After an incredible 5-year run on Medium, The Kernel is moving to a new home on Substack!

For those who aren’t familiar, The Kernel was started by the awesome volunteer David Watson, was edited by the effervescent Rob Loveday, and is now managed by Mary Kloser and the Gen A Team. Over the years, we’ve had contributions from a bunch of other fantastic volunteers who are passionate about all things nuclear.

We’re super grateful for all the support and engagement we’ve received from you, our amazing readers. Your comments, feedback, and diverse perspectives have made this journey truly rewarding.

While we’re sad to say goodbye to Medium, we can’t wait to start this new chapter on Substack.

We’ll continue serving up unique perspectives and breaking down complex topics in a way that’s engaging and easy to understand. Whether you’re a seasoned pro or just starting to explore this fascinating field, we’ve got you.

So, what are you waiting for? Head on over to our Substack page and hit that subscribe button! We promise you won’t want to miss out on the thought-provoking articles, insightful analyses, and engaging stories we have in store.

Thanks again for being part of The Kernel family. Let’s keep exploring the fascinating world of nuclear together!

Substack: https://substack.com/@genathekernel?utm_source=profile-page

Radiantly,

The Gen A Team

Gen A’s The Kernel is Moving to Substack! was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Setting the Scene: State of European Decarbonization

While the power generation sector has made significant progress in reducing emissions, with the share of fossil fuels in the EU(27) energy mix decreasing to around 70% in terms of primary energy consumption (figure 1), the industrial sector requires equal attention to achieve the EU’s climate goals. The recent IETA European Climate Summit, which I was able to attend, played a crucial role in highlighting this often overlooked challenge of decarbonizing Europe’s industrial sector while maintaining its competitiveness.

Heavy industries such as cement and steel remain “hard to abate” sectors due to technological and economic barriers. This is mainly due to the non-energy usage of fossil fuels, such as feedstocks for plastics, fertilizer, and steel production, and the high energy intensity of non-fossil alternatives. In the breakdown (figure 2) we can see a detail of the industry sector in EU(27) in 2022.

The G7 has been attempting to address this issue for several years, as evidenced in the 2021 IEA report. Until now, decarbonization efforts in these sectors have largely been achieved by relocating heavy industries outside of Europe and shifting focus to different economic sectors. This strategy has two major drawbacks: firstly, it leads to an increased dependency on international partners, a risk given the current geopolitical climate; secondly, it fails to truly reduce emissions, as they are merely transferred outside of Europe’s jurisdiction.

Europe must find immediate solutions to remain competitive and achieve a net-zero status.

One significant hurdle discussed in Florence at the IETA ECS was the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Although intended to prevent carbon leakage by applying a carbon price on imported goods, it has several loopholes that undermine its effectiveness. For example, the mechanism does not cover certain processed products or “new scrap,” leading to inconsistencies and potential exploitation of the system. The result is a regulatory framework that struggles to enforce its intended environmental protections while maintaining industry competitiveness within Europe. The new CBAM is supposed to close some of the loopholes, but industry has shown considerable creativity in finding new ones.

Given these challenges, the overarching question remains: How can Europe decarbonize without deindustrializing?

The Role of Nuclear in the Energy Transition

Nuclear energy represents a possible part of the solution in the transition towards a low-carbon economy. At the recent side event to the G7 focusing on nuclear energy’s role, the consensus was clear — nuclear energy can play an essential role for electricity generation, as well as for decarbonizing sectors that are difficult to electrify.

Nuclear power provides a stable, safe, reliable source of energy that can complement the intermittent nature of renewables and decrease storage and transmission requirements. An interesting discussion, following a “Nuclear Industry Statement to the G7”, focused on the application of nuclear energy in heavy industries and non-grid applications, such as hydrogen production and synthetic fuel manufacturing.

Moreover, the current geopolitical climate, marked by increasing energy security concerns, especially post-Ukraine invasion by Russia, highlights the need for an independent and secure energy supply, where nuclear energy could play a significant role.

Despite the growing acceptance of nuclear energy, concerns persist among both the nuclear industry and the general public. The industry itself requires a more stable operational environment, free from political volatility, with well-defined programs and easier access to financing. In terms of political openness, many speakers at the event have noted significant changes post-COP26 in Glasgow. Unlike in the past, when even countries heavily reliant on nuclear power were often hesitant to discuss it openly, nuclear energy can now be addressed civilly, without disruptive protests and interruptions, and with a discourse that is both factual and scientifically oriented. This shift was even more evident at COP28, where nuclear energy was included in the final decision, and a group of countries endorsed the tripling of nuclear capacity. Earlier this year, at the Nuclear Energy Summit, the President of the EU Commission also endorsed nuclear power. With this evolving political landscape, the industry has pinpointed three critical areas that need addressing to achieve these goals: financing, supply chain, and human capital.

• Financing involves expanding access to funds beyond traditional large-scale public financing for big nuclear power plants. Today, with new financial mechanisms and advances in nuclear technology, there’s a substantial opportunity for private and public-private investments. For instance, BPIFrance is moving forward in this direction, among others. Additionally, after 35 years, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is considering resuming its support for nuclear investments.
• Human capital is crucial in the West. Following the extensive nuclear expansion of the last century, interest in the field has waned, leading to a diminished workforce and a loss of expertise. There is now a pressing need for young professionals to specialize in STEM fields, particularly nuclear. This initiative needs to begin in high school, following students through a dedicated educational pathway to ensure a skilled workforce for the future.
• Regarding the supply chain, the keywords are collaboration and an industry-scale approach. Collaboration is essential, especially since only a few countries possess a complete nuclear infrastructure. The inherent stability of nuclear power and its density — requiring small physical spaces for plants and minimal volumes for fuel — help mitigate the impact of geopolitical shifts, providing time to establish new supply chains.

It is important to highlight the African continent, characterized by many developing countries, some of which still have significant portions of their populations without access to electricity (figure 5). As these countries strive for rapid development and energy access, it is crucial that their growth does not continue to default to mostly chaotic, fossil fuel-dependent methods. Nuclear energy, along with renewables, can play a vital role in providing sustainable energy access across the continent. Moreover, collaboration in the field of human capital development can help develop African countries and reinforce the workforce in Western countries.

The industry-scale approach is crucial not only for optimizing supply chains but also for addressing the longstanding challenges of nuclear energy, particularly its associated costs. To fully appreciate this perspective, it’s essential to consider the learning curves experienced by different technologies. Significantly, renewable energy technologies have undergone extensive industrialization, leading to rapid deployment and dramatic reductions in costs. This decrease is attributed to both the learning rate and the scale of production within the industry. Over the past decade, the cost of electricity generated from solar photovoltaics (PV) has plummeted by approximately 89%, and onshore wind has declined by about 70% (figure 6).

However, these cost reduction figures should be interpreted with caution. They often reflect only the costs of electricity generation in a vacuum, rather than the complete costs borne by consumers. The commonly referenced Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) has faced scrutiny over the years for sometimes failing to provide an accurate representation of the true economic landscape. Critics argue that traditional LCOE calculations do not adequately account for changes in energy prices over time, which can skew assessments of grid parity — the point at which renewable technologies become economically competitive with conventional power sources without subsidies.

Further complicating the evaluation of renewables is the high degree of uncertainty and variability in the technical and economic performance of emerging technologies. Studies employing global sensitivity analyses have highlighted the substantial impact that uncertainties in input data can have on LCOE values. For well-established energy technologies, such as nuclear or fossil fuels, the variability in LCOE is generally lower due to more predictable capital, operating, and maintenance costs. In contrast, emerging renewable technologies exhibit greater fluctuation in their economic assessments, reflecting their relatively nascent stage of deployment. Introducing factors like carbon pricing into LCOE calculations can also significantly alter the cost-effectiveness landscape, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of life-cycle costs and benefits in energy production.

In light of these complexities, it is evident that the percentage reductions in the costs of renewables should be viewed more as qualitative indicators of progress rather than precise, absolute figures.

Nevertheless, why hasn’t nuclear energy seen similar progress? Although it has been around much longer than solar and wind, nuclear has not undergone a genuine industrialization phase where single designs are produced in quantity. Historically, the approach in the nuclear sector has been to develop unique technologies or spin-offs from existing ones, resulting in a situation where nearly every project is a “first of its kind,” with few being part of a standardized fleet.

The French nuclear program, a notable historical exception, built 54 nuclear reactors over 15 years, achieving one of the fastest decarbonizations ever seen in an industrialized country. Today, this fleet still operates, providing stable, inexpensive, and clean energy to France and its neighbors.

However, the French nuclear buildout, known as the Messmer Plan, has faced criticism for substantial cost escalations over time despite rapid construction and scale-up. Additionally, it has been characterized by a so-called ‘negative learning’ phenomenon, where costs increased with accumulated experience rather than decreasing. These issues have ignited debates about the efficacy of centralized, technocratic approaches in managing complex, large-scale energy technologies.

Critics of the French approach often argue that the challenges faced could now be overcome. For instance, the financing strategy — relying solely on public spending — and the centralized public management style could be revamped, with different realities attempting or achieving this change, as previously discussed. There is support for the effectiveness of scaling up production — building many identical nuclear power plants (NPPs) to optimize licensing, workforce capacity, regulatory processes, and more. Further support for this strategy is expected from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which contrast sharply with the ‘large-scale, lumpy’ technologies requiring significant complexity management in construction and operation, as described by Grubler.

Moreover, recent developments highlight China’s strategy of constructing around 10 plants per year, utilizing existing designs and benefiting from economies of scale. The competitive edge lies in adopting a similar approach: setting annual targets for the number of units built and scaling accordingly.

Another point of success noted in Grubler’s paper is the French program’s ability to construct NPPs in an average of six years. In Japan, TEPCO was able to construct Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 and 7, two 1.4GWe boiling water reactors, in 39 and 37 months respectively, both timelines shorter than that of many global projects even nowadays. However, speakers at the G7 side event suggest that even these impressive figures could and should be further reduced. For example, they propose a target of up to a maximum of three years for SMRs, in order to enhance their appeal for private financing.

The lesson here is clear: there is a need to utilize existing, proven, safe, and low-carbon designs and scale them up to meet current and future energy needs, using innovative financing and project management approaches.

The Political Challenge: Towards a Federalist Europe with Ambitious Energy and Industry Plans

The European Union is at a strategic inflection point, requiring a unified approach to tackle the enormous tasks of energy security, economic competitiveness, and climate change mitigation. The concept of a federalist ‘United States of Europe’ — a highly integrated, cooperative entity with agreed common policies on critical issues like energy — could provide the framework needed to effectively address these challenges. Such integration would enable Europe to not only speak with one voice in international arenas, such as the World Trade Organization and international climate negotiations, where it already does so on many occasions, but also to coordinate its industrial and energy strategies more efficiently, avoid internal conflicts and address continent-wide economic issues such as stagnation. This approach would facilitate the creation of specialized industrial hubs across the continent, leveraging the unique strengths and capabilities of each member state.

The nuclear landscape in Europe is complicated: while France is relaunching its nuclear energy program, and countries like Bulgaria and Romania are actively developing theirs, historically anti-nuclear nations such as Italy are slowly becoming pro-nuclear. Meanwhile, traditionally nuclear countries like Belgium and Germany are moving away from nuclear power, with Germany having shut down all of its nuclear power plants.

Germany, in their quest to rapidly decarbonize while phasing out nuclear, has transitioned from being Europe’s industrial powerhouse to the leader of deindustrialization. Without delving into the current state of industry in Europe, there are numerous indicators of shrinking economies. In some cases, such as Germany, this shrinkage is due to misguided policies that have led to soaring energy prices and reduced competitiveness. In other instances, like Italy, it is closely tied to structural economic challenges, notably consistently lower labor productivity compared to other EU and global countries. In general, the traditional approaches seem not to be working.

Can these difficulties be addressed solely by each country on its own? It’s probably best not to find out. As Europe approaches critical elections, a broader rethinking of its political nature becomes not just an option but a necessity. A robust, unified approach to energy, coupled with strategic investments in nuclear power and other clean technologies, offers a path forward. The alternative — fragmentation and deindustrialization — is a fate that Europe can ill afford. The choices made now will define the continent’s trajectory for decades to come.

Bibliography

• Hannah Ritchie and Pablo Rosado (2020) — “Energy Mix” Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
• Eurostat dataset, Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 on energy statistics
• IEA (2022), Achieving Net Zero Heavy Industry Sectors in G7 Members, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/achieving-net-zero-heavy-industry-sectors-in-g7-members
• Greenwashing via CBAM: Loopholes Threaten European Green Products Market https://www.hydro.com/en/about-hydro/stories-by-hydro/greenwashing-via-cbam-loopholes-threaten-european-green-products-market/
• European Union: The new European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/tax/european-union-the-new-european-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism
• Nuclear industry statement to the G7 Ministerial Meeting on Climate, Energy and Environment in Turin, Italy (28–30 April 2024) https://cna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Nuclear-industry-statement-to-the-G7-Ministerial-Meeting-April-2024.pdf
• https://www.bpifrance.com/2022/02/22/bpifrance-a-key-operator-in-french-investment-plan-france-2030/
• OECD (2012), Nuclear Education and Training: From Concern to Capability https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/6979-nuclear-education.pdf
• Firoz Alam, Rashid Sarkar, Harun Chowdhury, Nuclear power plants in emerging economies and human resource development: A review, Energy Procedia, 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610219311956
• Max Roser (2020) — “Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?” Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
• Ulrich Nissen, Nathanael Harfst, Shortcomings of the traditional “levelized cost of energy” [LCOE] for the determination of grid parity, 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544219300994
• Thomas T.D. Tran, Amanda D. Smith, Incorporating performance-based global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis into LCOE calculations for emerging renewable energy technologies, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918301430
• Arnulf Grubler, The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing, Energy Policy, 2010, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510003526
• Bloomberg, China Able to Accelerate World’s Fastest Nuclear Power Expansion, 2024, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-05/2024-china-two-sessions-fastest-nuclear-power-expansion-can-accel
• Mucha-Leszko, Bogumiła, Causes and Consequences of Deindustrialization in the Euro Area, 2016, https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/253059?v=pdf
• De-industrialisation in Germany dramatically reduces emissions in 2023 https://www.intellinews.com/de-industrialisation-in-germany-dramatically-reduces-emissions-in-2023-306518/
• Sarra, A., Di Berardino, C. & Quaglione, D. Deindustrialization and the technological intensity of manufacturing subsystems in the European Union. Econ Polit 36, 205–243 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-018-0112-8
• IEA (2023), Number of people without access to electricity by region, 2010–2023, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/number-of-people-without-access-to-electricity-by-region-2010-2023

Europe’s Decarbonization and (De)Industrialization was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In 1902, the workplace standard for radiation was (a ridiculously high) 30,000 mSv/year. For reference, the current maximum allowable dose for nuclear plant workers to receive in a year is 50 mSv. Getting 30,000 mSv in a year is like getting 30,000 CT scans. It’s like being one of the firefighters who responded to Chernobyl at the time of the meltdown 37 times over. You get the point — there was nothing safe about workplace radiation standards during the industrial revolution, as the dangers of radium were not well known to the public. In one of the most famous cases, some watch-dial painters in World War One got incredibly ill by using glow-in-the-dark paint.

Why did the paint glow?

Well it contained radium, a radioactive element, and it was important for military watches that needed to be viewable at nighttime.

These child and teen workers, later called the “Radium Girls,” were instructed to lick their paintbrush tips to make a fine point for their handiwork, ingesting copious amounts of radium in the process. Over time, scientific evidence of radiation poisoning began to surface, causing executives in the factories to take protective measures for themselves, while still forcing these girls to ingest radium. Radium chemically mimics calcium in the body, and over time, the radium accumulated in their bones.

This was a historical instance where radiation seriously impacted vulnerable members of the public; giving them cancer, bone diseases, anemia, and other highly preventable health problems. But it’s important to understand the extent of the radiation exposure that caused these things, and avoid senseless nuclear fear.

A common public sentiment is that radiation causes cancer, it kills people, and it should be avoided at all costs. But the truth is that not all radiation is dangerous, and small amounts are actually very important. We get around 3mSv of background radiation per year just by living, and certain medical procedures, lifestyle choices, or occupations can add to this number. If you live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, for example, you’ll receive about 0.003% more radiation than the average person every year. Recent studies from SnoLab, a world-renowned Canadian research facility, even suggest that humans would get sick if we didn’t have these minimal exposures to radiation, since it’s a natural force of the earth that we are adapted to.

People are often opposed to nuclear power because it involves radioactivity, and in many people’s brains, radiation equals bad. It’s important to remember that these horror stories of the past in no way reflect the current regulatory environment however — radiation is an important part of everyday life, like in the medical field, and it’s doing wonders to reduce the atmospheric impact of powering our world every day.

Check out a TikTok on this topic here!

Radium Girls was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Updated 5/15/24.

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. For financial and investment advice, see a certified financial advisor.

For those who support nuclear power as a critical part of the clean energy future, it can be challenging to find ways to directly invest in the nuclear renaissance. While many environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds embrace renewable energy sources like wind and solar, attitudes toward nuclear power remain mixed, and at times hostile, in the financial world.

Until there is broader acceptance of nuclear power, much of the impetus for conscious investment will fall on individuals. Luckily there are several publicly traded companies that are leading the charge to unleash a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. Here are a few of our favorites:

1. General Electric (GE) and Hitachi

In 2007 GE and Hitachi formed a nuclear alliance called GE Hitachi (GEH). Since that time these industrial giants have been at the forefront of advanced nuclear reactor design. GEH is partnering with TerraPower on a sodium fast reactor project in Wyoming, called Natrium. This project, which is a part of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, is expected to break ground later in 2024 with a reactor coming online in 2030.

GE Hitachi is also teaming up with Tennessee Valley Authority, Ontario Power Generation, and Synthos Green Energy to advance the global deployment of the GEH BWRX-300 (Boiling Water Reactor, 10th iteration, 300 MWe) small modular reactor (SMR). Through this partnership, each contributor will fund a portion of the overall cost of the SMR with the “purpose of ensuring the standard design is deployable in multiple jurisdictions.” Initially, the goal of this collaboration is to license and deploy a BWRX-300 in the U.S., Canada, and Poland before bringing the technology to other markets.

POWER Magazine

A large share (48% in 2023) of General Electric’s revenue comes from the design and production of commercial and military aircraft engines, integrated engine components, electric power, and mechanical aircraft systems. However, the company is looking to divest from this sector and invest in its new clean power spinoff GE Vernova.

2. Constellation Energy

As the largest nuclear operator in the U.S., Constellation is playing a pivotal role in advancing America’s nuclear future. The company recently announced that it had raised $900 million for the country’s first green nuclear bond. The company will use the bond to finance plant expansions, upgrades, and license extensions. Constellation is also aiming to tap into subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act by producing hydrogen with its fleet of nuclear power plants.

Important policy reforms in Illinois may also spell good news for the energy company. Last year Illinois, which is home to six nuclear power plants (all of which are owned by Constellation, lifted its decades-long moratorium on new nuclear power construction. While the bill only permits the construction of power plants of 300 megawatts and less, the lift allows companies like Constellation the option of expanding the fleet of carbon-free nuclear energy in the U.S.

3. NuScale Power

Last year NuScale became the first company to have the design of its reactor, called VOYGR, certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Predictably, NuScale has faced a series of challenges. In December, the company was forced to cancel its advanced nuclear pilot project in Idaho due to inflation-related cost increases, unclear regulations from the NRC, and supply chain constraints.

VOYGR NuScale Power

Despite this setback, NuScale is still working to deploy its VOYGR reactor in Poland and Romania over the coming decade. If these pilots are successful and if the nuclear developers face a more friendly regulatory structure in the U.S. NuScale may soon be able to make a comeback in America. NuScale might be down right now, but it is certainly not out.

4. OKLO

Advanced nuclear company OKLO is creating fast-breeder microreactors that can produce 15 MW of electricity and can scale up to 50 MW when needed. The company’s reactors include passive safety features that make it “walk away safe” and only in need of refueling once every 10 years. Oklo’s unique Aurora reactor design distinguishes it from other advanced nuclear developers. These A-frame reactors, which can run on spent nuclear fuel, only require a few acres of space and can be constructed in less than a year, according to the company. (Tour the Aurora here).

In early May of 2024, Oklo went public via a special acquisition company (SPAC) led by OpenAI founder Sam Altman. SPACs, which are often referred to as “blank check companies,” are publicly listed companies that are formed with the sole purpose of acquiring one or more privately held companies.

Going public through a SPAC includes fewer regulatory hurdles than the traditional IPO route and can allow capital to be mobilized more quickly. In 2020 more than $83 billion were invested in SPACs. Conversely, SPACs offer less oversight from regulators which can increase investor risk and opportunities for fraud. From 2010–2017 SPACs have underperformed the market by 3%, according to Charles Schaub.

OKLO is now being traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker “OKLO.”

Outside of dedicated nuclear companies, some tech giants and industrial titans are investing in nuclear power:

1. Microsoft

Last year Microsoft brokered a deal with nuclear power provider Constellation Energy to provide carbon-free power to a Microsoft data center in Virginia. This agreement puts Microsoft closer to accomplishing its goal of running its data centers exclusively on carbon-free power. Last year the company began training its AI software to navigate regulatory and licensing documents for nuclear power plants, which could reduce costs, streamline projects, and accelerate a nuclear renaissance in the U.S.

2. Amazon

Amazon recently acquired a 100 percent nuclear-powered data center for Amazon Web Services (AWS) for $650 million. Located on a 1,200-acre site, the data center will be powered by Talen Energy’s Susquehanna Steam Electric Station nearby. AWS has signed a nuclear power purchase agreement with Talen to power this massive data center with carbon-free nuclear power for the next decade.

3. Dow

Dow is making great strides to bring advanced nuclear power to the grid, partnering with X-energy to deploy the Xe-100 high-temperature gas reactor at Dow’s Seadrift chemical manufacturing site along the Gulf Coast. This partnership is also being supported by the ARDP.

4. Venture Fund: Nucleation Capital

This venture fund exclusively invests in advanced nuclear and deep decarbonization technologies, leveraging the expertise of its founders in investment management, tech innovation, and the nuclear industry to identify promising startups in the sector.

Nucleation Capital’s portfolio includes a range of innovative companies working on advanced nuclear and deep decarbonization solutions. Notable investments include Copenhagen Atomics, a Danish developer of a thorium molten salt thermal breeder reactor that turns nuclear waste into fuel, Radiant Nuclear, a Los Angeles-based developer of a micro-modular mobile nuclear reactor, and Deep Isolation, a Berkeley-based company specializing in deep borehole storage of nuclear waste. The fund has also invested in Core Power, a UK-based partner in a Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR) development consortium with TerraPower, Southern Co., and Orano.

Nucleation Capital provides three investment options: an evergreen fund for accredited investors with quarterly subscriptions starting at $5,000, a traditional venture fund for family offices and institutional investors with a $1 million minimum, and a syndicate platform for deal-by-deal investments with minimums as low as $1,000. By joining the firm’s investor network, individuals gain access to curated investment opportunities in advanced nuclear and related technologies, benefiting from the Nucleation team’s industry knowledge and due diligence process.

For investors who want to put their money into promising nuclear energy companies, there are a growing number of public and private options available. From established players like GE and Constellation to innovative advanced reactor developers, the nuclear renaissance is providing new ways to invest in this zero-carbon energy source. Of course, investing carries risks, and nuclear still faces economic and public perception challenges. But for those bullish on nuclear’s role in the energy transition, adding some exposure to nuclear stocks could be a way to support the sector’s revitalization financially.

Investing in the Nuclear Energy Renaissance was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The event was an informal conversation between IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, Belgium Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, and Belgium Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten on the eve of the first Nuclear Energy Summit. It was moderated by Isabelle Boemeke (Isodope) and invited young people and civil society organizations from around the world. It was hosted in the Atomium, a large-scale modernist representation of an atom built for the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair.

The event highlighted the role of nuclear energy in supporting Belgium’s energy transition towards Net Zero by 2050. Prime Minister De Croo emphasized the role of all renewable and green energies towards a carbon-free energy grid. For nuclear energy specifically, the government needs to improve regulatory standards and predictability to allow the industry to innovate.

The Director General of the IAEA highlighted the close connection between the Atomium and IAEA, built one year apart from each other. 70 years since, the Nuclear Energy Summit is a historic step following the unprecedented acknowledgment and acceleration of nuclear energy agreed at COP28 in the UAE.

The Energy minister highlighted that as with many other forms of energy production, nuclear has its pros and cons. But having active conversations about it with the citizens, particularly about nuclear waste, leads to a stronger society.

Participants asked a wide range of questions like the need for standardization, the role of AI, supporting financing, skilling the next generation, the role of intergenerational discussion-making.

• The IAEA is working with governments, regulators, and industry to develop comprehensive safety standards under the Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative (NHSI).
• Artificial intelligence will consume of lot of power but also support the optimisation of energy output and advancements in nuclear technology
• The current financing architecture is anti-nuclear, however, IAEA plans to work with international funds and banks to reverse their policies on nuclear energy funding.
• To keep talent and attract more people into the industry, new projects should be available that make young people believe there is a long career in nuclear science
• The young generation needs to have a voice in conversations about nuclear energy and governments need to build forums to hear them. Climate change not only affects their future but nuclear waste will be an intergenerational issue. Collectivized international storage of nuclear waste is an option worth exploring.

The First Nuclear Energy Summit, Brussels, 24th March 2024

The first Nuclear Energy Summit was co-hosted by Belgium and the IAEA. While it was announced in October 2023, the summit was building on the success of nuclear energy at COP28 in December. The summit saw the attendance of high-level representatives from 30 states and the European Union, including 14 heads of state from Armenia, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden as well as the president of the European Council and Commission.

Declaration

All states presented a declaration that underscores nuclear technology as a pivotal element in the global strategy to reduce emissions across energy and industrial sectors. Nuclear energy supports energy security by bolstering energy resilience and fostering the clean energy transition. IAEA is playing a pivotal role in facilitating international cooperation which is essential to support states opting to develop a civilian nuclear program.

Strengthening collaboration among nuclear regulators is required to expedite the deployment of advanced reactors and ensure stability in the industry and supply chains, including fuel, equipment manufacturing and resource security. Investing in nuclear education and research is needed to ensure the availability of skilled professionals and retain a motivated workforce.

Competitive financing is required for the extension of existing reactors, construction of new plants, and early deployment of advanced reactors, including SMRs. As is mobilizing both public and private investments and including nuclear energy in ESG policies within the international financial system. International organizations, including multinational development banks and regional bodies, should support financing nuclear energy projects.

Country Statements

States individually made statements that solidified their national commitment to nuclear energy as part of their transition to clean energy by 2050. The European States also stressed the importance of energy independence that nuclear energy allows in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nuclear energy is a key tool towards bolstering national security and reducing reliance on unpredictable regimes. Many states have managed to successfully transition away from Russian Uranium within their supply chains, however, Hungary still is reliant on Russian fuel.

The 14 states of the EU’s French alliance were unanimous in their support of the extension of the lifespans of their aging nuclear plants. However, commitments to invest in new plants for energy generation were limited. This was most apparent in the host state of Belgium, as they will keep investing in nuclear energy however, have not committed plans to build new reactors to replace the ones decommissioned.

The success nuclear energy found in Dubai last year, through the recommendations following the Global stock-take as well as the triple nuclear pledge States made on the margins of COP28, has further propelled it into state strategies to combat climate change. Azerbaijan, the host of COP29, hopes to carry forward the momentum of the previous COP and will include nuclear energy in its resource deliberation. International cooperation, especially sharing technology and knowledge with states wanting to start their own civilian nuclear program was highly encouraged.

However, international financing still remains a major challenge states have identified for the expansion and maintenance of their reactors. Especially for developing countries. Unlocking financing was a major theme of the conference and states hope that international banks view nuclear as a more credible lending option post the summit.

Panels

Four panels, featuring industry leaders and high-ranking government officials, discussed various aspects of the industry.

The first panel on Factors Influencing the Deployment of New, or Prolongation of Existing, Nuclear Capacity featured global, national, and regional perspectives. The EU Commissioner for Energy highlighted that energy legislation should be technology-neutral so states can choose to apply it to nuclear energy as with other forms of green and renewable energy. For new nuclear projects, community engagement is essential, including building up public infrastructure to support increasing loads in cities and towns where the project is being constructed. AI will also be an integral part of the upcoming new projects to support complex systems and the discovery of new materials. The panel highlighted the need for private sources of financing.

Providing national perspectives, energy ministers around Europe emphasized the challenges associated with coal phase out, and replacing it with nuclear power. For renewables, advanced energy storage or compensatory forms of energy like nuclear are needed to balance the unpredictability of weather-generated energy. Safety and transparency are critical for new nuclear projects.

The American Department of Energy highlighted the need to be on top of new nuclear innovation through their ARD (Advanced Reactor Demonstration) Program. New domestic legislation aimed at bolstering business investment to support the American nuclear industry includes Energy Production Tax Credits, Investment Tax Credits and the Inflation Reduction Act.

The second and third panels focused on the Advancements in Nuclear Technology and Innovation Throughout the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Experts from various industries; including mining, enrichment, fusion, decommissioning, and waste disposal highlighted the advancements in their sectors.

The final panel focused on financing, with speakers from international financial institutions providing their expertise on methods to establish a Level Playing Field for Financing Nuclear Power. The panel emphasized the need for predictability and a stable investment environment for investors. While funding mechanisms for nuclear are improving, the riskiest stages of the build and first-of-a-kind reactor designs are not finding takers, which is further amplified by the unpredictability with the regulators as well as with built costs and time overruns. The constant debate nuclear energy is subjected to in each new policy initiative further adds to its unpredictability. While institutions like the EBRC support nuclear decommissioning and safety projects, they don’t support new builds.

Industry and Civil Society

Civil society organizations from around the world turned up in droves to show their support for nuclear energy at the summit. While there were many representatives at the summit itself, many more stood outside the summit with pro-nuclear banners and slogans to bring attention to the summit attendees the support nuclear has within their constituencies.

Over 50 civil society organizations, including Generation Atomic, submitted to the IAEA a joint statement for the World leaders to develop a global Messmer plan to deliver the equivalent of 1200 large reactors worth of installed nuclear capacity by 2050. Civil Society organizations firmly believe that nuclear energy is essential in our transition to a low-carbon emissions energy grid.

Meanwhile, over 300 representatives from the nuclear industry around the world were present at the summit. At the end of the summit, the representatives of the industry submitted a declaration to the IAEA that supported the triple nuclear industry pledge made in Dubai. They called on governments to implement consistent long-term policies supporting nuclear fleet deployment and also to provide clarity to investors on funding and access to climate finance for nuclear projects. Additionally, the promotion of supply chain development and investment in nuclear research were emphasized for sustainable expansion.

The First Nuclear Energy Summit, Brussels 2024 was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

For the first time in U.S. history, a closed nuclear power plant is coming back to life! Palisades Nuclear Power Plant will receive a $1.5 billion loan from the Department of Energy to be brought back online.

Never heard of Palisades? Here is a brief history of this iconic power plant for context.

In 1966, Consumers Powers Co. announced plans for a $100 million, 800-megawatt nuclear power plant near Kalamazoo on Lake Michigan, making it America’s 20th nuclear power plant. However, anti-nuclear advocates get in the way and delay the plant opening by a year and a half. Fast forward to 1971, Palisades officially lights up the grid on New Year’s Eve!

In 1993, the NRC approved dry cask storage at Palisades, which led to lawsuits that were eventually taken up by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ended up siding with Palisades and allowed the spent fuel to stay on site.

Despite years of operational excellence and a license that was valid through 2031, Entergy decided to close Palisades in 2018 as part of the same “we won’t run nuclear in merchant electricity markets” strategy that factored into the closure of Indian Point in New York. Basically, between cheap natural gas and heavily subsidized renewables, nuclear plants in “deregulated” power markets were feeling the squeeze.

But was reducing expenses worth throwing away a significant portion of Michigan’s clean electricity generation and placing even greater reliance on natural gas, the least reliable fossil fuel?

In 2020, Palisades was responsible for 5.6% of Michigan’s total electricity generation and 15% of the state’s clean power. For comparison, that is equivalent to 39 times the state’s solar generation and three-and-a-half times its hydro generation. Shutting down Palisades was the equivalent of tearing down almost every wind turbine in the state.

In 2022 Holtec bought the plant to begin decommissioning. Several pro-nuclear and environmental organizations pushed back against the closure, asking them to sell it to another operator, but to no avail. In total, the closure ended 600 permanent jobs and led to the loss of over $200 million in tax revenue.

However, this will not be the end of Palisades’ story. Palisades is set to receive $1.5 billion in funds from the federal government, as well as potentially $150 million more as part of Gretchen Whitmer’s proposed budget plan. Whitmer’s office noted the ‘plant’s potential to bring back hundreds of “good-paying, high-skill jobs” while delivering carbon-free power to about 800,000 homes.’

Palisades underscores an important truth — nuclear power remains vital to a clean energy future. With the right policies, even shuttered plants can restart, resuming carbon-free generation and high-quality jobs. Nuclear continues demonstrating versatility, reliability, and environmental benefits that other sources cannot match.

Watch my TikTok on this topic HERE

Sources:

• https://www.electric.coop/gts-collaborate-on-first-recommissioned-nuclear-plant-in-u-s-history#:~:text=Construction%20of%20the%20432%2Dacre%20Palisades%20site%20began,goals%2C%20and%20it%20was%20recognized%20by%20the
• https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2014/08/palisades_nuclear_plant_timeli.html
• https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/05/looming-nuclear-plant-closure-may-put-michigan-climate-goals-out-of-reach.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_Nuclear_Generating_Station
• https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/saving-palisades

Palisades- The Nuclear Comeback Kid was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Eleven U.S. states across the country have adopted aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets and pledged to combat climate change. But there’s a catch — these same states also have longstanding “nuclear moratoriums” that ban the expansion of nuclear power, one of the biggest sources of low-carbon electricity available.

These bans originated decades ago out of fears over nuclear plant accidents, radioactive waste, and radiation exposure. However, the moratoriums now severely restrict these states’ abilities to curb emissions and meet their own climate goals.

The 11 states with nuclear moratoriums currently in place are:

• California
• Hawaii
• New York
• Connecticut
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• New Jersey
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Vermont

The nature of the moratoriums varies. Some states like Minnesota and Oregon have outright blanket bans on new plants. Others require statewide voter approval (Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont) or state legislative approval (Hawaii, Rhode Island) to overturn the building restrictions. And states like New York, California, and New Jersey have tied their moratoriums to progress on the federal level in resolving nuclear waste and fuel reprocessing issues.

The restrictions mean these states cannot expand their existing nuclear generation capacity, although plants already up and running continue to provide steady volumes of clean electricity. The bans aren’t necessarily permanent either. For example, Connecticut recently opened the door to potential new nuclear at the Millstone station, while also keeping the moratorium in place generally.

In the past, the list of states with nuclear moratoriums on the books was longer. But in recent years, five states — Illinois, West Virginia, Montana, Kentucky, and Wisconsin — chose to lift their bans specifically to enable nuclear growth as part of their overall push towards clean electricity.

So how do you meet a climate change target like net-zero emissions by 2050 without the ability to use nuclear power? What would it look like if these states lifted their moratorium and used new nuclear power?

To demonstrate the clean energy challenge these states face, I’ve done a simple electricity replacement analysis. The goal is to determine how much wind, solar, or nuclear capacity each state would need to completely replace current fossil fuel generation with zero-carbon sources.

For simplicity, I assumed a 50/50 split between wind and solar for renewables. The calculations use real-world average capacity factors — 41% for wind turbines and 25% for solar panels — to account for intermittency. On the nuclear side, I analyzed the deployment of Westinghouse’s latest design, the AP1000 reactor. I also used the Fossil to Nuclear calculator on the Generation Atomic website for some help with the calculations.

The reason for looking at full replacement of fossil generation is that deep decarbonization by mid-century will require transitioning virtually the entire power fleet to clean sources.

With these assumptions laid out, let’s compare scaled-up wind, solar, and nuclear deployments in moratorium states wanting to eliminate carbon emissions from their electricity mix.

The vast difference in infrastructure scale and footprint makes it clear why having nuclear power available is so important. Constructing so many turbines and solar farms is likely impractical due to immense costs and land requirements. Modern compact nuclear plants offer huge capacity in a relatively tiny space by comparison.

Keep in mind this quick exercise doesn’t even consider major grid reliability factors like seasonal production changes and intermittency challenges from renewables.

The takeaway is that while an optimal clean electricity mix certainly incorporates renewables and nuclear generation, banning nuclear means states have to compensate with a massive overbuild of wind and solar to displace fossil fuels. These states are fighting the critical climate change battle with their hands tied by longstanding nuclear fear and resistance.

Given what’s at stake environmentally and the short timeline to net-zero emissions, states need to reassess whether upholding decades-old nuclear moratoriums still makes sense. Allowing this proven mega-scale zero-carbon power source to contribute enables a much more viable path to a successful clean energy transition.

Watch my TikTok on this topic HERE

A Nuclear Paradox: 11 States With Climate Goals But No Nuclear Plans was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Taylor Swift is undeniably a jet-setter, frequently crisscrossing the world by plane for concerts, events, and appearances. Her busy travel schedule might have some wondering about regular radiation exposure from all of those flights. But Swift clearly isn’t concerned — she continues logging an incredible amount of flight miles year after year.

Let’s take a closer look at just how much radiation Swift received in 2022.

Just how frequent is Swift’s flying? According to Harper’s Bazaar, the pop icon logged approximately 23,630 air miles in just the first 7 months of 2022. Projecting for the full year, that comes out to roughly 47,260 miles. To estimate associated radiation doses, we can turn to CDC data. They estimate a cross-country trip from NYC to LA exposes flyers to 0.035 mSv of radiation over the 2,445 mile trip. Doing a bit of math, Swift likely received up to around 0.68 mSv of radiation in 2022 from her extensive flights alone.

The Math

2445 miles to receive .035mSv = 0.000014315 mSv/mile

0.000014315 mSv/mile x 47260 miles = .68 mSv

Though 2022 flight data is available, Swift’s 2023 mileage is likely even higher due to her ongoing Eras tour events around the world. However, specifics on her current jet-setting schedule are harder to pin down. With multiple international concerts, Swift is almost certainly logging more hours in airplane cabins in 2023. But her precise flight itinerary for the 2023 year remains behind the curtain for now.

To put Swift’s flight radiation into context, we can compare it to the average American’s exposure. Data shows the typical American took 1.4 flights in 2021, with an average distance of 502 miles per flight (according to 2020 Statista data).

Over a year, that results in about 0.01 mSv of radiation exposure for the average American flyer. Swift meanwhile racks up around 0.68 mSv just in 2022 alone — a full 68X more radiation than the average US air traveler’s annual dose.

The Math

1.4 flights x 502 miles = 702.8 miles total

x/702.8 = .035/2445

x= .01 mSv

Now let’s compare that data to what it’s like living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. The NRC estimates Americans living within 50 miles of a plant receive an average of only 0.0001 mSv of extra background radiation exposure per year. That’s less radiation than the average American receives from flying in a year- and 6,800x less radiation than what Taylor receives from all her flights! The radiation for nearby nuclear plant neighbors is dwarfed by the radiation Swift logs.

This stark contrast offers a different perspective on radiation. Instead of fear, it prompts us to consider the varied sources of exposure in our lives and the relative impact they have. Taylor Swift’s travel habits shed light on this dynamic and encourage us to view radiation in a more nuanced way. It would be great if Swift helped fund some nuclear plants in the US to help offset her carbon emissions and to help power a brighter future for all of the swifties worldwide.

Check out our TikTok video all about this!

Taylor Swift Racks Up 6,800X More Flight Radiation Than Nuclear Plant Neighbors was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Taylor Swift has been getting slammed in the media for emitting over 8 thousand tons of carbon in the year 2022, which is more than any other celebrity in the world and 1,100 times more than the average person. It’s well known, however, that she buys double the carbon credits for what she emits, theoretically improving climate change instead of making it worse. What are carbon credits, and why is it important that they are “reliable?”

A carbon credit is a tradeable permit that represents the right to emit one ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent. Carbon credits are typically developed by companies that work to remove carbon from the air, like a project that reforests logged areas with new trees, or industrial carbon capture that physically sucks carbon from the air and then stores it underground.

Once these companies generate a certain number of carbon credits by removing carbon from the atmosphere (or at least promising to), the credits can be sold to companies or individuals who want to pollute with carbon. And once these buyers purchase the carbon credit, they are able to report much lower rates of pollution than they actually produce.

Now while carbon credits are a great idea in theory, there are many of problems with them in reality. And not champagne problems — climate-dependant ones.

The first issue is something called geographic additionality — basically the idea that the pollution is happening very far away from the emission reduction activity. A company might be planting trees in the Amazon rainforest, and these credits could be sold to a factory in New York. While carbon is theoretically being sucked out of the atmosphere at large, reducing carbon in Brazil isn’t going to help the air quality in New York.

Another problem is that almost anyone can sell them, even if they’re not going out of their way to reduce carbon emissions — landowners, for example. People that own large expanses of land, like a farmer, or someone with a big forest in their backyard, can argue that this undeveloped land is sequestering carbon, so the owner is actively removing carbon from the air. I’m sure you can imagine how this mentality could go wrong very quickly. If everyone suddenly counted their land as a carbon removal effort and sold others the right to pollute, we’d have an astronomical spike in global emissions, with zero additional action working to reduce it.

A final problem is that carbon credits are not well regulated at all. It’s difficult to measure what it really takes to remove one ton of carbon from the atmosphere, and some people just guess. If we’re working with the landowner example, there are super-generalized calculators to figure out how much carbon your land sequesters just based on the area and tree cover. These calculations don’t take into account soil type, tree species, or agricultural nutrient depletion, so really there could be much less carbon actually sequestered than what’s being reported. If another company plants 100 trees, sells 10 credits for the carbon those trees will absorb, but then cuts them down a year later for firewood, the carbon re-enters the atmosphere, and nobody is keeping watch to hand out consequences.

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg, and it’s something we really should be concerned about. Major companies that we buy from, entire governments, and the wealthy elite all rely on carbon credits to meet environmental pollution standards, and when these credits aren’t reliable, more pollution is generated in the end.

To watch the full video, visit our TikTok page!

Carbon Credits: Pollution Loopholes or Environmental Win? was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

If you can’t prove that something is undoubtedly safe, it’s dangerous. Well that’s what the precautionary principle says, anyway.

It’s not necessarily a sound argument, or even one that makes any sense at all. Living your life by the precautionary principle would be like wearing a helmet everywhere you go, because there’s a chance that a brick could fall from the sky and kill you. This has never happened to you before, or anyone you know, but there’s no proof saying it’s impossible, which means it’s possible.

The precautionary principle comes up a lot in nuclear.

Radiation is such a weak carcinogen that the consequences from small doses are impossible to detect — if they even exist. Nuclear skeptics respond to this saying: “Well, if harm from small doses of radiation hasn’t been proven, then it hasn’t been disproven, either.”

While it’s true that radiation exposure is potentially harmful, it really, really depends on the dose. Developing nuclear power facilities spend billions of dollars trying to make the risk of something bad happening go down from 0.001% to 0.00001%. Regulators have been led to believe that any non-zero risk in nuclear power is supposed to be a really big damn deal, forgetting that very very marginal risks exist in pretty much everything.

If you’re driving a car, there’s might be a 0.01% that your airbag will fail to go off in the event of a car crash, and you will instantly die. This is an inherent risk, and it’s one that you accept when you get behind the wheel. You don’t see car companies driving themselves wild to make the risk of airbag failure go down from 0.01% to 0.001% — they already have awesome safety features in place, and it’s extremely unlikely in the first place.

And yet, this has become the default approach to nuclear power, ballooning costs and extending construction times to outlandish degrees.

We assume risks every single day, because they’re tiny. Just like how you wouldn’t buy a $1,000 unbreakable helmet to keep you safe in the unlikely event that a brick falls from the sky, we shouldn’t push reactor developers to spend billions reducing a negligible risk harm to something even smaller. Nuclear power is already among the safest energy sources in existence, and adding regulations will only increase the cost of power, which is wanted by nobody.

Learn more and view the full video here!

Playing Safe or Playing Scared? The Precautionary Principle in Nuclear Power was originally published in The Kernel on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.