Unknown: Hi guys, it's me Finyi and this is the new friend.
Unknown: Questions?
Unknown: Action.
SPEAKER_04: All right. Good evening. Good evening and welcome to the Energy Resources and Customer
SPEAKER_02: Services Committee and Special Board Meeting of October 15, 2025. This meeting is being
SPEAKER_02: recorded and can be accessed on SMUD's website. Please remember to unmute your microphone
SPEAKER_02: when speaking in order that our virtual attendees may hear. The microphone will display green
SPEAKER_02: indicator light when the mic is on. For members of the public wishing to attend in person
SPEAKER_02: that wish to speak at this meeting, please fill out the speaker's request form located
SPEAKER_02: on the table outside this room and hand it to SMUD's security. Members of the public attending
SPEAKER_02: this meeting virtually that wish to provide verbal comments during the committee meeting
SPEAKER_02: may do so by using the raised hand feature in Zoom. At the time, public comment is called.
SPEAKER_02: Technical support staff will enable the audio for you when your name is announced during
SPEAKER_02: the public comment period. You may also submit written comments by emailing them to publiccomment
SPEAKER_02: at smud.org. Written comments will not be read into the record but will be provided
SPEAKER_02: to the board electronically and placed into the record of the meeting if received within
SPEAKER_02: two hours after the meeting ends. Would the Chief Legal Officer please conduct a roll
SPEAKER_02: call? Dr. Tamayo? Here. Dr. Sanborn? Here. Chair Rose? I am here. All committee members
SPEAKER_07: present also present are directors, Kurth, Herber and President Fishman. All right. Thank
SPEAKER_02: you. And so tonight item number one on tonight's agenda is to provide the board with an informational
SPEAKER_02: and internal presentations to discuss prospects of nuclear energy for deep decarbonization.
SPEAKER_02: And so with that, we'll have our director of research and development grants and partnerships,
SPEAKER_02: James Frazier. Welcome, James. Thank you. It's definitely an exciting time to be part of a
SPEAKER_08: research and development department, especially at a utility like SMUD. I actually got to present
SPEAKER_08: here last week talking about a lot of our research and development initiatives and how those
SPEAKER_08: initiatives are really focused on operationalizing solutions and technologies and accelerating us
SPEAKER_08: towards our 2030 zero carbon plan and working towards that timeline. I also talked a little
SPEAKER_08: bit about the role that the research and development department plays in keeping our eyes on the
SPEAKER_08: horizon and looking out at those future technologies and thinking about what comes next, what type of
SPEAKER_08: disruptive technologies might be feeding into our future energy portfolio. And tonight we get to
SPEAKER_08: learn about nuclear generation. One of those technologies that we see when we take that longer
SPEAKER_08: view. This technology has been quietly innovating and pushing ahead, but has now found itself really
SPEAKER_08: center stage in the conversation, largely driven by a lot of the conversations around hyperscalers
SPEAKER_08: and the new large load that's creating a demand for energy that wasn't forecasted or anticipated
SPEAKER_08: five, 10 years ago. And so with that, we seem to be at the front end of a rapid escalation of
SPEAKER_08: investment and interest in the technology from governments around the world and massive
SPEAKER_08: corporations. We really are interested in how this technology is evolving and the role that it could
SPEAKER_08: play in our future as we continue to look ahead. With that, it's important to note that even today,
SPEAKER_08: nuclear still serves some of our load here in Sacramento. And it has a presence as we pull up
SPEAKER_08: the most recent version of our energy content label. We can see that a very small percentage
SPEAKER_08: of that is sourced from nuclear. So understanding that advancements and deployments of nuclear
SPEAKER_08: technology in other regions may still affect SMUD and the energy that we consume. It pays a lot of
SPEAKER_08: value to keep our eyes on the evolution of that technology, understanding where it's going,
SPEAKER_08: who's investing in it, where it's being deployed, and what potential it might have to influence the
SPEAKER_08: way that we operate in the future. And with that, we're really excited to learn more about that
SPEAKER_08: technology from the world-class panel that we've assembled tonight to speak to the board,
SPEAKER_08: our executives, and the community. I'm going to go ahead and give an introduction and a brief
SPEAKER_08: bio for each of our three speakers this evening. And then I'll hand it over to our first speaker
SPEAKER_08: for her presentation. Our first speaker is going to be Katie Austin. Katie's the director of public
SPEAKER_08: engagement and new nuclear at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Katie leads the NEI Advanced Nuclear
SPEAKER_08: Forum and advancing collaboration, community engagement, and public trust working group,
SPEAKER_08: providing industry coordination and strategic guidance. Katie holds a bachelor's and master's
SPEAKER_08: of science in nuclear engineering from Oregon State University and the University of Missouri,
SPEAKER_08: respectively. Katie's talk tonight will include key policy enablers, including executive orders
SPEAKER_08: on nuclear energy, public sentiment for nuclear energy, and insights into states' actions to support
SPEAKER_08: nuclear. Our second speaker will be Chad Boyer. Chad is the senior principal technical leader of
SPEAKER_08: nuclear at EPRI. Chad started at a nuclear utility and has held roles that included core designer,
SPEAKER_08: reactor engineer, and system engineer. Chad was also in the Congressional Fellowship Program
SPEAKER_08: working in the U.S. House of Representatives on energy policy. Chad holds bachelor's of science
SPEAKER_08: degrees in nuclear engineering and physics, as well as a master's of science in nuclear engineering
SPEAKER_08: all from North Carolina State University. Chad's presentation tonight includes the evolution of
SPEAKER_08: nuclear power, historical trends, and an overview of EPRI-led activities. Our third speaker is Mark
SPEAKER_08: Gacki, and he is the associate vice president and nuclear portfolio manager for Black & Veatch,
SPEAKER_08: with 34-plus years experience in conventional generation and nuclear energy projects,
SPEAKER_08: including nuclear new build projects in the United States, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and Canada. Mark
SPEAKER_08: has held engineering management, nuclear chief engineer, project management, and project director
SPEAKER_08: roles for Black & Veatch's nuclear organization. Mark's talk will include a look at the building
SPEAKER_08: momentum around the nuclear industry today, why small modular reactors and why now,
SPEAKER_08: new nuclear projects underway, and the future of nuclear.
Unknown: With that, let me hand it over to our first presenter, Katie.
Unknown: Thank you so much, and thank you for having me this evening.
SPEAKER_10: So everyone's hearing about executive orders, and there's no shortage of them. In May of this year,
SPEAKER_10: there were four executive orders signed that related to nuclear energy. And so I have those
SPEAKER_10: listed here on the slide, and I've got some highlights for you, courtesy of the Department
SPEAKER_10: of Energy. So the big things are to speed up nuclear licensing, to speed up the testing and
SPEAKER_10: the further development of new nuclear, to actually deploy reactors across the country,
SPEAKER_10: and to speed up the fuel production that goes along with that. Anytime we talk about the fuel
SPEAKER_10: cycle, we of course think about spent fuel or used fuel, and there's also some focus in those
SPEAKER_10: executive orders on the potential for recycling. And then we also know that nuclear energy is a
SPEAKER_10: global endeavor, and the United States is not the only country that's looking to significantly grow
SPEAKER_10: its share of energy from nuclear. So we want to be a leader in that area and play a role in nuclear
SPEAKER_10: energy exports. And then of course, the most important resource of all in this is the nuclear
SPEAKER_10: workforce. So the executive orders also touch on the workforce. So stepping back, the overarching
SPEAKER_10: policy goal of all of these executive orders is to add an additional 300 gigawatts of U.S. nuclear
SPEAKER_10: capacity by 2050. We'll hear probably in Chad's presentation that currently the nuclear fleet in
SPEAKER_10: the United States provides about 100 gigawatts of energy. So that's quadrupling the amount of energy
SPEAKER_10: that we have from nuclear. It includes some restarts and some power up rates. So there are
SPEAKER_10: reactors that were recently shut down that are going to be coming back online. And then of course,
SPEAKER_10: through some specific work, we can also up rate the existing reactors and maybe all told, get
SPEAKER_10: another 5 gigawatts electric out of that. But then there's a goal for 10 large reactors, so a
SPEAKER_10: thousand megawatts electric per reactor, to be under construction by 2030. And so to help enable
SPEAKER_10: all of that, again, we go back to those seven different key enablers. Many of these are things
SPEAKER_10: that we at the Nuclear Energy Institute as the policy and advocacy organization for the nuclear
SPEAKER_10: industry have been working on for many, many years already. But now this is really providing that push
SPEAKER_10: that we think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to truly speed up their processes.
SPEAKER_10: They know what they're doing. They know how to provide the oversight and the regulation.
SPEAKER_10: But we just need to do it faster. Again, the groundwork for faster testing, exploring the
SPEAKER_10: different Department of Energy pathways that maybe have not been used in the past, but that are still
SPEAKER_10: viable. Again, operating at Department of Defense facilities within three years and considering
SPEAKER_10: artificial intelligence or AI as critical defense facilities so that we can compete with
SPEAKER_10: our foreign adversaries. You may have just seen yesterday an announcement for Project Yanis,
SPEAKER_10: which is targeted to those Department of Defense deployments and making sure that we actually
SPEAKER_10: get those reactors on their way to being built and put in service.
SPEAKER_10: Again, the focus on domestic nuclear fuel production is because the production of nuclear
SPEAKER_10: fuel is a global endeavor. So we mine uranium, we enrich uranium, we put it through the process
SPEAKER_10: to create fuel. Currently, those different steps happen to differing degrees in different countries.
SPEAKER_10: And so because we all got good at our little piece of the puzzle, we let some of that slip
SPEAKER_10: by the wayside here in the United States. And so now there's a focus, again, for our own needs,
SPEAKER_10: because we want to lead the way in nuclear energy and continuing to grow our energy.
SPEAKER_10: We want to bring that nuclear fuel production back home.
Unknown: And then for the spent fuel and the recycling, key here is that we've sort of been on pause
SPEAKER_10: as a nation when it comes to looking at the final disposition of spent fuel. It's stored
SPEAKER_10: around the country at nuclear reactor sites. It's safe. It's managed. It's paid for. We have
SPEAKER_10: a trust fund that's set aside for disposal of the spent fuel. But that process is not progressing.
SPEAKER_10: So to revisit and kickstart that, the executive orders included a direction to
SPEAKER_10: recommend a national policy. So the Department of Energy is working on putting together that
SPEAKER_10: recommendation. And that report is expected in January of 2026. That national policy would deal
SPEAKER_10: with not only spent fuel, but also looking at the entire fuel cycle. Right now we call it an open
SPEAKER_10: fuel cycle because you mine it and then you dispose of it. If we were to go about recycling
SPEAKER_10: our used fuel, you could do what we call close the fuel cycle, get more of that energy that you've
SPEAKER_10: mined from the raw materials out in energy production before disposal. And I think the
SPEAKER_10: exports and the fuel, sorry, and the nuclear workforce are pretty self-explanatory. So we'll
SPEAKER_10: dive a little bit deeper on accelerating NRC reform. So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SPEAKER_10: reviews applications for reactors to be built, to be licensed, to be operated. They provide the
SPEAKER_10: oversight during operations. As I mentioned, it's not new that we've been working as an industry
SPEAKER_10: with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that they're performing their job as
SPEAKER_10: efficiently and effectively as they can. The recent legislation and executive orders have
SPEAKER_10: all really shown a spotlight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and accelerated their
SPEAKER_10: timeline for comprehensive reform. So we rolled up all of our most important industry
SPEAKER_10: recommendations and provided those in a report to the NRC in July of this year,
SPEAKER_10: highlighting specific areas where they can streamline their licensing actions,
SPEAKER_10: streamline their oversight and inspection processes. Again, make sure that they stay
SPEAKER_10: focused on safety and not on ancillary things. Accelerating environmental reviews, we know from
SPEAKER_10: all of the reviews conducted to date for the existing fleet and for those new reactors coming,
SPEAKER_10: that there are a handful of potential environmental impacts and there are by and large
Unknown: conclusions that can be made that there are very small or no adverse environmental impacts. So
SPEAKER_10: there's no reason why the NRC could not accelerate those reviews. Also reforming the hearing
SPEAKER_10: process. So again, it's very important to have stakeholder participation in the process of
SPEAKER_10: licensing nuclear energy facilities, but that, like any process, can be more efficient from
SPEAKER_10: a timing perspective and a level of effort perspective. Then modernizing the security
SPEAKER_10: framework. So again, making sure that we are appropriately acknowledging nuclear energy as
SPEAKER_10: important and critical infrastructure but not going so far overboard that we
SPEAKER_10: hamper ourselves when it comes to our need for clean and reliable energy. And then accelerating
SPEAKER_10: the deployment pathways. Again, right sizing the requirements and streamlining approval processes.
SPEAKER_10: And I think you'll hear in the later presentations about some of the features of advanced reactors
SPEAKER_10: that we're alluding to when we talk about right sizing requirements. We want to make sure that
SPEAKER_10: requirements are matching the technology. So there's lots of interest in nuclear energy
SPEAKER_10: from both sides of the aisle, from all around the country, because nuclear energy really does check
SPEAKER_10: all the boxes of what you might want in your future energy system. We of course want our energy to be
SPEAKER_10: clean. We want to have clean air. We want to have clean water. But we also need it to be reliable. We
SPEAKER_10: need it to be there when we need it 24 7 365 and nuclear energy is firm, clean energy. It's also
SPEAKER_10: very energy dense. And so it has a very low land utilization for the actual energy that you get out
SPEAKER_10: of the facility. You also have the flexibility to build nuclear in locations where you won't have to
SPEAKER_10: do as much transition build out. Whether that's building adjacent to existing facilities or
SPEAKER_10: building in areas of high energy demand. So you knew you were going to have transmission there
SPEAKER_10: anyways. Nuclear provides lots of really well paying jobs. And so those economic benefits are
SPEAKER_10: concentrated locally because you do need people to operate the facility, to secure the facility.
SPEAKER_10: And then we also know that in this time of energy revolution and transition, it's not all about
SPEAKER_10: adding electricity, but it's also about looking at manufacturing processes and other applications
SPEAKER_10: that really just require the heat, not the electricity. And so new nuclear designs are
SPEAKER_10: providing more options for directly utilizing that heat as well. There's also strong public
SPEAKER_10: support for nuclear energy. We see greater than 60% of the public currently supports nuclear energy.
SPEAKER_10: This study is actually from 2023, but we've also had additional polls coming out from Gallup and Pew
SPEAKER_10: saying that support for nuclear energy really is at an all time high. And it's been increasing
SPEAKER_10: consistently over the last decade. One of the things that's particularly interesting about
SPEAKER_10: this study by Potential Energy Coalition is that they also looked at a variety of different
SPEAKER_10: demographics. And they saw that across ages, incomes, again political affiliation, the majority
SPEAKER_10: support nuclear energy. And especially interesting to me is that among those who self identified as
SPEAKER_10: members of environmental organizations or supporters of environmental causes, the level
SPEAKER_10: of support actually goes up almost to two thirds of that group. And of course, the reasons all
SPEAKER_10: mirror those boxes that I mentioned nuclear checking on the last slide.
Unknown: So in light of this, the states have been taking action to support advanced reactors.
SPEAKER_10: On the right hand side, you see a graphic out of the NARUC and NASIO report on advanced
SPEAKER_10: nuclear frameworks. So NARUC is the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions
SPEAKER_10: and NASIO is the National Association of State Energy Officials. So those that economically
SPEAKER_10: regulate and those that plan for energy needs within the state got together and said,
Unknown: what's needed to make sure everyone's talking to each other when we think about planning for
SPEAKER_10: advanced nuclear? And you can see there is a variety of different topics. And we're seeing
SPEAKER_10: these play out in states that are looking at reliability portfolio standards, as well as clean
SPEAKER_10: energy standards. They're setting up their market and their regulatory system to value what's most
SPEAKER_10: important to them. Whether it's not just cost, but reliability and then how you're dealing with any
SPEAKER_10: external factors like pollution or whether you have clean energy. Some states are providing
SPEAKER_10: tax incentives. Some are providing advanced cost recovery. And several are, again, taking that hard
SPEAKER_10: look at what is their energy workforce and their energy infrastructure and is it ready to
SPEAKER_10: build out more and consider nuclear? So here's just a snapshot of some of those states that have
SPEAKER_10: been taking actions in those many categories. You'll see it's been very popular to explore nuclear
SPEAKER_10: technology through studies, working groups, commissions or task forces. This is, again,
SPEAKER_10: really about familiarizing themselves with the landscape today, sort of like what you're doing
SPEAKER_10: tonight. It's also to help them think strategically about their state as a whole and what they want to
SPEAKER_10: plan for in their energy system. Other states are, again, recognizing nuclear as a clean energy
SPEAKER_10: source. Most already recognize it as a firm energy source. Whether they've actually set up
SPEAKER_10: their requirements to acknowledge that yet or not is a varying story. Then, of course, we do have
SPEAKER_10: states that actually have regulatory barriers. Whether it's a state law that has a moratorium
SPEAKER_10: against nuclear energy or those that require a public referendum on nuclear energy. So placing
SPEAKER_10: an additional hurdle in front of the deployment of nuclear. We're seeing several states removing
SPEAKER_10: those barriers and signaling support. So as an example, the states of Kentucky, West Virginia,
SPEAKER_10: and Wisconsin have completely removed their moratorium against new nuclear. Connecticut and
SPEAKER_10: Illinois have opened the aperture to an extent. Illinois with a focus on advanced technologies
SPEAKER_10: and smaller technologies. Connecticut with a focus on places where they already have nuclear
SPEAKER_10: energy facilities. So they know that those neighbors would be accepting of nuclear.
SPEAKER_10: And then I think Montana is one that had a voter referendum that was required and they've removed
SPEAKER_10: that requirement. So again, just opening up and signaling that there are not added barriers to
SPEAKER_10: the deployment of nuclear energy. All right. With that, hopefully we're good on time and we have
SPEAKER_10: opportunity for some questions. Thank you for that. I was a little bit curious. Just a little
SPEAKER_02: bit about the reform and it was sort of talking about the waste disposal policy needed. Would
SPEAKER_02: the sort of logical pathway be a policy which would then be formulated into actual strategy?
SPEAKER_02: And maybe talk a little bit more about what's going on there. Yeah. So as it stands today,
SPEAKER_10: we have the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which is federal law that says the nation's first
SPEAKER_10: deep geologic repository for commercial used nuclear fuel will be at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
SPEAKER_10: That is not moving forward because the folks in Nevada objected to that. So
Unknown: in the meantime, the Department of Energy has been working on what they call collaboration-based
SPEAKER_10: siting. Going around, talking with different communities, saying, okay, this is what it would
SPEAKER_10: mean to host, in this case, a consolidated interim storage facility for used fuel.
SPEAKER_10: So basically, just like the used fuel that we have at all of our reactor sites today,
SPEAKER_10: but perhaps for those where the reactor has been completely decommissioned and the only thing left
SPEAKER_10: is the used fuel, we could start taking that used fuel, consolidating it in centralized locations.
SPEAKER_10: Again, it would not be the deep geologic repository because that is still legally required to be
SPEAKER_10: Yucca Mountain. So in the meantime, the Department of Energy is looking at fulfilling a portion of
SPEAKER_10: their obligations by taking some of that used fuel, consolidating it and taking over the management
SPEAKER_10: of it themselves while they then still would look towards where should we have a deep geologic
SPEAKER_10: repository. The recommended national policy that is requested is basically the how do we sort this
SPEAKER_10: all out? We know that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act says Yucca Mountain. We know Yucca Mountain is not
SPEAKER_10: viable. So we're going to need a legislative change. We also know that the way to move forward
SPEAKER_10: with communities is collaboration-based siting, whether it's for that centralized storage or the
SPEAKER_10: deep geologic repository. So how do we work that approach into a new national policy and identify
SPEAKER_10: legislation that has to change and processes and programs that need to be funded and executed?
Unknown: Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Yes. Just a reminder, we do have two more speakers coming.
Unknown: Quick question. I'm sure you're aware that California has a current moratorium
SPEAKER_12: until there's a federal depository identified and I'm not sure exactly what the language is.
SPEAKER_12: Is your organization actively working with anybody here in California to try and overturn that?
Unknown: So we are not actively working to overturn it. Because we are a membership-based organization,
SPEAKER_10: we take the direction of our members on what are their legislative priorities, both at a national
SPEAKER_10: level as well as at a state level. So if our members who are in California deemed that to be
SPEAKER_10: their priority, then we would work on it. In the meantime, we do have several resources available,
SPEAKER_10: the policy options document that you saw in my slides, the roundup of what other states have done.
SPEAKER_10: So you can start to think about what that could look like or what it might look like.
SPEAKER_10: And I think it's important to think, again, in your energy strategy, there are many things you can do,
SPEAKER_10: even while there's a moratorium in place to get yourself situated, to think about
SPEAKER_10: what would you need, when would you need it, what would your preference be?
Unknown: Yeah. We have Director Tamayo, then Director Sam Martin, and then Director Herbert. Yeah,
SPEAKER_13: with regard to the interim collaborative storage, and I understand that several years ago there was
SPEAKER_13: movement towards a site in Texas, and it appeared that whoever was going to be the community
SPEAKER_13: receiving that was actually positive about moving forward. And I don't remember why that
Unknown: withered. Is that something that's back on the table now, whatever community that was?
SPEAKER_13: Yeah, so I believe that that one is currently tied up in federal courts. So this is another
SPEAKER_10: case of some stakeholders, you know, the community that's right there local maybe is very supportive,
SPEAKER_10: but then others within the region or within the state have more questions, and maybe those
SPEAKER_10: questions haven't been addressed to their satisfaction yet. In that case, it was
SPEAKER_10: private industry working to site and offer that opportunity for consolidated interim storage. So
SPEAKER_10: that was a bit outside the Department of Energy process. The Department of Energy, again, is
SPEAKER_10: actively working on collaboration-based siting and what that might look like now.
Unknown: As of a month ago, they were expecting that by the end of this year, they would open up a call
SPEAKER_10: for interest to enable interested communities to come forward and enter into a more formal process
SPEAKER_10: of exploring what that might look like. To be frank, I'm not sure the impact that the government
SPEAKER_10: shutdown has on that timing, but I know that they were very close to issuing that call for interest.
Unknown: Thank you for being here. I was not sure, I thought we were maybe getting some information on new
SPEAKER_06: types of technologies for nuclear, and I think that's coming. That's coming. So before we get to
SPEAKER_06: that, just a few questions. Mining, where does this material come from? Uranium is mined in the
SPEAKER_10: United States, in Wyoming, and a few other locations. It's primarily, globally procured from
SPEAKER_10: Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan. Okay. And does any recycling of the waste exist today?
SPEAKER_09: It does, but not in the United States, although we're getting closer in the United States. So,
SPEAKER_10: first of all, France, the UK, other countries have done recycling. In fact, France has a national
SPEAKER_10: policy and has had for many decades that they recycle their fuel and use it as much as they can
SPEAKER_10: before they consider it to be waste. Here in the United States, it's just not been an economic
SPEAKER_10: proposition. The cost of producing fresh fuel is relatively low when you think about the all-in
SPEAKER_10: cost of building, operating, and maintaining a nuclear energy facility. So there hadn't been
SPEAKER_10: any economic driver to get to recycling. That is changing, we think, with some advanced reactor
SPEAKER_10: technologies. In particular, one company, Oklo, has a reactor technology that is based on
SPEAKER_10: some historic technologies that have been operated at Idaho National Lab. And in order to secure
SPEAKER_10: the fuel for their first reactor, they are actively working on a grant from the Department of Energy
SPEAKER_10: to take used fuel from a research reactor at Idaho National Lab, recycle that fuel, and then use it
SPEAKER_10: as their first core load. Again, that first reactor that Oklo is going to deploy will also be at Idaho
SPEAKER_10: National Lab. So there's some synergies there with being able to take the used fuel on site,
SPEAKER_10: recycle it on site, and then put it into a new reactor. Yeah, because as you know, we had a
SPEAKER_06: citizen's proposition that actually closed our nuclear power plant, and we are still storing
SPEAKER_06: the fuel on site because there is no place to put it. And I'm not super excited or call it clean if
SPEAKER_06: we have no end of life plan for waste that can last thousands of years and do damage if it escapes,
SPEAKER_06: because even ground moves with earthquakes and things. So I'm not sure there's a way for this
SPEAKER_06: material. So I think that's just something I think about because in my definition of clean,
SPEAKER_06: that would not be it. Also, the costs of these plants, when we get to I guess the new technologies,
SPEAKER_06: definitely want to talk about that. But we have to weigh the cost of anything against, you know,
SPEAKER_06: what our other options are. And historically, these are not cheap. So that's something I definitely
SPEAKER_06: want to get into. And then the safeguarding against accidents, because clearly with these
SPEAKER_06: facilities and nuclear waste, it's just the accidents are kind of forever. I mean, Chernobyl,
Unknown: Three Mile Island, and definitely Fukushima, I mean, we've got nuclear waste circling around
SPEAKER_06: the ocean and our fish today. And nobody's testing fish for nuclear reaction, right? I mean,
SPEAKER_06: but it's out there. So those are the kinds of things I think about with nuclear. And I'm
SPEAKER_06: looking forward to hearing more about the new technologies too. So I am interested. Thank you
SPEAKER_06: very much for coming. We do appreciate it. You're very welcome. And I think I'll just preview what
SPEAKER_10: the next speakers are probably going to speak to. But some of the things we think about are the fact
SPEAKER_10: that we do plan for the cost of managing and disposing of the waste from the very beginning.
SPEAKER_10: So we do have that all in mind as part of that all in cost. We do know that nuclear energy
SPEAKER_10: facilities can be very long lived assets. Our current reactors are all more than 40 years
SPEAKER_10: operating. Most of them already approved to operate to 60 years and a handful of them
SPEAKER_10: approved to operate to 80 years. Again, just through their operations and maintenance practices
SPEAKER_10: as they swap out equipment and make sure that they're still in good operating condition.
SPEAKER_10: So I absolutely hear you on the cost and the huge investment. We hope to keep it in a place where
SPEAKER_10: it's really a generational investment and we're looking at decades of return. Thank you.
Unknown: Thank you. Oh, you've got more questions coming, I think. I wanted to thank you for being here and
SPEAKER_00: also for going over kind of the plan on what's coming. And I share Director Sanborn's concern
SPEAKER_00: about the spent nuclear fuel. We do have some out at Rancho Seco and it is something that you can
SPEAKER_00: never stop thinking about. Somebody could break into it or blow up the cask or a lot of different
SPEAKER_00: things could happen. And when the plant is active, you know, that's where we've had some real problems.
Unknown: The Three Mile Island. And I'm just really wondering what's driving this move to nuclear
SPEAKER_00: when you have gas powered plants would be a lot less expensive. And if it's great that you're using
SPEAKER_00: a collaborative process, I think that is fabulous. But I wouldn't want to enter into that collaborative
SPEAKER_00: process if you were building this, you know, within a half a mile of my home. So I'm just really
SPEAKER_00: wondering what's driving this and what has made it so much safer now? Well, first, I do want to
SPEAKER_10: acknowledge that our current fleet really does have by far the best safety record of any energy
SPEAKER_10: technology. And I would send you to a website called Our World in Data where they have a comparison
SPEAKER_10: and they look at deaths both from accidents as well as from air pollution and they compare
SPEAKER_10: all different energy technologies and you find that nuclear is among the safest.
SPEAKER_10: Yes, Three Mile Island still resonates in the memory of folks in the United States, but it's
SPEAKER_10: important to note that no one died. And a unit right next door was able to continue operating
SPEAKER_10: until 2019 when it closed for economic reasons, not for any sort of safety reasons.
SPEAKER_10: So our current fleet is very safe. We do catch headlines sometimes and there are things that
SPEAKER_10: need to be dealt with in those different scenarios. But by and large, the data shows
SPEAKER_10: safe. What the advanced reactors are doing, and again, I don't want to steal thunder from the
SPEAKER_10: other presenters, but they are incorporating all the things that we know from the operation
SPEAKER_10: of the current fleet and saying, well, how can we make it even better? If some safety systems in
SPEAKER_10: the current fleet require electric power to be operable and to put the plant into a safe condition,
Unknown: how can we flip that so that in a new reactor you don't require power in order to put the plant in
SPEAKER_10: a safe condition? And there are a few different ways that plants are, or designers, I guess,
SPEAKER_10: are looking at achieving that, but that's the kind of philosophy. Look at everything that's ever
SPEAKER_10: gone wrong in the past and say, what could I do to take that off the table as a threat?
Unknown: Other questions? Okay. I don't see any more. We may have some at the end.
SPEAKER_02: That's fine. Thank you so much for making the trip. Here, I'm sure we'll have a few more at the end.
Unknown: Then who do we have next? I think we have Chad. Yeah.
Unknown: We can see you. Go ahead. All right. Good evening. I'm sorry I can't be with you. Unfortunately,
SPEAKER_03: I had other travel plans, as you can see by my beautiful hotel room behind me. But I do want to
SPEAKER_03: kind of give a little bit of history on the technology and kind of cover some of the
SPEAKER_03: technologies that are mentioned. It kind of progress that we've made. When I was, we were
SPEAKER_03: given that kind of bullets to go over. I looked at the technology and was like, oh yeah, I talk
SPEAKER_03: about technologies all the time. But then when we read it, I realized it was like a look at what's
SPEAKER_03: happened in the past 30 years. So I think there's really a value going over what's happened since
SPEAKER_03: Rancho Seco has been shut down and kind of talk about that story. So let's kind of start from
SPEAKER_03: beginning real quick. The generation one and generation two plans were the first ones out
SPEAKER_03: there. Generation one plans for mostly prototypes. There's actually one at Hamill Bay, one outside
SPEAKER_03: Los Angeles or about a dozen across the United States. None of these were operating more than
SPEAKER_03: 10 years. They were really just prototypes in small reactors. What we know of today is that
SPEAKER_03: most of the United States fleet is generation two plans. And that would be Rancho Seco or Diablo
SPEAKER_03: Canyon, as well as the other operating plants that are around the United States. These plants were
SPEAKER_03: mostly usually water, but some did use other technologies we'll talk about later. Those
SPEAKER_03: genuine prototype plants, they use almost everything because they're really trying to
SPEAKER_03: figure out what technology made the most sense at the time. Let me go ahead and click again.
SPEAKER_03: Generation three, there's three plus plants. This is where we take a lot of lessons learned
SPEAKER_03: from generation two and have these new designs. Now these have not been deployed at large scale.
SPEAKER_03: And I'll talk about their benefits in a little bit. But these, but for instance, the plants are
SPEAKER_03: built in Georgia are generation three plus plants. Plants that were built late in Japan and Korea
SPEAKER_03: were also the generation three. And then we click on the slide again, we talk about the advanced
SPEAKER_03: reactors. And these are the folks, these are the guys that don't use water at all. And they use
SPEAKER_03: like liquid metal and molten salts or gas for coolants. And they have a much lower risk profile.
SPEAKER_03: And we'll talk about that a little bit when we go over technologies, but I want to kind of lay
SPEAKER_03: the groundwork. And the finally is something called micro reactors. I don't want to talk about
SPEAKER_03: too much of micro reactors today because they're very small reactors for very specific applications
SPEAKER_03: generally. They can be used for remote applications in like communities will rely on diesel fuel being
SPEAKER_03: had to be trucked in, or actually could be military applications as well. But anywhere,
SPEAKER_03: basically, you can't really get transmission. It's hard to get fuel there. The picture actually
SPEAKER_03: shown is actually supposed to be a picture on Mars of a potential heat up reactor being used on Mars.
SPEAKER_03: But just to let you know, there's out there. There's some people that do feel that these can be
Unknown: produced such a matter at high volumes that you really could drive the price down to be competitive
SPEAKER_03: with large generation sources, but that's to be seen. So if we go on to the next slide,
Unknown: I want to talk about what happened in the past 20, 30 years. So we brought plants online, large
SPEAKER_03: plants, almost a gigawatt scale plants really starting in the late 60s in the gigawatt scale
SPEAKER_03: size by mid 70s. As we did that, we went through kind of overestimate how much energy we needed.
SPEAKER_03: And so there's a lot of scale back about the same time Three Mile Island happened.
SPEAKER_03: This kind of coincidental that Three Mile Island have the same time we realized that we probably
SPEAKER_03: were overbuilding our nuclear fleet, the whole modern number generation facilities.
SPEAKER_03: Nevertheless, you know, we kind of that warrants line shows you their generation capacity of
SPEAKER_03: nuclear kind of peaking there in the late 90s, certainly 80s, early 90s. But what you see on the
SPEAKER_03: red line is the generation kind of continues to increase. Now, why is that? This is actually the
SPEAKER_03: good story. We go on to the next slide. You'll see that our capacity factor greatly improved,
Unknown: you know, starting very low in 1970s, the finally plateauing and at around 90% by 2000. 2000 time
SPEAKER_03: I started my career in the folks that you know, I met who had worked the plants in the 80s,
SPEAKER_03: the 90s would say like, you know, a month of like, no, not tripping the plant of your continuous
SPEAKER_03: operation. The plant was considered a good month. But by the 2000s, the expectation is that you go
SPEAKER_03: to 18 to 24 months without having to shut down the plant and never have to shut down a plant for
SPEAKER_03: an unexpected reason. So we really overall improved performance. And what I've kind of read about the
SPEAKER_03: Rancho Seco scenario was there was a problem with performance of the plant, but it wasn't, but it
SPEAKER_03: wasn't unique to Rancho Seco because almost all the plants in the industry were having this problem
SPEAKER_03: low capacity factors, making their operating costs pretty high, because they weren't actually
SPEAKER_03: getting the generation of they need it. Now owners are seeing these assets as being very valuable
SPEAKER_03: because of base load and reliable. They have these very high capacity factors. Now, what brought that
SPEAKER_03: about? What brought that about was really kind of changing our mindset of how we operate these plants
SPEAKER_03: and kind of realized that nuclear special and as nuclear professionals when we come to work every
SPEAKER_03: day, we got to keep that in mind to make sure that we have the processes in place to get the
SPEAKER_03: higher and only operational capacity factor out there, but also not to challenge our safety
SPEAKER_03: systems as much. Rancho Seco as well as many other plants in the 80s were on the nuclear
SPEAKER_03: regulatory committees kind of watch list, I forget what it's called, but they would they would
SPEAKER_03: constantly would have problems. That level of regulatory scrutiny has it's not seen as much
SPEAKER_03: today because we've overall improved our performance as a way to actually change our mindset.
Unknown: So that's one way to do it by actually basically improving your personnel, getting them better
SPEAKER_03: trained to make sure they come with the right mindset, but they're so humans, right? And there's
SPEAKER_03: a cost there. And so other another alternative. So next slide. We'll talk about what we did as
SPEAKER_03: an industry. An Empery, if you're not familiar with Empery, we're an industry organization,
SPEAKER_03: basically trying to solve common problems we see throughout the industry with different members
SPEAKER_03: like yourselves being the members of us that kind of feed our research with nuclear members kind of
SPEAKER_03: feeding our nuclear research. We collected all these basically lessons learned of how we built
SPEAKER_03: reactors in the 70s and 80s and what worked and what didn't work. They also created all lessons
SPEAKER_03: learned of operating this plant 70s 80s and all the way up to today and how to design the best
SPEAKER_03: plant going forward. We come up with this thing called utility requirements document which we've
SPEAKER_03: had 13 different revisions of. And this basically this just documents about like 4000 pages long,
SPEAKER_03: it's like 40,000 different requirements. And it covers the exotic nuclear stuff, but as well,
SPEAKER_03: but also just covers like basic things like pumps and valves are really needed to make sure you get
SPEAKER_03: reliable equipment in the plant. And the good news is we've seen some success with this. So this is
SPEAKER_03: a document that was used extensively for the AP1000s down in Georgia. And as those plants have come
SPEAKER_03: online, one week that we have seen is a good capacity factor coming out of those plants,
SPEAKER_03: seeing the 90% plus that the other US facilities are seeing. That's really unheard of, you know,
SPEAKER_03: in history in the US fleet of having plants come off, you know, come right out of construction
SPEAKER_03: and being operating so well. And that's a testament only to our proof operations and mindset we've
SPEAKER_03: had in the industry, but as well as designing in better systems to make sure that they're more
SPEAKER_03: reliable and have a lower risk profile. So it sounds like there's a lot of interest in specific
SPEAKER_03: technology. So I want to go on to that. I'm going to go on to the next slide. And I'm going to speak
SPEAKER_03: to kind of all these technologies, but to talk about each one would take a significant amount
SPEAKER_03: of time. I need a lot more pictures to show you the details of how everything works. But I want to
SPEAKER_03: kind of give you a big picture of what's going on with the technologies. Starting on the left,
SPEAKER_03: we had the Gigawatt light water scale reactors like the Rancho Secos or the Diablo Canyons.
SPEAKER_03: And those plants, you know, we do feel are safe plants and aren't very well. You know, at TMI,
SPEAKER_03: there were actually no fatalities. Fatalities related to Fukushima were related to the actual
Unknown: tsunami and now the nuclear aspect itself. The details of the radiation exposures go into, but
SPEAKER_03: didn't come to speak to all that tonight, but there's a lot of good reading out there to kind
SPEAKER_03: of understand those aspects. Certainly, you're not going to see like a Chernobyl-like plant on here
SPEAKER_03: because we don't have those kind of plants. Those plants were inherently different than what
SPEAKER_03: technologies we use in the West and had some inherent problems that we do not have.
Unknown: But what we did like in the Vogel plant that was built in Georgia, we took this large gigawatt scale
SPEAKER_03: light water reactor, we call it, and we wanted to say how can we make these systems safer?
SPEAKER_03: Was it simpler to be safer and also hopefully cheaper to build? And Katie kind of mentioned
SPEAKER_03: how we have to have all these pumps to like cool the reactor to come online. We call these active
SPEAKER_03: systems. And so if you have one pump that injects at high pressure, well you need to make sure we
SPEAKER_03: have a backup for that pump. It of course has motors to drive those pumps. They have to have
SPEAKER_03: electrical source that needs to be fed separately. So if one pump doesn't work, you know the other
SPEAKER_03: pump doesn't work, it may be in some applications you want a third pump as well because the third
SPEAKER_03: train. So you have all this like defense in depth and like multiple trains to have this done. And
SPEAKER_03: then you'll have make sure they're separated by sniffing fire protection. So there's a fire one,
SPEAKER_03: the other fire doesn't at the other. As you can see, it gets very complicated in the generation
SPEAKER_03: two technology of having all the safety equipment that you have to have. Mind you, you also have
SPEAKER_03: to have electrical power backing this up and you'll need multiple ways to supply that power in case
SPEAKER_03: one fails. So this thing is very complicated. So for the AP1000 and we call the generation
SPEAKER_03: three plus technologies, we're trying to use more passive features we call like natural circulation
SPEAKER_03: or things that rely on basically the systems of nature as opposed to active systems. So we'll have
SPEAKER_03: like large pools of water, we'll have evaporation, we'll use gravity, we'll use just simple operations
SPEAKER_03: of cooling of the reactor so it doesn't require all of these active components at least for the
SPEAKER_03: first 72 hours post shutdown. At that point all you really need to do is to refill the tank with
SPEAKER_03: water. So there's really not much operator action needed. So this is supposed to basically drive down
SPEAKER_03: cost, make it also to drive make the system overall simpler. So that's what we're kind of
SPEAKER_03: seeing in the gigawatt scale. We then kind of thought well these things are really expensive
SPEAKER_03: and really big. Vogue came in about 32-34 billion dollars for their two units coming out of about
SPEAKER_03: 2400 megawatts electric total or 2300 megawatts electric total. Sorry it's like 22. Sorry. So like
SPEAKER_03: what if we made a little smaller, put them in factories, maybe we can get the cost to be about
SPEAKER_03: the same on a per kilowatt scale but making less riskier to build it may be easier financing option
SPEAKER_03: take on. This is where the small modular reactors, the water cooled ones came out and I know Mark is
SPEAKER_03: going to talk a little bit more about that so I'm not going to focus on it too much. But these are
SPEAKER_03: similar technologies, whitewater technologies, big guys, they look a little different because
SPEAKER_03: all their pieces are kind of integrated into that long tube you see right there. So all those
SPEAKER_03: individual pieces for the gigawatt scale are kind of compacted into one design. And so those are
SPEAKER_03: technologies like NuScale and of Oregon but Westinghouse and GE have their own designs.
SPEAKER_03: There's one out of the UK from Rose Royce and Holtec is another American company at Arbus
SPEAKER_03: Design and I'm probably missing out another American company but the distillation of those
SPEAKER_03: are out there. Now what we everyone hears about is advanced reactors are a little different right.
SPEAKER_03: These are new. Like well they're not exactly new we did play we did experiment around with them
SPEAKER_03: in the 40s and 50s and 60s and we built those prototypes that mentioned Gen 1 and they used
SPEAKER_03: different coolant technologies. This makes things very interesting and actually really lower the risk
SPEAKER_03: profile as well. The problem with the water ratchet technologies is that under very high pressure
SPEAKER_03: so if you're a rupture in the pressure vessel you will lose your coolant and it will flash from
SPEAKER_03: water to steam and it's harder to contain. Whereas like these other especially the fast reactors
SPEAKER_03: and old salt reactors use a coolant that's actually at atmospheric pressure so it cannot
SPEAKER_03: basically you know evaporate or boil away. It actually can stay with the reactor and there's
SPEAKER_03: such a large volume of it that inherently basically be cooled by just ambient air from the outside.
Unknown: So the first one is the fast reactors I want to talk about. We have a civic amount of experience
SPEAKER_03: in the US with this on the prototype to like you know pilot stage plant but not true commercialization.
SPEAKER_03: I mentioned the plant the generation one plant outside Los Angeles this was a fast reactor.
SPEAKER_03: In the first generation sorry first electricity ever generated for nuclear power came from a
SPEAKER_03: fast reactor using liquid sodium. But again there's always been more an experimental phase not really
SPEAKER_03: a commercial phase. The Russians actually did develop another technology where they have somewhat
SPEAKER_03: commercialized it but they only have about three reactors to date. These reactors were also seen
SPEAKER_03: as kind of the backbone of a recycling program if we actually want to pursue that route in the
SPEAKER_03: United States. Another option of Recycling 2 is a molten salt reactors and this is actually where
SPEAKER_03: you use a molten salt to cool it and the fuel itself could be part of that molten salt. So the
SPEAKER_03: fuel is actually already melted and there's no basically issue of fuel melt because it is
SPEAKER_03: actually in a liquid form. If you ever hear anything exciting about thorium reactors this is lies the
SPEAKER_03: molten salt space. In general in the US we don't talk about thorium reactors too much because thorium
SPEAKER_03: comes from the lack of the lack of the other uranium and India's kind of seen that because
SPEAKER_03: they don't have good access to uranium so they have a lot of focus on thorium. In the US basically
SPEAKER_03: uranium right now is common enough to we're not seeing those needs eventually down the road that
SPEAKER_03: can be the case but it's not a huge focus of why it's there. Molten salt reactors less experience
SPEAKER_03: with it there's only been about two or three experimental metal reactors that were built and so
SPEAKER_03: what the vendors they're doing there is they're actually taking very much smaller steps of doing
SPEAKER_03: experimental scale facilities until they get up to a large enough to be a actual pilot facility.
Unknown: The next one is high temperature gas reactors and the other the other fast reactant molten
SPEAKER_03: salt reactors are a little higher temperatures so that gets interesting but high temperature
SPEAKER_03: gases get significantly higher to really be able to be used in different heat process applications.
Unknown: So we're seeing the oil industry like Michelle and Dow actually interested in using the technology
SPEAKER_03: and getting directly from it for the chemical processes that they need. This technology is
SPEAKER_03: a little more mature we actually had some commercial facilities in the United States.
SPEAKER_03: The British fleet were mostly gas reactors but they used carbon dioxide whereas these
SPEAKER_03: rashers would reduce healing and then finally micro reactors they are a completely different.
SPEAKER_03: Some kind of look like similar versions of the other reactors but they really run the gambit.
Unknown: So one more slide I believe I have and this is on a little bit of cost. I don't want to talk about
SPEAKER_03: cost of individual technology or a vendor but I do want to kind of talk about some work we did at
SPEAKER_03: EPRI using our region model and what the region model is a capacity expansion model and it
SPEAKER_03: basically models the grid in this case the US Canadian grid understanding what policies exist
SPEAKER_03: in different states different regions understanding where wind resources are where solar resources are
SPEAKER_03: or transmission is and then it considers what is the cost to add the next megawatt capacity
SPEAKER_03: factor like megawatt onto the grid whatever that is and so if you add solar it understands like oh
SPEAKER_03: in this region solar has gets this much you know power I don't know the right term the availability
SPEAKER_03: factor from a solar plant and so it may need this much backup or story to kind of complement it. So
SPEAKER_03: we basically can model that to understand in different scenarios. So the question about why
SPEAKER_03: would you do gas why would you do nuclear why would you do solar and that kind of fits into this model.
Unknown: We broke out the results between US, Canada looking at three different scenarios. One the
SPEAKER_03: left is the reference scenario and the one the far right is basically a net zero where no CCS
SPEAKER_03: or basically CCS is not an option. Since I want to kind of see some type of questions I'm going to
SPEAKER_03: focus on those real quick. The other thing too is we vary on different gas price areas as well
Unknown: and you see basically the reference case in the United States with gas prices really high low or
SPEAKER_03: reference you're not seeing an appointment because basically gas is the cheaper option right now that
SPEAKER_03: makes that's what we're seeing in Canada there's different drivers where you actually will see
SPEAKER_03: some penetration. One thing this model does not do if there's any like utility requirement
SPEAKER_03: on a net zero which which we have not incorporated but would also kind of you know impact results.
Unknown: But on the far right if nuclear is basically your only like base load option for like you
SPEAKER_03: know a carbon free option this is where you actually see significant deployment
SPEAKER_03: at different price points. Now the price points was here for nuclear about 3,000 up to 6,000
SPEAKER_03: per kilowatt. This is based on some over this was the study was done last year on numbers based on
SPEAKER_03: 2022 and so it was comparing against other technologies and the prices at that time.
SPEAKER_03: So that's not too important because basically material wise everything's gotten more expensive
Unknown: but apparently you still see good nuclear deployment when you have that model when you
SPEAKER_03: have those needs. Now the other deployments are going to be renewable sources but this is looking
SPEAKER_03: in the cases where those renewable sources don't make sense or they already have much
SPEAKER_03: penetration or further penetration won't make sense. Understanding the cost of transmission
SPEAKER_03: you know the generation sources sell as well as any you know storage component.
SPEAKER_03: So with that I believe that's my last line and if you have any questions now or take the end
SPEAKER_03: I'll refer to the moderator. Hey Chad could you explain on the slide we have in front of us
SPEAKER_02: I am struggling to understand okay what is the red, let me just do it for a moment, what is the
SPEAKER_02: red color mean? Let's say the bottom right example right you have in the US net zero no carbon
SPEAKER_02: capture sequestration. What is the bottom left of that red? What is this red telling us? Yes so the
SPEAKER_03: darker the red is the more nuclear deployment you see up to about 300 gigawatts or so. So in a
SPEAKER_03: scenario under any gas price scenario with because you have a no carbon emission anyway
SPEAKER_03: you get about a 3000 for a 3000 per kilowatt of new nuclear installed you get significant
SPEAKER_03: appointment whereas as you go right on that graph you get up to 6000 it gets to that lighter red
SPEAKER_03: where it's only about 150 or so gigawatts deployed in the US based on the higher price range. So in
SPEAKER_03: that case you're deploying other carbon free options and just accepting that those those
SPEAKER_03: cheaper options when you're using that price point for nuclear.
Unknown: Does that make sense? A little bit I'm still sort of digesting it but let's get some questions
SPEAKER_02: if anybody has any other questions. The one thing I wanted to ask you
SPEAKER_02: just briefly you know it was in the news I don't know maybe a year or two ago the thorium reactors
SPEAKER_02: was a hot topic but you mentioned that you what I caught there was thorium was more common
SPEAKER_02: when you had a lack of uranium right which is not something we have in the United States. Would you
SPEAKER_02: may just is that correct? I'm going to clarify that a little bit of some of the thorium reactor?
Unknown: Right so thorium in general is just a more common element and so you can use thorium in a fast
SPEAKER_03: reactor and it actually will transmutate to become uranium to be used in the fission process itself.
SPEAKER_03: So that's kind of the physics of how it actually occurs. The question always becomes like you know
SPEAKER_03: what price point of uranium does that make sense. In the United States we actually we have a lot of
SPEAKER_03: uranium we don't mind that much because we've had cheaper resources recently and that's changed the
SPEAKER_03: past few years especially with the Ukrainian war and our lack of access to Russian sources of uranium
SPEAKER_03: but we still get sniffing mass uranium from Australia and from Kazakhstan I believe or one
SPEAKER_03: of those countries in southwest Asia. So there are other resources but we do have good research
SPEAKER_03: in the United States they're just not economically viable right now compared or have not been
SPEAKER_03: compared to other sources. As I said India has always been the focus because they do not have
SPEAKER_03: uranium resources and because of their actions with the weapons program they don't have access
SPEAKER_03: to uranium sources outside of India and so they've had to look at words on other resources
SPEAKER_03: and that's why thorium has been a big focus then. This gets to recycling as well people
SPEAKER_03: say why don't recycle it's like well because the price point doesn't make sense right now. When we
SPEAKER_03: first started in the 50s we thought uranium was very uncommon it was so expensive a certain
SPEAKER_03: don't have to recycle so all the focus on fast reactors back then was because we felt we were
SPEAKER_03: going to have to recycle this need fast reactors to recycle but when we actually started looking
SPEAKER_03: for it we found enough basically near needs so cost-wise recycling this has not made sense
SPEAKER_03: and so that's why we haven't seen. The good news is where the fuel is now whether it's
SPEAKER_03: Rancho Seco or whatever we can still take that fuel and actually recycle it it's still a good
SPEAKER_03: resource and just the price you know the price would have to come down or actually using the
SPEAKER_03: resources would have to price come up to make it recycle make more sense financially.
Unknown: Okay thank you for that I think we have one more one more question and then we'll move on to our
SPEAKER_02: last speaker. So a question on the recycling I don't understand this point that it costs more
Unknown: that the cost doesn't equate to recycle when we're spending so much money in storage
SPEAKER_06: forever of this stuff how could that not pencil?
Unknown: I mean we have we've had to sue the federal government to pay us to keep it there.
Unknown: So you look at the overall cost of the fuel cycle from like when you bought the fuel
SPEAKER_03: to using on site and then the story on site I would show you an example of how much it would
SPEAKER_03: cost to recycle that and show you how even recycling you have a cost issue. Now what
SPEAKER_03: something was said was like you know this fuel is a heavy metal like mercury or lead
SPEAKER_03: and so the reason why I point that out is because you can't just dispose of mercury or lead
Unknown: in your backyard it's heavy metal it's toxic by itself and so we frequently hear how nuclear
SPEAKER_03: waste has lasted you know last since a thousand years well it's heavy metals less definitely
SPEAKER_03: just like any other heavy metal would exist so it all has to be disposed of and that's true for
SPEAKER_03: almost all waste sources from any kind of industrial component that uses those kind of materials
SPEAKER_03: which would include you know components of any kind of other technologies. So I mean I
SPEAKER_03: understand what you're saying individually what your cost you wish you looked at and that's
SPEAKER_03: really the federal government's failure to you know address to address the issue and but that's
SPEAKER_03: it's been a political problem and I'm assuming at this point you guys are actually getting payments
SPEAKER_03: back from the federal government because you've sued and probably been successful of getting some
SPEAKER_03: repayment there because they've actually failed to meet their requirement of removing it from you
SPEAKER_03: but the beginning is if you look at the fuel that you have on site there if you were to go to look
SPEAKER_03: at how much coal ash that would equate to I mean it's a huge it's a huge difference. We don't use
SPEAKER_06: coal I mean that's not a good analogy for us but I guess I'm still not getting this but that's okay
SPEAKER_06: we can move on. Like a reference does there a paper or a reference you would give us somebody's
SPEAKER_02: must have dug into that topic in detail right? Yes I mean we I know whatever we do have a paper
SPEAKER_03: I don't see I can share with you guys. We're just sort of curious. Okay Chad thank you for that.
SPEAKER_02: Let's go ahead and move on and we have a question or two at the end. Do we have Mark here? Do a little
SPEAKER_02: switch over. There we are we can see you can you hear us? Mark are you there? It's frozen. Uh oh.
Unknown: We'll give it a second then. Right right in time for prime time.
Unknown: Okay.
Unknown: He still seems frozen. Looks exactly the same. No we can't hear you. Laura is there any chat
SPEAKER_15: anything from chat on there?
Unknown: I'm working on it.
Unknown: I'll have to work on it. We'll be patient.
Unknown: Okay.
Unknown: It's working on it.
Unknown: Okay.
SPEAKER_11: Mark is re-entering the room now.
SPEAKER_14: Just making a check here hopefully everyone can hear me.
SPEAKER_14: Hello. Can you hear us? Yes I can hear you now. All right.
SPEAKER_14: Great sorry I am not with you tonight. I am also traveling much like Chad.
SPEAKER_14: So if we can jump to the next slide we'll get started.
SPEAKER_14: As James mentioned before I think everyone has seen a lot of news and a lot of press announcements
SPEAKER_14: lately about the new nuclear momentum and definitely it is building and we'll talk more
SPEAKER_14: about that as we go through this presentation. One of the things that is very clear over the
SPEAKER_14: last couple of years is that there is a lot of interconnection between what the data center
SPEAKER_14: community and especially the hyperscalers are doing in new nuclear and we'll talk about that
SPEAKER_14: as we move forward as well. A little bit of history. So the large plant growth that we
Unknown: thought was going to happen back in the early 2000s did not happen. The nuclear renaissance
SPEAKER_14: got stalled out to some extent primarily due to low natural gas prices and other factors in the
SPEAKER_14: United States. From that only one new US power station came out of the DOE NP-2010 program
Unknown: and that is the Vogel station that Chad talked about earlier. But that plant is up and running
SPEAKER_14: so both units are fully operational and are contributing to the grid in the southeast.
SPEAKER_14: We have also talked about small modular reactors in the past as well and there was a lot of interest
SPEAKER_14: in small modular reactors in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe. But that also stalled out to some
SPEAKER_14: extent due to low natural gas prices and no other real driver for new nuclear.
Unknown: But what we're seeing today is a lot of momentum and a lot of different reasons for that momentum.
SPEAKER_14: Decarbonization is probably the most important. One of the I think biggest changes that I have
SPEAKER_14: seen in the nuclear industry over the years is a recognition and this really started in Europe
Unknown: around 2016 to 2019. And it came out of the environmental firms in Europe that were looking
SPEAKER_14: at this issue of global warming and climate change and recognizing that there was no possible
Unknown: outcome to achieve full deep decarbonization without some contribution from new nuclear.
Unknown: And part of that was due to the fact that nuclear is one of the few green energy sources that's also
SPEAKER_14: firm energy. And we'll talk more about that as we move forward. Energy security is also a large
SPEAKER_14: momentum driver and we're seeing that around the globe. So especially in Europe, so post-Ukrainian
SPEAKER_14: war, a lot of concern about gas supplies across Europe. So a lot of additional drivers for energy
SPEAKER_14: security. Energy security is also important in the United States. It's a little different aspect.
Unknown: It's more about grid stability and keeping the lights on and the grid fully propped up. We've
SPEAKER_14: added a significant amount of renewables over the last 10 to 15 years. Those renewables are not firm
SPEAKER_14: energy. And so it creates additional grid stability issues and it's helpful to have spinning
SPEAKER_14: inertia on the grid to help contribute to the overall grid reliability and grid stability.
Unknown: What we're also seeing from this new wave of momentum is that there are a lot of new owners
SPEAKER_14: and developers. It's not the typical only nuclear utility companies that are pursuing new nuclear.
SPEAKER_14: We're seeing industrial users. Chad mentioned Dow. So Dow is looking at building a high temperature
SPEAKER_14: gas reactor facility in Texas. Again, that is to provide both process heat and power for their
SPEAKER_14: facility. So that's a new driver that we've not seen in the past. We're also seeing the same
SPEAKER_14: industrial need in Europe and other locations to try to decarbonize industrial uses.
Unknown: And that's a little bit more challenging sometimes than just power itself.
SPEAKER_14: The other big driver that we've seen over the last two years especially is the explosion of
SPEAKER_14: artificial intelligence and machine learning data centers that are driving a significant amount of
SPEAKER_14: energy growth and demand that we've not seen in the last decade or two. As Katie mentioned,
Unknown: we are seeing a lot of government support. I won't go into the details because Katie's
SPEAKER_14: outlined that very well in her presentation earlier tonight. But we're seeing that across
SPEAKER_14: the globe as well. So not just in the United States but other countries as well are pursuing
SPEAKER_14: additional government support for new nuclear. And countries that have never done nuclear before
SPEAKER_14: are also looking at developing nuclear programs and are starting to implement the early groundworks
SPEAKER_14: for that new nuclear. So next slide. So where do we see some of that nuclear growth today?
SPEAKER_14: I think one of the key contributors to that growth really started in Canada. So Canada had a very
Unknown: aggressive program that was well laid out to try to help decarbonize. And they were really focused
SPEAKER_14: on two different aspects of decarbonization. So they were looking at both the removal of coal
SPEAKER_14: resources from across the country of Canada through multiple provinces. But they were also
SPEAKER_14: looking at reducing the amount of gas consumption, especially in the Alberta province. So there was
SPEAKER_14: a large focus on developing new nuclear pathways for Canada. And that was really initially focused
SPEAKER_14: on small modular reactors, looking at different applications, looking at ways that the
SPEAKER_14: Canadian government could incentivize new nuclear in the country. And so we've seen a lot of
Unknown: development in Canada. The OPG, Darlington New Nuclear Project, or DNNP, is the leading project
SPEAKER_14: in North America that is currently building an SMR right now. But there's also a lot of other
SPEAKER_14: growth in Canada. SASQ Power is looking at being a fast follower to OPG. We're seeing additional
SPEAKER_14: potential fast followers in Alberta. And then we're also seeing a large new reactor
SPEAKER_14: interest in Canada as well. And we'll talk more about that. In America, I think the trend is
SPEAKER_14: pretty robust. So we're seeing both existing and new nuclear utilities and industrial clients
SPEAKER_14: express interest. And a lot of activity currently underway. Utilities such as TVA, Energy Northwest,
SPEAKER_14: Duke, Dominion, Dow, and others are all currently pursuing new nuclear at various different stages.
Unknown: And then what we've seen kind of throughout, and this is probably very similar to SMUD, where
Unknown: all of the utilities are updating their IRPs. And as they look out to those
Unknown: decarbonization timeframes, whether it's 2040, 2045, or 2050, they are looking at
Unknown: ways that they can help decarbonize their energy mix as they move forward.
Unknown: I referenced Duke here. Duke had a term in their IRPs for many years called Zulfurs.
SPEAKER_14: So zero emission load following resources without actually defining what those were.
SPEAKER_14: And so it was kind of like, well, there's going to be this magic that happens that all of a sudden
SPEAKER_14: there's a new technology that becomes zero emitting load following resource and it works
SPEAKER_14: perfectly in its firm power. And we can ramp it up and ramp it down as we need it. Well,
Unknown: that really hasn't happened yet. So Duke is starting to pursue new nuclear to help
Unknown: add additional green energy and a firm capacity factor approach.
SPEAKER_14: Throughout the rest of the United States, we're seeing other utilities start on
Unknown: SMR siting and various technology studies. Several are doing early site permits to ready their sites
SPEAKER_14: for the potential of new nuclear. And then we're also seeing a number of construction permit
SPEAKER_14: applications that in some cases have already been submitted and other cases they're still
SPEAKER_14: being developed for submittal in either 2026 or early 2027. In Europe, I think there is kind of
SPEAKER_14: a mixed bag. We're seeing both the decarbonization and energy security, but it's driving both large
SPEAKER_14: plants and small plants at the same time. Countries like Poland have a significant need for both new
SPEAKER_14: energy as well as significant decarbonization. So as part of the EU, Poland is one of the worst
SPEAKER_14: contributors in terms of pollution. And so they're looking to decarbonize very quickly.
SPEAKER_14: So they're looking at the prospect of building both large plants and small plants to move forward.
Unknown: And then in Asia, Asia is an interesting market, but there is a lot of interest right now in Asia
Unknown: and in many countries that have not had nuclear before. That includes countries like Indonesia,
SPEAKER_14: Malaysia, Thailand, and others. And then countries that have even had nuclear before,
SPEAKER_14: such as the Philippines that had abandoned nuclear are now also looking to restart their
SPEAKER_14: nuclear programs. So there's a significant growth prospect, not only in the United States
Unknown: in North America, but also across the globe that we're seeing developed very well.
Unknown: Next slide. One of the things that's important to understand across not only the US market,
SPEAKER_14: but really to some extent true around the world, is that there are a lot of different market
SPEAKER_14: dynamics that are impeding reliable grid power and especially grid power additions.
Unknown: One of the first major factors that we've talked about is data center load impacts.
SPEAKER_14: AI, you've probably heard the statistic before, but AI processing typically takes 10 times the
SPEAKER_14: energy that a traditional Google search takes. So it's a very significant additive contribution
SPEAKER_14: to the energy demand mix. And so as we're looking at the prospect of new data centers, and there's
Unknown: data centers in almost every state that are being built right now, many of those new data centers
SPEAKER_14: are typically a gigawatt in size, and some are approaching three gigawatts in size.
SPEAKER_14: So very significant data center development occurring across many different markets in
SPEAKER_14: different PGM territories or different grid areas in the United States. So that's creating a lot of
SPEAKER_14: load growth. In the past, where we've typically had load growth from one to 2% annually, we're
SPEAKER_14: now seeing and projecting growth as high as 3% to 5% depending upon the region. So that's a
SPEAKER_14: significant change in what we've seen historically. The other aspect is our changing grid characteristics.
SPEAKER_14: So I mentioned this before with all of the additional intermittent resources that we've
SPEAKER_14: added for renewables, which is a great thing to add to the energy mix, but that has impacts to
SPEAKER_14: the overall grid. And so we have to look at ways to continue to prop up the grid. In California,
Unknown: as an example, when plants like San Onofre shut down, we had to install synchronous condensers
Unknown: to try to help stabilize the grid. That trend will continue throughout the United States to help
SPEAKER_14: continue to prop up the grid, but adding additional spinning inertia on the grid will also help.
Unknown: And then we have a significant amount of retirements, especially from coal
SPEAKER_14: throughout the United States. The statistic there for PGM is an interesting one.
SPEAKER_14: Very significant 24 to 58 gigawatts being retired in the PGM territory. But what we're
SPEAKER_14: seeing is with the large data center demand that's occurring in PGM, they're starting to
SPEAKER_14: rethink that. And so a lot of the retirements that were planned are now being reconsidered.
SPEAKER_14: And we're going to try to keep some of the coal resources on longer so that we can continue to
SPEAKER_14: keep the lights on in the whole PGM territory. And then the other aspect in terms of market
SPEAKER_14: dynamics, it's important to understand there is a big challenge right now to build a lot of new
SPEAKER_14: grid infrastructure. So large, significant transmission can take over 10 years to permit
SPEAKER_14: and build. And there's a lot of political challenges for approving new infrastructure,
SPEAKER_14: especially for data centers. So a lot of different drivers out there, but a lot of it is in favor or
SPEAKER_14: at least supporting the potential development of new nuclear as we go forward. Next slide.
Unknown: So why SMRs and why now? As I mentioned before, there's a number of different drivers. So
SPEAKER_14: decarbonization is certainly one of them. Energy security is very related to that.
Unknown: As Chad mentioned, the SMRs are more modular. But don't think of them as being fully factory built.
SPEAKER_14: There's still a lot of site construction that's done for these plants. But they are a lot more
SPEAKER_14: modular than the large plants that we've built in the past. There is a lower capital investment.
SPEAKER_14: So as Chad mentioned, Vogel was a very significant capital outlay. Very difficult for a utility to
SPEAKER_14: put that on their balance sheet. So SMRs provide a different avenue for incrementally adding capacity
SPEAKER_14: at lower capital investments over time. And then enhanced safety. As Chad mentioned, passive
SPEAKER_14: safety is a significant contributor to the overall plant safety. And that definitely helps
Unknown: reduce any potential issues in the future. The other aspect for a lot of the SMRs is accident
SPEAKER_14: tolerant fuels that really change the dynamics of accident conditions and provide additional
SPEAKER_14: safety features. And then the flexible and scalable feature of SMRs is also very important.
Unknown: And then as Katie mentioned, government advocacy and funding. And we're also seeing a lot of
SPEAKER_14: interest right now in creative financing. And I would say even potential build transfer type
SPEAKER_14: agreements where to incentivize these projects to move forward, there's a lot of different avenues
SPEAKER_14: to get them potentially off of a utilities balance sheet, but yet still allow the project to move forward.
Unknown: Next slide.
Unknown: So as we look to the future, there really are two different paths to move forward on. One is related
SPEAKER_14: to small and micro reactors. There's a lot of benefits to these. They provide flexibility to
SPEAKER_14: incrementally add capacity. The plant sizes and the component sizes are actually a lot similar to
SPEAKER_14: the combined cycle fleet. So in terms of equipment, especially on the conventional island or balance of
SPEAKER_14: plant side, it's much more consistent with what we're currently building across the United States.
SPEAKER_14: And so there produces some economies right there. As Chad mentioned, SMRs are a lot more
SPEAKER_14: modular than they have been in the past in terms of the generation two and generation three designs.
Unknown: But several of the SMRs are not fully modular. So it still takes a significant amount of on-site presence
Unknown: to construct the SMRs and to get them fully operational. On the small and micro reactor side,
SPEAKER_14: we have both Gen 3 plus and Gen 4 options. And there are Gen 3 plus and Gen 4 plants being built today.
Unknown: And we'll talk about that in an upcoming slide.
Unknown: Micro reactors, while we've not really focused on that a lot, we will see a lot of
Unknown: additional penetration in micro reactors to support distributed generation.
SPEAKER_14: Katie mentioned the interest in the DOD world for additional distributed generation for base support,
SPEAKER_14: looking for reliable generation on our both main inland bases as well as forward operating bases.
SPEAKER_14: So that's an important element going forward.
SPEAKER_14: One thing that's important to understand about small and micro reactors is that the
SPEAKER_14: dollars per kilowatt is higher due to the lower output. So it is harder to make,
Unknown: let's say, an economic case for small and micro reactors versus a large reactor on a
SPEAKER_14: dollar per kilowatt basis. But it is important to understand that the initial capital outlay cost
SPEAKER_14: is significantly less. And when we look at schedules, SMRs can obviously be built quicker
SPEAKER_14: than a large plant. And I say six to 10 years is typical, but that includes some of the upfront
SPEAKER_14: planning and potentially some of the permitting applications that have to be done ahead of time.
Unknown: Typically, what we're seeing in the industry today is conservatively about four years for
SPEAKER_14: the initial plants after the construction permit is granted. And for micro reactors,
SPEAKER_14: that would be significantly less. The amount of onsite time for micro reactors is a fraction of
SPEAKER_14: that required for SMRs, with the majority of them being built in the factory and then basic site
SPEAKER_14: infrastructure foundations, etc., electrical connections being made at the sites. The other
SPEAKER_14: path that we're starting to see across the United States and across the globe is the large reactor
SPEAKER_14: path. One of the factors that's really driving that is when hyperscaler data centers started
SPEAKER_14: growing to a gigawatt size and larger, people started looking at the perspective of, do we build
SPEAKER_14: a lot of small modular reactors or do we build several large plants to meet some of this increased
SPEAKER_14: demand? I think it was probably spring of 2023, where several of the East Coast utilities started
SPEAKER_14: looking at their IRPs in detail. And they were showing, in some cases, 18 to maybe 20 plants that
SPEAKER_14: were going to be built as SMRs and started to look at that from the perspective of,
SPEAKER_14: as a utility, do I have the experienced personnel to manage that many projects? Do I have the,
SPEAKER_14: let's say, capital to build that many projects at once? And so, several of those utilities started
SPEAKER_14: to consider the fact of, is building 20 SMRs at the same time as risky or potentially more risky
SPEAKER_14: than building a single large plant. So that has started to change the dynamics of people's, at
SPEAKER_14: least considering large plants again. The other factor that a lot of people are looking at is that
SPEAKER_14: right now, no one is planning to build a single SMR on a site. Everyone is potentially looking at
SPEAKER_14: multiple SMR installations on a particular site, again, to drive economies of scale and to try to
Unknown: reduce the overall dollars per kilowatt of the station build out.
Unknown: Large plants can be more efficient to address large load demand. Again, with some of the large data
SPEAKER_14: center complexes, some of the large computing centers that have been planned, in some cases,
SPEAKER_14: you've seen press releases of five gigawatt data compute centers. So very significant
SPEAKER_14: potential load growth. Some of that could be best addressed by large plants versus small plants.
Unknown: I think everyone has mentioned this topic before, but the large plants and even the small plants,
SPEAKER_14: typically for nuclear, will have roughly an 80-year asset life and potentially even beyond that.
Unknown: So it is a significant capital investment at the beginning, but potentially you are getting an
SPEAKER_14: asset for at least 60 to 80 or even potentially more years. And then the dollar per kilowatt is
SPEAKER_14: more attractive for large plants, but again, the capital outlay cost at the beginning is
SPEAKER_14: considerably higher. And then for schedule, for large plants, you're looking at 8 to 15 years when
SPEAKER_14: you count all of the upfront planning and permitting and other site characterization
SPEAKER_14: that's required, and roughly about six to eight years of construction time after either the
SPEAKER_14: construction permit or the COLA is achieved. Next slide.
Unknown: And then this slide is a little bit about where we're at today. So there are a number of
Unknown: nuclear projects that are underway, and I'm focused on this first slide on really North America.
Unknown: The picture on the right is the Darlington New Nuclear Project. This is adjacent to the Darlington
SPEAKER_14: Nuclear Generating Site or DNGS on Lake Ontario. Unit 1 is already in construction, and you can
SPEAKER_14: see the construction there at the site. And then units 2 through 4, which will be on the same site
SPEAKER_14: currently in design and will start moving forward into construction in a couple of years.
Unknown: In Wyoming, Pacific Corps is building a Terra Power Natrium Reactor.
Unknown: That is one of the ARDP projects and roughly has a 2032 COD date.
Unknown: And then Dow, as we've mentioned before, they are building a project in Texas,
SPEAKER_14: previously called Sea Drift, but now called Project Longmont. So that is an X-Energy XE100 plant.
Unknown: Also has a 2032 COD date and is currently in the CPA review stage as well.
SPEAKER_14: TVA is looking to follow what OPG is doing at Darlington and building a BWRX 300 at their
SPEAKER_14: Clench River Nuclear Site. So that was a site that already had an early site permit.
SPEAKER_14: In this particular case, TVA is at the CPA review stage and looking for roughly a 2034
SPEAKER_14: commercial operation date. Energy Northwest in Washington State is looking to be a fast
SPEAKER_14: follower to the Dow PLM project. So that is also an XE100 X-Energy High Temperature Gas Reactor
SPEAKER_14: plant, and that is a 2033 to 2034 COD date. Kairos Power has done quite a bit already.
SPEAKER_14: They have developed several engineering test units. Two in New Mexico that have been built,
SPEAKER_14: currently building ETU-3 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and then also working on the Hermes 1 and Hermes
SPEAKER_14: 2 plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee with potential COD dates around 2028 to 2029. Kairos Power is
SPEAKER_14: a derivative of an SMR. It is called a salt cooled reactor or an FHR. So it uses molten salt,
Unknown: but it uses trisofuel. So the salt effectively transfers the heat from the fuel to a heat
SPEAKER_14: exchanger, but the fuel in that particular case is not dissolved into the actual molten salt.
SPEAKER_14: Kairos Power is a California company out of Alameda. They also have facility in New Mexico,
SPEAKER_14: but they are developing their design again for a variety of applications, not just power,
SPEAKER_14: but also for process heat. And then Fermi America is a site that has been proposed in Texas to build
Unknown: multiple units to support data center operation. The first announced units are AP1000 units.
SPEAKER_14: So those are planned for effectively a 2035 COD, and that is for the first unit.
Unknown: And there are a lot of projects that I've not mentioned, some of which I cannot mention due to
SPEAKER_14: nondisclosure agreements. But understand that there are a number of projects behind these that
SPEAKER_14: are in various stages of development. Some have been announced, some have not been announced yet.
Unknown: As an example, Duke is starting to work on early site permit that has been announced,
SPEAKER_14: and that's a coal to nuclear transition. So there are a number of other projects that are
SPEAKER_14: already kind of underway, and others that have not been announced but are quickly approaching
SPEAKER_14: to a stage where they will have to make an announcement due to a licensing application.
Unknown: And then if you go to the next slide.
Unknown: So this slide is really focused on what are the different owners and developers doing out there
SPEAKER_14: in the industry today. And a lot of this is focused on the early planning that an owner has to do,
Unknown: whether that's an existing nuclear utility or whether that's a utility that is somewhat new to
SPEAKER_14: nuclear or developing a project on behalf of a utility or on behalf of a hyper-saver.
SPEAKER_14: These are the typical activities that we're seeing today. So on the left is the early stage
SPEAKER_14: planning. So a lot of the upfront work is site selection and evaluation services, making sure
SPEAKER_14: that the particular site is well suited for the type of nuclear plant that is being proposed.
Unknown: The other area is technology selection. So in many cases, the utilities or the developers are
SPEAKER_14: looking for input on the types of technologies that would be well suited for their application
SPEAKER_14: or for their site. And that can vary quite a bit. We get involved in a lot of different aspects of
SPEAKER_14: that, looking at established technologies like the Gen 3 Plus technologies that are light water
SPEAKER_14: reactor versus the Gen 4 reactors that are maybe not quite as proven and may be used for
SPEAKER_14: and maybe have a little bit more challenge to get the fuel that they need,
SPEAKER_14: especially in large quantities that they need for multiple units.
Unknown: And then the other activities that are typically done at this stage in the early stage period is
SPEAKER_14: a lot of site layout work. And then that typically will transition into a lot of site
SPEAKER_14: characterization work, such as geotech and soil boreings. And then all of the environmental
SPEAKER_14: reviews and permitting that are required for the site. And then various heat rejection optimizations.
Unknown: A lot of sites are looking at reduced water availability. So many sites are looking at
Unknown: either hybrid cooling options or potentially dry cooling or air cooled condensers.
SPEAKER_14: So there's a lot of activity in that early stage planning that is really positioning that owner or
SPEAKER_14: that developer to be able to move forward with new nuclear as they go through the stages.
SPEAKER_14: In several projects, later stage planning really starts to take the shape of a project. So the
SPEAKER_14: owner still has not made a final investment decision, but they're really starting to focus
SPEAKER_14: in on the project planning, developing project schedules, detailed construction execution plans,
Unknown: cost estimates. So everything that would effectively get the owner ready to move forward
Unknown: and proceed forward with the final investment decision.
Unknown: And then the last slide.
Unknown: So the future for new nuclear is very promising. There are
SPEAKER_14: a lot of early momentum right now that seems to be building. But one thing that's important
SPEAKER_14: is that these early projects have to be successful for that momentum to continue.
SPEAKER_14: I think it's been kind of mentioned, but nuclear will not be cheap. But it is firm green energy.
Unknown: And so where utilities and where developers are looking for green energy and looking for
SPEAKER_14: effectively carbon free options, especially the hyperscalers that have committed to 2030
SPEAKER_14: as a carbon free date, they are going to be looking at the options of nuclear where it makes sense.
Unknown: Contracting requires a pretty open collaborative approach. And that's due to these early projects
SPEAKER_14: having more risk than a typical combined cycle project. And that risk mitigation
SPEAKER_14: really does need careful consideration. So it's very different when you're looking at
SPEAKER_14: when you're looking at a Gen 3 plus reactor plant versus a Gen 4 plant. And utilities need
SPEAKER_14: to understand the differences on that risk mitigation. And then one thing that's important
SPEAKER_14: for all of these early projects is that we have to share lessons learned across projects
SPEAKER_14: in order for these projects to be successful. So really that is the key is that for these
SPEAKER_14: new projects, we've got to be very diligent as we move forward, be very collaborative,
SPEAKER_14: and then be willing to share lessons learned across projects and across technologies to
SPEAKER_14: make sure that all of these projects benefit from what we've learned. And with that, I will close.
Unknown: Answer any questions that people may have. All right. Thank you for that. Thank you for that,
SPEAKER_02: Mark. Are there any board questions yet? Director Buie-Thompson.
Unknown: I know some of the people at some of the utilities, one being TVA, and I know their project is
Unknown: estimated over $5 billion, but their annual revenue was $12 billion. That's just an example. And I
SPEAKER_05: know small modulars, they were from $3 billion to $9 billion. We're a $2 billion entity. Like how,
Unknown: just say if all the will is there and there's some miraculous nuclear recycling option,
SPEAKER_05: how are people budgeting and paying for this? I mean, it seems, I know my friends at TVA are
SPEAKER_05: a little stressed out. It just seems like an enormous amount of money, especially when you
SPEAKER_05: compare it to the actual utilities and the revenue streams. It is. And even when you're
SPEAKER_14: looking at small modular reactors, those types of numbers, and when we're looking at plants,
Unknown: say a 300 megawatt plant, maybe a little bit higher output, or maybe even a two unit station,
Unknown: you're still looking at relatively high dollars per kilowatt for these early plants.
Unknown: And so these early plants are not going to be as cheap as the large plants have been advertised
SPEAKER_14: in the past. When we were building the Long Bin project in Taiwan, the going rate for a two unit
SPEAKER_14: generation three project at the time was $4,500 a kilowatt. But you have to think about that was
SPEAKER_14: the year 2000, right? And inflation has been pretty significant since the year 2000. What's
SPEAKER_14: interesting to recognize is if you look at projects that we estimated, and these are
SPEAKER_14: SMR projects that we estimated in 2020 versus projects that we're estimating today, there is
SPEAKER_14: roughly about a 44% escalation factor from effectively that five year period. So it's very
SPEAKER_14: significant. And I think that's really what's causing a lot of the utilities to really think
SPEAKER_14: through this is that over the last four to five years, you've had significant escalation
SPEAKER_14: in commodity prices, significant escalation in equipment prices, significant advancements in
SPEAKER_14: lead times, transformers as an example, a typical generator step up transformer typically today is
SPEAKER_14: roughly a four year lead time. All of those things are contributing to higher early plant costs.
Unknown: And so we're not talking about $3,000 per kilowatt, we're not talking about $6,000 per kilowatt,
SPEAKER_14: we're probably talking about something closer to $9,000 per kilowatt or more for these early plants.
Unknown: And so to your point, that is still hard for any utility to do, even a large utility,
Unknown: to put that much, especially if they're going to build multiple units on their balance sheet.
SPEAKER_14: And that's really what's driving a lot of the, let's say, creative financing options that are
SPEAKER_14: being considered within the industry. None of those are simple, but a lot of the hyperscalers
SPEAKER_14: are starting to look at the ability or their ability to support some of the early financing
SPEAKER_14: of projects. And that is definitely helping some of the early projects. But there is not a,
SPEAKER_14: let's say, one size fits all solution for this going forward. And each utility will have to
SPEAKER_14: really think through their prospect and how they plan to deploy units. Because it is a significant
SPEAKER_14: issue that they all have to face. A quick question. Some of the different
SPEAKER_12: technologies that we've heard about tonight are scalable in that you can add smaller units and
SPEAKER_12: stack them together. But are any of those individual units really dispatchable in the
SPEAKER_12: sense of being able to follow load or react to other supply issues where with wind and solar
SPEAKER_12: that are obviously intermittent, can they do that in the same way that our hydro system can or our
SPEAKER_12: natural gas plants can? Yeah, probably one of the best examples of that is the TerraPower
SPEAKER_14: Natrium project. So the Natrium design, this is a sodium fast-cooled reactor, but it has an
SPEAKER_14: additional thermal storage component to it. And so in addition to the base output of the plant,
SPEAKER_14: they can actually ramp up the output using the salt storage or the thermal storage
Unknown: up to about 500 megawatts. And that's anywhere from roughly four to six hours. So
Unknown: the original concept was you think about your typical load growth or your load profile during
SPEAKER_14: a day. You have a typical steady profile. Typically when people are at work, people come home from
SPEAKER_14: work, start cooking dinner, your load growth tends to change in that period. So that thermal
SPEAKER_14: storage component allows for quite a bit of flexibility. And so there are multiple plants
SPEAKER_14: that have looked at that option as well as the Natrium solution. And then also with the modules,
Unknown: you do have a lot more flexibility to ramp modules differently. In the case of like an XC100 plant,
Unknown: there are four reactor modules, each roughly 80 megawatts, electric each.
Unknown: Those can be ramped at different rates. So you can achieve a lot of what you're trying to
SPEAKER_14: accomplish in terms of load following with the module approach within the nuclear island.
Unknown: Thank you.
SPEAKER_02: Are there any other questions or comments? We do have at least one public comment.
Unknown: Thank you. So this slide was titled, The Future is Promising. And I am trying really hard to figure
SPEAKER_06: out why. Because I look at the numbers and on the affordability, I don't see it. I mean,
SPEAKER_06: we can go look at geothermal. We've got a lot in the state that's untapped, which is less than half
SPEAKER_06: the price of this. And not just last 80 years, apparently 17 billion until the earth blows up.
SPEAKER_06: So I mean, I'm just I'm trying to understand the drivers here because our customers care a lot
SPEAKER_06: about affordability. And we brag a lot about being the affordable, reliable, clean power.
Unknown: I also don't see this being clean. And so we have solved the end of life problem with the,
SPEAKER_06: you know, the leftover material that we're currently storing in the Rachael's Acre at high
SPEAKER_06: costs. I don't, thankfully, we get compensated by the federal government for that. But we've had
SPEAKER_06: to argue with them about it to get it. I just don't see what the why this future is promising.
Unknown: Somebody can enlighten me on that. Let me know. But that's where I'm at.
Unknown: Well, I think we will see the costs continue to go down.
Unknown: So the early projects are going to be more expensive. If you look at the fuel issue,
Unknown: you know, spent fuel is, you know, depending upon how you look at it is really not waste.
SPEAKER_14: So you can take spent fuel from a light water reactor plant
SPEAKER_14: and put it into a fast reactor plant like the Terra Power reactor.
Unknown: And effectively what you're doing is you're burning up the actinides in the fuel.
SPEAKER_14: So whereas your current fuel at Rancho Seco is, you know, radioactive for 10,000 plus years,
SPEAKER_14: for if you've burned up the actinides, potentially that's down to roughly 100 years.
SPEAKER_14: And so it's a very significant change. So there are, there is a lot that can be done with science.
SPEAKER_14: So I would not say that the waste issue is really the, say, problem for nuclear.
Unknown: It's really, you know, if you look at France in terms of their ability to recycle fuel,
SPEAKER_14: that is a significant change. Right. And we have the same ability to do that here.
SPEAKER_14: We just have not done it. And so the picture could be very different based upon policy and
SPEAKER_14: direction of the United States.
Unknown: I think we have one more, Director Fishman.
SPEAKER_02: Not a question, just a quick statement of thanks and gratitude for all three of our
SPEAKER_12: presenters, especially Katie, who I assume traveled some distance to get here and
SPEAKER_12: was here in person to take some difficult questions. There's clearly some skepticism
SPEAKER_12: but we appreciate your coming and giving us the information and providing us with another insight.
SPEAKER_12: Thank you.
SPEAKER_02: I have a couple of comments, but let's take the public comments.
SPEAKER_02: John, did you want to go, John Weber, do you want to go ahead?
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, you know the, you know the routine.
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
SPEAKER_02: Hand it to our security guy and he'll hand it to us.
Unknown: I didn't think there'd be such a huge crowd here tonight.
Unknown: Good evening, Chair, committee and board. John Weber, I studied nuclear energy in college.
SPEAKER_01: I was living in Idaho during the last nuclear renaissance 15 years ago.
SPEAKER_01: It was the same pumpers, NEI, EPRI, Black and Vetch. The nuclear industry is not unlike the
SPEAKER_01: fossil fuel industry with misinformation and massive lobbying. It looks like the presentations
SPEAKER_01: have been slightly updated since then. Lots of startups, just like before. Alternate energy
SPEAKER_01: holdings, Inc. proposed to build an advanced nuclear reactor in Idaho. I took a deep dive
SPEAKER_01: into nuclear energy. I read the reports. I toured the Idaho National Lab and spoke with the nuclear
SPEAKER_01: experts. I served on the board of the Snake River Alliance. The nuclear developer brought speakers
SPEAKER_01: from the nuclear industry, convinced government officials and raised money from the locals.
SPEAKER_01: The developer promised 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour electricity and low cooling water use.
SPEAKER_01: The math didn't work. Like many other nuclear companies that ended up going bankrupt, it was
SPEAKER_01: a scam. The SEC ended that scam. It is unlikely the current SEC will be enforcing laws, but a scam
SPEAKER_01: is still a scam. The CEO ended up skipping bail and is still wanted by the U.S. Marshals.
SPEAKER_01: I am happy to see the presentation amidst that only one new power station came from that renaissance,
SPEAKER_01: also admitting nuclear will not be cheap. It won't be. It is the most expensive way to generate
SPEAKER_01: utility scale electricity. SMRs, small modular nuclear reactors, even left out the N for nuclear,
SPEAKER_01: because it sounds better without it. They will even be more expensive than the large reactors
SPEAKER_01: per kilowatt hour. Nuclear is not clean or green, as the presentation states. You must look at the
SPEAKER_01: whole fuel cycle from mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication of fuel, to waste,
SPEAKER_01: storage, and disposal. Most of the cancers and the contaminations of water and ground are caused
SPEAKER_01: from the uranium mining. It has caused generational suffering. There is no permanent solution for waste
SPEAKER_01: disposal that will stay radioactive for thousands of years. Looking at the fuel cycle, we find the
SPEAKER_01: carbon footprint isn't much better than burning gas. So it isn't a climate solution. Even if it was,
SPEAKER_01: it would be a poor one, because it takes too long to build and is too expensive. Solar-winded
SPEAKER_01: batteries are faster and cheaper. It is highly unlikely any new nuclear plants will be operating
SPEAKER_01: by SMUD's 2030 zero-carbon commitment. And I put all the references to everything I said in my
SPEAKER_01: written comments for tonight's meeting and tomorrow's board meeting. Thank you for your time and have
SPEAKER_01: a good evening. Thanks for that, John. I believe we have an online comment as well. Yes, we do from
SPEAKER_07: the Sacramento EV Association. Okay. Are we there? Are you there?
Unknown: Is it probably Guy Hall, if it's Sacramento EV, or is it Peter Macklin?
SPEAKER_02: Sorry. I forgot to unmute. Yeah, it's Peter Macklin. I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_11: Anyway, so I guess first off, I just want to say I agree with most of what John just said.
SPEAKER_11: I don't necessarily agree with the disposal issue. I mean, currently, yes, it's a huge problem. But
Unknown: there, as the last speaker mentioned, there are ways using fast breeder reactors to reprocess
SPEAKER_11: that fuel, reduce the amount of actual waste that you have to about 1% of what you start with. And
SPEAKER_11: it's only radioactive for 100, 150 years or so. So that's a lot easier to manage than what you
SPEAKER_11: currently have. But there's no, it's not being taken care of right now. So currently, it's still
SPEAKER_11: a big problem. The other thing I wanted to mention here is that since a couple of speakers brought
SPEAKER_11: up Vocal, Vocal, I'm not going to pronounce it right, that those two reactors cost $31 billion.
SPEAKER_11: And they are about 2300 megawatt total. So therefore, you're looking at $13,800 per kilowatt.
SPEAKER_11: So, you know, like I said, I agree with John, they are very, very expensive. It's not likely
SPEAKER_11: they're going to get cheaper. You know, because yes, there were cost overruns and mistakes made,
SPEAKER_11: but there's always going to be cost overruns and mistakes made. I don't know how you can build a
SPEAKER_11: big project without that thing going, that sort of thing happening. So, you know, I mean, I just do
SPEAKER_11: want to say, I mean, I like nuclear, I just don't think it's going to be viable for the, for mostly
SPEAKER_11: for cost reasons, rather than anything else. And time, it takes too long to build, you can build
SPEAKER_11: solar and wind and other things much, much faster. Even if you have to build things like, you know,
SPEAKER_11: electrolyzers and convert a lot of the solar energy to hydrogen and store the hydrogen,
SPEAKER_11: you're still probably going to get those plants online and quicker and it'll probably cost you
SPEAKER_11: less. So that's, that concludes my comments. Thank you. All right, Peter, thank you for that.
SPEAKER_02: I just want to have a couple things I want to say first, I want to thank Katie and Chad and Mark
SPEAKER_02: for their time. And speaking to us tonight, you know, SMUD is the position of being the only,
SPEAKER_02: the only area of the country to shut down their power plant from a public referendum.
SPEAKER_02: But I think, you know, this board and this, this organization and company is always interested in
SPEAKER_02: learning. And it's important as students of the industry, right, we're always tracking
SPEAKER_02: what's going on. And I really appreciate it. I certainly learned a number of things tonight,
SPEAKER_02: especially some of these specific projects I heard about the one in Wyoming, but not the one in
SPEAKER_02: Ontario, and seeing some of their timing as well. One of the things our former board members said
SPEAKER_02: was we want to be on the cutting edge, but not the bleeding edge. And we definitely
SPEAKER_02: want to watch this, right. And I know the Vogel plants, which I've watched since AP 1000 reactors
SPEAKER_02: were put out there in the mid 2000s. They certainly had trouble. But the costs are also
SPEAKER_02: astronomical. And as we look at that levelized cost of energy, right, the dollars and cents really do
SPEAKER_02: have to make sense. But we also do have, you know, really aggressive decarbonization goals,
SPEAKER_02: and strong beliefs in that area as well. And so I think it's something that we'll want to continue
SPEAKER_02: to track. And we'll watch and I know we did a fusion panel a couple of years ago. And I'm also
SPEAKER_02: really curious to see how the data center demand, which has popped up with these large language
SPEAKER_02: models in the last like two years, how that's going to be handled if the technology does not
SPEAKER_02: change. We were talking about a 15 year lead time on a multi billion dollar project. Who's to say
SPEAKER_02: that we don't have quantum computing, which is totally outside of my expertise, but see there's
SPEAKER_02: so many different variables moving around. And we just want to make sure that we're doing our core
SPEAKER_02: job, which is providing Sacramento with reliable and affordable power that we prefer to be as clean
SPEAKER_02: as possible. But we never forget what our ultimate mission is and what our what our what the community
SPEAKER_02: tells us to do. So I think that's important with that. So thank you so much for making the trip.
SPEAKER_02: We have a potentially lengthy closed session that we have to go into as well. So any other
SPEAKER_02: comments? All right. And then anything any committee direction? I don't have anything now. Okay. And
SPEAKER_02: then just a reminder, written comments received on items not on the agenda will be included in
SPEAKER_02: the record if received within two hours of the end of the meeting. What's that? Let us get into
SPEAKER_02: closed session. The board will now enter into closed session to discuss the following item
SPEAKER_02: conference with labor negotiators pursuant to section 54 9th 57.6 of the government code.
SPEAKER_02: SMUD designated representative Tiffany Duvart a manager of employee relations
SPEAKER_02: with the organization of SMUD employees. There will be no. Do we need are we going to have any?
Unknown: Okay. So we may come back and have a report out. Thank you all.
Unknown: The board provided direction to staff is our report out taken during closed session
SPEAKER_02: with no further business appearing. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.