TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Background
How long have you been here in Washington State and how did your career get started?

Bill Stokes moved to the Tri-City area in Washington state in the early 1990’s, originally on the Basalt Project, which was an alternative site to Yucca Mountain, and then later at the Hanford Site. Stokes studied Thermal Fluid Systems in the Drexel University Nuclear Engineering program and participated in multiple co-ops, which provided school credit while working in the industry. His first co-op experience involved manufacturing and fabricating large Naval nuclear components, such as reactor vessels. Stokes’ then participated in another co-op at Westinghouse Electric in Tampa Bay, Florida, where large steam generators and pressurizers for nuclear plants were manufactured.

Early Nuclear Experience
What type of work did you do after graduating from Drexel University?

Bill Stokes worked for United Engineers and Constructors in Philadelphia as a Systems Engineer right out of college. He started out working on high temperature gas reactors, which was a newer nuclear technology at the time, developed in the 1970’s. Some production reactors experienced technical and engineering issues which caused many of these reactors to be converted to light water-cooled reactors and upcoming projects to be cancelled. Bill Stokes’ career shifted into the world of nuclear reactor construction as he took a position with Brown and Root in Texas as the Lead Mechanical Construction Engineer at Comanche Peak Nuclear Station. He was responsible for plant constructability.

Nuclear Plant Constructability
There are considerations in the design of the plant itself that affect the logistics of its constructability. How much do the design and nuclear engineers take this into account?

In the early 1970’s, the industry was fairly young and there were not many experienced constructors; Bill Stokes noticed that specialty knowledge about construction and delivery schedules and logistics were not paid attention to. Individual pieces of equipment dictated the sequencing of specific construction events, such as installation of large heat exchangers, which require a significant amount of space to mobilize and install. The most efficient and stable cost per kilowatt construction took place in Japan, where the projects were managed well, had defined requirements, and controlled cost. Following Comanche Peak, Bill Stokes returned to the Northeast in a position with an engineering consultant company to work outages at plants for operational plant upgrades and repairs.

Nuclear Plant Repairs
What are some of the components that were most susceptible to damage that needed repair during nuclear power plant outages?

Bill Stokes worked outages at plants to complete upgrades and repairs, including nuclear safety equipment designed into power plants, such as pumps and equipment designed to react during an event. Over time, pump seals would degrade due to lack of use, as this equipment was designed to standby. Stokes also saw some design flaws come up, such as the boiling water reactors’ nozzle configuration, which had a sharp crevice subject to strain and cracking. Stokes saw a large effort to remove those nozzles to mitigate the issue. Bill Stokes also saw regulatory driven changes after Three Mile Island. This including improved testing and surveillance of equipment, controls systems, and ergonomics of the control panes, as well as required stiffening of all piping systems to improve resistance to seismic events. Stokes saw his as a very major impact, since, after the stiffening, experts found that pipes were too stiff and could not respond, sending in teams again to remove some of the new hangers. There were also inconsistent approaches, such as the requirement to have an emergency off-site engineering center (EOC). One group wanted it on-site next to the control room, while one group wanted it ten miles away. Both requirements conflicted each other and required plants to have an EOC before coming back online. Issues like these caused construction schedules and budgets to both increase, directly impacting the public utilities funding the project.

Project Management Challenges
When did the DOE start discovering these project management challenges?

Bill Stokes saw issues come to light after plants resumed operation following outages. In the 80’s, public utility commissions claimed mismanagement of the projects and withheld payment for extended work. Legal fights started between utilities and utility commissions, and many went out of business. Project financing was the Achilles heel of the business. Some anti-nuclear organizations had the agenda to file multiple lawsuits, with the intent of causing a halt or delay construction, making the projects not economical and stopping contraction. One example is Diablo Canyon, which had a budget overrun of 1000%.

Engineering Consulting
How did you decide to start your own engineering firm?

Since Bill Stokes was part of engineering consulting in the 1970’s, opening a firm was a natural progression and gave him experience to run a business based on his customer interactions and proposal work. In the early 1990’s, Stokes was Vice President of ICF Kaiser Engineers, which ran into financial problems through acquisition expansion. Stokes created an engineering consulting company with a colleague and began to focus on independent power projects, mostly gas combustion turbines. Learning that side of the energy market was valuable for Stokes, and as the price of gas changed, he migrated back into engineering services. Stokes started out with project management for the Hanford Site and was asked to assist the primary contractor with managing the single shell tank clean up program. The processing for weapons program created a lot of chemical waste, which was pumped into underground storage tanks.

Fast Reactors
Your consulting group started off as part of the project management on Hanford clean-up.

Did you branch out into other areas?

Bill Stokes�� consulting group focused on nuclear energy, but the U.S. administration was getting away from nuclear energy. Pollution was a big concern and natural gas was expensive at the time. Base load power production did not have a clean energy alternative. Nuclear science, such as medical radioisotopes, was being abandoned, not just nuclear energy. These radioisotopes were being used in medical trials to attach directly to cancer cells, called cell target therapy. Stokes’ firm saw some changes in the market and deficiencies in the industry’s ability to create the radioisotopes. Stokes wanted to used the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at Hanford, which was the most advanced fast spectrum liquid metal test reactor in the world, but was shut down in 1992. All nuclear testing went offshore with the shutdown of the FFTF. Stokes’ firm went to DOE and proposed to privatize the surplus facility in order to produce radioisotopes for medical applications and also produce tridium, which is used for stabilization of the weapon complex.

Politics of Research
Where did you take your consulting group from there?

Bill Stokes followed the U.S. need for a fast spectrum test reactor. In 2001, the DOE released an Expression of Interest Request to commercial industry for possible uses of the FFTF. Both Stokes’ proposal and that of Argon National Labs were approved, but shortly after, the events of 9/11 shifted the importance of what the companies were proposing and were put off the table. In 2007, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was created to control closed fuel cycle technology, in order to prevent other countries to have the technology, while allowing them to still have nuclear power. Stokes sent in proposal for a grant to reconstitute the advanced reactor program team and looked at what it would take to put the plant back online. He put together a highly expert team and got called to assist with Traveling Wave Reactor physics, used by Terrapower.

Lead-Bismuth Cooled Reactors
The only fast test reactor that exists right now is in Russia; do we have to depend on

them to complete testing?

Bill Stokes’ company has difficulty completing tests with fast test reactors, since the only operating reactor is in Russia. His company has also looked into Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology. The NRC only wanted to work with traditional water-cooled technology, but Bill Stokes started looking around at advanced technology and discovered a Russian lead-bismuth fast reactor. Lead-bismuth was used as the coolant because it does not react with water and it had a very low freezing point. Stokes worked with Russia to license their technology for use in the U.S. Russia’s naval nuclear submarines used the lead-bismuth technology very successfully. Terrapower was also looking for a fast reactor to test their fuel. Political events have prevented the opportunity to complete this work with the Russians, as the federal government must approve the transfer of all nuclear technology. Stokes started to create lead-bismuth technology with his team based on his experience with sodium-cooled reactors.

Future Development
What’s the development timeline for the your fast reactor?

Bill Stokes and his team continue to pursue investment organizations for long term funding in order to move the liquid metal reactor design along. They continue to support Terrapower, Idaho National Labs, and some molten salt reactor teams.

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

Nuclear Law
How did you become interested in nuclear law?
After law school, Amy Roma interviewed with Steve Burns from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who was recruiting for the NRC’s Office of General Council. She completed a two-year clerkship with the NRC and worked for the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the NRC’s internal court. The Atomic Energy Act provides the NRC with jurisdiction over licensing.

For one year of her clerkship she worked on the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) case. PFS was the first company that applied for a license for a consolidated interim storage facility and was licensed by the NRC.

After her two-year clerkship, Amy went into private practice. Now her purview includes nuclear export control, investment, due diligence, decommissioning, bankruptcy, and liability.

Price-Anderson Act
Can you tell us about nuclear liability and the Price-Anderson Act?
The Price-Anderson Act covers nuclear liability. In the event of a radiological incident, it provides a network of applicable federal laws. It provides liability caps; quick compensation to someone who’s been injured or whose property has been damaged; and channels the liability to the nuclear operator through their insurance policy. There are two international conventions that control nuclear liability: the Vienna Convention on Nuclear Liability and the Paris Convention. They both have the same principals: put a liability cap program in place, channel liability to the operator; set up financial compensation through an insurance program; and ensure quick compensation to a victim in the event of an incident.

Is this the way that the nuclear regulatory regime worldwide has typically formed-- that the US will come up with something and then international standards mirror it?

A: The US developed a robust commercial nuclear power program first. The US has about 100 operating power plants and a regulator with about three thousand people that oversee those plants. The US put in place a nuclear liability law relatively early, and this enabled these businesses to overcome the risk or perceived risk of entering the field.

Have we had a disaster that’s called for liability caps in the US?
A: Three-Mile Island called for liability caps in the US. It’s worth noting that Price-Anderson covers injury and damage that occurs offsite. It’s difficult to establish, especially in the instances in the US.

Advanced Reactors
When we think about advanced reactors, what’s the market you design for that
and considerations for that?

For people who are new to the industry, which these emerging companies are, there’s a learning curve. When small modular reactors started emerging around 2006, these companies didn’t think they needed lawyers but they were speaking with foreign countries to deploy technology abroads. You need to be mindful of the Nuclear Export Control Regime. There’s a clear definition of what can and cannot be provided in DOE’s Part 810 regulations. If it’s publicly available information like marketing material you can export it. But if you’re going to sign an NDA and share technical information then you're moving into the Part 810 space. If it’s generally authorized, you can share Part 810 nuclear export controlled information and file a report with DOE within 30 days.

Let’s say you’re a US reactor designer and you want to sell technology abroad. The first thing you need to think about is: do we have a 123 Agreement in place with them? The 123 Agreement is named for section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, a bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation. This is important for two reasons. First, in order to sell nuclear equipment and material, the 123 Agreement needs to be in place. It doesn’t necessarily need to be in place to share technical information abroad.

A lot of the countries looking at advanced reactors don’t have the infrastructure to support large scale nuclear and we don’t have 123 Agreements with them. These are developing countries that weren’t part of the conversations when the agreements were put in place.

123 Agreement
When an advanced reactor company is in its early stages and comes to you wanting to export, what do you advise them on beyond the regulatory approval?
When an advanced reactor company is in its early stages and comes to Amy Roma wanting to export, she advises them to first get a 123 Agreement in place. Second, the company needs specific authorization from the Secretary of Energy. There’s a political element to this. The Secretary will consider the technology and who will receive it. The other issue is, is there a nuclear regulator on the other end? If not, who will ensure the technology is used safely? If they don’t have one, how are they getting up to speed? Have they engaged with the international community to develop their nuclear power program? That has to develop in parallel with you developing your technology. Then the company should consider who its customer is. The company needs an experienced nuclear operator and a technically qualified entity to operate your plant. Lastly, for countries that aren’t used to nuclear, they need to understand what nuclear safety culture is. As an example, anyone within the nuclear operation needs to feel comfortable voicing a safety concern.

Exporting Nuclear Reactors
How do you advise advanced reactor companies to even begin to manage
the early stages of exporting?
When advanced reactor companies wish to export, they give Amy Roma a list of countries they’re considering. It’s marked green for go if it’s generally authorized. If it’s specifically authorized it’s a yellow box. If it’s not going to happen, it’s a red box. If there’s no bilateral agreement for cooperation, it’s a red box. If it’s under negotiation, it’s a yellow box. If it’s already in place, it’s a green box. Are they a member of the nuclear suppliers group? Is there a domestic nuclear liability law in place that aligns with international standards? If there’s not a domestic nuclear liability law in place that aligns with international standards, then no one will go into that jurisdiction.

National Security
The feedback I get from my conversations is that a lot of these laws are outdated. Do you things changing on the legal front as the government is looking to support US companies in exporting nuclear technology?

We’re seeing active support for US nuclear companies to compete abroad. People see that it’s a national security threat if we don’t have an active presence abroad. If US reactors aren’t deployed abroad, then we lose a strong voice in the nonproliferation discussions. The US has great technology and safety standards, and when that isn’t used abroad, there can be lesser safety standards and less robust technology put in place. When we see a decline in the commercial nuclear power industry, fewer people go to school to become nuclear engineers and we lose our capability in that area. That’s important not just because those engineers become thought leaders, but also because they support our nuclear weapons program. We’re seeing an active administration on that point, driven by security concerns.

Legally speaking, Part 810 just had an overhaul in 2015, and Amy Roma doesn’t see that being revisited. To receive specific authorizations can take two years or longer. Amy Roma has had clients who submitted and never received a formal answer.

With regards to Agreement 123, we’re seeing a big political conversations about what the bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation should look like. Agreement 123 contains the Gold Standard Provision, the restriction on enrichment and reprocessing. When the nuclear nonproliferation treaties were negotiated in the 1950s, and the US decided to share its commercial nuclear technology with the world, on the basis that, “if we don’t share this technology then Russia will, and we lose our ability to shape that conversation,” Now we’re at the same junction. Most of the nuclear power plants under construction in the world are Russian. Russia is exporting to Turkey, Egypt, and other places the US doesn’t want Russia to have influence.

Right now, the US is considering a bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia. In our agreement with the UAE, we had a provision that said, “No enrichment and reprocessing in the UAE. But if someone else in the Middle East does it, we’ll take yours out.”
In the agreement we’re negotiating right now with Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia doesn’t want the enrichment and reprocessing restriction included. They want the ability to enrich nuclear material. One of the things to keep in mind is that, when we agreed to share this technology with the world in the Atoms for Peace speech in the 1950s, we agreed that if you forego developing nuclear weapons, we will share peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The agreement permitted other countries to pursue peaceful uses of commercial nuclear power, and that includes enrichment and reprocessing. That was actively negotiated at the time. We’re seeing a lot of pushback, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that the country pushing back wants to make nuclear weapons. Enrichment and reprocessing helps ensure security of domestic energy supply. If you can’t enrich, you can’t fuel your own reactors, Take Iran for example. Iran argued that it used a research reactor to produce medical isotopes and ran out of fuel. The US and the international community refused to provide more fuel, so they decided to develop their own enrichment program. The takeaway is that there is more to that story than people realize.

Investing in Nuclear
A lot of these export considerations are important not only for the companies building technology but also people who want to invest in these technologies. Do you play a role in the investor due diligence aspect as well?
Amy Roma often represents advanced reactor technology companies pitching an investor and addresses the commercial aspects tied into the nature of the technology. She is also often engaged by an investor to evaluate the viability and risk of a project.

How have you seen investors understand this technology?

A: Amy Roma has seen an evolution in the identify of the investors. It started with a rich guy who was a technology person. People who are in the technology field, made a significant amount of money in that field, and looking to invest and change the world. Sometimes he formed a fund with other technology guys. In the last few years, Amy Roma has seen more people emerge who are impact investors from a broader range of fields. Nuclear is something big that has the ability to provide huge amounts of power.

Do these impact investors bring you back for a second meeting?

A: It depends on the investor and what stage they’re in whether or not Amy Roma is asked back to a second meeting. She’s done the advisement for the technical fund and the impact investor, and now she’s seeing something new and surprising. Amy has been doing diligence for private equity on mainstream nuclear, particularly for nuclear decommissioning, there's usually a large pot of money in a decommissioning trust fund. They ask if they can decommission and keep the corpus of the fund. In the course of those discussions, people will ask Amy what she knows about advanced reactors.

Future of Nuclear
Can you help paint what you see for the next 5-10 years of nuclear?
Amy Roma is excited about the next 5-10 years of nuclear. According to Amy, it’s a fun yet challenging area to work on from a legal perspective because she’s always putting on a strategic hat. She believes we’re going to see more discussion in the mainstream about advanced reactors. The more we continue that conversation, the more we have an administration that recognizes that we need to support this emerging market before we lose our leadership here. Right now we have dozens of advanced reactor technologies under development. They can die on the vine or we can support them to ensure they come to commercialization and deployment. Amy Roma sees that cooperative feeling and thinking starting to happen. She has also started to see states and local communities wanting to do something to address climate change. Combining that with increased investor interest in this area and with technology developments and maturity in the advanced reactor area means we’re seeing it all come together to make a lot of progress.

"1:55 - Third Way and Energy Policy

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

Josh Freed: Third Way has been advocates for nuclear as part of climate solution since its founding of its clean energy program in 2009. Advanced nuclear was recognized by Third Way as a serious and viable part of the solution in 2013. Josh Freed started off getting a Master’s degree in American history and was motivated to get into a career in politics doing research for campaigns. Freed worked on campaign trails for a variety of candidates, aiming to understand their story and the story of their opponents. Very few people read entire policies, but are instead looking for a synopsis and an elevator pitch, specifically ways to connect it to whatever constituency that they care about. Their story sticks with them and motivates action. Third Way is a central left think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focuses on federal policy in four different program areas: economic issues, national security issues, social policy issues, and the clean energy program. In 2008, Josh Freed met with friends who had founded Third Way, who made the case that they were going to play a big role in helping shape the policy ideas behind the incoming Obama administration. Third Way recognized early on that there were a variety of policies already in place that were going to be considered an unlikely move and had to determine their value add. Third Way needed to identify what wasn’t being focused on with their allies in the climate community that could help have a big impact on reducing emissions and identified nuclear energy early on. In 2009-2010, there was an assumption there was going to be a nuclear renaissance and Third Way worked to identify what policies and actions they could support and advocate for to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. significantly. While the environmental and renewables community worked to advance deployment of renewables, Third Way decided to support that, but also take the lead in Washington advocating for light water nuclear power. Waxman-Markey, the cap and trade clean energy bill that started proceeding through the House and the Senate ultimately failed. By 2013, Third Way had heard a lot about the possibilities of advanced nuclear.

13:28 - Third Way and Advanced Nuclear

Bret Kugelmass: How did Third Way get involved in advanced nuclear?

Josh Freed: In a relatively short period of time, the energy landscape changed significantly because of natural gas and the Obama administration was committed to action on climate. Carbon emissions needed to be reduced in the electricity sector, but also the industrial sector. Third Way asked a variety of people what could be an important tool to reduce emissions, including Ray Rothrock, who talked about why he was excited about advanced nuclear. There were a number of niches that advanced nuclear could serve and, if scaled up sufficiently, could play a big role in reducing emissions. Third Way built a map of the state of innovation in the advanced nuclear sector and updates it annually. Third Way challenged themselves to determine if advanced nuclear was a real emerging sector with a lot of companies and private equity or whether it was a theory on paper. The Department of Energy (DOE) has many issues it focuses on, including nuclear weapons and security, recovery act programs, and an expansion of renewable energy. Third Way presented on Gen IV advanced reactor work to Secretary Muniz at the DOE, who has a background in nuclear and recognizes nuclear as a key tool for climate change.

21:48 - GAIN’s Role in Nuclear Technology Development

Bret Kugelmass: How does GAIN play into advanced reactor concepts?

Josh Freed: Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) came out the work that Third Way and allies, such as Breakthrough Institute and researchers at companies, to help spur the federal government to say there is a lot of innovation in nuclear and create an ombudsman to advocate for nuclear innovators. Innovators need help interacting with National Labs and understanding what resources are available. The civilian nuclear industry came out of government programs and were developed and built by very large companies that interacted with very large government institutions. GAIN emerged from the Department of Energy (DOE) to support the startup model to provide the research support and funding to proceed in their development. GAIN is very different from the way the civilian, large light water reactors in use in the U.S. today came up. The nuclear sector struggles with the changing landscape and the key rationale for nuclear has changed. Previously, the only actors needed were the government, utility, regulator, and the host community for the nuclear power plant. This small universe served the model well through the early 1980’s when no new nuclear reactors were being built and demand flattened. Climate change came in and brought nuclear back into the conversation. Natural gas came in and significantly undermined the competitiveness of certain plants. These circumstances have demanded that nuclear, and its advocates, operate in an entirely different environment.

29:46 - Third Way Advocates for Advanced Nuclear

Bret Kugelmass: What strategies is Third Way putting forth to support nuclear energy?

Josh Freed: When Third Way did the math and determined that advanced nuclear could be a very important tool for reducing emissions, the team aimed to get three or four advanced reactor types licensing by 2030. There needed to be change so developers and innovators had access to the tools the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Labs had and the regulatory process needed to be modernized to match the applications for a potential advanced reactor applicant. Decisions rest on a small group of policymakers, the people that influence them within advocacy organizations, and the media. Third Way focused producing reports, directly engaging, and hosting education efforts for this small group showing significant, but not expensive, changes that need to be made to the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC has stepped up to the challenge with, first, the application for NuScale, a small modular light water reactor, and a further iteration of modernization for non-light water reactors. This process must be streamlined and responsive to the amount of time it takes to develop and build a new technology. The overall majority of funding for the NRC comes from people paying for licenses, but for startups, the funding isn’t necessarily there. The NRC needs some funding to help bring its staff up to speed on a given technology as it gets ready for the application. Nuclear energy has turned out to be more bipartisan that anticipated. As the need to get the technology from the labs into electrons on the grid, they are figuring out the method to get this done and speaking to others about the success the renewables industry has had.

37:59 - The Advanced Nuclear Race

Bret Kugelmass: What else needs to be happening over the next few years to expedite the nuclear process?

Josh Freed: The rest of the world is investing significant government funds to develop new technologies and are committed to acting on climate in a variety of ways. That consensus doesn’t exist in the U.S. right now and there is a lack of commitment to address climate change. Nuclear can start engaging in broader communities more. There needs to be more development of carbon capture and air capture technologies and there are opportunities for advanced solar technology. In Illinois and New York, the deals that move through the legislature and utility commission paired keeping existing reactors open with funding for more renewables. There are a variety of organizations Third Way works with to say clean energy innovation is critically important for the United States. There is a real opportunity while Washington is stuck to figure out the plans for when things move in a different direction. The renewables industry worked with environmental groups, labor unions, and the Obama administration to figure out how to bring the technology to scale. The urgency to deploy zero or low carbon emissions technologies to get our energy system cleaner will only get greater. There must be a partnership between public sector to provide funding and research to catalyze the private sector to turn it into products they can sell. Seventy-seven different advanced reactor projects are currently ongoing in the U.S. There is more infrastructure and engagement across everything that needs to be done in nuclear policy. The bigger questions now include how quickly companies can get developed, which ones will go first, and whether it will be done in the right time frame. "

"0:00 - Materials Engineering

Bret Kugelmass: What is materials engineering?

Rita Baranwal: Materials engineering is the study of materials or components that makes up everything people use. Rita Baranwal first wanted to go into fashion, but wasn’t sure about the career prospects. She looked for schools that had good art and engineering programs, leading her to tour a materials engineering laboratory that had a scanning electron microscope. Rita Baranwal pursued her undergraduate degree in materials engineering at MIT with a focus on ceramics and polymers. During graduate school at the University of Michigan, Baranwal did her dissertation on synthesis of nanoparticles, specifically synthesizing ceramic particles from a pre-ceramic polymer route. The goal was to understand the characteristics of the particles as well as what heat treatments and thermocycling do to it when you make the material into something.

5:03 - Advanced Materials for the Navy and NASA

Bret Kugelmass: What did you after your studies in materials engineering?

Rita Baranwal: Rita Baranwal was approached by a headhunter who told her about Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, which she was not familiar with. Bettis and its sister lab, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, are the two labs that support the U.S. Navy with design, development, and support for the Navy’s nuclear reactors. Baranwal was hired because of some of the work she did on her dissertation and started doing advanced fuel development in the materials technology division, where she stayed during her entire time at Bettis. About five or six years in, Naval Reactors embarked on a project with NASA to help develop a reactor that would power a spacecraft to explore Jupiter’s moons. NASA cancelled the project after a year and Baranwal was asked to manage the closeout of the space reactor materials work. She was promoted to a permanent management position and started looking for new opportunities, leading her to take a job with Westinghouse in their fuel fabrication facility. Toward the end of her time at Westinghouse, Baranwal became Director of Technology Development in the Engineering organization, responsible for overseeing technologies such as advanced reactors, advanced chemical engineering processes, and advanced manufacturing.

10:21 - Advanced Technologies in Nuclear

Bret Kugelmass: How would advanced technologies like robotics play into reactor operation?

Rita Baranwal: One aspects Rita Baranwal worked on in advanced technologies was mapping out a reactor compartment or the internals of the plant before it gets started up. Coordinates are used so that, if there is an issue or a maintenance update needed, a hardened robot can go in instead of a human. The team tried to understand if there could be radiation hardened sensors and equipment. It is a long development timeline and there must be patience to develop this type of technology. Nuclear is a conservative sector, but it is starting to hinder progress to the point where the U.S. is lagging behind other countries in the world. Rita Baranwal is excited about using additive manufacturing to provide improved performance where it’s reasonable. Component that can be 3D printed with a novel material could provide better characteristics in some instances. The challenge is understanding the behavior of that material because it will behave differently than traditionally fabricated metals and ceramic. Irradiation tests are just now being done. There is currently not a robust set of standards for this material. Rita Baranwal also worked on shifting from analog operator of a reactor in the control room to digital instrumentation and controls.

18:50 - Gateway Advancing Nuclear Innovation (GAIN)

Bret Kugelmass: How did you end up as Director of Gateway Advancing Nuclear Innovation (GAIN) at Idaho National Lab?

Rita Baranwal: During Rita Baranwal’s time at Westinghouse, she visited Oak Ridge National Lab and Idaho National Lab frequently. Baranwal was already working in the advanced reactor arena at Westinghouse, including a micro reactor called eVinci and a lead-cooled fast reactor. If reactors are operated at ambient pressure, there are reduced safety requirements. Smaller reactors also have a smaller footprint and emergency planning zone. Some reactors run hotter and more efficiently, but the true balance comes in making advanced reactors economical. Baranwal transitioned from Westinghouse to Idaho National Laboratory, where she serves as the Director of Gateway Advancing Nuclear Innovation (GAIN). GAIN awards a voucher to companies to work for 12 months at a National Lab. A company puts forth a proposal which includes cost share, and the remaining part of the money is given straight to the Lab. GAIN holds workshops introducing industry to the capabilities that the National Labs have, including modeling simulation workshops. The three major technologies being explored right now include fast reactor technologies, molten salt reactor technologies, and high temperature gas technologies, in addition to advanced light water reactor technologies. Startups and large corporations are involved in GAIN and there has been participation across the spectrum. During development of a new fuel concept, one must understand how the new fuel will behave before you irradiate it, while you irradiate it, and after you irradiate it as a requirement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are relatively few places to irradiate new fuels in a test environment. There is a study underway to look at the development of a versatile test reactor. U.S.-based companies are spending their money elsewhere because the U.S. does not have the right capabilities.

30:02 - GAIN’s Collaboration Programs

Bret Kugelmass: Are their money opportunities that GAIN provides?

Rita Baranwal: GAIN provides vouchers, which is money that goes to the Lab that performs work for that industrial company. GAIN has provided a substantial amount of feedback to the Department of Energy (DOE) on the research and development needs they have of the DOE Labs, specifically what the Labs could be working on to help industry commercialize their technology faster. DOE announced a funding announcement of $30 million per year, intended to be a five year, open-ended funding opportunity announcement that has quarterly deadlines. This money could go towards all sizes of companies, sizes of reactors, types of reactor concepts, and advanced nuclear technologies, as long as it advances the current state of technology. Several years ago, the DOE offered several workshops across the company and brought in representatives from all across the industry to determine what the Labs and DOE could be doing better. GAIN was one output of these workshops. GAIN was going to have some workshops for advanced manufacturing, but it was determined that was not the top priority and groups wanted to learn more about modeling simulation tools specific to a technology.

35:36 - Economics and Licensing of Advanced Nuclear Technology

Bret Kugelmass: What’s coming next from GAIN?

Rita Baranwal: GAIN is working on shifting the vouchers from an annual award to quarterly. They recently hosted the Enabling Advanced Reactors for Market workshop focused on the economics and marketability of advanced reactors. GAIN is also working with the Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and Atomic Nuclear Society (ANS) to hold a standards workshop to understand gaps in advanced reactor technologies. In a separate effort, the modernization of the licensing framework is taking place with collaboration between Labs, industry, and the NRC. GAIN and DOE have a very open dialogue with the NRC so that developers understand what the expectations are when they meet with the NRC. Nuclear energy is a very reliable, clean, powerful energy source. It is vital to the U.S. energy portfolio. Nuclear technology needs to be more attractive to a consumer who is going to build and operate these plants, especially on the side of economics. A lot of the technologies exist, but advancements occurring outside of the nuclear industry need to be leveraged, exploited and applied to advanced nuclear technologies.
"

0:00 – Advanced Reactor Concepts
Bret Kugelmass: Tell me about your nuclear technology.
Don Wolf: Don Wolf’s neighbor, a consultant to Sandia National Laboratories, was approached by SNL about a need for a reactor that could be operated very simply to be deployed in Libya. SNL envisioned it with a long refueling cycle, be located underground, and used with sodium coolant. This reactor was going to be delivered by a full 20 years of fuel and taken away at the end of the 20 years. When the cartridge was removed, scientists would use an electrorefining process to separate the heavy metals from the products of fission, producing one electrode with heavy metals and one electrode with fission products. Fission products are removed and the rest of the material can be placed into new fuel. These fission products have a half-life in the hundreds of years, as opposed to other elements that come out that having half-lives in the hundreds of thousands of years.
0:00 – Liquid Sodium Pool-Type Reactors
Bret Kugelmass: How is your nuclear technology configured?
Don Wolf: Advanced Reactor Concepts (ARC) conceived a reactor that had 100 MW, a size that worked on many different grids, which is a liquid sodium-filled tank sized 25 feet in diameter and 45 feet in height. Sodium is a solid metal at room temperature, and melts at 98 degrees Centigrade, staying in the liquid state up to 900 degrees Centigrade. The temperature operating range in ARC’s reactor is 300-500 degrees Centigrade and operates at atmospheric pressure. The tank is not a 12” thick forged steel, which is difficult and expensive to fabricate, but instead is a 1” thick stainless steel tank that can be manufactured almost anywhere. The vessel is a pool-type design and all piping is inside the tank. Sodium reacts energetically with moisture and air. On top of the tank, there is a layer of argon to protect any air from entering the tank. Argon is heavier than air, meaning air doesn’t go through it and it stays on top of the sodium. A few years after Three Mile Island, an experiment took place to test the prototype reactor at different temperatures. In addition to the pool-type design and sodium coolant instead of water, the reactor used metallic uranium fuel as opposed to uranium oxide. When metallic uranium fuel gets hot, it expands and has very good heat transfer characteristics, but the fuel rods kept cracking. Sodium and uranium metal are chemically non-reactive, compared to problems that come with uranium oxide leaks into water. To solve the expansion problem, liquid sodium was placed in the rods with the uranium. Inside the uranium metal where fissions take place, the heat generated transfers efficiently from the center to the outside, where it contacts sodium metal, goes through it with very little loss of temperature, through the stainless steel rod, and into the liquid sodium. Having a low centerline temperature is key to the inherent safety of the reactor. All accident sequences are accompanied by an increase in temperature and heat; getting this heat out prevents a meltdown. The fuel pins start to get hot, expand, and the molecular dissonances between the atoms start to increase. When there is a fission, some of the products escape and are not captured by a uranium ion, causing neutrons to leak. This is known as negative reactivity due to neutron leakage. When the Doppler Effect is strong and the temperature of the fuel starts to drop as it is cooled, it becomes more attractive to neutrons and grabs them more readily. This negative reactivity temperature dependent and does not happen in a water-cooled reactor. As the heat comes on, the neutron leakage kicks in, temperature rises and levels, and can be brought down to zero average power or be turned off. The original demonstration for this reactor was completed in Idaho shortly after Three Mile Island and right before Chernobyl at the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR-2). As power was cut off, the coolant flow slowed down. Temperature started to rise from 500 to 650 degrees Centigrade and leveled out as the neutron leakage effect and negative reactivity combined to arrest the increase and offset the temperature rise. Shortly after, it dropped back to 500 degrees. At Fukushima, the reactor scrammed, but they ran out of electricity and couldn’t get rid of the decay heat. The demonstration also duplicated Three Mile Island incident, a loss of heat sink, by turning off the turbines that extracted the heat. The sodium flowed over the fuel pins, but there was no heat being extracted. Once temperature rose, the neutron leakage effect took place and arrested the temperature rise. This reactor also automatically responds to changes in electricity demand, called load following, in a way that doesn’t require the adjustment of control rods. The grid starts extracting more heat from the sodium, and when the sodium comes back cooler, the molecular dissonances decrease, creating more reactivity. This reactor ran after the safety demonstration until 1993.
0:00 – The Return of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-2 Technology
Bret Kugelmass: How did you get involved with this reactor?
Don Wolf: Sandia National Laboratories wanted to bring the reactor back and Don Wolf recruited three individuals that had done the original EBR-2 reactor and one man from Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago. This group later teamed up with General Electric, who had taken the same EBR-2 technology and developed it into a reactor that came very close to being licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1993. The designer of the core of that reactor is on of Don Wolf’s teammates. Advanced Reactor Concepts (ARC) got their start in 2006. General Electric had a reactor called the PRISM, which was taken to the NRC in 1987 and five years later, and got a report with no impediments to licensing. They pursued the market for disposition plutonium, since arms agreements resulted in lots of fuel coming back. In 2008, Bill Gates formed Terrapower, a company developing a much larger reactor using the same technology, prototyped at 600 MW. A fourth U.S. company is pursuing this technology, but on a smaller scale. This represents an opportunity for the U.S. to take a lead in this technology.
0:00 – Economies and Diseconomies of Scale
Bret Kugelmass: Does the size of your reactor improve the economics of the technology?
Don Wolf: There are economies of scale and diseconomies of scale. The water-cooled reactors got very big and have very complicated safety systems. Today’s new reactors are safe, but they get safety by add-on engineered safety systems, making it more difficult to miniaturize. This technology doesn’t have the add-on systems, as it is inherently safe, and is a simpler design which could be done on a 100 MW scale for $350-500 million. There are advantages to being smaller, mostly related to the number of reactors that could afford it. Bigger reactors are more difficult to finance. Smaller reactors can be added subsequently to the market and there is not as much construction on interest, compared to large projects that last 5-8 years with long term construction interest. This will upset the diseconomies of scale. Advanced Reactor Concept’s reactor can compete with fossil fuels in a normal market to provide a clean energy source that provides a baseload source of power for renewables.
0:00 – Canadian Reactor Licensing Process
Bret Kugelmass: What level of technology development has your team progressed to so far?
Don Wolf: The technology right now is a largely finished conceptual design. The stages of design for a reactor starts on a bar napkin, then drawings are developed, models are created. Right now, the prototype can have modeled safety and heat. It is currently going through licensing in Canada. The U.S. licensing process is working to make the U.S. licensing process hospitable to new technologies, since most of the U.S. reactors are large water-cooled designs that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) knows how to license and regulate. They have not had any experience with advanced reactors since the 1990’s. The Canadians offer a two-stage approach to licensing. The first is a vendor design review, which allows a firm with a conceptual design that doesn’t have a customer or operator to submit their design to the review of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Staff, which is less expensive than going through the U.S. process. This allows a firm to get a letter after 2-3 years saying there is no impediment to licensing in Canada. Canada’s design review process is not technology specific; they take a risk-based approach. If they haven’t seen a feature before, they ask for the firm to prove it out, instead of requiring specific features that may not be needed in the new technology. There is risk reduction through an affordable capital investment and a better chance at having a time sensitive review. Canada licenses, the operator, site, and technology. After this reactor is built, the goal is that future versions of the technology are built throughout the world and licensing by performance, instead of by paper and analysis. Once it is working in Canada, regulators will be invited to take a look, taken through a repeat of the original safety demonstration, and then become licensed. This will open up the market for the technology’s value, being small in size, a 20 year fuel cycle, and very resistant to proliferation. The fuel doesn’t ever get out of the reactor into potentially hostile hands. An international group would install the reactor and 20 year fully loaded core. Any equipment used on-site to install and extract the rods would be taken off-site. After 20 years, the reactor would be shut down, and after a short cooling period, the team would return to extract the fuel rods, take them away, and install the new core. The sodium does not become extremely radioactive; the radioactivity that is present has a very short half-life. During decommissioning of EBR-2 after 30 years of operation, the sodium became inert after sitting for a few months and they were able to dispose of sodium easily.
0:00 – Global Interest of the U.S. in Nuclear
Bret Kugelmass: What are some of the challenges you anticipate going forward?
Don Wolf: The biggest and most important challenge is convincing the regulator that there is the data and theory to demonstrate inherent safety. The data comes from work down over time at EBR-2 and Idaho National Lab is working to bring the fuel data up-to-date. Once the data is available, it can be used during licensing in Canada in the next 2-3 years. Upwards of a billion dollars must be raised to get through the licensing process. Approximately $300-500 million will be enough to get a license working with a customer to break ground. The first of a kind build is going to cost $350-500 million funded by a rate of return from a power purchase agreement. This solution is a game changer to the problem of carbon. Electricity can be generated cleanly, but it is an approach that can be taken to other sources of carbon such as industrial processes and water desalination. There is a basic U.S. strategic interest to maintain high standards of safety and security of proliferation. Advanced nuclear is being worked on by the Russians and the Chinese. The U.S. needs to leapfrog over these two and get its technology into the market, for strategic and standard-setting reasons and to get the U.S. supply chain going again.

"1:59 - The National Divide on Clean Energy

Bret Kugelmass: How did you get into the nuclear space and involved with Clearpath?

Rich Powell: Rich Powell was saved from life in a big corporate law firm by a consulting company called McKinsey, where he spent five years in the energy and sustainability practice. Powell got a call from Jay Faison, an entrepreneur from North Carolina, who wanted to set up a foundation and do something on clean energy with conservatives. Powell helped Faison as a consultant and has ended up staying with Clearpath for four years so far. Clearpath’s mission is to try and bridge the divide between clean energy in the country. The environment used to be a more bipartisan, big tent consensus issue, show by the entry into the U.N. framework convention on climate change during the first Bush administration and the Clean Air Act passed under the Nixon administration. Fairly recently, energy policy has become more divided.

5:07 - Clearpath’s Commitment to Clean Energy

Bret Kugelmass: What clean energy topics does Clearpath cover?

Rich Powell: Cleanpath takes a global look at the issue of clean energy and carbon emissions, focusing on low cost, highly scalable, and highly flexible energy systems. People are going to develop quickly and consume a lot of energy as they do that. People have mixed resources around the world, so there needs to be a portfolio of options to deploy in different geographic areas. Clearpath focuses on nuclear and advanced nuclear, carbon capture technologies, grid scale storage to make renewables and nuclear more dispatchable and flexible, hydropower, and anything else that is clean and dispatchable from the perspective of federal policy. Acceleration in these areas is achieved through more innovation and less regulation. A recently passed budget deal extended the 45J production tax credit for 6 GW of advanced nuclear reactors, which will apply to the two reactors being built at the Vogtle site in Georgia. This provides a much easier path for advanced nuclear to commercialization. Wind and solar subsidies are ramping down to the early 2020’s. Until there is a lot of build and the technology and supply chain scaling is figured out, the cost cannot be brought down. Companies have made pledges to be powered entirely by renewable energy, which is actually paying for projects that happen somewhere else on the grid to take advantage of subsidies and cheap power. If the playing field is leveled, corporations will look at energy technologies differently and look for procurement of clean energy, as opposed to renewable energy, which will also drive states. Clearpath doesn’t spend a lot of time in the states, but instead tries to set up the conditions on the federal level that makes conversations in the states happen more naturally.

13:26 - U.S. Clean Energy R&D

Bret Kugelmass: What other opportunities are you trying to bring to people’s attention on the innovation or development front?

Rich Powell: Clearpath’s biggest focus is on the innovation front. Every year, the Department of Energy (DOE) spend about $10 billion a year on R&D somehow related to clean energy, which is the single largest pool of resources on the planet focused on clean energy. Budgetary pressures mean those resources are under attack or under threat, but the DOE could also be doing more with less, since they are working on many different things. Any time there have been real breakthroughs in clean energy technologies, such as the shale gas revolution, the sunshine initiative, or the Joint BioEnergy Initiative, these things had a very clear goal, just under a decade time ramp, great leadership, and steady resources. If the resources were more focused on specific goals, instead of spread out, a complex organization can do big things in a very energy efficient way.

17:05 - Focused Nuclear Innovation

Bret Kugelmass: What should the strategy be to focus resources on innovation?

Rich Powell: Rich Powell and Clearpath believe there should be a moonshot goal to develop a number of entirely zero emission power technologies within the next ten years that are cost competitive with combined cycle gas. Nuclear should be one of the target technologies and a number of nuclear entrepreneurs are already bringing in technologies that could be cost competitive if they were developed out. Ten years ago, the cost of solar panels was entirely cost prohibitive, but nuclear hasn’t had the ability to rapidly scale. Gigawatt-scale designs that require five to ten years to build, armies of high energy welders, and huge amounts of concrete goes against everything that would be considered a highly innovative industry. Smaller plants, manufacturability, and modularity should be considered. The Nuclear Innovation Alliance, Energy Options Network, and the Future of Nuclear Study are the groups that are currently the deepest in the development of advanced nuclear. New reactor types allow innovation throughout the plant.

23:19 - International Nuclear Expansion

Bret Kugelmass: Is the U.S. seeding leadership to China on the nuclear front and what are the associated risks?

Rich Powell: This year, China will commission two 250 MW high temperature gas reactors, an advanced technology that does not use water as a coolant. It is a general rule that you don’t want any one power plant more than 10% of a country’s grid, and 75% of all the countries in the world have a power grid that is 10 GW or less, making U.S. technology 1 GW AP-1000 reactors non-deployable. China is very consciously developing their infrastructure over many continents and are designing reactors that are more appropriate for markets in smaller developing countries. Advanced reactors are lower cost to produce the same level of safety. Because advanced reactors are so hot, there are a number of industrial processes that require fossil fuels to create that much heat, but heat could be used from these nuclear reactors, such as steel, cement, and ammonia. Nuclear allows this production with zero emissions. At this rate, China will own the future of nuclear energy. Russia wants to start a century-long relationship with a country and are giving these countries nuclear technology on a build-own-lease model. Russia controls the whole thing soup to nuts, brings in the fuel, runs the reactor, and takes it away at the end. This also means Russia must have a security presence in the country.

27:43 - Keys to Advanced Nuclear Success in the U.S.

Bret Kugelmass: What does the U.S. need to do to move advanced nuclear forward?

Rich Powell: The U.S. has an amazing cohort of nuclear innovators, but they need a test bed for advanced reactors. There must be a physical place where people have access to a fast neutron source and so they can physically locate their demonstration reactors that doesn’t require them to go through the entirety of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing process just to demonstrate a technology. Many of these new technologies are planning on using advanced fuels, not the 5% enriched uranium most of the existing plants use, but up to 19% enrichment. There is currently no domestic supply for this HALEU (high assay, low enriched uranium). The U.S. must create a reserve of this and there is a lot of very usable fuel left in spent naval reactor cores and weapons grade material that could be utilized. Advanced reactors are very expensive and very risky. No one has brought a new nuclear technology online anywhere in the world without some kind of government support along the way. A public-private partnership, or cost share agreement, could be maintained by the Department of Energy (DOE), as they are doing with X-energy, working on high temperature gas reactor development, and a joint reactor between Southern Company and Terrapower, working on the development of a molten salt reactor. The solicitation for nuclear technology should be opened up further. The 45J tax credit will help, but somebody needs to break out and say they will take advantage of the innovation and incentives and build and finance a reactor. Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is working with NuScale as a buyer for the technology. A new cohort of buyers is now needed for the next technologies, which could be military bases doing power purchase agreements, states pursuing a clean energy standard, a city, or a private firm committing to opening up bids for a 100% zero emissions energy supply.
"

1:58 - Geology and Nuclear

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

Mark Peters: Mark Peters’ background is in geology and he received his PhD in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. Peters entered into the world of energy through nuclear waste disposal through his work at Yucca Mountain. One of the logical technical solutions for ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel is to bury it deep in geology. There are a variety of geologies that would isolate the waste for long periods. The U.S. policy was to converge on Yucca Mountain for the repository. They needed to understand how the water flows through the rock and if there are future opportunities for earthquakes, volcanic activity, or other disruptions. Nuclear energy plays an important part in protecting the planet going forward, in mitigating climate change and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.

5:10 - Capabilities of Idaho National Laboratory

Bret Kugelmass: What was next after your geology work at Yucca Mountain?

Mark Peters: Working at Yucca Mountain got Mark Peters into the laboratories and has been with the National Laboratories for most of his career, early on with Los Alamos National Lab and a two year assignment with the Department of Energy. Mark Peters had a group leader position at Los Alamos, but started into leadership positions when he moved to Argonne National Lab. At the end of his tenure at Argonne, Mark Peters was the head of the Energy and Global Security directorate. He aspired to be a lab director somewhere and his roots and background in the energy space were in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is first and foremost the highest priority at Idaho National Lab (INL), leading Mark Peters to become the lab director. INL started post World War II as the National Reactor Testing Station. Throughout their history, 52 reactors have been built, tested, and demonstrated at the lab. A lot of reactor technologies, such as molten salt reactors, liquid metal cooled and high temperature gas reactors, are based on concepts through about in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. There has been a lot of improvement in terms of how they are built that will help with the economics, specifically small and modular, and bringing in more materials can last longer and in tougher environments. The ability to think about how a reactor will be manufactured as it is designed could expedite the design, construction, and operation cycle and save money. Mass producing these with advanced manufacturing can affect economies of scale, since nuclear technology has a high capital cost. Modeling and simulation transforms the way nuclear reactors are developed. Instead of building a reactor and testing it to almost failure, the performance can be modeled in a computer to shorten the innovation time to market, such as qualifying a fuel. Because of the history of the site, Idaho National Lab (INL) can do things at scale, but they do a lot of modeling and simulation and have a lot of test reactors and facilities that are used for their own use, other labs, and universities. World class facilities attract world class people, but it’s all about the people.

12:09 - INL’s Partnerships in Innovation

Bret Kugelmass: What’s creating the new sense of excitement and enthusiasm in the nuclear industry?

Mark Peters: The promise of advanced reactors and a large component of the community thinks a lot about protecting the environment and minimizing greenhouse gases. Small modular reactors (SMR) can produce electrons and other products, such as hydrogen. There are a lot of applications emerging now that are becoming more real than they were previously. Idaho National Lab (INL) starts with nuclear energy as the primary focus, but also thinks about what the 2050 integrated energy system looks like, which could see coordination between a lot of nuclear and renewables. INL partners with other labs, universities, and industry. If the U.S. is going to maintain leadership, the U.S. must reestablish a nuclear industry and INL plays an important part. As industry innovates new technologies, INL’s people and facilities need to be more available to industry to allow partnerships. An entrepreneur with an idea for a reactor and a design in a computer can go to INL, who can help fabricate, develop their fuel type, test it, and build small mock-ups of the reactor concept. You can incubate an idea from nothing and take it all the way to deployment using the labs.

16:49 - Energy Research & Development

Bret Kugelmass: Why is it important that we facilitate R&D in the big picture of nuclear?

Mark Peters: R&D is an important part of competitiveness; the federal investment in research and development makes the United States so special. Federal government investment leads to prosperity and competitiveness. The U.S. National Lab system is the envy of the world, and many countries are copying the system. The current administration is actively talking to the Labs about how to do a better job with innovation and getting lab products out to the market. This doesn’t necessarily need a new policy, but it needs to be made a priority. Argonne National Lab has a lot to bring to the table related to batteries, lithium ion and beyond. The penetration of renewables relies on cost competitive energy storage on the grid. Idaho National Lab (INL) tests concepts and provides the parameters tracked in battery storage. Other labs are doing materials development and innovation for energy storage. There are 17 Department of Energy (DOE) labs that operate as a system. Their capabilities complement each other very well and some labs focus strictly on fundamental science. Other labs are more focused on direct impacts in the technology market, like INL. They compete on ideas, but partner effectively. Labs are inherently multidisciplinary.

22:53 - Cybersecurity and the Smart Grid

Bret Kugelmass: What are some other energy technology trends?

Mark Peters: Smart grid can change what the future of the grid looks like and there are lots of disruptive technologies entering into the market. Mark Peters’ perspective is how to maintain security in a smart grid. With everything going digital, there are cyber threats introduced to the system and the grid. Those must be designed up front so they are more secure to cyber threats and that the system as a whole is more resilient. Twenty-first century systems are going to be more economic, more responsive, and allow more control over the systems, but they must be kept secure. There are scientists and engineers understand the integrated systems, and hackers are brought in who understand how to attack systems in order to find out how to protect it. The cyber field is moving very quickly and Idaho National Lab (INL) has to work creatively with the university and community college systems to think about how to train the next generation. The curriculums within those programs need to evolve. Mark Peters sees nuclear as a multidisciplinary field. Mark Peters is an eternal optimist and the pace of technology innovation is amazing, but it must be put out in the market thoughtfully. There is an opportunity to provide energy for everyone who wants it in a clean, secure, reliable, affordable way. It is a question of persistence and focus.