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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Francesco Tassi [00:46:15] Perfect.

‍