TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Q1 - Early Days at Idaho National Labs

Bret Kugelmass: Where are you from?

David Shropshire: David Shropshire great up in Idaho, where he has spent a majority of his career at Idaho National Labs. After receiving his industrial engineering degree at Montana State University, Shropshire left the region to work in California and Colorado. Shropshire liked the idea of systems and system engineering, particularly in the economic analysis. His first job out of college was in defense electronics with Texas Instruments, which was a very technical look at defense systems that were used on different kinds of aircrafts and looked at ways to manufacture components. After eight years with Texas Instruments, Shropshire returned to Idaho in the late 1980’s to work at Idaho National Labs (INL). At that point, the INL was hiring a lot of individuals for environmental restoration, as it temporarily moved away from its research mission and into cleanup mode. Shropshire worked for five years in waste management during cleanup, focusing on designing the systems and technologies involved in nuclear waste retrieval, storage, and disposal. At the time, waste management was very regulatory driven. Later, when Shropshire moved into radioactive waste management, the focus was more long term, such as for a reactor or nuclear program, as opposed to short term waste management during cleanup efforts. He enjoyed working with Lockheed Martin while at INL, completing projects from a systems engineering approach. As a multiprogram national laboratory, there are opportunities to move around and do lots of different work. Bechtel came in to INL as a contractor with a focus of fossil energy and carbon capture and sequestration. Shropshire served on the Carbon Sequestration Advisory Committee for the State of Idaho and analyzed terrestrial sequestration, storage of carbon in soil.

Q2 - Nuclear Systems Engineering

Bret Kugelmass: How does terrestrial sequestration affect the soil?

David Shropshire: People thought bigger farming would be better, but it turns out sustainable land practices are beneficial and can end up being economical like large-scale farming. David Shropshire became involved with the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission during his work on terrestrial sequestration. This gave Shropshire some environmental background in his career, where he later got involved with climate change on the energy side. After the fossil energy stage of his work with Bechtel, Battelle came in to INL and Shropshire found an opportunity to work on nuclear advanced fuel cycles, getting him more involved in nuclear technology and generation IV reactors. His program participated in a number of studies, including the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which looked into closed fuel cycles for fast reactors. The economics of the front end of fuel is dependent on if its using a natural uranium or a MOX fuel with plutonium that was recycled out of used fuel. On the back end, there is storage and ultimate disposal of the fuel and the other waste products produced, which may include recycling schemes. Plutonium recycling is being done in some countries, such as France, but their data is not available, so a lot of the information Shropshire used was derived for various studies done within the Department of Energy (DOE) system. Shropshire recognized that there was not just one cost, but if the cost was evaluated close enough, there was a distribution of potential costs. When alternatives were compared, it was a comparison of the distributions. The DOE tried to promote a closed fuel cycle for a fast reactor, but to scale up any of these programs beyond a lab setting is very expensive. Shropshire had an opportunity to work for the European Commission and moved to Europe to work at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Petten in the Netherlands for two years. The JRC is similar to a national lab, but looks at all energy systems. Shropshire supported the nuclear domain, working on energy systems evaluations, looking at the nuclear component of the broader systems. This gave Shropshire a clear indication of the reality of the energy situation, especially how renewables were limited due to storage, transmission, and load flexibility.

Q3 - Nuclear Energy Compared to Renewables

Bret Kugelmass: What is the threshold for grid penetration in intermittent power sources where supply does not meet demand?

David Shropshire: The threshold for grid penetration of renewable energies is different for each country. Every region has different renewable abilities, but wind and solar are the most intermittent sources. There are some predictive capabilities of when you can expect them to be operating, but not as much as hydro and thermal power. Most of the renewables can be accommodated within the grid at five to ten percent. If there isn’t enough adequate backup sources or linkages to other systems, it could be a problem. Renewables can continue to be pushed upwards, but in general maybe 50% may be a limit. Renewables need efficiency, backup power, storage, and other kinds of flexible energy sources for more of a moment to moment standpoint. A certain amount of load following could be done with nuclear, which is currently being done in France and has been done in the U.S. in the past. From an economic standpoint, it is better to run an expensive asset all the time at peak efficiency and get the most capacity out of it, so it may not make sense to ramp the power up and down. Excess energy could be used as a heat product, such as low temperature for desalination or high temperature for hydrogen production. The light water reactors we have today do not get hot enough for hydrogen production, but the existing high-temperature reactors may be used for chemical processing. Thermal energy is needed and nuclear could play a role in the future to use some of their energy produced for other purposes.

Q4 - Nuclear Energy Economic Planning

Bret Kugelmass: Is there any research being done to the carbon footprint of energy storage systems themselves?

David Shropshire: There have been some studies looking at the systems aspects of using intermittent renewable power, in that wherever the backup source is coming from, there is going to be a price. It takes resources to build batteries, operate them, and dispose of them. That all has a carbon footprint and gets added onto whatever energy system they are assisting. Nuclear power already has a very low life cycle carbon footprint and doesn’t have a variability issues. If it is used as a baseload, it will still need peaking capacity through other means. After two years in the Netherlands, Shropshire made some connections in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). His studies involved looking at how small modular reactors (SMR’s) could work within these systems to balance out renewable energy systems. A couple studies showed how using a flexible source of nuclear power could assist renewable energy in being able to achieve higher levels of penetration in the grid than they would otherwise. Shropshire aimed to create an opportunity for nuclear to be a win-win with renewable energy. Shropshire joined the IAEA to work in the Economic Planning Studies area, which is a section within the Department of Nuclear Energy and interacts with other aspects of nuclear energy. The section management planning capacity building, which is the development of energy planning models that is provided to member states to better understand options and trade-offs. Requests for support are funneled through the Technical Cooperation aspect of the organization, which tries to come up with a program for these countries that can assist them as best as possible. Through the tenant cooperation (TC) program, the IAEA sets a schedule to put on training in the country and help build up the expertise of their experts.

Q5 - IAEA’s Role in Energy Development

Bret Kugelmass: How do the needs of countries in different regions of the world differ?

David Shropshire: Some countries have fairly fundamental energy needs that need to be met. Most of these cases are not looking at nuclear power, but are looking for basic energy solutions. These solutions help provide a basic standard of living, which may be better utilizing their own domestic resources that may be clean, like hydropower, implement renewable energy, or partner with other countries to provide some services. In Africa, there are a lot of regional partnerships, as countries realize they don’t have the resources to bring on energy development on their own. The IAEA works with a lot of regional players to understand the energy needs of a region, not just a country. About 30 countries have approached the IAEA with interest of integrating nuclear at some point in the future. Once a country’s economy has developed and they can recognize the value of nuclear power, they want to get more information about how it could be used and how it could work in their situation. A program in the Infrastructure Development section provides them with a checklist to see if the country has all the capabilities needed to support a nuclear program. Nuclear requires a regulatory body and infrastructure to support the program, as well as the skills and expertise within their workforce to support the facility. The agency’s role is to assist these countries and help them be successful.

Q6 - Energy Poverty and Sustainable Development Goals

Bret Kugelmass: How do we think about the problem of energy poverty and sustainable development goals?

David Shropshire: David Shropshire sees countries that are in-tune with the sustainable development goals and considering the carbon that is being produced for their energy development. They might start out with natural gas or propane, and their energy planning might migrate into lower carbon technologies as they grow. They have to look at the cleanest way possible to bring them out of energy poverty, and then consider other options later. The IAEA helps inform decision makers in these countries about what their options are. There are trade-offs between different energy technologies, such as carbon footprint, physical footprint, and other pollutants. The IAEA produces a number of reports along this domain and aims to be a source of information on the costs of different energy technologies.

Q7 - Coordination Between Nuclear Energy and Renewables

Bret Kugelmass: When planning long-term, how do you think about incorporating technologies that haven’t been implemented yet, and what do you see coming?

David Shropshire: Energy systems are evolving and we are seeing a lot of progress in the area of renewables. Nuclear is also seeing development, especially around small modular reactors (SMR’s) and other similar concepts. These have potential for nuclear to produce a different product than in the past, not just base load electricity, but potentially process heat or variable need that the renewable energy systems have. The industry is also looking at how to replace the reactors that will be decommissioned over the next one or two decades, which will have a significant impact on the overall fleets within the world. We don’t want these reactors to be replaced by high carbon sources, but instead by more nuclear or some combination of nuclear and renewables. Nuclear can maintain a role as both base load as well as helping offset some of the variability aspects of the renewable energy systems.

Q1 - Path to Nuclear (Pt. 1)

Bret Kugelmass: What drew your interest into the nuclear space?

Malcolm Grimston: Malcolm Grimston read Natural Sciences and specialized in Psychology and doubled in Chemistry at the University of Cambridge. He went on to teach chemistry for seven years; towards the end of his time teaching, nuclear power was just coming onto the chemistry syllabus and Grimston became interested in the topic. Grimston was especially interested in the environmental perspective of nuclear. In 1987, Grimston joined the Atomic Energy Authority and started out with many public presentations. He considers himself an expert in public perception, but literate in a wide range of topics and issues. Grimston spent eight years at the Atomic Energy Authority, three of them incumbent to the Nuclear Industry Association, and also achieved a degree in Philosophy and is an elected politician. Grimston is interested in psychological diversity, specifically the Myers-Briggs typology. It derives from Jung, who argued that our psychology is set down early in life and is somewhat independent of our experience. Myers-Briggs built onto Jung’s work, focusing on the spectra of introversion and extroversion, sensing and intuition, thinking and feeling, and perceiving and judging. Grimston considers himself a noisy extrovert, quite analytical, extremely big picture, and very flexible.

Q2 - Relationship Between Scientists and the Public (Pt. 2)

Bret Kugelmass: How long have you been publishing?

Malcolm Grimston: Malcolm Grimston’s first two books were published by Peter Beck, including “Double or Quits” in 2002. The book aimed to but the pro and anti nuclear cases side by side in six key areas affecting the industry, including economics, technology, and resources. The advisory panel was chaired by Gordon Mackerron, who is usually on the skeptic side of the argument, and included some individuals from Friends of the Earth, and representatives of industry. Writing “The Paralysis in Energy Decision-Making” in 2016 was Grimston’s attempt to pull together all the cross-disciplinary information into a single place. He explores the tripartite relationship between the public sphere, the scientific, technical sphere, and the political sphere. Nuclear has gone through two are three phases, including post-war, in which politicians and scientists trusted each other. Through the sixties or seventies, there was a break in those relationships and trust was lost, creating a period in which practically no decisions were made. Grimston hopes we have entered a third phase in which we arrive at a synthesis of the two previous phases. One chapter looks into the reintegration of expertise into its proper place, analyzing how to get over damage done during a time in which the political fashion was to find reasons for not making decisions. One of the ways for doing that was calling for more regulation and consultation. Grimston did a lot of media work around Fukushima, since he was able to provide context about the physics and nuclear science, but also can communicate to the public effectively.

Q3 - Public Perceptions of Nuclear (Pt. 3)

Bret Kugelmass: Where does your perspective on Fukushima come from?

Malcolm Grimston: Malcolm Grimston views Fukushima as a mid-range accident, but recognizes that it was treated as the worst disaster of mankind. Nuclear is the safest type of electricity that we have come up with, but it is the one most frequently associated with risk. Multiple countries have stopped developing nuclear energy. Fukushima was treated much worse than tragic dam collapses and mining accidents. There’s a broad fundamental arrogance in the physical science establishment that the world reflects our theories. There is a combination of ignorance and irrationality that is wrong with the public, and they need to be filled with the right facts. Each Myers-Briggs type sees the world in a different way and people have different weights of ways of interacting with the world. The nuclear industry had unlimited amount of funds throughout the sixties and seventies. The fatal combination was the budget, which brought on gold plating such as waste management, coupled with the psychological mistake of thinking the public should be told the technology has been made safer. The perception was that, if we tell people the technology has gotten safer, people will get more comfortable with it. However, the reality was that not many industries take this approach of communicating safety, so it constantly reminded the public that it was something to be worried about.

Q4 - Nuclear Waste and Radiophobia (Pt. 4)

Bret Kugelmass: How does nuclear waste compare, in terms of its danger to human health, to petrol or paint stripper?

Malcolm Grimston: Nirex, a body focused on nuclear in the U.K., compared nuclear waste to petrol or paint stripper in the sense that it could cause a problem if not dealt with properly. As a technical analogy, it may not be bad, but as a psychological property, it tells people it is much more dangerous than anything we’ve ever produced by taking drastically different measures. This causes mistrust in the public. If the industry goes to the public and tells the public that radiation is dramatically more dangerous than it actually is and it will be treated as more dangerous than it actually is, the public concludes that radiation is a lot more dangerous than it actually is. Grimston argues that the public is not irrational, but instead takes the information presented to them. After Fukushima, it took a week to calibrate the very sensitive radioactive module, which did detect activity, but found that it was 1/53,000 of the level at which they would get concerned. Due to the sensitivity of the equipment, Grimston hypothesizes that public perception either sees that money was spent on an instrument that can read levels of radiation that are not even a measurement of concern, or that a tool of that level of sensitivity was created because it is known those levels are unsafe and the public is being lied to. Both perceptions increase public mistrust. Radiophobia hardly exists in any other field, such as natural radiation, radon, air travel, and medical radiation. Radiation isn’t a big scare word in any other context except for nuclear energy. Grimston argues one reason for perception is that nobody spends time telling people how dangerous medical radiation is by telling people how safe it is. For the past 20 or 30 years, the nuclear industry has viewed innovation as about improving safety, leading to equipment like the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR). Not much has been done to bring down the cost of nuclear generation. Fukushima proved that, under the extreme circumstances of the earthquake and tsunami, even 1970’s technology was incapable of killing anybody.

Q5 - Nuclear Safety Systems & Economics (Pt. 5)

Bret Kugelmass: If all the safety systems at Fukushima failed and still no one got hurt, why not start removing safety systems to reduce cost in the plant?

Malcolm Grimston: Malcolm Grimston argues that the question, “How do we make sure Fukushima doesn’t happen again?” should be clearly restated, “How do we make sure, next there is a major release of activity from a nuclear power station, we don’t end up causing massive human misery unnecessarily?” We need to protect people from radiological protection, instead of from radiation itself. After spending decades telling people how safe it is, people make sense that if there were to be a major accident, it would be in a different league from anything else. If innovation is not aiming to bring costs down to become more efficient, but is instead about safety, nuclear becomes priced out of the market. When EDF, one of the bix six companies in the U.K. that distributes gas and electricity, bought British Energy, the nuclear stations were now in the electricity industry and marketed from an electricity business model. The most dangerous nuclear station is the one that you can’t afford to build. In nuclear regulation, there is a “do no harm” clause, but the focus is on radiation. There should not be a single radiological evacuation and exclusion set of criteria, independent of the types of lives of the people that will be affected, for example, farming families compared to more mobile families. The immediate evacuation during the accident of the people living nearby to Fukushima needed to happen, but beyond that, within three weeks to three months, the orders could be lifted. Sometimes, more harm than good can be done by forcing people out of their homes rather than educating people on the circumstances and giving them a choice of the outcome.

Q6 - Changing Nuclear Communication Culture (Pt. 6)

Bret Kugelmass: If the industry wanted to make a change in communication, how would it come about and what would need to happen?

Malcolm Grimston: The political establishments in the U.K. was enormously mature at Fukushima. The role is to not make things worse and, during Fukushima, the main U.K. broadcast media was very measure about what was happening. Fukushima persuaded many people that nuclear was the direction the world should be going for energy. Nuclear going wrong is better than coal going right. So much devastation at Fukushima was entirely unnecessary. Some experts preach that the nuclear industry should own that nothing is perfectly safe, but also that an event like Fukushima must never happen again. These contradictory statements are confusing to the public. Not everyone is emotionally driven, so information like linear non-threshold theory may help the concrete thinkers. But having the human anecdote, linked with concrete facts and observations, communicates a believable message to the public.

Q7 - International Nuclear Success (Pt. 7)

Bret Kugelmass: How do we change the technical strategy to be economically feasible and solve the problems in time?

Malcolm Grimston: The answer is not politically easy, but involves turning the world out to the countries that can do it, South Korea, China, and Russia, who build them at a reasonable cost and manage the projects okay. If you’re buying in projects that are licensed in other countries, you must work with the regulator to get that implemented. We should spend money in countries that have shown they can complete this work. There have been five Level 5 or above accidents in about 1.25 million reactor years. The ultimate position is that accidents happen in industry, but we can mitigate those effects quite effectively. When Grimston visited Fukushima, the only place where people were wearing facemasks was those working directly in the reactor buildings themselves. In Tokyo, one in five people wear facemasks because they correctly perceive that Tokyo is a much more dangerous place to live than Fukushima. Post-war, the physical scientists saw themselves taking over from organized religion and as the keepers of mystical truths. In contrast, science is actually about best guesses. Because of the way scientists set themselves up, trust in science began to decline in the 60’s and 70’s. For a long time, very large numbers of scientific theories were overturned. It is important to remember that scientists are people. Attitudes in the industry need to change and accepting and integrating social science marketing.

Q8 - Future of Nuclear (Pt. 8)

Bret Kugelmass: What is your outlook into the future of nuclear? What needs to happen to have a complete transformation where nuclear becomes the premier power source in the next twenty years?

Malcolm Grimston: Malcolm Grimston does not big reactors, as they are now, taking over as the premier source of energy. There are two possible outcomes. One is that we return world lead generation to recast the debate away from reducing emissions and towards reducing costs. The other big dream is small modular reactors (SMR’s), which there have been concepts for since the 1950’s. Renewables have been around since the 1800’s, since the beginning of electricity. If they were that simple, we would have been doing them decades ago. The current myth is that renewables have no inherent problems. If they do manage to get costs down, manufactured nuclear stations could be the way forward if they can transform the economics. The facts of nuclear are normalizing in the U.K. The nuclear industry has not noticed the disconnect in communication. Because the nuclear industry went bust around 2002, the amount it was spending on public education and information fell off quite rapidly. The correlation is that the less the industry spends on education, the fewer people oppose nuclear power. Perhaps when nuclear stops treating itself different than other industries, people become less worried about it.

Q1 - International Nuclear Design

Bret Kugelmass: Did you grow up in France?

Bernard Bigot: Bernard Bigot, a French native, served as a university professor in quantum chemistry at École normale supérieure. The study of chemistry critical for many issues as chemistry permeates other fields, such as natural resources and energy. Bigot was later appointed the Director-General of the Research and Higher Education Minister in France. France has a large number of public institutions, such as universities and labs, and many private companies are relying on these national support programs. When Bigot first became Director-General, fission development were just started seeking out government support. In 1985, Reagan and Gorbachev decided to launch a large international corporation program for research. In 15 years and across three countries, a conceptual design was developed for the Tokamak Reactor, a special device allowing for the fusion of hydrogen. By 2000, the public considered the project mature enough to build it, but three major details had yet to be determined: governance, funding, and location. After a large negotiation, six partners, United States, Russia, Europe, China, Korea, and Japan decided to move forward on the project in 2005.

Q2 - Nuclear Fusion

Bret Kugelmass: On a basic physics level, what is fusion?

Bernard Bigot: Stars are a big bubble of hydrogen, the lightest element. When hydrogen nuclei is forced to get closer together, a new nuclei, helium, is spontaneously produced, as well as neutrons. These new particles are expelled at a very large speed, which can be converted into thermal energy. This thermal energy can be used to heat water or produce steam. Both hydrogen atoms have a positive charge and want to repel each other. A large force is required to get these atoms close together, so magnetic forces are used in a circular shape to create the collision. The Tokamak is a 20m diameter circular shaped chamber with very precisely aligned magnets. Bernard Bigot was requested to consider a position as the main advisor about nuclear issues and nuclear technology to the French government and the public national labs. In the nuclear industry, there are many international corporations. All the big players in nuclear fission technology, in the United States, Russia, Japan, China, Korea, and India, needed good relationships and collaboration with each other to preserve safety and long term projects. When dealing with international corporations, one must understand the perspective and expectations of the other parties. Bernard Bigot currently serves as the Director-General for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).

Q3 - Value of Energy Security

Bret Kugelmass: What does CEA do?

Bernard Bigot: Bernard Bigot served for a time as the CEO of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). After the oil crisis, France discovered that energy resources are critical for social and economical development of the country, leading them to pursue nuclear energy. Between 1870 and 1945, France has been invaded three times, hurting a country that did not want to be dominated. The development of nuclear energy was a wonderful opportunity to master the technology and establish energy security. Leaders decided this technology was critical and began building up the spatial agency on behalf of the government to support the industry development expertise and competence. During his time at CEA, Bigot managed up to 35,000 employees and oversaw a budget of five to six billion dollars. Engineers and scientists in the nuclear industry tend to be passionate about their work and value the long term impacts. One of the most challenging issues for fission technology is how to deal with the waste. During his term, Bigot witnessed progress on waste management procedures in France.

Q4 - Benefits of Reprocessing

Bret Kugelmass: What are some new technologies you saw happening in France?

Bernard Bigot: Reprocessing was a big challenge to reduce the life cycle of the radioactive matter and optimize the whole process. In the beginning of reprocessing work, progress was needed in order to create a viable technology, but there was a lot of development in the medical field. Some radioactive products are used for tracing biochemical reactions. Reprocessing can be used to extract some components which could be useful for understanding illnesses, detection, and treatment. Bernard Bigot saw a lot of progress in this field alongside the growth of electronic devices that the materials were paired with. Bigot was involved with ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) early on trying to facilitate the international corporation. The project started in 2007, but began to suffer by 2013. The project was not managed as a technological, industrial project, but instead as an international corporation with many people working independently. A management assessment report was completed every two years and brought change the group into a project setting.

Q5 - Project Management of a Fusion Reactor

Bret Kugelmass: Given the problems at hand and your experience working with other countries, were you the only one who could help ITER?

Bernard Bigot: Bernard Bigot was preparing for retirement when he got pulled in as Director-General of ITER, but he could not afford to say no. The project is important to the future of the world and humanity; he felt he had no right to say no or to fail. Because of his previous relationships with the members, Bigot felt he could build up the new project management culture. Bigot proposed some ways to move on and be successful with the key value being mutual trust. Firstly, the Director-General must be trusted by the team and must be able to make any technical decision in the remainder of the project. Secondly, people must work in an integrated manner and each individual person must own the whole project. Thirdly, a common scheduled is necessary to build a framework in which all staff can work. Bigot also instituted the overhaul of culture based on common values are: demonstrating your professional excellence daily, mutual trust, and team-based spirit. Last November, ITER passed over the 50% milestone of physical completion of the different activities that lead to First Plasma in 2025. After three years directing ITER, Bigot sees momentum in the project. The goal of the project is to produce more energy than required to push into the reaction. Different heat systems, such as the current from the coils and injection of particles and radio waves, will elevate the temperature to 150 million degrees (ten times hotter than the core of the sun). The plasma is low density, so in order to have enough energy when the collision happens, the atmosphere needs to be much hotter.

Q6 - How Nuclear Fusion Generates Electricity

Bret Kugelmass: How do you produce energy and electricity from a fusion reaction?

Bernard Bigot: After the two hydrogen nuclei collide, two new particles are produced: one helium nuclei and one neutron. Helium has five times the amount of energy than the hydrogen which was collided, and the neutron has twenty-five times the amount of energy. The helium, which has an electrical charge, will stay in the plasma and transfer its energy to the hydrogen atom. This process requires a lot of energy to get started, but due to the high energies produced, it becomes sustainable and self-heating. The neutron escapes the magnetic field and hits a wall, transferring its kinetic energy into heat. Water cooling is heated by the wall, when then makes steam and runs the turbines. Each country in ITER is willing to see fission as a viable option for energy and has enough raw material to produce their own energy supply for a million years. A nuclear power plant requires only 350kg of raw material per year, compared to a 1000MW power plant which requires 10 million tons of coal or 6-7 million tons of oil. Nuclear plants are long term, sustainable, and low environmental impact. Developing this technology alone is extremely difficult; if we don’t work together, there is no chance to succeed.

1) Electricity and the Telecom Industry
Bret Kugelmass: I saw that you have not one, not two, but three Master’s Degrees. What inspired you? What eventually allowed you to break free [of school]?

Valerie Faudon: Valerie Faudon really like studying and wanted to study everything. She started studying a lot of math and physics before moving on to political science, history, and lots of other subjects that are extremely useful in her job today. Faudon eventually ended up working at [Hewlett-Packard] HP, in California. She worked there for 3 years in California and a total of 13 years. Her background is in information technology and eventually went to the telecom industry. Valerie Faudon entered the industry for two reasons. The first reason was a very large French company with technology leadership, so it was very thrilling because she could work on international projects with really great technology which was very attractive to Faudon. And the second reason Faudon pursued nuclear is that she became really sensitized to all the climate issues which became very important to her. What was really interesting is that the adoption rate of mobile phones was much quicker than previously forecasted. The whole telecom industry was wrong in all of their forecasts about the adoption of mobile technology. Fascinatingly, the major limit to the adoption of the technology was not economics, even the very poor were ready to invest in the technology. The limit proved to be access to electricity. There were whole areas with no electricity to power the base station.

2) Electricity as a Public Service
Bret Kugelmass: What did you see in climate during your time traveling which might forecast down the road?
Valerie Faudon: During her travels, Valerie Faudon was not able to link specific events to climate change, but it became very clear to her that it was a big thing coming. At the time she worked in developing countries, she realized that people wanted to catch up and use mobile technology to access a wide range of services. Faudon launched a program for access to internet in emerging markets, but countries did not want special programs. Countries wanted to be a part of the big picture global connection program. Valerie Faudon served as the U.S. VP of Marketing for Areva, a company involved in many aspects of the nuclear industry, including building new plants and servicing existing plants. Faudon appreciated the multiple disciplines represented at the company and sees people in the nuclear industry have a sense of bringing good to the world. EDF, the main electricity provider in France, has been state-owned for a very long time and has a strong tradition of treating electricity as a public service, as people in the city pay the same for electricity as those in more rural areas.

3) Leading French and European Nuclear Societies
Bret Kugelmass: What was the relationship like between the French Nuclear Society and other members of the European Nuclear Society?
Valerie Faudon: Valerie Faudon is the Vice President for the European Nuclear Society. The group collaborates a lot between nuclear societies. There are about 14 nuclear societies in the world, which host a lot of conferences and discussions regarding technology. One recent discussion at a conference focused on the use of digital technology within the global nuclear industry. The mission is to make advances in technology geared toward both highly skilled and knowledgeable people, but also to the general public. France has a reputation for being advocates for the industry whose expertise the public trusts. This means representatives for the country often have to adapt how they communicate, by simplifying technical information, but remaining accurate. The society does a lot of work in advocacy, specifically working with the media when there are questions. Recently, the European Nuclear Society ran a massive online course focusing on nuclear. It used to be that all the questions on the environment were focused on safety and waste. However, Faudon believes the industry has done fantastic work on safety and waste. Instead of specifically focusing on the environment, the subjects that keep the public up at night have changed a lot. Now there are questions about climate, air pollution, biodiversity, and the use of worldwide resources. There is a lot of demand about new data, typically, for the French, about the cost of existing nuclear, the cost of decommissioning, and especially the cost of new nuclear. The number one demand from citizens is to have affordable electricity.

4) Challenges in the European Energy Market
Bret Kugelmass: Does France have the most support for nuclear from within the country?
Valerie Faudon: Public opinion about nuclear power varies a lot from one country to another. Other countries do have a strong support for nuclear, such as the U.K., Finland, and Czech Republic. The problem is not necessarily public opinion about nuclear, but there is a problem with the design of the electricity market design in Europe and it is not attracting investment. It is extremely difficult to obtain investors if they are hoping to invest 10 million euros and do not have visibility on what kind of returns you might have on the investment. This is largely because you never know what the price of electricity will be through the full life of the plant. Faudon believes the issue is more about the electricity market and the business cases. One instrument to help with the unique challenges of large upfront costs is a carbon price. The French government is very supportive of a carbon floor price, so they are trying to negotiate with Germany and with other neighbors to make this a more common tool. The second instrument, which is similar to what that in the UK, is an agreement on the price of electricity that you will sell. This would provide a more stable and predictable investment.

5) A Bright Future for Nuclear
Bret Kugelmass: What do you see changing in the next five or ten years that would really help nuclear flourish?
Valerie Faudon: Valerie Faudon expects a report from the IPCC that says the current climate strategy is failing. Nuclear is not a part of the current climate solution, but this may help people realize that nuclear needs to be considered and all solutions need to be part of the solution. Faudon fears that people are bringing other agendas to the climate discussion, perhaps because they are anti-science, anti-growth, or anti-capitalism. These agendas prevents progress on the climate agenda because arguments end up being about things not related to the climate. The progress of digital technology in the nuclear industry has a lot of potential in the short term to make a large difference. It is also important to consider the long term and how nuclear power will fit in with society and the dreams of the people. Nuclear can play a role in how we each see the future and how countries can achieve both individual and collective goals. Faudon wants people to dream about all the different kinds of great achievements we can work towards to build a greater future.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

1:45 - Entry to Nuclear in Belgium

Bret Kugelmass: How did you get into the nuclear space?

Luc Van Den Durpel: Luc Van Den Durpel is from Belgium, where he studied physics engineering and nuclear engineering at the University of Ghent. He has been intrigued since nuclear by the age of 12 when he won a competition in grade school and received a book on nuclear as a prize. At university, Van Den Durpel was the only full-time nuclear student at the time, one year after Chernobyl. He spent some time at the Belgian nuclear research centre where the focus was on policy-backing R&D related to safety and radioprotection. The centre is very connected with the international scene and working on development of new concepts in nuclear energy and nuclear medicine. Van Den Durpel worked on Belgian Reactor 1 (BR1), a graphite pile reactor with natural uranium and air cooling. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is a governmental organization that has the Nuclear Energy Agency within. Van Den Durpel’s role at OECD was looking at developments on the back end of the fuel cycle. There were also questions at the time of “clean waste” in order to facilitate geologic disposal.

7:20 - Opportunities in Advanced Nuclear

Bret Kugelmass: What were you considering in your research to understand the options for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle?

Luc Van Den Durpel: From the early 1990’s, there has been a wealth of R&D by virtually every organization and government, with the national labs and industry, on how to handle spent fuel. Spent fuel can be reprocessed or recycled, and new advanced methods are still being developed. There has been a lot of hype about what can be done with advanced nuclear technologies. If society decides that new, advanced nuclear technology is needed for sustainability or social acceptance, the nuclear R&D technology industry has shown that it could be done at a reasonable price. The energy density of nuclear allows a lot or little to be done with little extra cost. Van Den Durpel was offered the opportunity to go to Argonne National Lab near Chicago. He commuted to Chicago from Belgium for about six years at the same time he had his own consulting company working for different governments and agencies worldwide. At Argonne, one of the outcomes of the Gen IV programs was scenario analysis. Argonne was on Van Den Durpel’s bucket list of places to work in nuclear.

13:35 - Qualification Chain and Supply Chain

Bret Kugelmass: Tell me about your transition to private industry.

Luc Van Den Durpel: Luc Van Den Durpel connected with some French colleagues and joined Areva corporate R&D as scientific director of fuel cycles and later got involved with more strategic R&D on the corporate level. Areva was active in renewables and energy storage. Van Den Durpel had lots of connectivity between multiple different countries and a high level of expertise. He spent most of his time in R&D labs or intergovernmental affairs, but was also exposed to R&D as a consultant. Nuclear has long business cycles. Industry-wise, there are two steps before going to innovative, new technologies. Industrial supply chain requires materials and facilities. Before this supply chain can execute, there must be qualification of your technology, materials, and fuel, which takes time. If you want to bring a small modular reactor (SMR) into the market, investors may include utilities, governments, and energy-intensive industries. They are going to invest if there is a certain level of reliability, credibility, and bankability in the option. Manufacturers will make a new fabrication line once they know the technology makes sense. Certain qualification testing must be done, but there is diminishing testing and qualification capability available, such as thermohydraulic testing. Advanced technologies may struggle with qualifications. The nuclear community must be prudent that they don’t propose to society that they will have the solution with the caveat that they must wait 30 years before qualification. Nuclear today is already among the most sustainable energy actions we have. Governments and intergovernmental organizations and national labs have an incredible role in keeping the qualification chain available. There might be two waves of SMR’s and advanced reactors: those that can build upon the qualification chain and supply chain already done for existing reactors and those that still need to cross through those chains.

23:30 - Nuclear-21’s Decision Support

Bret Kugelmass: What is Nuclear-21?

Luc Van Den Durpel: Nuclear-21 is an expert cabinet of people with different backgrounds worldwide in government, safety, regulatory, commercial and other areas of expertise that typically does decision support relating to technology-to-business. Technology developers at small-to-medium companies have products in ongoing development but lack the business sense. Utilities and governments look forward to certain technologies. Nuclear-21 bridges between the two groups. Each individual on the cabinet has between 15-20 years experience in different environments. Nuclear-21 is currently working in the nuclear energy field looking for more business opportunities of a new fuel to manage certain materials. The cabinet accompanies their clients to look at the business prospects and how to make those prospects a reality. Nuclear-21 is also working in nuclear medicine on radioisotope production and guidance for a client. The cabinet also performs cost-risk decisioneering. Nuclear energy must be bankable; utilities operating nuclear plants are provisioning for decommissioning but also spent fuel management. There are a lot of uncertainties in these areas, which translate into financial risks. Nuclear-21 helps clients to decide when to execute in order to minimize their cost-risk exposure in the future. One prospects is SMR’s and looking to what the bankability is in an uncertain energy market. New financial methodologies and approaches may shorten the bankability period of nuclear. Nuclear needs to make its neutrons competitive with electrons. Luc Van Den Durpel sees a change sociopolitically and in public perception on nuclear. Climate change, energy security, and societal changes, such as urbanization, all call for a sustainable society. Nuclear costs are predictable, have high reliability, and are very independent. The electricity grid and market is changing quickly. Nuclear-21 does its own modeling database, looking at historic data and the best available data.

32:39 - Upcoming Nuclear Future

Bret Kugelmass: What are some data sources you’ll integrate into your nuclear models?

Luc Van Den Durpel: Nuclear-21 uses three different data sources for their nuclear modeling: public data sources from various international organizations, confidential data related to their clients, or data assembled by Nuclear-21 that has been cross-checked and validated through their connections. The data is a tool to document and support robust decision-making. By mid-century, the world will essentially be on oxide fuel because the qualification has been done. R&D must be done on other fuel and reactor types, but from an industrial bankability perspective, light water reactors and CANDU reactors will be used. Small modular reactors (SMR’s) will probably see the market in the late 2020’s or early 2030’s, but there will be a qualification chain for other advanced technologies. Nuclear is a long business cycle and it is strategic, but people must be realistic about the prospects and claims, since it will not happen overnight.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.