Nucleation Capital

A commonly used bit of rhetoric aimed as dissing small reactor developers is to accuse them of describing a situation where micro reactors are installed "at every WalMart." I can't recall any deck actually projecting sales based on filling a certain number of orders from the ~4,600 U.S. WalMarts, but I suppose some publicly available briefs or talks could give the impression that chain was a target market. Dr. Jessica Lovering's (@J_Lovering) comment on the issue stimulated this response. The scenario of distributed micro reactors that power essential loads in the event of grid disruption is an important one. I like to think of the response to a grid disruption in such a case as "rigging for reduced electrical" and the local grid design as having "vital" and "non vital" buses. Because those reactors will often have reasonably low fuel costs and will certainly operate without any local pollution, they can be operated continuously, perhaps at varying output. They can even be designed for very quiet operation if that is a criteria. 😉They can be operational without giant blowers or noisy, smelly exhaust systems. When there is a loss of grid supply, their fully rated output is instantly available because it is already connected and automatically responding to load changes – often using nuclear physics, not control systems. That is quite different from conventional backup generators. As one special case, conventional nuclear plants could benefit by having small nuclear generators on site performing an expanded list of functions currently performed by emergency diesel generators. On some measures of effectiveness, a small nuclear alternative to diesels will be a significant improvement. 1. They can run continuously and generate sales revenues. 2. Their continuous operation changes certain safety analysis assumptions related to start up and transfer delays. 3. The installation can be expanded as experience is gained and prices come down. 4. Testing programs change. Proving they can start within a specified period of time is less necessary or "safety related." 5. Nearly zero probability of needing fuel deliveries during a loss of off site power. There are probably more. Other advantages of putting small reactors on existing nuclear plant sites are: 1. Can use the established security perimeter 2. Onsite workforce is available and expandable to cover additional nuclear generation 3. Facilities already exist for radioactive materials handling, transportation and storage. 4. Well known site with available geological and meteorology data There are probably more. I've been thinking and writing about advantages and use cases of smaller, simpler nuclear plants for several decades. In my current role @nucleationvc, I continue learning from others as I review an increasing number of pitch decks from both new entrants and established participants that are expanding their vision and seeking another increment of resources.

Ten AP1000 reactors associated with the $17.5 B DOE-EDF loan are separate from the six AP1000s being discussed as part of an eight reactor deal with South Korean entities. (APR1400s are proposed as the other two reactors in the project.) I expect another DOE-EDF deal to help suppliers finance the larger number of reactors. Do either of those groups of reactors include the six AP1000s being proposed by The Nuclear Company in Kentucky or the four being proposed by Fermi America in the Texas Panhandle? Is the count now 26 AP1000 proposals in the US? Or am I missing some?