Conversation between Energy Industry leaders and journalists. Thank you so much it is honored to be with this distinguished group today and outstanding reporters. I am sheila hollis, the acting executive director of the United States energy association. Why does it exist . And he was part of it right now . We are unique in the country, we are nonprofit entity. We work in 104 countries around the world, the state department and the department of energy. We also worked domestically to work on issues associated with Major Concerns and challenges, as well as potential solutions with respect to United States energy supply, with deployment utilization and so on. We have on our board. Edison electric, aga and a variety of other speakers, living Arizona State university and the national labs. With respect to u. S. Ca, we look forward u. S. Ea, we look forward to working on these programs. Our goal is to have an open forum, and educating experience and to interact with the industry and all those affected by government, academic or the public. With that im going to return it back to llewellyn. Thank you so much for joining us today. You will learn a lot from this panel and the intense reporting staff that are here representing various outlets today. With that i sign off, and turn it back to you. Thank you, sheila. Our panelists are on the expert panel, john ball, executive Vice President in Nuclear Energy. Scott strawn, Vice President of burns and mcdonnell. Bud albright president and ceo of the u. S. Nuclear Industry Council and doug true, Vice President and chief Nuclear Officer of a Nuclear Energy institute. The journalists are Ken Silverstein, markham hislop, Jennifer Heller of the wall street journal she is having computer programs because of a storm in houston. She will join us when she can. We will begin with the question from rod kuckro. Its good to be back from what that for one of these events. Theres a lot to talk about whether the nuclear it seems to be positioning to the future. The federal government reported a week ago that 49 of the lower 48 states in the u. S. Are in drought conditions. Of course we know this is affecting production at the hoover dam. In other places, a lot of the gulf coast and texas we have some rivers a dried up, you can rock walk across the rio grande. Given the fact that a Large Nuclear plant uses about a billion gallons of water a day to cool itself, what does the current Climate Crisis if you believe in it, bowed for the continued bode for the continued use of Nuclear Plants . Could they fall prey to the large things that dams have fallen to . Are there any technical changes in the design of a plant that may make it able to operate with less water than they currently require . I would like to ask doug true to answer that. Have take a couple of minutes to tell us why youre qualified. Thank you. Thank you usea for having me today. Have the responsibility for regulatory and technical issues across the Nuclear Energy and a present the utilities and developers on suppliers to the current and future fleet. I spent about 40 years working in this industry. I came in, one of the first projects i was assigned to come out of school, to work on a High Temperature gas reactor, generating heat in a chemical facility. Something that is come back into the news in the last few weeks with the recent announcement. I joined after working on safety issues. I joined about four years ago. I have been focusing on supporting the Current Fleet and its operation as well as the nuke plant to really its an exciting time to be in nuclear. We have 20 projects going in north america right now. Were looking at new nuclear bills. Our Current Fleet is operating lets move to the question, doug. The question on the climate, first of all the plant is located in a different location. Any plants are located on lotion oceans or great lakes, major rivers, mississippi, susquehanna, they are all major rivers and expected to be significantly impacted by drought. Currently, a small number of plants in the desert a been operating for nearly 40 years on the water coming from the city of phoenix. With that said, this is something that our members are focused on like any good company. Looking at risks to production of their product, companies are considering what Climate Change could do for them whether it is water or temperature. A recent work by the electric Research Institute shows that the fleet has only been impacted by environmentally related events, whether Something Like 1 10 of 1 of our total capacity over the last 10 years. So plants have shown to be quite resilient in the light of these positions. We will move to the next question. Markham hislop, coming from the british columbia, canada. Thank you for inviting me back. My question is around the economics of small marginal reactors. Theres a lot of interest in canada about that. The government has said we cannot meet National Climate targets without the four provinces that have a banded together to work on research and development of smrs. There one in development in ontario. We have seen one of the big utilities there. Every time i bring this up in conversation or on social media about what does it cost or what will it cost for a megawatt hour in the smr, i get in cash in. The god answers odd answers. Immediately, i raised this issue on social media, the nuclear supporters come in and say the economists got it all wrong they are using wrong assumptions and it is lower than that. Ive never had anybody tell me what a small margin reactor would might be able to produce a megawatt hour of electricity four. Anybody wants to address that, if you can answer i would love to hear it. Jon ball, hitachi is our man. Thank you. Tell us about yourself and answer the question, thank you. Thanks. My name is jon ball, executive Vice President of ge hitachi Nuclear Energy. It been part of ges nuclear business. Ive spent a third of my career in leadership roles in our fuel segment. Another third in our Services Segment in the last third and they are new plans a segment and i have overseen creation, the development of our reactor. Let me say that the reason we are focused on smrs and we believe that the future of nuclear is in Small Modular Reactors. The industry has been focused on large reactors for decades. But you have seen what has occurred in terms of these projects going over budget way past schedule. So, the reason we pivoted was to create a design that could be cost competitive in all forms. In our industry leading smr, with some new innovation, we have figured out how to reduce the overall capital cost by 50 on a per megawatt basis by using less concrete, less steel versus todays Nuclear Plants. Now i think it is the expectation to be able to achieve a level levelized cost of electricity in the 60 per megawatt hour is achievable. When it comes to really evaluating these nuclear technologies, what i would say is it is imperative to really look at sidebyside comparisons in terms of the amount of concrete and steel that these reactors require on a per megawatt basis. The size of the reactor system on a per megawatt basis the number of turbines that are required per megawatt. When you do that sidebyside, we are confident that we will be able to achieve the most cost competitive design, which is why we are seeing strong commercial adoption at this stage. Thank you, jon. Next question, for an stte overseen Ken Silverstein. Thank you, im going to take you back to the question, this modular reactors. I did a story on atrium not to long ago. One of the attributes that the sources explained to me was that they can back up all her powers and that these reactors have this potential maybe it is here now. How does that change the Energy Landscape in terms of Battery Storage . And other forms of backup such as fast reacting natural gas plants . If the modular reactors are able to take on instantaneously and back up wind and solar when the weather does not permit . Got, would you like to try that one scott strawn, would you like to try that one . It im not 100 familiar with the load capabilities, i want to thank sheila and llewell yn the opportunity to be here. We did about 10,000 professionals worldwide if i could sum up what we do is we have taken some of the industrys greatest challenges in trying to make our customers successful along the way. Decarbonization is clearly a huge piece of that. When you look at the intermittency of wind and solar now it comes on and often the grid in the frequency that it does, clearly storage as a huge viability to that. Im not sure that it has the load capabilities but i believe it is a promising aspect of that technology. I defer to may be bud or doug. But hear from you. Tell us who you are. I am bud albright. We have 90 members, a little over. Ge is among our members. I started as a federal prosecutor for a number of years and then i wont go through everything. But went to the hill with staff director on energy and Commerce Committee and then was undersecretary of energy in the last several years of the bush 42 administration. You know, we look at Small Modular Reactors, theres just so many advantages and things we havent really talked about as compared to other zero carbon emission sources. One is a Small Modular Reactor should last a minimum of 60 years, probably more up to 100 frankly if maintained properly. Wind and solar about 20 years before you have to replace replace everything. Certainly the panels and with wind, the entire tower. So thats something to take into consideration. The cost factor is, we talk a lot about, you know, how do we, predict the cost . If you look at the cost of the first one that rolls off, its going to be fairly high. But were counting on volume, volume as predicted. So that should bring costs down. There are lots of other reasons for that as well. The load following capabilities, i see Small Modular Reactors just as as we do larger reactors and that is really primarily baseload. These reactors can run full time all the time. They are walk away safe read walk away safe. That is not the case with women. So what could they be used as a backup . Yes, they could be, but probably makes a lot more sense economically and otherwise to use them more as a base load opportunity. Thank you, i would like to hear from the other panelists on this very important issue of cost. How do you calculate the cost on it . Lay terms of our actual capital cost, this is not something we are publishing publicly. Were in the midst of other commercial competitions. But again, what i would say is that, you know, a very important aspect of evaluating cost and what a design should cost is looking at these very important parameters and normalizing on a per megawatt basis. Again, the amount of concrete and steel that a reactor requires per megawatt, you can draw comparisons from todays smrs between designs and the existing fleet, the size of a reactor building on a per a up basis. Per megawatt basis. These are all examples that go into an influence on a significant manner the overall cost of the plant. If i could, i would like to weigh in briefly on the question. Its an interesting one. Its one that the industry is, really talking about around load following. Ge had touchy is partnering withthem. On this design. We think that is going to replace the need for other storage . No. This is in all of the b of all of the above solution. Nuclear storage i think is going to provide a very important aspect including capabilities. The what i would say though is rather than store energy when power prices are low, rather than store Energy Nuclear can be used for many other useful purposes. That is what we are also very interested in working on for the bwrx300. These are things such as hydrogen production. There also looking at direct air capture coupling, direct air capture with electro says to form a feedstock to actually synthesize a neutral fuels. Which is going to be extremely important if the world is going d carbonized, its not just electricity sector, the transportation sector and the ability to provide these Carbon Neutral fuels are going to be an imperative. Wind wind and solar are working at capacity, a Nuclear Plant could be diverted for those purposes. May just touch on the cost issue briefly . One of the things, as i said, we represent more than 90 entities involved in the development of advanced nuclear. One of the things we talk about with cost, one of the things that is consistent is that everyone recognizes if we are not cost competitive, than it will not survive then we will not survive. It is hard right now but everyone recognizes the absolute need to be cost competitive. You have hundreds of entities, companies, individuals, investing billions of dollars in this industry, with that understanding. Thank you, doug, this is such an important question we should hear from you on it, please. Thank you. I think that first of all, the cost of numbered jon used, it is a representative number of the targets folks were shooting for. We did a recent survey and said if you have a predictable product, how much would you use towards your decarbonization goals . The answer came back, 90 gigabytes of new nuclear would be used. We raise that price to 90 megawatt hours. The number dropped a bit. We are still interested because of the volume nuclear brings to the overall system in terms of reliability. We just talked about in terms of doing other things and the ability it provides and the stability it provides. In terms of profits, they do use an Energy Storage process that allows a reactor to work at 100 power at all times and they store that energy and the only thing that really has to change is the turban that is making electricity, to ramp up and down. That enables the fast ramp rate, which i think is about 40 megawatts per minute. They will be able to deliver them and that is a distinct feature of the design. I think all of the smrs have the capacity in one way or another to adjust mode. Some will be used, and some will be used in a cash the final thing i want to say is that what matters at the end of the day is with the customers face. Nuclear enables the grid as it is to continue to support distribution and further require future transition distribution, so we can you use reuse call sites. At the end of the day, study shows that if you put nuclear in the mix, the cost of the customer goes down. It can save the Pacific Northwest a billion dollars a year. It is more than just ash that captures the landscape of what we are seeing. That captures the line landscape of what we are seeing. W a has a contract on arrangement with jon balls vinny. Ash company ash company. It is sponsored largely by cooperatives. Theres a lot of interest in that field, cooperatives are looking of getting out from under their heavy commitment to coal, could somebody quickly say what is happening in the marketplace . Mention what we have been experiencing with it, it started in canada. With ontario Power Generators we did he set a vision for adopting a canadian approach for deployment. They lead that effort. They went through a two and a half year evaluation process. At the end of last year we were selected to deploy the first smr at their darlington site as early as 2028. We will be in the process of submitting a license to construct this year, but following that competition there were many others that followed in their steps. You mentioned tba, was now partnered with in licensing this design in both the u. S. And canada, they announced that we are supporting them for the development of a Construction Permit application that will be submitted to the u. S. Embassy as early as the end of next year. Asked our also selected our technology. Fast hour also selected our technology. In europe we are seeing Tremendous Energy as well. Since those energy which is part of a large private Industrial Company signed a letter of intent with us to deploy at least 10 by the minute early 20 30s made it to early 20 30s. Heavy dependence on coal, another partnership which is the largest estate owned Energy Company in poland. Their joint ventures for the purpose of deploying the smr as a look to define their company to be a clean energy producer. Another company in sweden has also selected our technology for deployment in that country. We are seeing significant commercial adoption. This is a technology that is ready to license now and ready to deploy today. Thank you, anybody else . A couple of things. First of all, although not widely understood there are over 20 projects that are going on in north america now for somewhere micro somewhere smrs. They are expanding the sector of supporting small applications. It is really starting to happen, most of those are scheduled to be coming online towards the end of this decade. Or early in the next decade. We see a line forming for even more. In that survey i mention with our members, they said they were looking at potentially 300 smr sized reactors, needing to be deployed over the next 25 years. Which would basically double the output of our Current Fleet. The Current Fleet is expected to operate well into the 2015 timeframe. So, i think you are right. There is a Significant Interest within the grid in the electricity markets and outside of that. The Inflation Reduction Act which we will talk about at some point is only going to stimulate that. Thank you. Markham. Have a question for scott. The oil fans in northern alberta use esteem because it is thick. It has to be thinned out, to get it out of the ground or you are mining it then yet the process it and you steam it. There has been a lot of talk the oil fans of carbon intensive oil and there is a lot of criticism of that. Most of it is exported to the u. S. , to the gulf coast or the midwest. It has had an impact on american emissions. There is interest in finding a substitute for steam created by natural gas. Smrs have been mentioned, you use the process in place of the steam and electrify as much of the operations as possible. Im wondering, is that possible and does using processed heat to replace the cost of natural gas in boilers, does not improve the economics of an smr . Rate question. Ash great question. There are a variety of industrial applications were smrs are an ideal fit. You asked about the oil. We view that as smrs as being an ideal fit to really solve the decarbonization challenges there. We have actually been working on and have found patents for a bolt on technology that is a nuclear heat pump that will raise the temperature of our steam such that it can meet the requirement for the oil sands. The capacity for low perspective and oil temperature. We have been talking with a number of Oil Companies in that region and so we are enthusiastic and optimistic about the potential for that application. The only thing i will add to that is a good synopsis and agree, really good application of the technology. Another one we have seen as Sustainable Aviation fuels, they are very thermal intensive processes that is at the front end of being an interesting market as well too. Youre going to use a chemical reactor, they are using High Temperature steam in order to process a byproduct of the petroleum process into their process to generate. Would just like to mention to the members of the audience who are not familiar with the terminology, smrs are Small Modular Reactors. I would like to learn more about the possible cost advantages of smrs over the Current Fleet a very large reactors. One of the headwinds that his face the utility sector for years separating the Current Fleet is that they require large workforces. We have learned that solar and wind farms require virtually no fulltime employees 24 hours a day the make they need maintenance crews but that is it. A natural gas plant can offer with as few as 20 people that a plant on any given ship. When i visit the plant in maryland or the one in missouri, what you learn quickly as the workforces approach 1000 people and they are not bluecollar jobs. These are engineers, phds and the separate Security Force that has been required since 9 11 are highly paid and skilled military people who were on duty three shifts a day, 24 hours a day, all your yearround. The cost is so much more than albatross than operating a gas plant or coal plant. When you are looking at an smr versus a Current Fleet of Nuclear Reactors is the workforce can it be scaled down to appoint where the operational cost involved with that construction will not be a question for regulators when theyre faced with the decision to let the rate base the plant . I would like to take that. Thats an excellent question. Think ive mentioned the way we were attacking the capital costs. Again, i did mention land use. The sheer landuse on a per megawatt basis is being reduced significantly. A fraction versus the large reactors, i mention some of the other concrete eyes reactors on a per megawatt basis reduces the capital intensity. We are designing smrs for operations as well. To answer your question, we anticipate that on a per megawatt bases that we can achieve on the order of 40 less cost. We are using Staffing Levels that are significantly lower. On our 300 megawatt reactor, we anticipate a staffing level below 100 people. First of several hundred people for reactors that are three times bigger. We are getting significant leverage from an operating standpoint. To achieve that, we are moving to a different centralized operations model as well. You still have all of the same highlevel support that you would for a large reactor but you would do so on a regional basis, that enables the economics for smrs to be significantly better than todays fleet and by the way, we have been working this with Utility Partners understanding all of the requirements they have for staffing and security. Building a design thats designed for security, its designed for operation and maintenance is what its enabling us to reduce the traffic levels. In partnership with um utility hwnd. Engagement. Thank you, Ken Silverstein. Yes, my question is really about the versatile test reactor and whether or not this is going to come into fruition and we can also segue into the inflation reduction. Explain what that is. The Idaho National laboratories is working on this and it sort of fast tracks improvements in Nuclear Technology. Its not a test reactor um, but its considered sort of a vital investment to sort of bring about new improvements in Nuclear Technology. So my question is whether or not this is going to come to fruition and then if you want to segue into the Inflation Reduction Act and some of the incentives who provided production tax credits for Nuclear Energy to do carbonized. I dont know if i mumbled that question or not, but perhaps somebody can it all jump in and try to help you on this. So the first one test reactor is a program that department of energy has been pursuing add to international labs. Its not a prerequisite for nuclear to go forward, but it would be a benefit to have in the long run that it will accelerate our ability to look at the use of different materials aging effects and , things that will ultimately be valuable. So, its something that i think we believe should be pursued but not having it today isnt really an impediment for us to be able to move to move forward with advanced reactors as of today. Was there another question . The logical extension that you brought up earlier, the answer, which is that what was congress doing, what did the Inflation Reduction Act due to facilitate Nuclear Production and Nuclear Production of their energy . So, the Inflation Reduction Act had benefits to the operating fleet in providing a production production tax credit and unprecedented production tax credit to the operating fleet. It also offered a Different Technology inclusive production tax credit for all carbon free technologies, which puts nuclear on the same level Playing Field is renewables for the first time. Those will take the form of a production tax credit or an investment tax credit that are substantial much the way weve seen them taking advantage of with renewable. We think it will stimulate greater, faster interest in nuclear. In fact, that survey that i talked about was done before the Inflation Reduction Act was even the consideration. So we think those estimates of of the 300 reactors and 90 gigawatts might be on the low end. We have quite a few questions from viewers and i would like to read this one. Good morning. Please, do you think the u. S. Government will take steps to expand the list of countries with which it will exchange the billion Nuclear Technology example, more 123 agreements in order to make Small Modular Reactors more commercially viable . Anybody want to take that . Let me take a cut of that. And offer a perspective of what we see in the market. A lot of this has been driven by russias invasion of ukraine and how this has really changed the landscape of of nuclear, especially in europe. A really a sense of urgency to establish independence from russian gas and independence from russian Nuclear Technology in central and eastern europe. Theres a number of countries that actually operate russian clear technology. And so what weve been seeing is an unprecedented amount of interest in central and eastern rope for u. S. Technology. Ashley europe for u. S. Technology. Europe for u. S. Technology. Now in order for um you know, for the u. S. To ultimately End Companies like ourselves to support this region there will be a need for government interaction. Nuclear liability laws are one example where the u. S. Government can help influence what will make doing business in these countries much easier. But given the fact, that the u. S. And europe share the need for Energy Security, we want our allies, our friends to be able to achieve Energy Security. Theres a strong driver and so i am hopeful and all indications that the u. S. Government is interested in helping in this area. That is my perspective on the current dynamics in that region. I would like to ask a question on the ira which has been signed into law. Ive talked to a lot of utilities in the last several days, all of whom the team to have a great sense of , it is time for nuclear, i have been surprised by the universal enthusiasm for nuclear, not necessarily define the by small modular directors, the nuclear in the broader sense because many of the utilities do not see how we can get from here to carbon free futures by simultaneously electrifying the surface transportation field. You cant cash in any calculation they can do get they can get from there. How is that going to influence the marketplace . I think were looking at a more electrified future for the United States and and frankly the world and the more people are dependent on electricity, the more they need that electricity to be reliable and nuclear is one of those tools that can provide reliable power 24 7, 365. As weve demonstrated over the last 50 years and currently in a way that Even Renewables and storage would have difficulty. So i think the scale, the land use, the cost, system costs, ultimate cost to the customers, all of those factors combined with the federal incentives and the state incentives too, to say that nuclear is going to play a major role Going Forward. Scott, you deal with utilities, you deal with a variety of fuel sources. Youre not just for nuclear or just for anything. What are you hearing in the marketplace . You pick up the sense of urgency that something has to be done and we can get from here to there with excluding nuclear and not including it in our in an aggressive way, are you hearing that in the marketplace . It has been very wellcharacterized out the panel today. There are three emerging bandwidths. Weve got the early adopters. I know we mentioned opg, and others that are embracing making investment and making an investment today. Weve also got another band width of customers that have existing Nuclear Generators in their fleet. Theyre assembling teams, theyre interviewing technologies theyre looking at as, as doug mentioned existing sites to really drastically curb costs and existing infrastructure. Then theres another bandwidth that it might not make sense today and it might not be, you cash in the window of an irp five years from now but they know it is required. Across every market this summer, im gonna challenge us to remember our guns and roses. Weve been knock, knock, knocking at reserve margins door. Weve had significant capacity constraints and weve had a lot of intermittent load into the market over the last decade, which is great from a decarbonization perspective, but this is challenging us to reassess the value of firm reliable as doug also mentioned baseload generation. 100 agree with with what you said. There more presenting at conferences and in Customers Office on a weekly basis about the level of excitement, especially on the cusp of all of these unbelievable amount since announcements. I was speaking with the ceo last year and he joked that for him and for other boosters of Nuclear Power who hope to see it blossom again as an industry its somewhat like being the , character in Samuel Becketts way. Because as you know, there has not been a new Nuclear Build thats come online in many years in this country. Doug, you mentioned there are 30 units of different sizes under under at least some kind of review of not actual construction. My question would be, one is the next Nuclear Plant, smr, going to be operational and where is it going to be and what company is going to be the beneficiary . I will take that. We are the opg competition or opportunity, we are in the process of submitting a license to construct to the canadian regulator this year. Following their review and approval we anticipate construction to begin in late 24, early 25 and our current target Operation Date is 2028. So right now the first smr thats under a commercial contract is slated to be the opg project at the darlington site. Can i follow up . Where would the similar construct the currently the u. S. . Right now, one thing that Tennessee Valley authority and opg have in common is the of the only sites in north america with an early site permit for an smr and both are deploying the same technology and theyre collaborating. Tva is going to be behind opg. I anticipate laid the early 20 30s in the early 20 30s. They still need to go through their early process of final investment decisions. I just want to be clear that we are under contract to put together the Construction Permit application that then gets limited to the regulator for approval. Once that gets approved, theyll go through their their governance process to then make future investment decisions. Could be in the early 2030 timeframe. One of the questions i have is who is going to pay for you built . The utilities are no longer in the position they were before the deregulation of electricity in the middle 90s where they could afford to build. I dont think any investor owned utility could get its board to approve a new Nuclear Plant particularly invited the difficulties building the robot and down on the southern system. So my question is, will there be new entities to build nuclear small modular merchant plants which will then sell the electricity. There is a lot of interest in wall street in anything to do with carbon free generation. Can we see an entirely new structure for Building Nuclear Going Forward or anticipate a structure . How about doug . Im going to go back a second, because that they are out breaking very years. There are three other smr projects that are slated to be completed late this decade on roughly the same timeframe. Two of them are doe funded advanced reactor demonstration project. One in wyoming for pacific court. That is the design we talked about earlier. Then there is another energy gas cold reactor cooled reactor that is currently exiting the state of washington with grand county. Both of those have contracts with you we to the operational you we to be operational in the 2028, 2029 timeframe. We have a project in idaho with the new skill Summit Construction application next year. Who is going to win the race, i dont know but we have a lot. Ken overstating ashcan silverstein Ken Silverstein. Impact on expanding a small Nuclear Reactors around the world, that is the negative impact of this invasion, potentially the dangers caused it to the local, the largest Nuclear Plant in europe which is in ukraine, that it might backfire and hur cash hurt the development of Nuclear Power hurts the Nuclear Development the development of Nuclear Power. The political consequence of this conflict. Thats a good question. Bud albright. The political consequences are real. Theres no question there. We are looking at very Different Technology, from the technology that a large reactor has and a small reactor has, particularly from the fuel perspective. And the risk of destruction by bomb during wartime. The risk of major release of Radioactive Material is very small. Its because of the nature of the new fuel. We can design anything for war. If you are at war, almost falling, you dont Design Architecture around that, whether it is a power plant or building or whatever. I want to go back, very briefly. I think the question is not if nuclear, particularly Small Modular Reactor your is the way of the future. Small modular reactor is the way of the future. The question is who is going to deploy . Are we going to do it from the u. S. And cooperation with our allies around the world, which we are starting to do now or are we going to let russia and china do it at a low cost, potentially of the statesponsored subsidies . I think that is a huge question. One other thing i want to say on the wall street perspective is, wall street, they are riskaverse. I think the answer to who is going to invest after these plants were talking about that will come on by 2028, 2030, once they are shown to be successful, you will see a flood of investors coming in to the marketplace to lead parade that is already started. Thank you. I have a question, the question is, most smrs will require 20 than the current 5 , how ready are the fuel enrichment facility dividers, especially outside of the russian suppliers in smr deployment . Who would like to take that . Lome make and an initial comment and um, you know, the reactor that were deploying the b. W. R. X. 300. The reason were seeing this near term interest. One of the many reasons is the fact that the fuel that we are utilizing is commercially available today. Its manufactured at our headquarters here in wilmington North Carolina been used in 70 , of the bullying water reactor fleet. Weve delivered 25,000 of these fuel assemblies. So if you think about Energy Security when we talk to , customers, they want a fuel form thats available today. There is a number of advanced reactors that do require the higher enrichments. Um and its going to be an imperative for the us to solve this challenge of having commercially available high assay, low enriched uranium. Um uh because absent a capability here in the u. S. Um uh developers and utilities are forced to go to russia for this supply. So its a very important and theres funding available. Maybe, you know, doug, you know, maybe you want to weigh in on this in terms of just the level of importance and support that were seeing from the u. S. Government for that supply. Thanks john yeah, ill jump in the well and thats okay. Um yeah this is a very important area. Uh we are very pleased at the Inflation Reduction Act included 700 million of investment in hailu uh capacity some as processing of materials in the near term. Uh some of the establishment of new capacity uh and some as some of the things around the edges of being able to transport and to store hay on a commercial scale. Um theres more investment thats needed. Were working very closely with the administration on this, i think theres a clear understanding that steps need to be taken. I think the and richards enrichers are well aware of this, uh this need uh and its a matter of finding the right mechanisms to get the capacity stirred up. I know that the current enrichers are actively evaluating what can be done to bring things online. We have a small Pilot Project thats coming online um in uh in ohio next year uh that will provide some new capacity at a modest scale but it could be scaled up. So there are things going on and by the time we reach scale on this in the 20s30s, we think we can have the capacity available to support that. So alan if if i may also uh were working closely with any nei on this, we Work Together uh to to try to further the advancement of fuel production. It is absolutely necessary. We did a survey last year and we asked all right, one of the things from our members, one of the things that keep you up at night . What what what makes you not sleep number one by a far margin was fuel availability. And i think it goes back to almost everything were talking about because it is a chicken and egg. I know thats an overused phrase, but whos going to invest in a Nuclear Facility . If you dont know if you can get fuel, whos gonna invest in a fuel facility . If you dont know, you can can build the plants and they operate effectively and efficiently. So i think these first few plants are going to answer a lot of those questions, but we do hope as doug says, and we are relatively confident that by the time it is needed, absolutely needed. That we will be able to produce it here and or produce it with uh cooperation allies. Thank you. Last question malcolm, his loss. Um if if one of you uh gentlemen could address the issue of a couple of advanced nuclear technologies, im curious about, one is thorium and the other is molten salt, weve only got a couple of minutes, but just these ever going to be viable technologies . Theres a molten salt test reactor that the nrc is currently licensing uh to come online in the next few years to demonstrate a molten salt reactor. In fact, there are two of them, theres one in tennessee and one in idaho uh that are both being pursued to demonstrate those there at the test level. So theyre not at the demonstration level, like johns work is or the other uh, three large smr that i talked about. Um, but they are very promising technologies in that they provide High Temperatures, uh, low pressures, uh, some some uh nice safety features that uh long lines that, but talked about in terms of different form of things. So, um, i think theyre promising story. Thorium, i think the longer longer pole, uh, we dont really have thorium processing capabilities today. Um, there are some interesting features about that, but its probably in the longer, longer range. Thank you very much. I would now like to ask each member of the panel, is there a new nuclear day . Uh, lets start with bud. I i think there definitely is. I think we have recognized that reality is at the dance and someone has finally asked reality reality to be a dance partner. There is, there are very few ways if any, to get to the needs of the next uh, at least identifiable 50 years without nuclear. There are many, many advantages that weve talked about today, particularly small modules. The one thing we havent mentioned i think is important, particularly cost wise is the modular element of this. That means that we can build these reactors in factories. Whereas today you have to build on site, you still will assemble on site but think of it as an airplane, an Aircraft Carrier or whatever you build them. Well, an Aircraft Carrier is probably not a good example, but in an airplane, uh, any number of things that can be built in factories and i know various states are looking at hubs to do all of this. Okay, good. Lets move on, scott strawn. Sure. And i echo buds sentiments on, on the modular aspects and how its safer and, and probably the biggest thing is more predictable. Weve seen that in conventional, um, and renewable and storage applications over the last couple of decades. Uh, llewellyn to your question. I believe so. Um, you know, i often think about what a success looks like if we get this right. Uh, one thing we havent talked about today, but ill leave everybody with, um, you know, i do think we need significant investments in stem, uh, investments and outreach. Uh, weve got, we have time, we have 6, 7, 8 years before were seeing a lot of these deployed and then hopefully the new age will begin. But i think, you know, the faster we can connect, um, understanding with passion and a great workforce. I do think that thats underutilized today and its something that we all need to collectively focus on. And ill mention any eyes doing nei is doing a great job. We use a lot of their material and stem programs today, but its something that we can all really focus on. Thanks. Uh, yeah, nuclear day is here. Uh, and uh, i think the other thing that has come out in a lot of our conversation today is, this isnt your grandpa nuclear, this is a different form of nuclear, the small factory fabricated assembled at the site inherent safety, uh, different sides of the different outputs. Its, its just a totally different future that were looking at than the nuclear we have today. The nuclear day provides the foundation for that. But what were looking forward to is a totally different future. Thank you. And finally, john paul. I agree with those last comments and agree 100 the day is here. Its now its happening. Ive been part of this industry for 29 years. Ive never seen the sense of urgency around solving Climate Change as well as Energy Security innovation is at an all time high the key and our focus Going Forward is delivering with certainty. We now, um, its upon us as an industry to demonstrate we can do this. Im confident we can and do it with cost and schedule certainty. Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you all for coming along today. Id like to thank the panel Ken Silverstein markham, his love and ratko crow and of course the experts John Paul Scott spawn bud all right and true i would like also to thank dominic livings of the u. S. Ca who is so helpful in putting these programs together. I thank him and i thank sheila hollis. Who makes this possible. Sheila, would you like to send us away and by the way i think it is a new day and i think i might add to your thinking gentlemen, uh nuclear literacy. I think that could be a powerful sort of idea. Anyway, thats my thoughts. Sheila hollis, please take this away. Thank you so much and what a what a tremendous honor it is to be with this brilliant group. I think looking forward, one of the questions i would have is can we utilize existing laborers, Workers Union members who worked in Nuclear Plants who know about nuclear, who understand nuclear and reposition them. Considering that many nuclear, many of the large nukes are gone and theres still others in the, in the line to for their licenses to run out and not be renewed at the nrc as to whether you could redeploy these people know a lot about nuclear uh, and how that would impact the process and perhaps speed up the process to have people who know know that have the lay of the land. I suspect sheila, the answer is yes. People will have to give it to you in private. Uh, thank you so much for allowing us to do this shiva and thank you all so much for coming on the program. We are adjourned ladies and gentlemen to be with you
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.