiasm when he meets with engineers. He finds that they tend to focus on the technical, sometimes the technical-economical issues of the power plants and he begins to buy the power of nuclear energy. However, to Tristano, the problem is not in the technical developments of nuclear but the legal and institutional aspects associated with nuclear technology. Because of the history of nuclear power, the accident, the following laws and institutions deployed, and the culture created by them, Tristano believes the way forward will be very difficult. For him, promoting nuclear power would be more about affecting these legal, regulatory powers than affecting the technology itself.

Changing Perspectives and The Future of Nuclear Through Regulation (31:33)
31:33-42:15 Tristano foresees a challenging road ahead for nuclear regulation, but encourages a shift in perspective, boldness on the part of governments, mass production to reduce cost, and climate change led strategy.

Q: When you discussed promoting the future of nuclear more through legal, regulatory systems than the technology itself, I thought of some conversations with nuclear engineers. They would rather develop new technologies and solve new technological challenges than see a simpler version get built. That’s what an engineer wants, not what a businessman wants.
A: (32:36) Tristano says that, as an engineer, he couldn’t agree with more. It’s easy to be swept in by the technology, chemical, thermal challenges, but that is the engineer mindset. The administrative mindset and the regulatory mindset is very different and that is where, personally, Tristano finds a clash. He shares the perspective he learned while studying law, the idea that the idea of precedence, of being consistent with the specific ruling and the historic approach, is more effective than tackling something on the rational, technical basis. Tristano describes the engineer perspective, the passionate, futuristic engineer able to cope with challenges and continuous change versus the mindset of the administration, focused on minimizing the problem and repeating the action that has worked in the past.

Tristano urges listeners to think about the perspective of the nuclear regulatory body. The regulatory body is responsible, at the end of the day, together with the nuclear operator, for the safety of the nuclear installations. What if there is an incident? It’s going to be blamed. What incentives does the regulatory body have to actually challenge the existing status quo, to actually try a new technology? Bret agrees that the regulatory body is acting in the way it’s incentivized to, but challenges why the incentives are set that way if they don’t serve the purposes of planet earth in the long term.

Q: How did you come to have those two perspectives yourself? Why did you decide to pursue both engineering and law? I’ve never heard of that before.
(36:46) Tristano says it was a drive to be an expert on the topic of nuclear regulation. He believed that in order to be an expert, he needed both engineering and law skills. He believes that his legal understanding is equally as important as his technical one.

Q: So using those two perspectives, how can we untangle some of the trouble we’ve gotten ourselves into? What is the future of nuclear?
(37:36) Tristano believes the origin of the problem is the legal, institutional, regulatory framework that causes problems of budgeting and extra cost and public acceptability. He thinks governments need to be very brave and very explicit in their calls for transformation. Tristano urges this boldness instead of removing specific responsibility from themselves and allocating it to regulatory institutions. He calls for an international consensus, citing the need for a specific agenda to be pushed inside the IAEA to revise some of their principles. He still doesn’t see the value in the independent status of nuclear regulators, but believes it would be possible to amend the nuclear legislation to consider the ALARP approach, the economic consequences, and increase innovation. Tristano highlights the need to incentivize less conservative decision making by promoting a balanced approach for nuclear installations.

Tristano also cites the roadblock of cost, saying it’s too difficult to deploy a nuclear power plant in an affordable way. He supports mass production of small modular reactors, citing programs in South Korea and France that have shown to improve consistently after replication.

Tristano reiterates that taking that approach internationally would have challenges. The nuclear industry is the number one priority for people in the nuclear industry, but isn’t for most governments. He believes that if you want to promote the nuclear industry with the proper agenda, you need to lead with a general problem like global warming.

An American Nuclear Internship (0:46)
0:46-15:00 (Giorgio Locatelli recounts his journey from Italy to the United States to learn about nuclear energy and how it became his career focus)

Q: How did you get started in the nuclear space to begin with?
A: In 2006, when Giorgio Locatelli was studying for his Master’s of Science in mechanical engineering at Politecnico di Milano, he started pursuing paid internships overseas to help him learn English. He initially didn’t care about the topic, leading him to the United States to study the economics of a new small modular reactor. At the time, Giorgio was 23 and didn’t speak any English, knew nothing about nuclear, knew very little about economics, and had never even been on an airplane before. He was the always adventurous growing up in rural Italy, but becoming the first in his family to go to university and taking this opportunity in the United States was the adventure of a lifetime. Giorgio spent six months in the U.S. working at Westinghouse, who has a long-standing relationship with Politecnico di Milano. At the time, Westinghouse was developing one of the first small modular reactors (SMR), IRIS (International Reactor Innovative and Secure).

The Westinghouse team in charge of IRIS design, led by Mario Carelli, collaborated greatly with universities, potential customers, and suppliers. Giorgio worked with a senior Westinghouse engineer to understand the economic analysis of the IRIS reactor. The goal was to design a reactor for a situation in which an AP-1000 would generate too much power. Giorgio’s job was to estimate the difference in capital costs between a small reactor and a large, traditional reactor. To compare a 1.3 GW reactor with a 200-300 MW reactor, economy of scale must be applied. The economy of scale works with two identical designs, but the SMR is not simply a scaled version of a large reactor. Some technical solutions are only available on the small scale and not on a large scale. For example, NuScale was designed so its components were small enough to be transported. There is no such thing as the “best” reactor, but there is a good match for a good market. When 1-2 large reactors are compared with 4-8 small reactors, there are economies of replication and industrial learning that come into play. There may be some differences due to the workforce, region, and other factors. But the French experience is that a lot is learned with multiple builds on the same site. In France and South Korea, there is not much learning at the country level, but a lot of learning at the site level, .

Economies of Scale in Nuclear Power (15:00)
15:00-26:55 (How economic climate and project funding choices affect the global development of nuclear reactors)

Q: If I were to plot your cost per megawatt-hour for a large plant versus a small plant and the x-axis were to be the number of units, what would be the crossover point at which I’d reach the same dollars per megawatt-hour in terms of how many small I have to build in order to get to the same efficiencies that used to come with building larger?
A: It would cost per megawatt-hour of building 5-6 small reactors is about equal to that of building one large reactor. However, the economy of scale may kick in if the small reactors are not big enough to make up the difference, depending on the site. If 6 GW are needed on the same site, 6 large reactors should be built because the economies of scale will kick in on the second reactor. Romania started to build reactors sequentially with the Cernavodă site and Japan has done this with modern designs, but the U.S. only has a maximum of two units on sites now. In France, Romania, and South Korea, the electrical utilities were under state control and the countries had a long term vision for an industrial plan with multiple units. In the United States, where the market is fragmented and private companies are involved, construction is very different. The French nuclear program came after the big oil shock, fueled by a desire to provide electricity to power their industries and their citizens. In the UK, the difficult industry to decarbonize is not electricity, but home heating. The cold season is very long and the traditional heaters used are gas boilers.

After Giorgio’s dissertation research at Westinghouse, he returned to Politecnico di Milano at a time in which Italy was returning to nuclear. After Chernobyl in 1986, Italy passed a referendum which shut down nuclear reactors that were operating and killed two nuclear power plants that were almost complete. The political climate was very divided at the time and nuclear was used to gain popularity by exploiting people for fear. The two nuclear plants near Rome that were closed, Latina and Garigliano, were turned into coal plants. The cost of the nuclear plants were covered in the Italian electrical bill, so current bills still show a line billing for the leftover cost of nuclear because the government didn’t accumulate enough money to cover the cost of the plants.

Finding the Right Size Reactor (26:55)
26:55-38:02 (A look at the feasibility of nuclear reactor design and construction, both small and large)

Q: What did you do when you came back to Italy?
A: Giorgio Locatelli continued to read books and educate himself on nuclear, since he was a mechanical engineer by trade. Politecnico di Milano made an offer to Giorgio for a PhD supervised by the business school and the Department of Nuclear Engineering, with the support of Westinghouse and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). His first supervisor was the professor of project management, leading Giorgio to build model to estimate the economic, financia, strategic parameters of a small modular reactor. Considerations included were capital cost, operations, commissioning, and strategic factors related to siting and jobs. The right size reactor for a large country might be around 1.2 gigawatts, while the right size for a smaller country might be around 300 megawatts, but not much smaller. Fixed prices include the initial design, licensing, and the number of people working in the reactor, even considering a control room without operators. There are some inefficiencies with fuel and some components, like the turbines, have strong economies of scale. There must be a distinction between price, cost, and value. The price is what is paid to have something and is market-driven and impacted by exogenous factors. The cost is what is necessary to produce something and is impacted by endogenous factors. The value is the value of what is being produced. For example, 1 MW of electricity in Leeds is not very valuable because there is a grid that can provide any electricity needed. However, on an island detached from the grid that runs on a diesel generator, 1 MW of electricity has much greater value. Just like there are different appropriate wardrobes for different weather or activities, there are different appropriate reactors for different applications. China and the UK have very different means of raising capital. The energy market reform in the UK was basically privatization. This capital may impact the speed and quantity of reactor construction.

Giorgio completed his PhD in 2010 and, in 2011, he defended his PhD in front of the panel. He explained that nuclear power is a good idea and small modular reactors were a brilliant choice, but one week later, the Fukushima accident happened. Following Fukushima, Italy held a previously scheduled vote on the nuclear power referendum. In order for the referendum to be valid, there must be 50% plus one turnout in the vote, so many people like Giorgio attempted to invalidate the referendum by abstaining from voting. Still, more than 50% of Italians voted and approximately 95% of the votes were anti-nuclear, ending Italy’s nuclear power program and leading Giorgio to leave his home country. Coming from a working class family, Giorgio got most of his education paid for by taxpayer money, but had to leave the country after receiving his PhD to pursue nuclear in the UK, where they benefit from his education and training.

Financing Small Nuclear in the UK (38:02)
38:02-54:34 (Giorgio provides a summary of the UK’s investigation into SMR financing methods and how regulations affect cost)

Q: Tell me about your work with the UK Government.
A: For a number of years, the UK Government has been investigating the idea to develop a small modular reactor (SMR) in the UK. First, they looked at the major cost drivers, in which Giorgio Locatelli completed some economic analysis as part of the supporting working group. About one year ago, the UK set up a working group of 7-8 people, including Giorgio, to look at possible ways to finance an SMR in the UK. A publicly available document called “Market framework for financing small nuclear” was created to compare different options for project financing, including different strategies used in France and Finland. This comparison considers factors such as economic balance, types of risks, and the debt-to-equity ratio. These options include both government-supported and privately-supported models, including a mix of the two. The government can help in different ways, such as paying some of the construction cost, lending the money, guarantee debt, provide a contract for difference, or set up an asset-based model.

There needs to be a distinction between first-of-a-kind units and “nth-of-a-kind” units. Giorgio would like to see important support of the government and of the public in the first-of-a-kind unit, which has a lot of unknowns during design and construction. The nature of the nuclear business makes this process complicated due to the number of iterations required for the regulators to prove and optimize a level of safety. Some parts of the design can be proven through simulation, but others need to be proven through experimentation. NuScale is the first SMR that comes in with the integral design solution, of which the regulator was not familiar. NuScale had to explain their process and make their case to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to show compliance. Every day, people die because of environmental pollution. Most of these deaths can be avoided with nuclear power and there is no reason for oil anymore, including heating homes and transportation. Nuclear power has embedded a lot of political and irrational elements over time. People are afraid of radiation, but the general public cannot explain what radiation is. People are afraid of what they don’t understand.

In fifteen years, Giorgio Locatelli sees a world that is building nuclear reactors, learning to integrate renewables, nuclear and large energy storage, and is stopping the use of oil for power, heat, and transportation. This future world is fighting climate change and where people don’t get cancer from toxins in the air. Nuclear power can be used for electricity, but also desalination to provide fresh drinking water to millions of people. Nuclear power can also provide district heating and power large boats. This future is void of wars that stem from conflicts over access to oil, but technology investments in molten salt and fusion are thriving. This world is educating themselves that electricity and energy are valuable and can be produced in a clean way. The right price can be given to nuclear energy, which is the best gift of our life.

Making a difference in the power sector (0:50)
0:50-4:06 (Julia discusses how she transitioned from law to EDF Energy and why she chose the power sector to begin with.)

Q. How did you get into the power sector to begin with?
A. Julia Pyke spent most of her career as a lawyer at Herbert Smith Freehills where she rose to Head of Power. She worked on many different energy projects, including advising EDF on nuclear power. Julia chose to pursue a career in power because she believes climate change is an important problem and wanted to make a difference. While learning about energy markets is complex, she enjoys taking on intricate problems. While in this position, Julia learned that it is difficult to make new nuclear build happen because the UK wants to ensure the public’s interests are well considered. The UK must balance the wants of local people in a potential build site with the needs for clean power and jobs. New nuclear builds in rural communities can help stimulate local economies by bringing in new skills and creating more jobs.

Decommissioning and new build in the UK (4:07)
4:07-11:09 (Julia explains why there has been such a gap in nuclear build in the UK. She also discusses the new Sizewell C site and nuclear decommissioning in the UK.)

Q. What accounts for the gap in UK nuclear build?
A. The UK has primarily gas reactors and built the Hinkley pressurized water reactor in 1997. Sizewell B also became operational in that year, but there has been no new nuclear build since. Many reactors were built 40 to 50 years ago and will be decommissioned, so new build is greatly needed. Sizewell C will be a direct copy of the Hinkley pressurized water reactor.

The gap in build can be primarily attributed to the lack of focus on climate change. Additionally, the cost of gas using Combined Gas Cycle Turbines (CGCTs) were cheap and fast to build. CGCTs have high carbon emissions and methane leaks contribute negatively to climate change. It is therefore necessary to focus new UK build on clean energy solutions.

Julia’s first introduction to the nuclear sector was when she was in a junior law position as a bag carrier. She later joined the team that advised the UK government on nuclear decommissioning. She is now the Nuclear Development Director of Financing for EDF Energy on the Sizewell C project. Much of the nuclear industry in the UK was public and British Nuclear Fuels ran Sellafield. This site was established in the 1950s and focused on both nuclear weapons and power. It also housed the first nuclear reactor. Decommissioning sites like Sellafield differs greatly from decommissioning commercial sites in the UK. This is because the records kept of the Sellafield design are lacking, meaning much of the decommissioning work focuses on understanding and classifying systems. Newer build reactors are designed with decommissioning in mind, meaning decommissioning comes at a lower price. The cost of decommissioning is also being factored into the price of the sold nuclear energy. The nuclear industry is the only industry that accounts for waste, paying for it upfront. Nuclear waste is well managed and has no documented cases of causing harm. However, this careful approach may be the cause of the negative views about nuclear waste by bringing attention to the potential harm that could be caused if the industry was not as careful. Julia sees a need for improvement in how the nuclear sector handles public relations (PR).

The Sizewell C project (11:10)
11:10-18:34 (Julia explains how she transitioned from law to EDF Energy. She also outlines the Sizewell C project and how EDF plans to work with wind power to supply the UK with clean energy.)

Q. How did your career transition from the law firm to EDF?
A. Julia had already spent 10 years advising on Hinkley. She is passionate about climate change and knows that nuclear can be scaled in the UK. Hinkley provided the basis for the regime and the UK now knows how to make nuclear investible. Julia sees her work on the Sizewell C project, which will be a direct copy of Hinkley, as being the best thing she could do to help combat climate change.

Copying Hinkley has several great advantages. The first is that new nuclear builds require a great deal of paperwork and legal hurdles to get around. The Sizewell C project will cost a great deal less than others because the paperwork needs only be replicated. Additionally, planning, decommissioning and waste handling processes were already decided upon and approved for Hinkley, saving yet more time and money for the Sizewell C project.

EDF Energy is currently applying for planning permission from the local and national governments for the Sizewell C project. The reactor will be built on the existing Sizewell site. Sizewell A has already closed and Sizewell B is in operation, providing 3 percent of the UK’s energy needs. From a land area perspective, nuclear is incredibly environmentally friendly because a high percentage of energy can be generated in a small area due to the energy dense nature of nuclear. Sizewell C is predicted to provide 7 percent of the UK’s energy needs.

While France can be looked to as a great example of how nuclear fleets can be used to decrease a country’s carbon emissions, Julia foresees nuclear power working together with wind energy to supply the UK with clean power. The UK is considering the optimal mix of energy sources, specifically looking at how technology will continue to develop, such as grid flexibility and battery storage. The performance of these new technologies will become more well known over time, enabling the UK government to make firmer decisions about nuclear. Sizewell C is, therefore, a perfect opportunity for EDF to showcase a strong, cheap design and an investment opportunity for pension funds.

A new approach to financing nuclear (18:35)
18:35-26:09 (Julia discusses how Sizewell C is a good investment opportunity to attract private capital and how the new finance model lowers risk.)

Q. If Sizewell C can prove to be a good investment opportunity for pension funds, it could attract more private capital to nuclear.
A. Pension funds are moving away from fossil fuels and towards satisfying people’s demands for social and environmental investments. Nuclear power is a strong long term investment because electricity will always be in demand. EDF is also exploring the idea that Sizewell could become an energy center, producing hydrogen and capturing produced heat. EDF is considering “no regret” changes to the Hinckley design, which are small changes to increase flexibility of production. This means that a nuclear facility would be designed to enable the diversion of steam for hydrogen production, for example, by just implementing a simple change. These alterations require no large engineering changes.

EDF plans to fund Sizewell by using the regulated asset based model. This model reduces the market because the capital cost of building is multiplied by a competitive return. The government will not need to consider the market for hydrogen or heat at this time. The capital cost is known, and the government can choose if Sizewell will be used primarily for electricity or for other energy needs, such as district heating. The UK government can make multiple decisions just by knowing the capital cost of building times the return.

A government appointed economic regulator has consumer interests in mind when working with EDF. Many low carbon projects are presented as “contracts for difference”, meaning the generator receives a subsidy higher than the market price for electricity. The developer knows that it will receive a fixed price and the developer takes on the full construction risk. The regulated asset based model is different in that the price is actual, sharing construction risk with investors and consumers. Shared risk lowers capital cost greatly because investors will not take on the full risk or losing money .

Challenges and benefits of Sizewell C (26:10)
26:10-31:28 (Julia discusses some of the challenges associated with Sizewell C and how the existing supply chain will be strengthened in the UK. She also explains the current status of the project and her hopes for the future.)

Q. What are some of the challenges for the Sizewell C project?
A. EDF must prove that the Hinkley design can be copied. The Sizewell site is located on the opposite UK coast and has different ground conditions. This could complicate recreating the exact foundation design. A benefit of copying the Hinkley design is quantities of construction materials are already known. This means that the risk of overrun is greatly reduced. The team is also experienced, ensuring the project will be completed on time.

About 64 percent of materials came from the UK for the Hinkley project. Sizewell C is predicted to have about this as well. Understanding the supply chain well is another benefit of recreating Hinkley, support new build in the UK while also growing local businesses. Careers such as welding can be supported and grown in the UK through new nuclear builds.

EDF has been speaking with potential investors. Nuclear has yet to look to private capital in the UK, meaning EDF must first educate potential new investors about nuclear power. They hope to have investor approval by the end of 2021, with building commencing in 2022. Sizewell B was built on time and in budget. This UK success can be recreated with Sizewell C, creating a great step towards decreasing the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels and move towards mitigating climate change. This is incredibly important for Julia, who wants to move towards a sustainable, clean world for her children.