TITANS OF NUCLEAR

"Tomaž’s early introduction to nuclear (0:06)
0:06-8:45 (Tomaž explains how he first became interested in the nuclear sector as a high school student and how he later transitioned to working in a research reactor.)

Q. How did you join the nuclear field?
A. Tomaž Žagar is currently the President of Slovene Nuclear Society and Head of Planning at GEN. Tomaž’s interest in nuclear first began as a high school student. His high school was closely connected to Jozef Stefan Institute, enabling Tomaž to join a research project as a high school student. Here, he mapped contamination from Chernobyl in Slovenia. The contamination included volatiles of mainly cesium and iodine which spread over Europe in a cloud and reached the ground through rain. This research not only gave Tomaž the opportunity to leave the classroom to conduct field work, but also taught him about natural background, the cesium from atomic bomb testing and how mountains with increased rainfall caused Slovenia and Austria to be impacted more than other European countries from Chernobyl. He also learned that the fallout from Chernobyl was 10 times smaller than that of the atomic bomb testing, understanding that the media emphasizes or deemphasizes magnitudes.

After high school, Tomaž studied physics in university. When he needed to choose an emphasis, he was attracted by energy because Tomaž’s family were engineers. While he thought about pursuing hydrogen power, he thought the nuclear diploma was easier and would help him reach the private sector sooner. Tomaž’s first jobs were working in a research reactor measuring fuel depletion. Tomaž created models for prediction and compared this work to what actually occurred in the research reactor. Research reactors are critical in understanding fuel depletion to optimize fuel cycles for power reactors, which do not have the time to undertake research themselves. Research reactors also investigate other topics, including the possibility of recycling fission products.

Fission products and neutron speeds (8:46)
8:46-12:49 (Tomaž explains the limitations of manipulating neutron speeds in reactors.)

Q. How much difference is there between the fission products that are produced based on the fuel type that is in a metal trigger reactor versus a uranium oxide mix in a ceramic power fuel pellet?
A. The physics of uranium is the same in each reactor. The enrichment is what differs, changing the speed of neutrons. The material of the reactor and the amount of water used influences this spectrum. It is important to know how uranium reacts to different speeds of neutrons. Once this is known, you can calculate the fission products. This information can be used to calibrate a power reactor and validate tests. This data is collected into libraries and shared within the industry.

Producing less iodine by manipulating neutron speeds to shift the spectrum is difficult. Fission produces many different isotopes. The neutron distributions can be tweaked to an extent, but they are distributed, meaning one change would affect the entire distribution.

Radiation misconceptions (12:50)
12:50-19:13 (Tomaž discusses the common misconceptions about radiation and how radioactive material is not as dangerous as people think.)

Q. We often see radionuclides as dangerous, but in reality they have only hurt a few people and saved billions of lives, right?
A. Yes. For example, technetium is a fission product isotope used in medicine. Additionally, some isotopes can be used for future fuel or in other industries. Not all fission products are useful, but many are. The total waste from a reactor is only about one to two percent while the rest of the products are recycled. This means that the nuclear power technology is close to zero waste as 97 to 99 percent of products are recycled.

This low waste percentage has somehow been inflated in magnitude. This may be because spent fuel is dangerous and must be handled with care and shielded. However, this shielding need only be 6 meters of water, which is a perfect substrate for shielding fuel. Concrete or steel can also be used for dry storage of spent fuel.

Another misconception is about how far radiation can travel. Radiation is very similar to radio waves. Radio waves can be heard from a meter or an antenna, but distance from a radio wave source removes someone from wave exposure. The only difference is the emitter. For radio waves, everyone can see the source. But for radiation, the source is from atoms which can not be seen by the naked eye. Some people also misunderstand contamination, which is the spreading of radiation emitters. Physical protection and limited access to the sources decreases the possibility of contamination, containing the radiation. Limiting time of exposure also decreases potential for contamination and the radioactive material itself. Radioactive decay is constant and is used to measure the age of the universe. Communicating radiation to the public is sometimes a challenge.

Becoming President of the Slovene Nuclear Society (19:14)
19:14-24:05 (Tomaž expands on his experience within the nuclear sector and how this led him to the Slovene Nuclear Society.)

Q. How did you get involved in the Slovene Nuclear Society?
A. The prior president had approached Tomaž and asked if he had wanted to join the Society to translate some publications. The Society was small and wanted to attract more young people in Slovenia to work in nuclear. Tomaž’s experience made him a good fit for the Society.

Tomaž also spent his compulsory army service in his early 20s in chemical defense, which he was assigned based on his prior experience. After Tomaž’s PhD in decommissioning and activation of concrete, Tomaž joined the European joint research center institute in Germany. Here, he looked into the transportation of uranium, platoneum and others. He returned to Slovenia and decided to approach the utility GEN for work, which was becoming more independent at the time.

GEN (24:06)
24:06-30:15 (Tomaž explains GEN’s resource portfolio and their activity with other European countries.)

Q. What is the portfolio of GEN’s resources and how does GEN think about supplying electrons to the country?
A. Slovenia has two independent utilities. GEN owns the Slovenian half of the Krško nuclear power plant. Between 99.6 and 99.7 percent of GEN’s produced electricity is carbon free. GEN focuses on using both nuclear and hydropower to maximize electricity output. The nuclear and hydro plants are on the same river, allowing GEN to efficiently use the water between the plants in summer months.

The variations between day and night power demands are becoming smaller as society becomes more dependent on electricity. The European market is also becoming more integrated. GEN has a branch dedicated to trading with Central and Eastern Europe and buying and selling electricity between countries. Renewable trading is increasing, as is energy trade from Eastern to Western Europe. Energy consumption is growing, especially in Western Europe, but production is not.

Volatile markets (30:16)
30:16-35:19 (Tomaž discusses why electricity production has not been able to keep up with consumption. He also explains the need to increase public education.)

Q. Why has production not been able to keep up with consumption?
A. Markets are becoming more volatile, making it more difficult to secure investment. The increased number of renewables has caused this volatility. Solar, wind and small hydro receive government subsidies, causing governments to add these sources to national grids. This causes market prices to fall below zero when renewables are plentiful, decreasing investment. This means operating on the grid requires utilities to pay.

Society has become complacent, creating a challenging need to communicate to the public where electricity comes from. Decreasing accessibility to electricity also decreases the ability to grow economically and contribute to society.

Challenges of decarbonizing Slovenia (35:20)
35:20-41:01 (Tomaž discusses the challenges of decreasing CO2 in Slovenia.)

Q.  Slovenia has the potential to become a leader in clean electricity and could decrease the per person CO2 consumption to zero, right?
A. On paper, this is easy, requiring just three nuclear power units. While we could produce clean electricity all around the world by building two nuclear plants for every two million people, Tomaž thinks this would not be easy. This is because transportation must first be decarbonized and heating demand must decrease. Additionally, some power needs are not directly related to electricity. Only 26 percent of Slovenia’s total power consumption is electricity, meaning a dependence on liquid fuels exists.

While the second generation nuclear plants are already providing district heating to some small European cities, distributing heat over larger distances presents a problem. Using small reactors for heat distribution seems easy when looking at a map. But securing a licensed nuclear energy location is difficult. Tomaž has experience working with nuclear licensing, and understands the paperwork and workload required to secure just one nuclear site.

Nuclear industry strengths (41:02)
41:02-47:05 (Tomaž explains how the nuclear industry is stricter than coal when it comes to regulation and permitting. He also explains how the nuclear industry succeeds at utilizing existing infrastructure and how this can be used to secure society’s reliance on energy.)

Q. How do coal mines get their permits?
A.  The nuclear industry is very strict in Slovenia and follows all the best examples and practices. Tomaž questions if the regulations across industries are really on the same playing field.

One of the great skills of the nuclear industry is how well existing infrastructure is utilized. This includes electricity and gas grids. The nuclear industry can use waste heat and clean heat to provide heating to cities on these well established pipe systems. This clean energy can also be used to produce the incredibly efficient synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. These are easily transported and can be used to power cars. This use case also puts to work employees of the automotive and liquid fuel industries rather than casting these industries aside. Increasing nuclear adoption will secure the future of civilization which relies on access to clean energy. Society has a reliance of 80 percent on fossil fuels and we must replace this with a clean energy source soon.
"

A career in fusion technology (0:43)
0:43-8:56 (Doug describes the specific fusion work of HyperJet Fusion. He also explains how he got into fusion technology.)

Q. Your specific style of fusion is pulsed fusion?
A. Doug Witherspoon is the CEO & chief scientist of HyperJet Fusion. He studies pulsed fusion, known as plasma jet magneto inertial fusion (PJMIF).

After graduate school, Doug worked for a small company researching impact fusion. Impact fusion is when high velocity projectiles impact a target to create fusion energy. The target Doug used had deuterium tritium fuel inside a metallic cavity and the physical projectile was solid metal and plastic. The projectile fuses when it hits the target, creating fusion energy. The walls of the chamber absorb this energy, which is the kinetic energy of the neutrons. This energy is then transferred to the heat transformer, which makes steam and drives an electric generator. Doug’s work discovered that the target was hard to hit at high velocity, about 10 to 20 kilometers. The company then decided to pivot towards developing hypervelocity guns for the Department of Defense. General Dynamics Land Systems purchased the company to create a new generation of rail guns. A few years later, Doug left to start UTRON to develop a combustion light gas gun for the Navy. During this time, Doug also began exploring pulse plasma discharges for materials applications such as producing metallic powders for thermal spray and dynamic compaction, which is when metallic powder is compacted into a part using combustion light gas gun technology. In 2003, Doug left UTRON to pursue fusion technology.

HyperV Technologies (8:57)
8:57-15:37 (Doug explains why he pursues fusion technology and the current focus of HyperV Technologies.)

Q. What drives you to fusion and why is it important to you?
A. Doug believes fusion is a good energy source and focused his graduate school thesis on the topic. After Doug left UTRON, he started HyperV Technologies. Doug wanted to focus on fusion research in the realm of hypervelocity. Doug found Frances Theo’s ideas about plasma jet magneto inertial fusion (PJMIF) interesting, especially his ideas about developing the plasma gun for PJMIF. This gun is used to accelerate the gaseous plasma of xenon or argon to 50 to 100 kilometers per second. The gas is ignited and the magnetic force from a current accelerates the plasma along the plasma tube, driving the implosion. The j cross b force describes the directions of the current, the magnetic field and the force. The force is the direction of acceleration and the current and magnetic field are perpendicular to the force, but are in different directions to one another. This force creates a liner, which is a shell that is rapidly imploding. The shell is kept spherical by beginning as smooth as possible. Doug’s current experiment involves 36 guns, but between 300 and 600 guns will be needed for a fusion reactor. The current experiment involves a 9 foot diameter vacuum chamber with 60 gun ports and Doug hopes the following year will bring additional funding for more guns.

PJMIF explained (15:38)
15:38-25:47 (Doug explains details of PJMIF, including the physics and components of the system.)

Q. How do you keep the fuel in the center of the vacuum bubble?
A. It’s inertial. A subset of the guns are uniformly distributed and fire a mix of plasma-form deuterium and tritium before the other guns fire. This creates a preliner, which collapses on the center. This then causes the center to collapse into a small ball of plasma that lasts only long enough for the real liner to collapse onto it. This process happens on the microsecond scale to quickly capture the plasma ball before it expands. Only a few milligrams of fuel is inside this plasma ball. The percentage of fused material depends on final conditions, but a substantial fraction of the deuterium tritium fuel will fuse.

The amount of energy released in a pulse depends on the reactor design. If the guns were firing at the rate of one shot per second, the average energy output would be between 50 megawatts and one gigawatt of thermal energy, which would then be converted into electricity. Most of this energy is in neutrons and alpha particles. The alpha particles could be converted into electricity directly if a magnetic field was in place, but this is not easy to do as most of the energy is produced as neutrons. The kinetic energy must be absorbed using a thermal blanket. This blanket sits outside of the vacuum. This thermal blanket is hooked up to a steam cycle where molten salt absorbs the energy, which is then cycled through a heat exchanger. This converts water into steam to drive a generator.

Because the guns fire in pulses, there is no helium ash problem. The chamber is completely evacuated between shots. This evacuation therefore limits how fast pulse cycles can occur. Despite this, there is not much to evacuate because only the deuterium tritium fuel and the liner plasma, which are all gaseous, enter the vacuum. For PJMIF to work, the vacuum only needs microtour because only the residual argon atoms could get in the way. The walls of the vacuum are cleaned and any left over water would disappear quickly after firing begins.

Three development challenges to overcome (25:48)
25:48-35:51 (Doug explains three development challenges that must first be overcome before a fusion reactor can be brought to market.)

Q. What are some of the challenges in bringing this to market?
A. The main complication is creating a liner that is sufficiently smooth to avoid instabilities. A low density gas that is brought together with a high density gas can form surface ripples, but merging the gases fast enough can avoid this as long as the liner is smooth enough to begin with. This is still in the experimentation and modeling phase and still needs to be resolved.

The second issue is how to form the target, which must be magnetized with an embedded magnetic field that increases in strength as it is compressed. The process must be fast and can not lose energy to maintain heat. Understanding this magnetic property must still be researched. One area of focus is developing a traveling wave using lasers to drive electrons within the plasma, creating a current and the magnetic field. Doug is planning to place a loop of current at the gun’s muzzle with the hopes that the magnetic field will reach the target as it travels with the plasma jet.

The third challenge is the development of the guns. Each gun must accelerate at least 20 milligrams of plasma at about 100 kilometers per second using a compact jet once per second. This creates issues of cooling and achieving the required parameters. The repetition rate will be the most difficult to achieve. The guns would require a different coolant loop to the reactor and it is currently unclear what coolant fluid would be used. The guns would not want to exceed a few hundred degrees celsius because gun seals are usually rubber and must be kept under a certain temperature.

Accelerating progress requires additional funding (35:52)
35:52-41:10 (Doug discusses how funding is required to move fusion technologies forward and accelerate progress.)

Q. What will move this technology forwards?
A. Doug’s work is funded by ARPA-E’s Alpha Project. There is currently work to plan a following program that could fund Doug to further develop the target guns. Doug does not expect to produce neutrons in the next program because he does not foresee the project reaching the necessary parameters. While they would love to see neutrons being produced at this stage, the facility can not handle too many neutrons because it presents a safety issue. Rather, the next step is focusing on getting the liner on the target.

Even with large sums of money, the challenges will not be overcome within five years. This is because much of the work must be completed in series. The process can be sped up and Doug predicts that progress can be achieved within seven or eight years. Funding is the primary issue in achieving this goal. More people are needed to code simulations as well as to develop gas valve, igniter, capacitor and switch technologies. Much of this work could be done in parallel to the plasma implosion process development. Doug believes there are talented scientists within the community, but the financial support is currently lacking.

Advantages and disadvantages of PJMIF (41:11)
41:11-46:28 (Doug explains the advantages and disadvantages of HyperV Technologies’ system compared to other fusion approaches. He also states his hope for the next 15 years.)

Q. How does this technology hold up against the other approaches to fusion?
A. There are both advantages and disadvantages. Magneto inertial fusion has the potential to reach the fusion reactor stage sooner and cheaper than the Tokamaks, which is costly in terms of time and money to build. Doug’s approach allows for faster research and development, meaning the point of break even can be reached sooner. Each approach has similar physics-based challenges. Doug’s primary focus is an engineering challenge to create a system that performs as wanted. Doug expects a reactor with this technology to be not much smaller than 50 megawatts and could fit into about the size of an area slightly bigger than a basketball court. The system could be about 10 meters in diameter, but the support systems and structure add to the size. Fifteen years from now, Doug believes fusion will reach the break-even point.

Mark’s involvement with ANSTO (0:09)
0:09-5:01 (Mark describes his involvement with ANSTO and how he first became interested in the nuclear industry.)

Q. Where are you right now?
A. (0:20) Mark Ho works at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) as a thermohydraulic specialist. ANSTO has a 20 megawatt research reactor which is used in the creation of radio medical isotopes and for neutron gathering experiments. In addition to his work at ANSTO, Mark is also a subject matter expert for the Australian Nuclear Association (ANA).

Mark first joined ANSTO as an undergraduate intern. He was attracted to their highly technical work and the water tunnel facility used for fluid experiments. He did his undergraduate and Masters of Research at ANSTO and was eventually offered a job there.

Mark has always been interested in mechanical engineering. The highly technical aspect of the nuclear industry is what captured Mark’s interest. Mark’s specialty is computational fluid dynamics, which is incredibly demanding and requires overlapping different disciplines. The nuclear sector enables Mark to study both experimental fluid mechanics and computer programming.

Australia’s energy history (5:02)
5:02-10:20 (Mark describes the history of ANSTO and why the nuclear industry did not develop in Australia.)

Q. How long has ANSTO been around for?
A. (5:08) ANSTO was established by Parliament in 1987. Prior to this, the organization was known as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which was established about 50 years ago. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace somewhat influenced its creation. At the time, Australia knew of their uranium reserves, but were unsure how much uranium was around the world. The government therefore invested in Australian nuclear competency to contribute to the global effort towards the peaceful use of nuclear power.

Australia did not, however, develop commercial nuclear power plants at this time primarily for an economic reason. Australia has a large coal reserve and chose to develop their coal industry. It therefore did not make economic sense to also develop their nuclear industry. A nuclear power plant was planned to be built at Jervis Bay, but the high cost ended the project.

Clean air is an argument against the use of coal in Australia. A coal plant known as Hazelwood was recently shut down in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. While this did increase air quality, the loss in power decreased the grid by 2 gigawatts, causing power prices to increase. Mark states that Australia will need to go through an energy transition soon. This is because the entire country currently only has a 50 gigawatt capacity. South Australia is a less populous state and have transitioned towards renewable energy sources backed by gas. However, the state is also interconnected to Victoria and uses Victoria’s coal power to backup their own energy needs. About two years, high winds blew over many power lines creating a major power disruption and blackouts. This points to the need for Australia to develop an additional cleaner power source to complement renewables.

Australian public attitudes towards nuclear (10:21)
10:21-13:51 (Mark explains how the Australian public is evenly split in their views towards nuclear. He discusses how increasing education can open the nuclear discussion.)

Q. Did any of your friends or family give you funny looks when you started developing this niche expertise?
A. (10:28) Mark’s family and friends hear too much about nuclear power to not like it. The Australian National University in Canberra surveyed public attitudes towards science and technology and included a question about nuclear power. They found an even split in support for nuclear while gas fracking was viewed negatively in 70 percent of responses. Mark has found that many people support renewables but are unaware that they must be backed up by another form of power generation. Once they are informed that renewables are currently backed by gas, they become more open to the nuclear conversation. Mark believes that people are tribal and will automatically associate themselves in favor of renewables when they say they want to decarbonize. There are still many debates and arguments about how to decarbonize, but Mark believes it is important for nuclear to remain in the discussion.

Simulating reactor bubbles (13:52)
13:52-21:44 (Mark discusses his experience creating computer code to simulate bubble creation in reactors and why this is important for the industry.)

Q. What became your technical area of expertise?
(13:59) Mark is more of an experimentalist, focusing his Masters degree in fluid flow induced vibration for a parallel plate research reactor fuel assembly. His PhD explored code development for interface tracking for two face flow. Mark is now shifting towards advanced reactors and understanding reactor history to explain why pressurized water reactors dominate the industry.

A deep understanding of boiling dynamics and boiling mechanics are needed when designing and operating pressurized water reactors. Understanding bubble creation is critical to understanding heat and mass transfer. In the past, a lack of computation power meant simulating this interface was simplified. This creates a nonideal representation, creating room for error and divergence between the optimal and numerical solution. Mark worked to create a much more accurate plot of where the actual interface is to create a better representation of reality. Simulation results are used to construct better mathematical formulas for use in systems such as RELAP code, which is a one dimensional thermohydraulics code for analyzing reactor safety in transient events.

The shape of bubbles are determined by the balance of forces between the internal and external pressure and the interplay with the surface tension effect. Pressurized water reactor bubbles are smaller and behave differently from normal, everyday bubbles due to the difference in atmosphere inside the reactor.

Salt versus water reactors (21:45)
21:45-30:00 (Mark describes how his interests led him to explore the benefits of water-based reactors. He also explains the need to diversify the reactor technology used in the future.)

Q. When did you become involved with the Australian Nuclear Association?
A. (21:55) Mark became seriously interested in reactors during his PhD. This led him to explore such topics as fusion, advanced reactors and salt reactors. His interest in pressurized water reactors led him to explore why water is used, which he learned was because of water’s ability to cool and shield radiation. Additionally, water has a high heat carrying capacity. For instance, a salt reactor may only have half the heat carrying capacity as water for the same volume.

Mark believes that although we should be enthusiastic about advanced reactors, the existing fleet of water-based reactors still deserve recognition. There are, however, some advantages of molten salt reactors over water-based reactors. Australia is part of the Gen 4 Forum and will be focusing on molten salt and high temperature reactors. This is because they have higher operational temperatures, enabling wider spread decarbonization. Mark believes the industry should have a wide spread of technology, developing both water-based small modular reactors and salt-based reactors.

China’s nuclear industry (30:01)
30:01-37:14 (Mark explains how China is investing in salt reactors and the first HTGR.)

Q. Is creating an economic comparison a fair way to decide reactor designs?
A. (30:08) We don’t know what we don’t know, and discovering this requires investment. The Chinese government is exploring this by investing in molten salt reactors. They are also focused on deploying many pressurized water reactors. China has doubled their nuclear capacity in 5 years and are estimated to have 130 gigawatts of capacity in 2030 and 500 to 540 gigawatts of capacity by 2050. The Chinese are commissioning the first high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) for the HTR-PM, which is a small modular reactor design. This reactor will increase the temperature that a reactor operates at, producing more power. The output power for this plant with two reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) for one steam generator will be 200 megawatts. The following iteration will have 6 RPVs for one turbine, producing 600 megawatts. These reactors will be placed inland and air cooled as opposed to pressurized water reactors which must be located near the sea for water-based cooling.

Overturning Australia’s nuclear ban (37:15)
37:15-41:42 (Mark discusses the efforts in place to remove the current nuclear ban in Australia.)

Q. How will you get rid of the national nuclear ban?
A. (5:49) There are currently two inquiries into overturning the ban. One is in the senate to explore the possibility of using nuclear power in the future. While the current government holds the position that there will be no change in the nuclear law, they are beginning to look into the benefits of nuclear power. The other inquiry is at state level, where New South Wales is looking into removing the nuclear ban.

There are two major federal bans on nuclear power: the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA), which bans nuclear construction, and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANS) Act, which bans nuclear licensing. These acts were used to appease the Green Party about 20 years ago as a compromise for building a new research reactor for the production of medical isotopes. Lifting the nuclear ban was considered about 10 years ago after a report advised Australia to build nuclear power plants. The government at the time was not reelected, and so lifting the ban was not pursued.

Nuclear is politicized in Australia. Mark sees this as unfortunate, because he just wants people to see nuclear for what it does, which is to produce low carbon electricity. This is easily seen when comparing France and Germany. Despite Germany’s large investment in renewables, France has a lower carbon footprint than Germany.

Public outreach (41:43)
41:43-45:45 ()

Q. Why do people spend time attacking nuclear before coal when the health issues of coal are well known?
A. (10:17) Mark believes people who are against nuclear power have associated it with nuclear weapons. The Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) is a collection of nuclear professionals that speak about nuclear technology within the industry. Engaging wider audiences through plain text communication requires more resources than the ANA has. The Minerals Council of Australia supports nuclear and has the resources to engage the public in nuclear education. However, the Council represents different mining industries, including coal.

Mark’s future for nuclear (45:46)
45:46-48:00 (Mark describes his current work relating to advanced reactors. He also explains his optimistic view of Australia’s nuclear industry moving forwards.)

Q. You spend your time looking at the Gen 4 technology now?
A. (14:19) Mark’s primary job is focused on the safety of the OPAL research reactor. He would like to spend more time researching advanced reactors, but advises a few PhD students that work on research. Mark also looks at overseas nuclear reactor technologies to keep up to speed with development in other countries.

Looking towards the future, Mark would like to see the Australian nuclear ban overturned. He is optimistic, and thinks the conversation in Australia is currently moving in the right direction and predicts the nuclear industry will recover.

Entering the Industry from a country banning nuclear energy (1:52)
1:52 - 8:37 (Helen discusses her transition from studying corporate law in Australia to practicing nuclear law. Helen’s first introduction to nuclear law was when advising the development of Bahrain’s nuclear energy program.)

Q. How did you end up in nuclear law?
A. Helen Cook grew up in Australia, where she earned her law degree from Sydney University. She held several internships with The International Criminal Tribunal in Holland and as the President’s intern for the International Criminal Court, where she became more interested in international law. While working in corporate law back in Sydney, she was offered the opportunity to practice law in Dubai. Here, she was first introduced to nuclear law, something that had not been discussed back in Australia, which bans nuclear energy. Helen remembers the exact day that she first learned about nuclear law: when she accompanied her boss to a mysterious meeting with the Deputy Primeminister of Bahrain. This turned out to be the first meeting of the National Committee for Nuclear Energy, attended by Bahrain’s top ministers. Helen considers herself lucky to be in the right place at the right time to advise the development of Bahrain’s nuclear energy program.

Drafting Nuclear Energy Laws (8:38)
8:38 - 14:02 (Helen describes how she drew inspiration from various law philosophies and the IAEA to construct Bahrain’s nuclear legal framework.)

Q. How did you begin constructing nuclear energy laws?
A. Helen drew inspiration for drafting Bahrain’s nuclear laws by first looking to countries that had existing nuclear energy laws and the philosophies behind various country’s regulations. While Australia favors contracting laws that are easy to understand using plain language, the United States’ nuclear laws are often complex. Based on its clarity, Helen identified the Canadian system as a strong basis on which to build Bahrain’s nuclear laws. The Handbook on Nuclear Law produced by the Office of Legal Affairs in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was also used for inspiration, but Helen had to wait for the Implementing Legislation, which was only released after Helen’s first draft of Bahrain’s legal framework. The Implementing Legislation provides provisions that countries can use as a starting point for establishing nuclear laws.

Looking to the Canadian frameworks and the IAEA documents helped structure the first draft, which was completed in only a few months. The main nuclear legislation are high level because the details are in the regulations that implement the provisions of the law. Laws are on a country level which create the framework that establishes a nuclear regulator to create regulations. Nuclear regulations detail such things as design and construction of a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear regulation challenges (14:03)
14:03 - 16:15 (The main regulatory challenges involve planning for new technology and determining liability.)

Q. When creating the framework, you needed to plan for the regulations. What were some of the limitations or challenges involving regulating nuclear that you kept in mind during this process?
A. While not an issue at the time of constructing Bahrain’s nuclear framework, nuclear technology challenges law development today. Frameworks exist for large scale reactors, but not yet for small modular reactors (SMRs). Countries new to nuclear energy must now prepare their frameworks to include both large scale reactors and SMRs.

Liability is another issue that must be considered when constructing nuclear laws. Nuclear liability conventions are complex and fundamentally change nuclear liability rules within a country.

SMRs vs Large Scale Reactors (16:16)
16:16 - 22:00 (Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) introduce a different set of regulatory challenges that must be considered when creating a legal framework. Helen favors the building of more large scale reactors but believes that if SMRs are chosen as nuclear’s focus, then the regulatory framework needs to get ahead of these challenges.)

Q. What about regulations make them specific to large scale reactors and why can’t they be scaled down for SMRs?
A. This is an issue that the nuclear energy industry and regulatory bodies are trying to figure out, but the answer has not yet been reached. SMRs have many different designs and technologies, complicating the creation of a legal framework and the following regulatory regime. Countries need to get ahead of this issue and begin thinking of the regulations involved with such things as underground SMRs and modular construction. While discussions around how to tackle time and budgeting issues of large scale reactors are happening, such as between NuScale Power and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), newcomer countries should still think about how to approach new SMR technology from the beginning as the time for large scale reactors may be passing.

Nuclear Liability (23:58)
23:58 - 34:12 (Helen discusses liability in the context of nuclear law.)

Q. What do you mean when you say liability and how can countries reduce those issues?
A. When considering liability, it is important to think about Fukushima and accidents that cause transboundary damage. Liability focuses on ensuring straight forward compensation for victims in the event of an accident and manages the quantifiable involvement of companies involved in a nuclear project. These have been considered special legal regimes from the beginning of nuclear regulation and are present in national laws of all countries with nuclear power plants.

When constructing liability law, we must think about the worst case scenario accident, such as radiation spreading across country boundaries through air and waterways. The ramifications of a large accident has potential to be global and does not matter on the size of the country. Damage and claims for compensation could also stem from closing a seaport or airport. Fukushima is an example of this where individuals in the US filed claims against Tepco and vendors of the technology.

The nuclear liability regime seeks to make only one entity exclusively and strictly liable to victims, making it clear who claims will be brought against. Proof of damage and causation of accident are needed, but claims do not need to include who is at fault. The operator will be liable to pay the third party victim compensation. While it may seem like this system could disincentivize operators, it can sometimes work in their favor. The liability framework sets the operator’s liability at a minimum level of compensation, which requires operators to hold the minimum insurance to ensure the available funds in the case of an accident. In some countries, this liability is also capped. State funds may also be available in the case of exhausting the operator’s funds, as seen in Japan after Fukoshima. International treaties add protection to the operator, meaning they can not be sued in another country that is also a contracting party to the same treaty or convention. This allows operators to manage risk, quantify liability, insure liability and enables protection against lawsuits in another country if their country of operation is a contracting party to the same international nuclear treaty or convention.

The minimum liability amount under new conventions, such as the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) and the 1997 Vienna Convention, is 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is equivalent to $430 million. Operators do not need to hold this amount, but do need to be able to pay this in the event of an accident, meaning they must be insured for this amount. The nuclear liability system is similar to that of the oil industry in that it attempts to simplify liability and transboundary accident issues.

Helen’s career post Bahrain (34:13)
34:13 - 47:58 (Helen discusses Bahrain’s current nuclear industry and what path she took after leaving the region. She discusses her textbook and the creation of her own nuclear law practice.)

Q. What is Bahrain’s nuclear industry like now? Why did you leave Bahrain and what have you done since?
A. Bahrain was just beginning to site land where a large reactor could be built when Helen left the region. While Bahrain’s nuclear program ended after 2011, Helen believes Bahrain may consider SMRs in the future.

From Bahrain, Helen moved to Washington DC to join Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman to work in their nuclear practice alongside other titans of the nuclear industry, including Jay Silberg and Jim Glasgow. After 4 years, Helen was recruited to join Shearman and Sterling to facilitate the development of their nuclear practice. After another 4 years, Helen left to practice independently.

The first edition of Helen’s book The Law of Nuclear Energy came out in 2013. Helen’s former boss at Freshfields told Helen to write a textbook because one had not existed, requiring lawyers to draw from many sources. Helen was nervous upon releasing the book due to her junior status, but received positive feedback and the second edition was published in 2018. After a decade in the industry, Helen felt more in place to write the second edition, having identified gaps in available resources. The second edition represent the important changes to the nuclear industry over the past decade, such as the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, which is a nuclear liability treaty which was not enforced at the time of Fukoshima, and the enforcement of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials Amendment, which came into effect during the Obama administration.

Just over a year ago, Helen’s passion for nuclear law inspired her to start her own practice. While she enjoyed the 15 years spent at law firms, Helen believes a single-minded focus is required to practice nuclear law. Helen supports the IAEA’s Nuclear Infrastructure Department’s workshops as a law expert to help newcomer countries develop nuclear infrastructure. While the IAEA has excellent human resources and a wealth of materials and guidance, their activities are restricted. The IAEA can not give strategic advice, suggest technologies, or provide negotiation guidance. Helen fills this gap by educating countries and helping them strategize and transition from consideration to implementation.

Egypt’s Nuclear Program (47:59)
47:59 - 56:41 (Helen discusses Egypt’s nuclear program and Egypt’s negotiations with the Russian nuclear industry to manage risk.)

Q. What are some of the countries you’re working with?
A. Helen has spent the last 3 and a half years advising the Egyption government broadly on their nuclear program and in their negotiations of project agreements with the Russian nuclear industry. Helen has spent 80-100 days in Egypt during each of these years and, while it requires her to spend time away from family and friends, Helen sees this as a valuable learning experience.

Egypt’s nuclear program began in the 1950s and had considered launching a tender process for a large reactor on multiple occasions. A few years ago, Egypt reinvigorated the project and was approached by the Russian government with a comprehensive proposal. The intergovernmental agreement was signed in 2015 and implemented in 2017, setting the legal, financial, technical and commercial frameworks to build 4 Russian VVER1200 reactors on Egypt’s Meditterranean coast. The agreement includes a $25billion loan from Russia to Egypt to facilitate the project. While there are supply and energy security risks involved in relying on another country, this deal helped establish Egypt’s nuclear industry.

Managing risk is heavily considered when drafting commercial contracts. Helen thinks about the worst case scenarios and negotiates solutions that allocate risk to one party and incentivises the continued performance by both parties in the case of a political dispute. The Egypt-Russia contract, for example, includes protections against any potential political issues that could arise between the two countries.

Nuclear negotiations involve both companies and governments. For example, the Russian government owns the Russian nuclear industry through Rosatom, which owns the majority of subsidiaries. Through the subsidiaries, commercial agreements are put in place. For example, a country may sign an intergovernmental agreement. Then, they may sign individual contracts with individual companies within the Russian apparatus. Negotiations occur with different commercial entities, and the Russian nuclear program is able to manage this massive industry and bring everything together.

Nuclear energy moving forwards (56:42)
56:42 - 1:00:23 (Helen states why she has stuck with nuclear law and what she sees for the future of nuclear.)

Q. What grabbed your attention in nuclear law and keeps you pushing for nuclear energy?
A. Helen was first grabbed by nuclear law because she sees how much left there is to do in the industry. Each new nuclear framework is created from inspiration and requires identifying new issues and solutions. Helen thinks there is still so much work to be done if nuclear is to supply clean energy, requiring active thinking about how to continue doing it better and more efficiently, effectively, safely and securely.

Helen is positive and wants to see nuclear energy playing a role in climate change. She sees nuclear coming to a global crossroads when it comes to large reactors and SMRs. No matter the direction, Helen wants to see the next wave of construction on budget and on time to secure the future of nuclear energy. She also wants to see the legal and regulatory perspectives get in front of the issues facing the industry to ensure nuclear development is not impeded.

Naval Academy and Nuclear Power School
0:48-15:29 (Ed discusses his Naval background and introduction to nuclear.)
Q. How did you get started in the nuclear field?
A. (0:48) Ed Kee is the founder and CEO of Nuclear Economics Consulting Group, a consulting
firm that focuses on the economics of nuclear. He got his start in the nuclear field by attending
the Naval Academy and attending Nuclear Power School. While he was in school the 3-Mile
Island accident happened, shutting down a number of civilian nuclear power operations. After
leaving the Navy, Ed attended graduate school before ending up in energy on the non-nuclear
energy development side. He got back into nuclear in 2007 and has been in the field ever since.
Q. Why did you go into the Navy?
A. ( 2:49) Ed grew up in Texas and knew he wanted to go to one of the military branches’
academies. He ended up at the Naval Academy majoring in engineering where he learned all of
the basics about the field. The Admiral Rickover model means students have to understand
everything from a fundamental baseline, so when things happen students have a deep
understanding of fission and nuclear plants. Ed left the Navy in the early 1980s because it was a
peacetime Navy and Ed felt there weren’t a lot of opportunities. If he’d stayed, his career path
would have been to become a commander of a nuclear-powered cruiser; however, those were
eventually phased out. The cost of maintaining a cruiser plant was illogically high compared to
the cost of turbine reactors on other types of ships.
Q. Why do you need so many people to run a nuclear power plant?
A. (8:39) The Navy approach is to have trained people rather than machines operating. Civilian
nuclear power plants have different types of technology and skill requirements. Ed is potentially
onboard with the idea of plants that don’t need operators to run them but acknowledges it would
be a pretty big shift and doesn’t know anyone that is currently working on it.
Q. Where do you think the nuclear workforce would go if plants became mostly machine-
operated?
A. (13:53) Since the Navy nuclear program is a feeder to the civilian nuclear program, Ed
theorizes that maybe people wouldn’t go into the Navy at such high rates. That being said, over
the past five years there’s been an upswing in the nuclear engineering field but some
uncertainty on where that population will end up in the workforce. Especially when nuclear
plants are closing for economic reasons, putting hundreds of people out of work.
Engineering to Harvard Business School
15:33-28:14 (Ed explains his post-Naval career path before rejoining the nuclear field as an
economic consultant.)

Q. What did you do after you left the Navy?
A. (15:33) Ed went to Harvard Business School for graduate school; he flew directly from an
aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean to his first week of classes. It was an abrupt transition, but
worth it since he was ready to do something else.
Q. What did you do after graduate school?
A. (19:30) Ed joined a startup firm called Catalyst Energy where his job was to work on the
business side of project development analysis and investment analysis. Ed hasn’t done much
control system engineering since he left college, but the private power industry was booming
during the 1980s, so that’s where Ed ended up. Ed then ended up at an energy practice based
in Washington, DC and was traveling all over the world for work. Next he ended up in economic
consulting, at a firm that does economic analysis in respect to witness testimony during
litigation. His work ever since has been about half in litigation, giving expert testimony, and half
in advisory work. After a couple big litigation cases, Ed finally ended up back in the nuclear field.
Regulated vs. Market System of Power
28:20-1:01:05 (Ed describes the American model of electrical power.)
Q. Who is the economic regulator for the nuclear sector?
A. (28:20) In the United States it’s state-based utility commission, they determine the rates
charged.
Q. So, energy markets are really built off of 100 year projections?
A. (34:12) Some plants are using the 100-year model, but others in different parts of the US are
not. In places like Texas and California, the markets are based on short term supply and
demand. However, most of the gas, coal and nuclear plants operating on those markets were
built before the markets developed, under the regulated approach. So, there aren’t enough new
plants being built, and the ones that are may not be focused on the long term process.
Q. Why did the US switch from a regulated system to the market system?
A. (37:37) The idea was to move electricity systems into a market-based world, according to Ed.
The United Kingdom did it first in the 1990s and eventually moved to the US, but only some
states adopted this system. Ed thinks state should now get rid of those markets, because
building short term assets like natural gas plants, will lead to dirtier and more expensive costs in
10 years. A nuclear power plant is a 100-year commitment, but the markets only focus on today
and don’t plan like regulators would have done.
Q. What do you think of the idea of having areas designated as “nuclear only” that operate in
regulated systems?
A. (51:57) Ed believes that nuclear needs to be a government or regulated asset, and China is
doing exactly that - regulating nuclear. China is able to build a lot of plants often on time and
maybe even on budget. China is building 10 plants at a time; that’s the only way to be
successful in nuclear. Building one at a time is always going to be a problem. But it’s difficult to

build more than one in the US at a time due to various issues. Ed things having a federal
government utility could supply energy to a huge consumer, the government, through nuclear
power. But Ed says getting Congress to agree to that idea, is difficult. Instead, some states have
decided they want nuclear plants and are working to keep existing plants open. For example,
New York came up with the Zero Emissions Plan, to give nuclear plants ‘clean air’ money to
stay open. A lot of plants are closing early because of the market system driving the cost of
energy lower than the operating costs of the nuclear plant. This hits at the idea of how to make
nuclear power more competitive - one idea is to provide more plants more revenue taking into
account clean air, extra jobs, and system resilience. New York, Illinois, Connecticut, New
Jersey, and Ohio have done something on a state level to save nuclear plants. Another idea is
to have a carbon tax because we’re currently not charging plants for polluting the environment.
Ed says if we charge a carbon tax, or set a strong emissions limit, it would drive up the
operating costs for other types of plants. That would increase the wholesale market price of
energy and potentially make nuclear power more competitive. However, globally, this type of
effort has been small and inconsistent.
Domestic and Global Future of Nuclear
1:01:20-1:14:03 (Ed discusses his work in the US and abroad, and his thoughts on the future of
nuclear.)
Q. Do you think there’s hope for US plants that closed early but weren’t decommissioned?
A. (1:01:20) Ed doesn’t think so. He explains that in the US, no one has ever reopened a closed
nuclear plant. Establishing regulatory rules around such a thing would likely take 10 years.
However, Canada recently did reopen a “mothball” plant, so there is hope globally. In the US
possession only permits need to be looked at as permanent, according to Ed.
Q. What do you how for the future of nuclear?
A. (1:11:29) Ed works inside and outside of the US, and most of his work in the US is saving
plants from closing early. But outside of the US he focuses on the world nuclear market. Right
now, the Russians and the Chinese are leading in nuclear with maybe the French and US
trailing along. But Ed says you have to look at the broader safety, economics and geopolitical
issues and ask yourself – Do you really want to have a long term, 100-year relationship with the
Chinese or Russian governments?

1) How did you become interested in nuclear energy? (1:55)
Rod Adams was eight years old when he first became interested in nuclear power. His father was the utility engineer, so to Rod the power company was the good guy, he remembers the power company from Christmases and picnics. According to Rod, the power plant being beautiful, except for the two smokestacks. Then one year, Rod’s father first got him interested in nuclear power by telling him a new power company wouldn’t have smokestacks. The new plant was the 1967 Turkey Point. The nuclear plant was an environmentalist's solution who loved clean air and water and wanted those things for South Florida. The plant was built to stop a causeway from being built in the Florida Keys, a nuclear power plant rose in the place of residential developments and a causeway. The nuclear plant, Turkey Point, has a unique cooling system; five miles long and two miles wide system of shallow water canals that look like a radiator from above. Instead of taking water from the ocean, Turkey Point mainly collects rainwater to fill the canals. The canals then provide cooling to the plant through the process of evaporation. Rod says this protects another five miles of Florida’s coastline.

2) As a child you not only understood electricity, but also nuclear power and the positive environmental aspects? 6:20
Rod has visited power plants, coal plants and oil plants and has learned about the positive environmental aspects of nuclear. Most nuclear power plants are built on land that is of ecological importance, including near nature preserves, remote locations, coastlines, artificial islands, etc. While volunteering during fishing tournaments in the Chesapeake Bay, Rod says he has tracked the best locations for fishing, and the largest fish were almost always caught right off of nuclear plants.

3) How did your interest in nuclear turn into a career? 9:02
Rod decided during high school that he wanted to become a nuclear engineer. He spoke with his high school guidance counselor who steered him toward the United States Navy with a free college program and one of the best nuclear engineering programs in the world. In his high school yearbook Rod wrote that he would be attending the US Naval Academy to study nuclear engineering. But first he took a small detour and instead chose to major in English after meeting both sets of professors at the Naval Academy. Majoring in English gave Rod time to do some reading and take elective courses that got him involved in learning how to communicate via writing and speaking, beneficial for a Naval officer career. He eventually graduated as an English major with two years of calculus classes, and a year each of physics, chemical engineering, and chemistry. During his third year, Rod applied for nuclear power school through the Navy’s submarine program and interviewed with Admiral Rickover.

4) What did you learn in the US Navy Academy submarine program? (13:48)
Nuclear power school begins with fundamentals of math, physics, and chemistry. Rod said he worked fast and hard to learn during the focused, shortened courses. The program is a well-structured six-month training course that has been in use since the 1950s or 1960s. Next is visiting a prototype of a land-based rector that is similar or identical to an onboard reactor. Rod’s prototype training took place in upstate New York in a place called Ballston Spa; the prototype was known locally as the “Big Ball.” It was a D1G prototype built for Sea Wolf type submarine.
Navy reactors are different than post other types of nuclear reactors; Navy reactors are designed to be surrounded by water. When calculating the worst-case scenarios, Navy engineers calculate what the maximum pressure would be if there were a tube rupture in a steam generator. The worst-case scenario on a ship is that the ship sinks and implodes and water surrounds the entire systems and it collapses and there’s an explosion. On land, you have to protect the local population from any explosions, that why the Navy also designs land prototypes with the worst-case scenario in mind.

5) What happened after your training there? 18:40
Rod went to his first ship, the USS Stonewall Jackson operating out of Kings Bay, Georgia. He was there for two and a half years in several junior officer positions. He was taken off his first ship a little early because there was an immediate that needed to be filled at the Naval Postgraduate School. Rod studied systems technology; specifically, command, control and communication systems. Computers were fairly new during the mid-1980s. The challenge with submarine communication was that radio waves don’t travel underwater easily. Rod learned how to gather a lot of data and display it in a manner that a commander could review all of the information and make rapid decisions. For Rod, it’s not about the individual components, but rather about the way the come together to create a whole system. Eventually, Rod became the Chief Engineer on the USS Vaughan Stedman.

6) As the Chief Engineer what were your responsibilities? 25:16
Rod was the head of the engineering department on the submarine for 40 months. The nuclear plant, the steam plant; the ship’s electrical system; the ballast system; the hydraulics; the sanitary systems and showers; and the atmospheric control equipment, including, oxygen generators and carbon dioxide scrubbers. Rod had five division officers and five or six petty officers and an assistant chief engineer. They ran three different watch sections of people to monitor the nuclear power plant in eight-hour shifts. Rod was on the submarine with 150 other hardworking people, all reading books, watching movies and playing cards. But he says most of what happens on a submarine stays on a submarine.

7) Where did your career take you next? (29:00)
As a Lieutenant Commander Rod was assigned to teach at the Naval Academy, but once he got to the school he was instead traded to the commandant and became a company officer. He was in that role for three years, but while he was there, he took high level engineering classes in alternative energy. He became interested in an alternative energy that used nuclear fission as its heat source. Rod’s idea from grad school was to combine the best features of nuclear power with Brayton cycle gas turbines to create engines that didn’t have to be refueled. Rod found in the 1950s a lot of people thought gas and nuclear turbines would be the ideal energy source. But it’s difficult to perfect the fuel flow in a turbine time engine to make sure the flame doesn’t burn out. Rod thought nuclear might be the answer. He applied for and got a patent on a control system and eventually left active duty in the Navy to form a company, Adam’s Atomic Engines, with the goal of making nuclear gas turbines that were so much simpler than steam plants to power islands and ships. But Rod thinks he was about 20 years ahead of the curve; Adam’s Atomic Engines was founded in 1993 and put it to heavy sleep in 1996 because the price of natural gas prices was so cheap, and they couldn’t find investors. He then got recalled to active duty for the Navy in 1999.

8) What did you learn from your time at Adam’s Atomic Engines? 40:45
The best part of Rod’s journey with Adam’s Atomic Engines was the creation of his current website, called “Atomic Insights;” it developed out of a paper publication and transformed into a digital publication during the rise of the Internet era. The company officially closed in 2010, when Rod took a position with the Empower Project.

Why is nuclear important? 1:07:51
Nuclear is important because our society developed based on energy. Energy was originally only available to a small number of people who could afford to outsource their labor to other people. Eventually machines and global transportation developed. Nuclear doesn’t require much material movement, there isn’t much material to transport from place to place. A kid with a backpack can carry as much material as a moderately sized oil tanker. Rod says you just have to find a way to get energy to where people are. Nuclear energy can provide heat and motion and fuel. And it’s cleaner than other forms of energy.

Neil’s path from the UK to Canada (1:55)
1:55-7:16 (Neil explains how he came to reside in Canada and how he first entered the nuclear field.)

Q. What brought you to Canada?
A. (1:00) Neil Alexander came to Canada from the UK 20 years ago. At the time, Neil was working for AA Technology who bought a radioactive waste management company in Canada. Neil was assigned to run the newly acquired company. At the end of his contract, Neil returned to the UK but soon realized that he preferred living in Canada. He is now a Principal Consultant at Bucephalus Consulting.

Neil was a metallurgist, or a material scientist, with little original interest in nuclear. Neil joined the Energy Technology Support Unit after his PhD. The group was established by the UK government in response to the depleting coal resources. Here, Neil spent a year and a half researching both renewables and energy efficiency. He then transitioned to the commercial side of the company where he became involved in nuclear power.

Transitioning to commercial nuclear practice (7:17)
7:17-12:54 (Neil explains how he and the UK transitioned from renewables to commercial nuclear practice. He also discusses his role in the commercial nuclear industry.)

Q. How did you transition from renewables to nuclear?
A. (6:29) AA Technology was created from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority as it transitioned into commercial practice. Neil was recruited to work in the commercial side and was introduced to the nuclear industry. The UK chose to transition to a commercial practice because they saw the opportunity to succeed, decreasing the need for further government funding. This transition was consistent with how the UK’s nuclear industry was changing at the time. The UK was involved in the development of reactors, including the Magnox Reactors and the advanced gas core reactors. The UK had then become involved in reprocessing. Once plants were built and operated, the research side of UK’s nuclear program was naturally changing.

Neil found transitioning from research to commercial practice quite natural. Neil found that he was usually assigned the challenges that others did not want to pursue. This meant that he often moved between between different fields. With AA Technology, Neil gained insights into decommissioning, waste management and sales in the US. He then went on to work in radioisotope production and with radioactive materials produced outside of the nuclear industry. This raised his awareness of how modern society relies on radioactive material.

Disposing of radioactive waste (12:55)
12:55-17:33 (Neil explains how nuclear waste is disposed of in the UK, the US and Canada.)

Q. What was the protocol for disposing of waste at the time in the UK?
A. (12:06) Neil was primarily dealing with waste from outside of the nuclear industry and working in decay storing. Hazardous materials can lessen their hazard by being left over time in a controlled way. Neil believes that the industry must develop an effective communication strategy for discussing nuclear waste with the public. Radioactive waste has a negative connotation, but it is no different from any other man made waste, especially when handled correctly.

Used fuel in Canada is stored similarly to that of the US. It is stored onsite in ponds until the heat has been removed and then is stored in dry storage containers. These containers are kept inside buildings in Canada as opposed to in the US where they are sometimes stored outside. Like the US and the UK, Canada plans to construct a deep geological repository. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is currently working on securing a socially acceptable site. Part of this work involves establishing strong relationships with the communities of potential sites.

Speaking about radioactive waste (17:34)
17:34-25:27 (Neil explains how he approaches radioactive waste conversations and what needs to happen within the industry to improve communication.)

Q. How do you communicate nuclear waste to a community?
A. (16:45) Neil does not talk directly with communities but rather speaks more generally about radioactive waste. Neil believes the industry has accidentally scared people in their attempt to communicate safety. He gives the example of pointing out a crack on a plane to somebody sitting besides him. While Neil knew that the crack had been dealt with and meant the plane had been inspected and was safe to fly on, the man next to him was not secured with this information. Neil compares this to the nuclear industry’s communication strategy, noting that explaining how the industry keeps people safe does not help peoples’ peace of mind. Instead, the industry should be stating that no problems exist and no harm is done. Neil also states the need to calibrate the problem. He gives the example of a politician asking what would happen if a glass container of radioactive material was dropped and broken. Neil had needed to remind the politician that the radioactive isotope would be injected into somebody for medical treatment. This regrounds the idea of how big a hazard is in reality.

Neil recently realized that he is still afraid of radiation. Even though he knows the facts, facts do not remove fear. Working in the industry creates radiation fear, which is fine to an extent, but this fear is then passed on to the public. Neil notes that sometimes more issues are created when the industry talks about safety issues. Social scientists must be brought in to introduce a people-based understanding. This new perspective will help solve communication problems.

Establishing fertile markets for SMRs (25:28)
25:28-33:12 (Neil discusses how SMRs are changing the nuclear industry and how governments can help establish fertile markets.)

Q. What do you think is the best way to advance nuclear power and are SMRs the right direction?
A. (24:40) Neil works with Bob Walker, a proponent of Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). Together they have created an independent think tank to explore SMR adoption. SMRs present a paradigm shift that introduces changes to the industry. In addition to new technology, SMRs create a new nuclear market. Rather than individual large plants, SMRs must be built in fleets. Fleet building increases experience within the industry through multiple quick builds. This will ultimately drive down costs.

Selling SMRs requires a focus shift from technology towards generating a demand for SMRs. Governments can support this by helping people understand nuclear better through the explanation of the economic and greenhouse gas benefits of SMRs. Governments can also include SMRs in nuclear plans, establishing confidence that the industry will not face protests or complaints later on. This creates fertile markets, signaling to investors and creating SMR positivity.

Increasing public acceptance (33:13)
33:13-37:13 (Neil explains the challenge nuclear faces when winning over the public. He discusses several ways in which governments can increase acceptance.)

Q. Do you think that making nuclear more visible to the public will make it okay?
A. (32:24) Neil believes the industry faces a harder challenge than wind and solar because people are fearful of nuclear power. Nuclear, however, can produce energy on a greater scale than wind and solar. Neil believes governments making pro-nuclear statements would be helpful in establishing greater public acceptance and support. Proving the success of nuclear energy in countries where nuclear is more receptive is also important in winning over other governments.

Compelling communications (37:14)
37:14-42:27 (Neil describes his role at Bucephalus Consulting. He also expands on why effective communication is needed for the industry.)

Q. What have you been doing with Bucephalus Consulting?
A. (36:25) Neil primarily discovers what people want and produces results. Neil also works outside the nuclear industry, developing proposals and compelling communications to help others. He is also involved in creating the market for SMRs where he spends time convincing people within the industry to look into preparing the groundwork for these emerging markets. Neil believes effective communication is a major issue in the industry. He thinks this is due to the fact that most industry professionals are physical scientists and engineers that do not focus on people. Additionally, people are unable to agree on whose job it is to better understand the public. Neil believes that governments should be taking on communication strategies if they wish to reach greenhouse gas targets through the adoption of successful nuclear program.

Koroush enters the nuclear industry (0:13)
0:13-5:04 (Koroush explains how he entered the nuclear industry and what he learned as an intern at Southern Nuclear Headquarters.)

Q. How did you get into this space?
A. (0:18) Koroush Shirvan is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He teaches nuclear literacy to inform a wide audience about nuclear energy. His students include members of Congress, the media, think tanks and advocacy groups.

Koroush moved to Florida from Iran in 2001 when he was 14 years old because his parents wanted him to gain a strong education. Growing up, Koroush was highly interested in math, physics and engineering and ended up at the University of Florida because his aunt’s husband was a professor there and the head of Nuclear Engineering was also from Iran. Nuclear engineering also had many fellowships and financial support and created the opportunity for Koroush to intern at Southern Nuclear Headquarters. After the internship, Koroush was drawn to stay in the industry because of the interdisciplinary focus.

The internship at Southern Nuclear taught Koroush many things about the nuclear industry, particularly about reactor core designs. Roughly 40% of the fuel is removed from both Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) when they are shut down every 18 and 24 months respectively. The fuel is placed in the spent fuel pools and new fuel is added. The arrangement of the fuel assemblies is important for performance, both for economic efficiency and to meet safety requirements.

Designing for optimization (5:05)
5:05-12:04 (Koroush describes the shift from designing for optimization to improving predictability. He explains what a secondary side is and why optimizing the design of this is important in today’s competitive nuclear landscape.)

Q. Is anyone looking at changing the geometric design of reactor cores?
A. (5:10) The core design focus changed in 2008 from designing for optimization to improving predictability. Castle, the Consorting for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors based out of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was created to enable more accurate predictions, which has been the focus of nuclear research and development (R&D) for the past 10 to 15 years. For new reactors, vessel size and old operation parameters no longer constrain design. For instance, the secondary side pressure no longer needs to be based on plant efficiency and safety limits.

Secondary side pressure is 6.5 to 7.5 megapascals, or about 1,000 psi, and half the pressure of a primary side. The saturation temperature in the primary side is 350°C, meaning the secondary side must have a lower pressure because the primary side is already below saturation. In newer plants, though, the secondary side pressure is actually higher than in old reactors, with efficiencies of 34 to 35% rather than 33% efficiencies in older plants. There is currently not much focus on optimizing the secondary side as the existing parameters are often adopted for new designs.

Koroush has worked with several vendors, learning that keeping designs the same instead of optimizing the secondary side often happens because existing designs have already been licensed by the regulator. Changing designs incur high regulatory costs involving both time and money. Simplifying designs and designing for inherent safety was a focus of the 1990s when competition was not as high as today. But because competition is stronger, optimizing the secondary side as much as possible should be a design focus.

Communicating nuclear safety (12:05)
12:05-19:11 (Koroush explains how the emphasis on safety arose in the nuclear industry. He also discusses the shift away from including safety in the nuclear communication strategy and his approach to teaching nuclear.)

Q. Did you track the history of the move to inherent or passive safety to understand where these notions came from and why we follow this pedagogy?
A. (12:10) Academic trends, such as the number of students in a particular major, are an indicator of how healthy an industry is. In the 1990s, the number of nuclear industry related students dropped because the public was not certain of the safety of the industry. Passive safety and probabilistic risk assessments stem from this rising public uncertainty.

No one has yet to create a perfect plan for communicating risk perception and changing people’s perceptions. It was once believed that communicating the safety of core damage frequency was a good marketing strategy. Like any other industry, there are groups advocating for different strategies, such as communicating nuclear in the same way as other industries. In Koroush’s class, students advocate for their particular state of mind. He leads the discussions in an unbiased way with the approach of teaching the subject rather than convincing students of a particular thing.

Academia versus industry (19:12)
19:12-28:03 (Koroush explains the interdisciplinary nature of the nuclear field and the differences between academia and industry. He also describes his PhD thesis and how the reactor design process has changed to focus on economics and safety.)

Q. What is the difference between studying nuclear as an undergraduate and a graduate student?
A. (19:15) Both of Koroush’s degrees focused on applications rather than just theory, but MIT gave him wider access to experts. Nuclear is highly interdisciplinary, requiring students to gain expertise in each engineering discipline as well as physics and policy. He believes he gained an even greater insight into nuclear engineering systems after his PhD when working in the field.

When learning something, teachings are often taken as truth and not questioned. In academia, much of the information is 10 to 15 years old and does not keep up with the continually upgraded equipment and procedures of existing nuclear plants. An example of a difference between what he learned in class and what he encountered in the industry comes from Koroush’s time as an intern. It is widely accepted that four new nuclear assemblies in a PWR are not placed together because it could create a hotspot, but Koroush has yet to see a physical justification for this rule. Additionally, the thought that designs should be as square as possible to reduce leakage is outdated because the decreased cost of uranium reduces the significance of possible leakage.

Koroush focused part of his PhD thesis on optimizing the geometry of the BWR design. The core design process used to flow in the following order: reactor physics, maximizing neutron economy, heat transfer, fuel analysis, safety analysis, risk analysis and economic analysis. Today’s process of objective function follows a different flow, focusing primarily on economics and meeting safety. Because prices have decreased over time, the core has become shorter with more pins closer together to create better economic performance. The size of the vessel in a BWR is critical because a short core means all other aspects are shorter, including the vessel, control plates, containment and spent fuel.

Startups and microreactors (28:04)
28:04-35:17 (Koroush states that both utilities and startups are exploring nuclear designs. He explains that startups that focus on microreactors are usually more successful because they require less employees and undergo an easier NRC licensing process.)

Q. Where do nuclear conversations take place?
A. (28:08) Conversations happen in many settings. For example, utilities have long term fuel purchasing agreements. Conversations must be both bottom-up and top-down because utility executives must be knowledgeable enough to renegotiate contracts as fuel prices drop over time. Designers focusing on creating core rods that are only 1 meter tall are found in utilities and in startups.

Koroush is familiar with the nuclear startup scene. The growing number of startups can be divided by the complexity of the problem that they’re focusing on and by the number of people in the startup. A large light water reactor may take millions of hours of work, so a small startup pursuing this type of reactor may not reach their goal. A startup focusing on micro reactors, on the other hand, could succeed with a fewer number of employees.

Microreactors also have an easier time than large reactors when it comes to demonstrating safety to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This is because the requirements to demonstrate safety rely on the reactor’s source term, which is the radionuclides that might escape from the reactor during a radioactive release and is directly proportional to the fission power generated by a reactor. The smaller the amount of power generated by a reactor, the less tricky NRC demonstrations become. Reactors that generate gigawatts, however, require a higher level of safety precautions to be demonstrated to the NRC. Microreactors may generate only 10 megawatts, meaning they undergo a less stringent NRC process due to the lower source term.

Calculating the initial source term involves the neutron cross section data and half life of radioactive isotopes. These are known, meaning good models can be created. Predicting mobility is more difficult. Low source terms, however, allow for other models, such as maximum credible release accidents, to be analyzed on conventional plume modeling to meet safety limits. Known engineering factors can be also used to estimate the dose profile.

Economic factors affecting new plant designs (35:18)
35:18-40:30 (Koroush describes the economic conclusions from his small reactor design research. He also explains why repurposing coal plants for new nuclear facilities have low economic incentives.)

Q. What are some of the conclusions that you have found about making reactors smaller and how does this affect economics?
A. (35:22) Koroush’s research resulted in a need for drastic design changes for utilities to remain competitive. Layout designs must be approached in a different way for small modular reactors to keep capital costs low and to overcome the economies of scale that large plants benefit from.

Repurposing coal plants to become nuclear facilities has been looked into, but economics explain why this does not occur. The turbine island is low cost to begin with, but introducing it to an existing coal plant would require reconfiguration costs. Additionally, the connection between the turbine island and the control room must be updated, which introduces a new cost. Overall, there is not much economic incentive to repurpose a coal plant unless the site underwent a high cost excavation to begin with.

Repurposing reactor fuel (40:31)
40:31-51:04 (Koroush discusses the various reasons behind reusing fuel. He also explains the conversion ratio, the factors that limit the number of fuel cycles and why mixing fuel pellets with coolant is not a practical solution.)

Q. How do you think about the different fuel cycles?
A. (40:34) Koroush has only worked with one reactor design as a long term project that could burn repurposed reactor fuel. The Reduced Boiling Water Reactor designed by Hitachi boiled water to increase the flight time of neutrons, improving the efficiency of disposing plutonium and burning nuclear waste. Decisions to reuse fuel are based on cost, so reprocessing fuel does not make economic sense when uranium is cheap. Other factors, such as not wanting to store plutonium, will influence the decision to repurpose and burn used fuel.

Light water reactors are proliferation resistant to a certain extent. The conversion ratio of a light water reactor is 0.3 to 0.4, meaning they burn fuel efficiently. The conversion ratio is the ratio of the amount of fissile material that a reactor begins with versus the amount it ends with. The breeding ratio and conversion ratio are essentially the same. If the conversion rate is 1, the amount of fissile material is the same at the end. This is good from a fuel economic standpoint, but means fuel may need to be reprocessed, requiring additional cost and energy.

There are many limitations that restrict the number of fuel cycles. The burnup, or the amount of energy extracted per kilogram, must be increased. This is limited by the capability of uranium dioxide to hold onto its structure. It is also limited by the metallic cladding material’s structure to hold during accident scenarios. Continuing to burn low fissile inventories requires other assemblies to generate more power, creating more hotspots. This is further limited by the thermal margin, which is in turn limited by the fuel properties.

Mixing fuel pellets with coolant presents potential problems. If the cladding breaches during an accident, water would pick up the pellet grains and contaminate the entire system. Theoretically, pump seals could also erode, leaking radioactive fuel.

Accelerating innovation (52:05)
52:05-59:17 (Koroush discusses what needs to happen to accelerate innovation and secure the future of the nuclear industry.)

Q. How do you think innovation can be accelerated in the sector?
A. (52:11) Koroush emphasises the need for an integrated approach with any new technology. Incorporating both the economic and safety viewpoints avoids unnecessary steps and removes circular cycles. Koroush saw the nuclear renaissance of the 2000s, creating a profitable era for utilities and R&D investment. Koroush now asks why those funds were not used to secure the future of nuclear. He sees the need for a coordinated effort between government and industry to support R&D. Additionally, Koroush believes that if the public perception problem is fixed, the critical next step is attracting the best engineers to the sector. This will bring about investment in technology and strong management skills to best execute projects. This will lead to reactors being built on time and on budget.