Survey Project Report

By Global Business Institute 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 435

Washington, DC 20036www.thegabi.com

PRE-SURVEY REPORT

The following excerpt is a recapitulation of GBI’s mid-term progress report, in particular the details of the results of the pre-survey conducted in advance of the actual survey.

PRE-SURVEY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVESIn order to obtain and gather the most useful responses for KAERI’s objectives, GBI conducted an initial and experimental “pre-survey.” This initial step was undertaken to determine how best to shape the overall survey, the survey questions, and target interviewee list, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of various methodologies and data collection techniques.

Pre-Survey IntervieweesInterviewees from across a variety of fields and communities (industry, government, academia, think tank, NGOs) were initially chosen to participate in the pre-survey; interviewees from diverse backgrounds, primarily coming from GBI’s Washington-based network, were selected in order to see if certain response patterns could be observed. A vast majority of the selected interviewees possessed degrees in a science or engineering field so that they could capably offer technical responses of the sort that KAERI seeks. Please see Appendix for the list of pre-survey interviewees.

Data Collection MethodsA variety of data collection and survey administration methods were attempted and used in order to determine the optimal means of gathering information. GBI first contacted interviewees by e-mail, explaining the objectives and purpose of the survey and asking if they would be willing to participate. Each individual was posed the same set of four questions.

In-PersonPROS: Greater interaction and more in-depth follow-up possible, thorough and candid responsesCONS: Responses can be overly lengthy and drawn-out, limited by time and schedules of interviewees

PhonePROS: Interactivity, forthright responses, greater flexibility for interviewees’ schedules, less time needed to conduct interviewCONS: Less in-depth interaction than with in-person interviews

E-mailPROS: Convenience, low time commitment, mass survey possible, written responses possibleCONS: High attrition, responding via writing can be tedious for interviewee

After attempting the above three methods, GBI opted to conduct phone interviews for the majority of its survey activities. Phone interviews had the optimal balance of flexibility for interviewees’ schedules, while still offering a high degree of interactivity in the dialogue.

1

Nevertheless, some interviews were still conducted in-person where possible for the interviewees’ personal schedule. Attempting to administer the survey solely via e-mail was avoided given the lack of depth and interactivity in gathering and obtaining responses.HypothesisBased on preliminary impressions and research prior to conducting the pre-survey, a number of hypotheses were developed in order to provide a baseline and form a foundation for the pre-survey questions. Two main hypotheses were derived:

1. The U.S. sees fusion energy as the next step in nuclear energy following Gen-IVo The U.S. is reluctant to invest heavily in future reactor designs because fusion

energy is anticipated to emerge within the next 30 yearso Because of the lack of perception of need for future fission nuclear technologies,

the U.S. is not very interested in advanced fission reactor designs U.S. is investing in research on advanced fission reactor designs and

closed fuel cycles as a possible means to manage nuclear waste Even acknowledging waste as a problem, the U.S. is relying very heavily

on geologic repositories to manage waste with little to no intention of retrieval and future recycling

2. The U.S. is hoping to extend the life of existing LWR reactors until fusion can be achievedo Much of the R&D budget is directed towards enhancing safety and extending

lifetimes of the existing U.S. LWR fleeto Because of limited foresight regarding future nuclear energy and applications,

very little attention is given beyond Gen-IV nuclear power other than in academic and research circles

Questions and ResponsesBased on the hypotheses and other preliminary information, four questions were developed for the pre-survey. These questions were: (1) “By what measures would you assess the prospects for Gen-4/Advanced nuclear technologies in terms achieving R&D Goals, Commercialization, and Market Success?” (2) “Where do you see the nuclear industry in 10, 20, and 30 years?” (3) “What future nuclear technologies do you see coming beyond Gen-IV, and why?” and (4) “In the future, what novel applications for nuclear power technology do you envision and why?” These questions were posed to the pre-survey interviewees, and yielded the following general responses to each of the questions:

1. By what measures would you assess the prospects for Gen-4/Advanced nuclear technologies in terms achieving R&D Goals, Commercialization, and Market Success?

o Greatest challenge is cost—mass production necessary to lower costo Safety considerations are of greatest importanceo NRC’s regulations and current market price for nuclear will prevent anything

beyond Gen-III from being realized in the U.S.o Opposition to fast reactors and recycling in the U.S. (particularly from non-

proliferation interests) will make it difficult for advanced concepts to be realizedo Other considerations impacting prospects of advanced reactors: reliability, cost

efficiency, fuel availability

2

o Difficult to predict the likelihood of success for technologies beyond light water reactors because of the existence of so many external factors: cuts in funding, another major accident, etc.

o Licensing and funding issues are likely to be the greatest challenge2. Where do you see the nuclear industry in 10, 20, and 30 years?

o European and North American nuclear power will stagnate; most of the progress will take place in China, Korea, and the Middle East

o However, BRICS + Korea are where most growth will happen; simultaneously, OECD is choosing to invest in conventional and renewable energy rather than nuclear

o Projected timeline for future global nuclear power: In 10 years—hopefully more reactor construction In 20 years—different fuel types and fuel fabrication In 30 years—maybe some Gen-IV prototypes

o Most likely scenario is that nuclear power will stay the same as it is now because of no centralized funding or political will

o If funding problem is solved, then in 10 years, the most viable of the new technologies will be identified; in 30 years, the first trial reactors of those technologies will be ready for commercialization

3. What future nuclear technologies do you see coming beyond Gen-IV, and why?o The most common response was small modular reactors (SMRs)

SMRs are currently not cost competitive so it would only serve specific markets, applications, and niche areas where they are appropriate

o Some responded that we should remain with light water reactors because they are well-understood and it is a very mature technology

o There is the possibility that some improved fuel cycle and waste technologies will be developed and commercialized, but it is doubtful

Most likely scenario is that the nuclear waste issue will not be addressed until the future, and only temporary solutions will be sought after

At the same time, fast reactors may become more commono Accelerator driven systems may come after next-generation technologieso Fusion or fusion-fission hybrid reactors may be possibleo Nothing beyond Gen-IV will be realized because of lack of investment, funding

for reactors, and reactor designs; international program is needed to combine funding and support for nuclear power technologies

4. In the future, what novel applications for nuclear power technology do you envision and why?

o Desalination may be a future application to help provide the world with potable water

o There are several areas of application for nuclear technology in propulsion: Spacecraft propulsion and extraterrestrial power supply Deep sea

3

Civilian merchant shippingo Image reconstruction algorithms for radiation exposure may be another

application of nuclear powero If high temperature reactors are deployed, one application of nuclear power is

the utilization of high temperature reactors for process heat to produce diesel, natural gas, metallurgical applications and metal processing

Observations In general, it appears that the U.S. nuclear establishment does not have a clear vision of the far future of nuclear power in the U.S. because of the political, economic, and regulatory obstacles that exist in the near term. Politically and economically, the nuclear industry is competing with conventional and renewable energy. Other forms of energy are currently cheaper than nuclear in the U.S. because of nuclear build costs, regulatory and licensing costs, etc. Furthermore, the U.S. has nonproliferation policies that are presently averse to the development of future nuclear technologies featuring closed fuel cycles.

It appears that many U.S. nuclear experts cite the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a major obstacle to future nuclear technologies because the NRC does not currently have the expertise to license future nuclear technologies. Thus, time and money will have to spend in training NRC regulators before future nuclear designs can be approved and licensed. Moreover, the NRC has a very complicated and time consuming process for licensing new reactor technologies. Even if new reactor builds were to undergo a review process, it would take decades for this process to be completed.

Currently, U.S. government support for future nuclear energy technologies is largely limited to small modular reactor designs and concepts.

Analysis and AssessmentThe questions posed in this initial survey generally elicited responses that were focused on the policy, regulatory, and economic challenges of the nuclear industry rather than technical insights. For example, in response to the first question regarding the prospects for Gen IV and advanced reactors, interviewees generally answered that reducing the costs of such systems would be the greatest barrier to the ultimate deployment and commercialization of Gen IV systems. Interviewees who responded that costs are the primary challenge for Gen IV technologies generally also mentioned limited R&D budgets as a significant barrier to successful deployment and commercialization. Offering answers somewhat related to the economic challenges faced by Gen IV systems, many interviewees also responded that regulatory burdens posed by the NRC and the high costs of regulation in the U.S. would likely pose significant barriers to Gen IV technologies. Moreover, some interviewees also mentioned that there is significant political opposition to fast reactors and recycling in the U.S. as a result of stringent nonproliferation policies, and such an atmosphere creates difficulties for the development of many advanced reactor concepts.

With regards to the second question about the status of the nuclear industry in 10, 20, and 30 years, most of the interviewees depicted a similar future for nuclear power. Nuclear energy will

4

grow primarily in the BRICS countries and South Korea, while stagnating in OECD countries (Europe and North America), where energy investments are primarily being directed to conventional and renewable energy development. Overall, interviewees projected that within ten years, there is the potential for modest growth and new reactor construction throughout the world. After twenty years, different fuel types may be used in existing LWRs, and only after thirty years will there be the possibility of Gen IV prototypes. However, consistent with the theme of policy, regulatory, and economic challenges facing nuclear power, many interviewees lamented that progress in civil nuclear programs in the U.S. and other OECD countries will likely be limited given the lack of centralized funding and political will. Without funding and political support for nuclear, many interviewees argued that nuclear energy will remain the same or even decline in these countries and regions in the upcoming decades.

In response to what technologies will emerge following Gen IV, interviewees were generally pessimistic, perhaps overly cognizant of the political barriers facing the nuclear industry in the U.S. The most common response was small modular reactors (SMRs) and refinements in existing LWR technologies. Some interviewees responded that the continued focus should be on LWRs because they are well understood and are a mature technology. While some respondents stated that improved fuel cycle and waste management technologies may emerge, most were doubtful that these would be realized and that for the time being, only temporary back-end solutions would probably be implemented. Furthermore, although there were mentions of accelerator-driven subcritical systems, fusion reactors, and fission-fusion hybrids, the general sentiment was that these systems would not be realized because of lack of high-level support and investment, and that international collaboration would be needed to maximize limited R&D funding. Again, responses to this question reflected a degree of cynicism and negativity regarding the prospects for nuclear energy, arguably stemming from the relatively unfavorable political, regulatory, and market conditions that exist in the U.S.

The final pre-survey question on novel applications for nuclear power technology did yield some interesting responses that appeared to be less indicative of the skepticism that pervaded the answers to previous questions. Responses to the last questions could generally be classified into two categories: process heat and transportation. Many interviewees discussed desalination and other process heat applications of higher temperature reactors, such as syngas production, natural gas processing, metal processing and other metallurgical applications, and so forth. Propulsion and transportation was also cited as another potential use for nuclear power, including space (both for spacecraft propulsion and extraterrestrial power supply), deep sea craft, and civilian merchant shipping.

We identified several areas of improvement based on the results of the preliminary survey. The pre-survey was administered in three ways to test the various methodologies and their relative effectiveness: in-person, phone, and e-mail. Based on the experience of carrying out the pre-survey, e-mail was deemed to be the least effective means of administering the survey because of high attrition, lack of interactivity, and tediousness of response. Therefore, the decision was made to conduct the survey through either in-person interviews or by phone.

5

The pre-survey also revealed insights into the ideal composition of the interviewee pool. As demonstrated in the responses received, it appeared that many of the answers to the pre-survey questions were overly focused on the political, regulatory, and market barriers that exist for nuclear energy R&D in the U.S. and thus reflected an apparent sense of pessimism regarding future nuclear power technologies. Given that many of the pre-survey respondents were based in Washington and professionally involved in policy issues, such answers were not completely unforeseen or unanticipated. However, to avoid excessive attention to political factors and garner more out-of-the-box responses and technical insights, a concerted effort was made to target more academics, futurists, and researchers for the final survey.

Next Steps and Future ImplementationsTaking into the account the results and findings of the pre-survey, GBI decided to take a number of measures and steps for designing and conducting the actual survey. Most of these focused around altering the survey questions themselves, as well as changing the methodology and approach of the survey. These alterations would be made in order to obtain responses that are useful for KAERI’s purposes, answers with technical and detailed information, and out-of-the-box ideas on the relevant issues. The major changes contemplated are as follows:

Alteration of QuestionsThe pre-survey questions were, in general, too broad, and did not specifically address the technical aspects of the topics covered. A number of general points of guidance were derived from execution of the pre-survey:

1. Defining Gen IV: Gen IV is a term that may be defined differently by various individuals. A more specific definition should be explicitly stated to avoid confusion.

2. Increasing Technical Content: The pre-survey questions placed more emphasis on the nuclear industry than required, and more attention could have been paid to the R&D and technical details of reactor technology, such as design characteristics, fuel types, coolant types, neutronics, etc. Following the pre-survey, it was decided that any mention of commercialization and market considerations should be removed, and greater priority should be placed on stimulating out-of-the-box thinking and novel technical solutions.

Alteration of MethodologyIn addition to conducting phone interviews, GABI plans on taking the following steps:

1. More Personal Interviews: When possible, in-person interviews should be conducted. Although this type of interview may be lengthier and more difficult to arrange, it does offer greater interaction with the interviewee and generates more in-depth discussion.

2. Technical Experts to Interview: Utilizing interviewers with technical backgrounds and knowledge may elicit more technically detailed responses from interviewees. Thus, GABI will identify technical experts to conduct phone or personal interviews.

3. Roundtable: GABI plans to organize a small roundtable where participants will be asked to share their respective thoughts and vision on nuclear energy in 2030 and beyond. It will be an informal discussion session that will encourage participants to interact and exchange ideas.

6

Targeting IntervieweesTo gather more technical responses, GABI will reach out to experts at national laboratories and professors at the nation’s top university nuclear engineering departments. Additionally, GABI has identified several individuals at futurist societies and organizations to gather novel and original thinking on the issues relevant to the survey.Appendix 1

1. Dr. James Acton: Co-Director of the Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceEducation: Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics, Cambridge UniversityBrief Bio: A physicist by training, Acton specializes in deterrence, disarmament, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy. His current research focuses on the nuclear fuel cycle in Japan and hypersonic conventional weapons. He co-authored a groundbreaking study titled, “Why Fukushima Was Preventable.”

2. Mr. James Malone: Chief Nuclear Fuel Development Officer, Lightbridge CorporationEducation: B.S. in Chemical Engineering, Manhattan CollegeBrief Bio: Malone has more than 40 years of high-level experience in the nuclear industry, including extensive experience in all aspects of fuel procurement and management. Malone served as vice president of Nuclear Fuels at Exelon for 10 years and consulted NAC International on fuel reliability and the front and back ends of nuclear fuel cycle.

3. Dr. Vijay Sazawal: Former Director of Government Affairs, USEC Inc.Education: Ph.D. in Structural Mechanics, Michigan Technological UniversityBrief Bio: At USEC, Sazawal coordinated and pursued advocacy for business initiatives within various US federal government agencies. In 2011, he was appointed to the official U.S. Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee. Previously, Sazawal worked as the vice president of engineering and technology at Areva Inc.

4. Dr. Gail Marcus: Former President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS); Former Deputy Director-General of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Former Principal Deputy Director for the US DOE Office of Nuclear EnergyEducation: Sc.D. in Nuclear Engineering, MITBrief Bio: Marcus has previously worked as Deputy Director-General of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA); Principal Deputy Director of the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, and various positions at the NRC. She also served as Chief of the Science Policy Research Division at the Congressional Research Service. She is the first woman to earn a doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States.

5. Dr. Alireza Haghighat: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Tech UniversityEducation: Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, University of WashingtonBrief Bio: Haghighat conducts research in particle transport methods and their applications in simulation of nuclear systems, parallel computing for nuclear applications, Monte Carlo methods, reactor physics, design of nondestructive interrogation systems for homeland security applications, simulation of nuclear reactors, radiation systems, and medical devices.

6. Dr. Andrei Afanasev: Professor of Physics, George Washington UniversityEducation: Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics, Kharkov National University of Ukraine

7

Brief Bio: Afanasev currently leads the GWU energy initiative in three areas: (a) High-power particle accelerators that may serve as drivers for accelerator-driven subcritical nuclear reactors (ADSR), as well as probes of new materials for energy applications; (b) Development of novel techniques in photovoltaics, including nanostructures, quantum dots, and surface acoustic waves; (c) New technologies for non-proliferation of nuclear materials.

7. Dr. Christopher Cahill: Professor of Chemistry & International Affairs, George Washington UniversityEducation: Ph.D. in Chemistry, University of Stony Brook, New YorkBrief Bio: Cahill is an expert in solid-state and materials chemistry with a particular emphasis on X-ray crystallography. His synthesis expertise includes high temperature techniques, as well as hydrothermal systems to produce novel hybrid materials of relevance to the nuclear fuel cycle.

8. Dr. Haksoo Kim: Director of Fuel Supply, Exelon Generation Company LLCEducation: Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, University of WisconsinBrief Bio: Kim has worked in the Nuclear Fuel Department within Exelon Generation Company for over 25 years and has extensive experience in nuclear fuel procurement, contract management, fuel economics, and reactor safety analysis. He holds a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) certification for Braidwood Nuclear Station.

9. Mr. Walter Howes: Managing Director, Verdigris Capital LLCEducation: B.S. in Chemistry, Duke University; MBA from New York UniversityBrief Bio: Howes has been Managing Director of Verdigris Capital, LLC, a merchant banking firm focused on companies, technologies, and projects in the areas of energy, transportation, agriculture, and infrastructure. Previously, he served numerous positions at DOE under four Secretaries.

10. Mr. Chris Gadomski: Head of Nuclear Research, Bloomberg New Energy FinanceEducation: MBA in Marketing Management, Baruch College/City University of New YorkBrief Bio: As a Lead Analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the leading provider of research to investors in clean and carbon-free energy and carbon markets worldwide, Gadomski directs the firm's nuclear energy research team in developing a robust methodology for forecasting global nuclear investment in new build, innovative technologies, O&M, fuel cycle and decommissioning.

PRIMINARY FINAL REPORT

MethodologyPrior to commencement of this survey study, we conducted a preliminary survey in order to optimize questions and refine our hypotheses. We originally hypothesized that most U.S. experts would suggest that fusion power would emerge as the dominant technology beyond the era of Gen IV technologies. We synthesized a list of four questions for this preliminary survey that would allow us to develop the fundamental premises for the actual study, assess and identify potential issues, and measure the efficacy of our questioning in attaining insightful and valuable responses on the subjects within the scope of the study.

8

The pre-survey was particularly useful in gauging the direction and composition of the final survey questions. Because of the ambiguous nature of the term, “Gen IV,” we decided to define Gen IV as the six reactor concepts selected by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). Additionally, we observed that asking questions that highlighted the terms “market” and “commercialization” drew attention away from technical factors and considerations; accordingly, we chose to remove any words or references to market, policy, regulation, or commercialization in future questions. Moreover, to gain insights into the role of nuclear in a future energy system and interactions with other energy technologies, we opted to add a question on this subject to the list of final questions.

Based on lessons learned from the preliminary survey, we constructed a new set of questions for the study. The questions were modified and presented as follows:

1. What do you view as the most critical technical challenges for Gen IV technologies (as defined by the six technologies selected by the Generation IV International Forum for further R&D: VHTR, SFR, SCWR, GFR, LFR, and MSR), and how do you assess the prospects for resolution of these key challenges so that these technologies are ultimately deployed?

2. What possible or theoretical reactor concepts do you envision coming beyond Gen IV technologies (as defined by the six selected by the Generation-IV International Forum)?

3. In the far future, what novel applications of nuclear power technology (excluding irradiation technologies for medicine, agriculture, etc.) do you envision and why?

4. What role or novel interactions with other technologies will nuclear power have in an advanced grid or electrical distribution system?

The questions above were the final questions list that we posed to the participants of the survey project. Each of these questions will be referred by abbreviation (Question 1—Technical Challenges; Question 2—Beyond Gen IV; Question 3—Novel Applications; Question 4—Advanced Grid Interactions).

After constructing the final list of questions, a group of prominent Washington-based nuclear experts were gathered for a private roundtable; the questions were then posed to the experts as a group. We found that in a group setting, the pace and direction of the conversation was difficult to direct and control. Many participants discussed topics unrelated to the questions, and much of the debate focused on the economic feasibility of the participants’ proposals and ideas. Based on the results of the roundtable, we decided that the optimal approach to administering the survey was to interact with participants one on one.

We contacted experts in our immediate network and database through email, and asked individuals if they would be able to participate in the survey, either over the phone or in-person. The majority of the interviews were conducted over the phone, as many of the participants were outside of the Washington, D.C. area. Each of the conversations were recorded and summarized for analysis.

RESULTS

9

Question 1: Technical Challenges for GEN IV technologiesWe collected 104 responses for question 1 (“What do you view as the most critical technical challenges for Gen IV technologies [as defined by the six technologies selected by the Generation-IV International Forum for further R&D: VHTR, SFR, SCWR, GFR, LFR, and MSR ], and how do you assess prospects for resolution of these key challenges so that these technologies are ultimately deployed?”). The responses to this question were broken into four categories and the results can be seen in Figure 1:

Policy/Market/Licensing - Any responses that cited policy, economics, cost, investment, licensing or regulatory

barriers as key challenges for Gen IV- Comprised 59 of the 104 responses (56.7%) Safety/Fuel Testing

- Any responses that cited safety as an essential challenge; fuel testing was incorporated into this category, as the responses indicated that testing for fuels was an important component in improving safety

- Comprised 11 out of the 104 responses (10.6%) Materials - Any responses that cited the need to develop materials capable of enduring the

operating conditions of a Gen IV reactor as a principal impediment to Gen IV development

- Comprised 27 out of the 104 responses (26.0%) Prototype Testing - Any response that indicated the crucial importance of constructing and operating

prototypes to reveal and address unforeseen challenges and demonstrate to investors and regulators readiness for deployment

- Comprised 7 out of the 104 responses (6.7%) (1) Policy/Market/LicensingA significant number of responses focused on issues related to challenging the current dominant position of light water reactor (LWR) technology in commercial nuclear generation. Many respondents stated that developers of Gen IV systems would face significant challenges in competing economically with LWR systems, and that cost parity

with LWRs would need to be achieved in order for Gen IV reactors to be successfully commercialized and deployed. Also, many interviewees also stated that regulatory and licensing approaches for most civil nuclear countries are largely based on assumptions and realities specific to LWR systems, and that the relative lack of experience and familiarity with

10

non-LWR technologies in most nuclear regulatory bodies present a significant barrier for Gen IV—in general, the dearth of regulator expertise in Gen IV technologies can significantly add to the cost, time, and complexity of licensing and the overall regulatory process. Moreover, some respondents discussed issues related to technological inertia and supply chain/infrastructural issues—given that the global civil nuclear infrastructure and supply chain are tailored towards LWR technologies, Gen IV developers will have the added challenge of seeking suppliers and infrastructural investments to support the deployment of their technologies. One respondent, in particular, mentioned this phenomenon as a “chicken-and-egg” problem: Gen IV investment will be difficult to attract without the necessary infrastructure, and infrastructure for Gen IV will not develop without significant investments into Gen IV technologies.

Many responses within the “Policy/Market/Licensing” category also tended to focus on U.S. specific barriers, including the relatively onerous, costly, and burdensome licensing process within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the lack of technological focus in the U.S. (R&D resources are spread too thinly among many different reactor concepts by U.S.-based Gen IV developers), the relative lack of attention on Gen IV R&D (much of U.S. nuclear energy R&D is focused on LWR sustainability), and back-end and nonproliferation policies that actively discourage or dissuade development of closed fuel cycles attendant with many Gen IV concepts.

(2) Safety/Fuel Testing“Safety/Fuel Testing” responses generally focused less on the technical aspects of safety and more on demonstrable safety—the ability of Gen IV proponents and developers to demonstrate the inherent safety of their concepts to the public and regulators. Some respondents suggested that the greatest challenge within the issue of Gen IV safety was being able to address public concerns about nuclear power safety overall, and then educating the public about the enhanced passive safety features of Gen IV designs. Being able to address public concerns would then impact the regulatory approach: given the inherent safety advantages of many Gen IV concepts over conventional LWRs, operators of Gen IV reactor may be free from requirements to deploy redundant active safety systems, delineate large exclusion zones, and implement emergency and contingency planning—all of which add to the cost, complexity, and limitations of nuclear generation. Responses that specifically addressed fuel testing emphasized the need to replicate neutron environments of specific Gen IV technologies so that fuel integrity and predictable fuel behavior can be demonstrated. Respondents in this category discussed the need to test fuels under a variety of conditions (normal operations, accident scenarios, etc.) so that safety performance could be better verified.

(3) MaterialsBy far the most frequently cited technical challenge for Gen IV technologies was development of materials—specifically materials capable of withstanding the high temperature, high fluence, and highly corrosive environments within Gen IV reactors. Materials also need to be highly durable to endure the significantly longer refueling periods associated with many Gen IV systems. Some respondents cited specific materials that may provide the greater resilience required for Gen IV reactors, including graphene and ceramics. One interviewee mentioned the utilization of rare earths to dramatically increase the strength and durability of alloys, as well as

11

nanotechnology-developed materials as potential areas for exploration for Gen IV materials development. Another respondent suggested that directed materials research, specifically focused on Gen IV applications, could potentially yield breakthroughs on the materials issue. He discussed the fact that much of materials research occurs outside of the realm of nuclear science and engineering, and that having materials R&D specifically focused on nuclear applications could accelerate progress in addressing the problem of Gen IV materials. The same respondent also asserted that the VHTR has the least materials limitations—according to this interviewee, the VHTR has the least corrosion problems out of the six Gen IV concepts, as well as the least amount of materials testing needed. He also claimed that the SFR had the greatest materials challenges (issues with sodium coolant, extensive testing needed on material interactions and heat transfer, etc.), and that the MSR was somewhere between the SFR and VHTR in terms of materials challenges.

(4) Prototype TestingWithin the responses under the “Prototype Testing” category, there was some debate regarding the relationship between actual prototype testing and computer modeling. Some respondents emphasized the fact that computer modeling is incapable of replacing actual prototype work—that constructing and operating prototypes of Gen IV technologies is absolutely necessary to determine their feasibility and operability, as well as determining engineering issues and troubleshooting for those reactor concepts. While not necessarily disagreeing with the necessity of prototypes, other respondents emphasized that computer modeling could reduce the need for actual engineering work, more reliably verify safety and performance to regulators through the confirmation of computer projections, and facilitate scaling through extrapolation of models rather than the construction of multiple prototypes at each stage of scale-up. One interviewee specifically referred to U.S. supercomputing capabilities at its national laboratories as “world class,” and that such capabilities should be leveraged to accelerate the development of Gen IV.

In addition to the aforementioned, respondents also raised a number of insights with regards to the challenges currently facing Gen IV development, deployment, and commercialization. One respondent evaluated the prospects of each of the six GIF concepts based on the level of international support; for example, while the SFR and VHTR both receive significant international support and therefore, will likely be the first Gen IV concepts to be commercialized, the other reactor types receive considerably less country support. Another respondent emphasized the importance of reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs in order to offset the higher capital costs of first-of-a-kind (FOAK) Gen IV reactors—efforts to reduce O&M costs with Gen IV reactors can reduce the overall life cycle costs of such systems and allow these technologies to better compete with LWRs.

In addition to general observations addressing all Gen IV technologies, several participants responded with technology-specific technical challenges for individual Gen IV technologies. These technology-specific technical challenges are listed below in Table 1:

Table 1. Gen IV Technology Specific Technical ChallengesTechnology Technical Challenge

12

Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Pyrophoricity of sodium requires careful prevention of leaks

Opacity of sodium complicates fuel handling Instrumentation controls Materials corrosion Avoiding positive reactivity coefficients Heightened neutron degradation Extensive use of stainless steel in construction Proliferation risks from associated separations

technologiesLead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) Need for further fuel testing (uranium nitride)

Problems with corrosion Lack of operability at high temperatures

Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) Lack of fuels that can operate in high temperatures and high fluence

Passive decay heat removal is difficult without decreasing power density

High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR)

Need for materials with durability in high temperatures

Temperatures heighten creep and mechanical stresses

Need for new heat exchanger alloys Need for qualification of graphite for

moderator use in high temperaturesSupercritical Water Reactor (SCWR) Need for corrosion-resistant materialsMolten-Salt Reactor (MSR) Corrosion issues (can be circumvented by

modules that can be disposed of in a short period)

Issues concerning online reprocessing and removing fission products (including proliferation risks)

Managing off-gases Stopping tritium migration Lack of general experience with fuel in a liquid

medium

Question 2: Beyond GEN IV TechnologiesWe collected 88 responses for question 2 (“What possible or theoretical reactor concepts do you envision coming beyond Gen IV technologies [as defined by the six selected by the Generation-IV International Forum]”). The responses were broken into five categories and the result can be seen in Figure 2a:

Fusion-Based Technology - Any responses that indicated fusion or fission-fusion hybrid technologies would come

after Gen IV technologies

13

- Comprised 15 out of the 88 responses (17%). Fission-Based Technology - Any responses that indicated fission technologies would continue to dominate after the

era of Gen IV technologies- Comprised 13 out of the 88 responses (14.8%).

Improved Characteristics of Gen IV - Any responses that indicated that beyond Gen IV technologies would advance a certain

characteristic or characteristics rather than focus on an entirely new technology- Comprised 37 out of the 88 responses (42.0%).• Scaled Versions of Gen IV- Any responses that indicated that scaled versions of current Gen IV designs would come

beyond Gen IV technologies- Comprised 10 out of the 88 responses (11.4%).

• N/A- Any responses that indicated that the participant had no thought to the question- Comprised 13 out of the 88 responses (14.8%)

Within the group of interviewees who mentioned fusion, a number of respondents mentioned the possibility of fission-fusion hybrid reactors. Although a few survey participants mentioned that the hybrid reactors could create certain synergies, increase fuel efficiency, and be used for non-electricity applications such as waste/trash incineration, other participants argued that fission and fusion would never be coupled within a single system, citing reasons related to technology tribalism and unforeseen complexities emerging from hybridization.

In the category of “Scaled Versions of Gen IV,” there was some debate regarding the ideal scales of future nuclear technologies. Although most respondents within this category advocated for smaller reactors for a wide variety of reasons—smaller footprints, greater mobility and flexibility for use in remote areas and areas without sufficient grid infrastructure, potentially enhanced safety, higher public acceptability, lower upfront capital costs, load-following capabilities, modular construction and economies of mass production—others argued that smaller reactors are suboptimal, primarily because of the realities of nuclear economics and high fixed costs. Others argued that such smaller reactors, if widely deployed, could potentially diffuse nuclear waste, security, and proliferation risks. One participant even argued for scaled-up versions of Gen IV reactors for deployment in super-complexes.

14

“Fission-Based Technology” and “Improved Characteristics of Gen IV” were categories that were comprised of more specific responses, so we chose to break down those categories further.

Fission-Based Technology: 13 total responses and was broken into three sub-categories. These results can be seen in Figure 2b:

Accelerator Driven Systems - Any answers indicating that Accelerator Driven Systems would come beyond Gen IV

technologies- Comprised 3 out of the 13 responses (23.1%) Traveling Wave Reactors - Any answers indicating that Traveling Wave Reactors would come beyond Gen IV

technologies- Comprised 5 out of the 13

responses (38.5%) Molten-Salt Reactors/Fluoride-

Salt Reactors- Any answers indicating that

modified Molten-Salt Reactors or Fluoride-Salt Reactors would come beyond Gen IV technologies

- Comprised out of the 13 responses (38.5%)

Within the discussion of MSRs and fluoride-salt reactors, one particular reactor technology was widely referred to by a number of respondents: the fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactor (FHR) in development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The FHR is a very high temperature molten salt reactor with an air Brayton cycle and gas turbines. According to its developers and proponents, as well as neutral observers, FHRs are high-passive safety systems intended to have an instantaneous and wide load response, as well as allow for waste heat recovery through steam generation. The intended effect of FHR deployment is to compete with natural gas and allow nuclear to have enhanced load-following capabilities, particularly in grids with high penetrations of distributed energy resources. Although not all respondents were supportive of the FHR concept, it was nevertheless widely cited as an innovative system.Improved Characteristics of Gen IV: 37 total responses and was broken into five sub-categories. The results are illustrated in Figure 2c:

Efficiency/Reprocessing - Any responses that indicated that improved fuel efficiency or a closed fuel cycle would be a

characteristic present in technologies beyond Gen IV- Comprised 10 out of 37 responses (27%)

Fuel Types

15

- Any responses that indicated that new types of fuel would be a characteristic present in technologies beyond Gen IV

- Comprised 6 out of the 37 responses (16.2%) Energy Conversion Efficiency - Any responses that indicated that improved energy conversion efficiency would be a

characteristic present in technologies beyond Gen IV- Comprised 8 out of the 37 responses (21.6%) Safety - Any responses indicating that improved safety features would be a characteristic present in

technologies beyond Gen IV- Comprised 11 out of 37 responses

(29.7%) Proliferation-Resistance

- Any responses indicating that increased proliferation resistance would be a characteristic present in technologies beyond Gen IV

- Comprised 2 out of 37 responses (5.4%)

Respondents within the “Improved Characteristics of Gen IV” category generally did not discuss specific technologies that they believed would

emerge in the far future, but instead chose to focus on characteristics and capabilities that far future nuclear energy systems should ideally possess. One of the most frequently given responses was the need for “walk-away safety.” Such a level of safety would obviate the need for redundant safety systems, exclusion zones, emergency planning, and so forth, in addition to facilitating easier siting for nuclear plants and allowing nuclear generation sources to be located closer to points of consumption. Related to the “Fuel Types,” “Fuel Efficiency/Reprocessing,” and “Proliferation Resistance” categories were discussions regarding the future availability and scarcity of uranium fuel. Although uranium fuel is relatively abundant at present, if global nuclear fleet projections grow (such as in China) and certain uranium extraction technologies do not become economical (e.g. seawater extraction), then fuel breeding and closed fuel cycles may become a necessary characteristic of future nuclear energy systems. For those respondents concerned about the proliferation risks of breeding and closed fuel cycles, a number of other solutions to future uranium scarcity—including opting for thorium or other novel fuel cycles, higher burn-up reactors that minimize waste streams while reducing the need for reprocessing, etc.—were raised. In addition to the aforementioned, a number of other ideal characteristics or improvements for future reactors were proposed: higher operating temperatures (limited only by the temperature resistance of advanced materials), higher thermal conversion efficiencies (supercritical CO2 cycles or direct conversion technologies), greater power within smaller and more mobile packages, etc.

16

Among the thirteen participants who were unable to provide a response to this question, nine (69.23%) participants cited non-technical challenges to future nuclear power technologies such as economic, regulation, and policy barriers. This notable correlation may have been an outcome of the pessimism that U.S. nuclear experts have developed based on the history and current state of the domestic nuclear industry: because the current problems with the U.S. nuclear industry are not technical problems, the solutions cannot be resolved directly with a technical solution. Some interviewees also expressed that given the considerable difficulties with R&D for Gen IV technologies, it would be futile and immature to begin thinking about beyond Gen IV systems. However, it should be noted that one participant shared the perspective that when speculating about future nuclear technologies, it is highly unlikely that an “out of the blue” technology would present itself in the future. Because many of the Gen IV concepts were initially conceived in the 1960’s, the same participant stated that it is likely that the most optimal combinations of fuel, coolant, moderator, and structural material have already been determined, and that there is relatively less opportunity for technical breakthroughs or progress with the nuclear/reactor island. Some participants suggested that instead of expending further efforts on improving upon the reactor portion of nuclear plants, R&D on energy conversion and the turbine island could yield the most significant technical breakthroughs and progress with regards to nuclear power technologies. Innovations in this area could benefit virtually every reactor technology, and dramatically improve the economics of nuclear reactors through higher thermodynamic efficiencies and reductions or potentially elimination of turbine islands. Within the discussion of improved energy conversion, a number of interviewees mentioned direct conversion—converting particle emissions and fission products directly into electricity or other useful products. One participant mentioned bi-metal thermocouples as a potential direct energy conversion technology pathway, while others discussed developing radiothermal generator (RTG) technology, currently used for nuclear batteries in space probes, so that it can be adapted to convert energy produced within fission reactors.

Many participants suggested that the future of Gen IV technologies and beyond would be largely function driven. The types of Gen IV and future reactors that are built will be determined by specific functions and needed capabilities. A multitude of future reactors may be available to investors, who are given the choice to pick which technologies to invest and bring to market based on specific services and markets. These respondents argued that, for example, LWRs will likely continue to be the technology of choice for electricity generation, VHTRs would be best suited for process heat applications, MSRs would be best suited for load-following needs, and SFRs would be ideal for fuel breeding and actinide burning. Similarly, many participants noted that thorium might be a potential alternate fuel type if uranium were to become significantly scarcer. The current oversupply of uranium in the global market may contribute to a lack of motivation towards developing advanced fuel cycles and non-uranium fuels such as thorium. Question 3: Novel Applications for the FutureWe collected 98 responses for question 3 (“In the far future, what novel applications of nuclear power technology [excluding irradiation technologies for medicine, agriculture, etc.] do you

17

envision, and why?”). The responses to this question were broken into five categories and the result can be seen in Figure 3a:

Propulsion - Any responses that indicated that

propulsion would be a novel application of nuclear power technology

- Comprised 32 of the 98 responses (32.7%)Process Heat

- Any responses that indicated that process heat would be a novel application of nuclear power technology

- Comprised 48 out of the 98 responses (49%)

Nuclear Batteries - Any responses that indicated that nuclear

batteries would be a novel application of nuclear power technology

- Comprised 7 out of the 98 responses (7.1%) Replace Fossil Fuels - Any responses indicating that replacing current fossil fuel usage would be a novel

application of nuclear power technology- Comprised 4 out of the 98 responses (4.1%) N/A - Any responses indicating that the participant had no thought or response to the

question- Comprised 7 out of the 98 responses (7.1%)

“Process Heat” and “Propulsion” categories were comprised of more specific responses, so we chose to break down those categories further.

Process Heat: 34 responses and was broken down into three sub-categories. The results can be seen in Figure 3b:

Desalination - Any responses that specified desalination as a novel application

- Comprised 27 out of the 34 responses (79.4%)

Hydrogen Production - Any responses that specified hydrogen

production as a novel application- Comprised 5 out of the 34 responses

(14.7%) Waste Incineration

18

- Any responses that specified waste incineration or waste management as a novel application

- Comprised 2 out of the 34 responses (5.9%)

Propulsion: 32 responses and was broken down into four sub-categories, and the results are illustrated on Figure 3c:

Aviation - Any responses that specified aviation technology as a novel propulsion application- Comprised 4 out of the 32 responses (12.5%) Space - Any form of space technology as a

novel propulsion application- Comprised 17 out of the 32

responses (53.1%) Shipping - Any responses that specified any

form of commercial shipping as a novel propulsion application

- Comprised 5 out of the 32 responses (15.6%) Transportation - Any responses that specified any form of ground transportation (i.e. cars and trains) as a

novel propulsion application- Comprised 6 out of the 32 responses (18.8%)

Process heat was the most widely provided response with regards to this question of non-electricity applications of nuclear power. Only one respondent in the entire survey stated that process heat would definitely not be a viable use for nuclear power, claiming that it has “never proven to be competitive.” Connected to process heat applications of nuclear power is the issue of co-location. For most process heat applications of nuclear power, reactors would need to be co-located with other industrial facilities or activities; some participants suggested that reactors be co-located with tar sands oil recovery operations, coal/gas plants, and “newplexes” in which nuclear plants are situated in large industrial complexes producing a multitude of end products. The idea of co-location originates from the concept that if a nuclear power plant could serve additional functions in addition to electricity generation, it could maintain various other streams of revenue that could justify the high capital costs of nuclear reactors. Thus, some experts favored co-location as a means to improve revenue streams and return on investment for nuclear facilities. Other respondents argued that co-location would face significant challenges considering today’s regulatory assumptions based on LWR technologies that require containments and exclusion zones; if regulations mandate certain distances between the location of reactors and industrial processes, then nuclear process heat applications may be impractical given the difficulty of transporting heat energy over wide

19

distances. Moreover, the potential collateral damage from a nuclear accident around a co-located reactor could be too high of a risk for the benefits that co-location could provide. Combined with the regulatory concerns, participants argued that such risks may outweigh the potential pay-offs of co-location.

Within the total body of novel applications responses, there were differences on whether non-electricity applications could help improve the economics of nuclear overall, as well as a number of debates on the feasibility and practicality of specific non-electricity uses of nuclear. While some respondents argued that non-electricity applications would be essential to improve the cost effectiveness of nuclear power for Gen IV reactors and beyond, some expressed concerns that electricity generation will always be the primary product of nuclear and that expanding and adapting to fulfill other missions and applications could potentially harm the effectiveness and efficiency of those systems’ electricity generation capabilities. Debates on specific applications of nuclear generally focused on propulsion, particularly aviation and merchant shipping. Although some experts advocated for nuclear propulsion for aircraft and civilian aviation given the high carbon footprint from the consumption of jet fuels, concerns were also expressed that use of nuclear in aviation would be too risky given the potential consequences of accidents—aviation applications would necessary require inherently safe and self-contained reactor systems. Some respondents also proposed widespread use of nuclear propulsion in merchant shipping, arguing that nuclear propulsion systems would allow ships to carry more cargo and increase speed. One expert expressed concern that nuclear in civilian container ships would likely only be economic for priority freight and cargo that could charge premium prices. He further argued that nuclear merchant shipping applications should be limited to only large and fast ships on long hauls, and that destination ports should be limited to reduce legal and regulatory paperwork.

Respondents provided a number of novel and interesting insights on non-electricity uses of nuclear. One respondent raised the fact that cement production, which requires high heat processes, is one of the largest carbon emitting industries in the world. He suggested that using nuclear process heat for cement production could yield significant carbon mitigation benefits. Other participants hinted at the fact that given Korea’s strength in certain industrial sectors, such as shipbuilding and heavy industrial forging, Korea would be uniquely positioned to introduce nuclear applications to those specific sectors. For example, one respondent suggested that given Korea’s robust shipbuilding industry, Korea would have some inherent advantages to introducing nuclear-powered ships to the commercial market. Others suggested that Korea use nuclear process heat for many of its high-heat industrial processes, particularly forging and heavy industry activities. One member of the nonproliferation community, concerned about nuclear security and proliferation risks, did not advocate for widespread applications of nuclear more generally, but did acknowledge that certain applications (space propulsion and desalination) would not significantly increase those security risks.

Many of the respondents had unique insights on the use of nuclear in space applications. In general, participants suggested that the extreme power density of nuclear would be needed for deep space missions, and one respondent in particular suggested that nuclear propulsion would be absolutely essential for manned missions—the additional speed would be needed in order to

20

minimize space radiation exposure to crews. Attempting to achieve the same level of speed using chemical rockets would require those rockets to be impossibly large in scale. A number of interviewees pointed to past work on developing space applications for nuclear, including the U.S. NERVA project: a nuclear jet engine with issues regarding its open circuit and potentially contaminated exhaust, which would make it difficult for use in low earth orbits. A number of other respondents also suggested that nuclear propulsion be used for deep space probes. Nuclear propulsion would allow such probes to slow down and orbit planets, as well as break free of the gravitational pull of such planets using nuclear ramjet engines to explore other celestial bodies. One respondent suggested that such probes could even be used to explore gas planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, as they could enter the atmosphere of these planets and use combustible gases from these planetary atmospheres for propulsion. One particular respondent also mentioned the use of RTG propulsion for spacecraft. The RTG component of the propulsion system would provide electricity to ignite small volumes of flammable gas to create “pulses” of propulsion. According to this expert, this type of propulsion would be slower but cheaper, and opens up the possibility of larger and more powerful RTG sources for use in deep space craft.

Other responses and ideas for novel applications that did not neatly fit in the abovementioned response categories include waste water purification (in addition to desalination), rare earth extraction (a possible application of MSRs that is currently being pursued in China where significant rare earth deposits exist), home and residential heating, oil and gas exploration and extraction, and nuclear batteries (currently used in deep space probes; reportedly, the Russians have used nuclear batteries for lighthouses in the Arctic).

Question 4: Nuclear Power & Advance Grid We collected 79 responses for question 4 (“What role or novel interactions with other technologies will nuclear power have in an advanced grid or electrical distribution system?”). The responses to this question were broken down into six categories and the result can be seen on Figure 4:

Baseload - Any responses indicating that nuclear would act as a baseload energy source in an

advanced grid- Comprised 21 out of the 79 responses (26.6%) Load-Following - Any responses indicating that nuclear would have load-following capabilities in an

advance grid- Comprised 19 out of the 79 responses (24.1%) SMRs - Any responses indicating that SMR technology would play an important role in an

advanced grid- Comprised 19 out of the 79 responses (24.1%) Energy Storage - Any responses indicating that nuclear would have energy storage capabilities in an

advanced grid- Comprised 3 out of the 79 responses (3.8%) N/A

21

- Any responses indicating that the participant had no thought or response to the question

- made up 12 out of the 79 responses (15.2%), Other - Responses that were unique and unrelated to the other categories: digital

instrumentation, home heating, rare earth extraction, supercritical CO2 technology, and a Molten-Salt Reactor/Solar technology hybrid

- Comprised 5 out of the 79 responses (6.3%)

The ability for a reactor to load-follow was a point of debate amongst many participants. Two perspectives were identified during the survey: one group of participants supported load-following capabilities on future reactors while another group of participants suggested that a nuclear load-following capability was not optimal and not a good

solution for grid load management. The participants that supported a load-following capability for nuclear cited the Molten-Salt Reactor as a type of technology that could support load-following particularly well given its design; some also mentioned that SMRs could also have potential advantages in taking on load-following roles. Load-following could allow for more efficient management of nuclear material as well as electricity demand and usage. Proponents for load-following also argued that load-following for nuclear would also assist with public acceptance by demonstrating a commitment to renewables and other distributed generation sources in a smart grid. However, the participants that opposed load-following reactors cited cost as the main concern. Because Gen IV reactors are expected to have a high fixed capital cost, operating the reactor at less than 100% capacity at all times would result in a poor return on investment. In order to maximize profit and attract more investment, the opponents of load-following reactors suggested that energy storage would be a much better solution to managing electricity demand and usage. This way, a reactor could be consistently operating at maximum capacity, and during off-peak hours, the energy could be stored and later distributed during times of peak demand. Somewhat related to connected energy storage, one expert mentioned that load-following could be better achieved through alterations in the turbine system, and that instead of shutting down reactor operations during times of low demand, excess energy from the reactor could simply be diverted to other applications such as process heat. Many opponents to load-following reactors also suggested that the technical limitations of LWRs would discourage load-following, and that reactor designers and developers would have to deal with this technical aspect if designing load-following reactors.

Opinions regarding renewable energy were yet another dimension to this debate, with some participants holding vehemently negative opinions on renewables as unsustainable and

22

intermittent. Some experts argued that renewable energy was harming nuclear by negatively impacting its role as baseload provider for the grid, while others argued that nuclear will have a vital function of stabilizing grids with high penetrations of intermittent generation sources. Participants with the latter position in this debate also suggested that baseload would still be extremely important for a distributed system—residential areas would still need grid access for back-up, and baseload would still be needed for industry and manufacturing.

Regarding novel interactions for nuclear with other technologies in a future energy system, respondents offered a number of possible combinations: one respondent said that nuclear and power cell technology could be complementary for use in remote areas, and another expert stated that the MSR could be able to interact with solar generation in a joint MSR-solar plant. A number of other survey interviewees also mentioned the importance of power system integration using digital instrumentation controls, so that the nuclear assets on the grid can be better coordinated with the other generation sources in supplying stable and reliable electricity.

DISCUSSION

The participants in this survey gave a wide range of responses that illustrated a variety of assumptions and beliefs about general trends in the evolution of nuclear technologies in upcoming generations. In general, perspectives on future nuclear technologies can be more broadly classified in terms of relative optimism and pessimism with regards to the feasibility of fusion energy. Those who were relatively optimistic about the future viability of fusion power were generally less positive about prospects for Gen IV technologies as they believed that the onset of fusion would be soon enough as to render fission technologies obsolete. In particular, these respondents were less hopeful about the next generation of fission technologies beyond Gen IV, as they believed that fusion would have a relatively high probability of reaching a stage of commercial viability by that time period. Arguably, the most extreme manifestations of this type of perspective were individuals who mentioned that LWR technologies would be the only successful fission power technology, both now and in the future. Because such fusion optimists viewed fusion as a near future reality, some of them indicated that they were hesitant to see any further investment in future generations of fission technology, as such funding could be better utilized to support fusion R&D and accelerate the ultimate deployment and commercialization of fusion power. Conversely, extreme fusion pessimists were, in general, highly doubtful about the future prospects for fusion as a commercial generation technology. According to some interviewees within this broad category of respondents, even if fusion were to become technologically feasible, it would never be able to compete with fission technologies in the market due to its exorbitant costs relative to its benefits. These fusion pessimists generally predicted that Gen IV technologies would become commercially viable in the near future, with Gen IV+ and Gen V technologies to follow thereafter.

Many varying opinions were also expressed with regards to how Gen IV would progress and evolve to Gen IV+ and Gen V. As mentioned in the description of responses for question 2, many respondents suggested that Gen IV and beyond will likely feature a multitude of technologies instead of a single dominant technology as is currently the case with LWRs. According to many of these interviewees, their conception of Gen IV evolution was that the

23

mature Gen IV concepts would be commercialized first, and then the less mature Gen IV concepts would emerge later, as either Gen IV+ or even Gen V. There was relatively broad consensus that the most mature and ready Gen IV technologies are the SFR and VHTR—according to many of the respondents, there is significant operating experience and familiarity with these technologies around the world. According to one particular respondent, the entire GIF effort was a means for DOE to garner international support and momentum for advanced HTGRs, which would later evolve into the VHTR concept. Similarly, there was also relative agreement about the least mature Gen IV technologies: basic fundamental R&D is still lacking for concepts such as the MSR and SCWR. The SCWR, in particular, faces significant corrosion challenges and is currently receiving only limited interest internationally. The MSR, although it has received significant attention in the U.S. more recently, will likely require significant further testing and operations in order to determine potential issues and troubleshooting. Nevertheless, given the potential benefits and capabilities of MSR technologies, many respondents did suggest that it was worthwhile to continue research in MSRs, with one expert even suggesting that achieving the purported capabilities and characteristics of the MSR is the “ultimate goal” of Gen IV development.

Other respondents had different conceptions of how Gen IV would begin and evolve. For instance, a few respondents mentioned that the first Gen IV concepts to be commercialized would likely be those that do not feature breeding or recycling, primarily because of the political opposition to reprocessing and separations technologies. According to these respondents, open fuel cycle Gen IV systems would emerge first, and closed fuel cycle Gen IV systems would appear later, especially if uranium resource scarcity becomes an issue in the future. Yet other respondents suggested that Gen IV+ would be scaled versions of Gen IV technologies. Most of these interviewees suggested that Gen IV+ would be comprised of SMR versions of Gen IV concepts, although one expert actually claimed Gen IV+ would be scaled-up (possibly 2000 MW) Gen IV reactors as such a scale would be more consistent with nuclear economics and nuclear energy’s natural advantage with regards to high density of energy. Other expert opinions on this issue included: Gen IV+ and Gen V being more versatile and multipurpose (non-electricity applications and novel deployments) versions of Gen IV reactors, and Gen IV+ as Gen IV with substantially evolved and enhanced passive safety characteristics.

The subject of ideal scale and scaling was an issue that was raised and touched upon throughout the four questions of the survey. Scaling was raised as an issue for Gen IV reactor development, and there were varying opinions on the ideal scale for far future and Gen V reactors—some argued that beyond Gen IV reactors would be scaled-up “mega-versions” of current Gen IV technologies, while others argued for smaller versions of Gen IV reactors. The issue of scale also was a major issue in discussions about novel and non-electricity applications, as many of the possible applications for nuclear, particularly propulsion, would require reactors of a considerably smaller scale. The divided viewpoints on scale were arguably most evident in responses to questions about roles and interactions of nuclear in an advanced grid or energy system, within which a significant number of opinions were expressed on SMRs. Many pointed to SMRs as ideal for deployment in smart grids given their small footprint and potential load-following capabilities; these characteristics would theoretically help SMRs better integrate with intermittent and distributed generation resources in a smart grid. Some also mentioned that

24

SMRs could be deployed in regional arrays, clusters, or networks, thereby being ideal options to create redundancy and resilience for smart grids and microgrids. SMR proponents further added that SMRs, in addition to their flexibility and potential for better integration into an advanced future grid, could also be used for deployment in remote areas where access to a centralized grid is lacking. Additionally, some participants mentioned that certain communities or areas, such as industrial parks and military bases, would benefit largely from having their own reliable power generation unit that would be solely designated to generate power for their own needs even with existing grid connections.Others were less optimistic about SMRs, largely for reasons related to market, cost, and regulation. One group of participants argued that despite lower capital costs for SMRs, they incur the same fixed operational and regulatory costs as larger scale reactors; thus, these smaller scale reactors would be less optimal in terms of economies of scale and less cost efficient, at least until economies of repetition and assembly line construction are achieved through mass production. Additional concerns regarding smaller reactors included worries that the widespread deployment and smaller size of SMRs could potentially spread and amplify safety, security, and proliferation risks; proponents of this view argued that nuclear power should remain concentrated in large, centralized facilities. Ultimately, the fate of SMRs and other small reactors appears tied to regulator acceptance and the future of the electric grid. If the future grid requires more flexible, mobile, and deployable reactors and policies can be established to effectively regulate their deployment, then SMRs will likely find a market niche. One participant stated that electrification of the transportation sector would likely be the most critical factor impacting the future shape and breadth of the electric grid, which in turn would affect future prospects for SMRs.

Overall, it seems that the largest impediments facing the nuclear industry in the United States are not technical, but political, regulatory, and economic challenges. These challenges not only prevent effective introduction of nuclear technologies into the market, but also discourage investors and other nuclear experts from wanting to pursue advanced nuclear power. Many of the participants, especially during the roundtable meeting, emphasized the migration of nuclear companies to countries outside of the U.S. because of the unfavorable regulatory and policy conditions that exist for developers of advanced nuclear technologies. The market conditions that nuclear power has to operate in the U.S. not only negatively impacts the viability of nuclear energy overall, but also the future commercial prospects of Gen IV and future nuclear energy development. Many nuclear plants operate in liberalized electricity markets with preferential dispatch for intermittent renewables such as solar and wind; owners of nuclear plants in these markets not only must directly compete with low-cost natural gas (from U.S. fracking operations), but also heavily subsidized renewable generation. Given the difficulties of economically competing with these other generation sources, some NRC licensees have recently opted to shutdown and decommission their plants in these markets. Even if Gen IV systems were to achieve cost parity with LWRs, the current economic realities for nuclear power in the U.S. are negative indicators for the ultimate commercial success of these advanced reactors in the U.S.

Given the high importance placed on concerns regarding the cost of nuclear in the U.S., many of the participants suggested, throughout various parts of the survey, different technical solutions

25

and considerations to make nuclear more cost effective. As mentioned previously in this report, a number of participants suggested higher operating temperatures, improved energy conversion systems (including reducing or eliminating turbine islands), and multiple non-electricity applications as means to improve revenue streams for nuclear generation. Given that capital costs comprise the greatest proportion of nuclear power’s total costs, some experts suggested various measures, such as greater modularity, employing less costly construction methods, executing simpler designs, and using less material. Moreover, some experts suggested that reducing costs in operating & maintenance (deploying reactors with less required refueling, increased capacity factor, and increased burn-up) can help bring down the overall life-cycle costs of nuclear. A number of respondents also referred to specific and novel technical solutions to reduce the costs of nuclear. One participant advocated for the use of advanced fuels that feature not only higher burn-up and operating temperatures, but also greater accident tolerance and radiation resistance—even though these fuels cost more in absolute terms, their higher performance and safety can improve economics, especially if they eliminate the need to deploy active and redundant safety systems (a huge cost sink in LWRs). Another participant suggested that novel construction methods can be used to reduce costs, and specifically referred to the innovative concepts that NuScale plans to employ in the construction of their SMR modules. According to this expert, NuScale’s concept allows achievement of both economies of scale and economies of mass production through its two-part design: economies of scale can be achieved in the reactor building and structure itself, while economies of assembly line manufacturing can be achieved through assembly of the reactors and their primary containments. He said that the NuScale concept was truly innovative in approach, and had a high probability of commercial success for the abovementioned reasons. He also stated that such a construction concept could be applied to other future reactor systems and designs.

A broader examination of the survey results appears to suggest that U.S. experts, on the whole, are pessimistic about future nuclear power technologies, perhaps discouraged by the policy, regulatory, and economic challenges that are present in the U.S. It also appears clear that the technical and design considerations that many U.S.-based experts are currently exploring are specifically aimed at addressing some of these policy, regulatory, and economic concerns; some experts suggested systems with higher burn-ups that precluded the need for recycling to appease strict U.S. policies on nonproliferation, and the push for smaller reactors in the U.S. seems to be, in large part, motivated by the need to reduce capital costs and make nuclear more cost competitive with natural gas, renewables, etc. It was also observed during the course of this survey that younger respondents were generally less affected by the pessimism that is seemingly pervasive within the U.S. nuclear expert community. Regardless of this apparent phenomenon, it must be argued that many of the challenges for advanced nuclear technologies that were mentioned by respondents are unique to the U.S. (burdensome nature of NRC regulations, cheap natural gas, etc.), and many of the insights revealed by survey respondents can nevertheless be useful for any country seeking to shape its R&D plan and policies for future nuclear systems, concepts, technologies, applications, and grid roles/interactions.

KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED

26

Based on the results of the survey and literature, a number of key findings and lessons learned were derived.

The U.S. is an inhospitable environment for advanced nuclear R&D, whether Gen IV technologies or beyondSurvey respondents cited numerous barriers regarding the research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies—whether policy, economic, regulatory, etc.—that exist in the U.S. Perhaps the greatest threat to nuclear power, in general, is low-cost natural gas, which is rendering U.S. NPPs uneconomic in deregulated electricity markets and forcing premature closures of those plants. If NOAK/established LWR technology is financially unviable in such an environment, even greater economic challenges exist for FOAK non-LWR technologies to obtain market share in these circumstances.

At the root of these obstacles are the high regulatory barriers that exist in the U.S. due to the practices and current state of affairs at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Although the NRC is considered to be the “gold standard” of nuclear regulatory regimes, this comes at a cost—the NRC is notorious for its long and tedious licensing review process, which is considered onerous for even LWR technologies. Not only can a much more burdensome process be expected for Gen IV reactors, there are serious doubts whether the NRC is even capable or technically competent to regulate and license non-LWR technologies. Although a number of initiatives are underway to familiarize regulators with Gen IV and non-LWR technologies, a framework for regulating advanced nuclear is not yet in place and will take considerable time and resources to develop. In particular, many regulatory practices and requirements that have been put in place by the NRC were built around the assumption of LWR technologies—physical containments, active safety systems, exclusion zones, emergency planning contingencies, etc. Although such requirements may not be necessary for Gen IV technologies with significantly enhanced passive safety characteristics, the slow pace at which the NRC is adjusting its technological assumptions and frameworks make it unlikely that Gen IV technologies will be commercialized in the U.S. anytime soon.

In the U.S., much of the Gen IV R&D is currently being done by small private companies, which do not have the same level of funding or capital as national R&D programs that exist in other countries. Furthermore, as this R&D is being conducted by numerous, smaller entities, resources are spread too thinly among too many different reactor concepts—again, different from national Gen IV R&D programs that focus on one or a few technologies. Moreover, these companies cannot afford the all-or-nothing licensing process that the NRC has currently put in place—in order for such firms to have a chance, it is necessary that NRC allow for a licensing process that is more gradual and can progress in a stepwise fashion. Such a measure would allow firms to have “pre-approvals” for their designs, so they can attract capital and investment as their technologies proceed with the licensing process.

In terms of policy, much of the U.S. government nuclear energy R&D budget is dedicated to sustainability of the existing LWR fleet rather than the development of new technologies and novel concepts. Therefore, the U.S. is at a significant disadvantage to countries such as Russia, China, and Korea, where R&D on Gen IV and other advanced nuclear technologies and concepts

27

receive solid state-level support. U.S. policies with regards to nonproliferation and spent fuel management also provide disincentives to advanced nuclear R&D. For example, U.S. back-end policy, in which the federal government is solely responsible for the management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, provides no incentive to operators and utilities to deploy reactor technologies with optimal and more manageable waste streams. Moreover, U.S. policy with regards to nonproliferation tends towards strict control of reprocessing, and thus hampers the development of advanced reactor concepts that involve recycling of spent fuel. The relative lack of advanced DOE testing facilities also present disadvantages for U.S.-based researchers and developers.

Dedicated research on materials for nuclear applications may be advantageous in enabling advanced nuclear technologies; operating at lower temperatures may facilitate progress on R&D while materials challenges are addressedThe most frequently cited technical challenge for Gen IV technologies was the development of materials that can withstand the high temperature, high fluence, and highly corrosive environments that exist within the vast majority of Gen IV concepts. The use of LWR materials in such environments would likely greatly reduce the operating life of these Gen IV concepts, reducing their prospects for commercial viability.

Respondents remarked that many materials breakthroughs and advances for nuclear power applications are occurring typically in materials science fields and other disciplines. If Gen IV technologies are to be ultimately realized, then it may be advantageous and beneficial to engage in materials research specific to nuclear applications so that efforts can be more directed and focused towards the needs of particular reactors and concepts. Theoretically, this should accelerate the development of those Gen IV or advanced reactor technologies.

On numerous occasions, respondents remarked that operating certain Gen IV reactors at lower temperatures would allow researchers and developers of those technologies to circumvent materials problems while demonstrating operability and viability, as well as gaining insights on minor engineering issues. Therefore, while progress on the materials challenges is being made, other issues affecting reactor performance and viability can be addressed, hypothetically reducing the development period for advanced concepts.

Great uncertainties exist on how Generation IV will evolve and what technologies will comprise Generation VInterviewees had widely varying projections on how Generation IV would begin, evolve, and ultimately transition towards Generation V. Some interviewees argued that more mature Gen IV concepts, such as the SFR and VHTR, would appear first, and that less mature concepts such as MSRs would emerge later as Gen IV+. This projection would appear to take a technology-centric view of how nuclear reactors would advance, progress, and evolve. Other respondents suggested that those Gen IV technologies that face less political opposition (i.e. concepts that do not involve reprocessing) would appear first, and then only once adequate safeguards approaches and measures have been developed, breeding and recycling technologies would be deployed and commercialized. Interviewees also had varying opinions on the scale of Gen IV technologies—many respondents argued that Gen IV+ would be SMR versions of Gen IV

28

concepts, while one interviewee stated that Gen IV+ would consist of larger “supercomplexes” of Gen IV reactors. One interviewee stated that Gen IV+ would consist of reactors, concepts, and technologies with even greater passive safety characteristics then their Gen IV predecessors. While some groups of interviewees suggested or hinted that certain concepts and technologies may become dominant due to inherent superior characteristics, others suggested that Gen IV would consist of a multitude of different technologies deployed to address specific roles and needs—LWRs for electricity generation, VHTRs for process heat applications and desalination, SFRs for TRU and actinide management, SMRs for off-grid and remote deployments, and so forth.

The aforementioned survey responses about Generation IV suggest the following: (1) there is little to no consensus with regards to expert predictions and projections about Generation IV technologies, and (2) there remains great uncertainty about whether Gen IV technologies will be viable and which of the Gen IV concepts will ultimately emerge.

There was even less certainty from respondents with regards to Generation V, with most interviewees pointing to desirable characteristics in far future reactors, such as passive safety and higher operating temperatures, rather than referring to specific technologies. Although some specific technologies were mentioned as beyond-Gen IV technologies—among them: fusion, fusion-fission hybrids, accelerated driven systems, traveling wave reactors, and FHRs—such answers were in the minority of responses to questions about far future nuclear power technologies.

Directing efforts towards developing more direct and efficient energy conversion technologies for nuclear power plants may minimize the risks involved with long-term R&D planningIn some sense, uncertainties with regards to Generation IV and beyond-Generation IV technologies reflect the sentiment that most combinations and permutations of neutronics, coolants, and other reactor design features have already been conceived—in other words, efforts towards developing exotic and truly novel reactor designs and concepts may have already reached a point of saturation. If such a statement is true, then it is entirely plausible that the greatest breakthroughs possibly lie outside the reactor island.

Given the uncertainty with regards to what reactor technologies will emerge and become viable in both the near-term and long-term, it may be advantageous to focus R&D efforts towards the development of more direct and efficient energy conversion technologies—for example, supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles are far more efficient than the steam cycles that are currently deployed in tandem with nuclear power reactors. Direct conversion of the immense energy that results from fission reactions, perhaps evolutions of radio-thermal generators presently deployed in space probes, bi-metal thermocouples, etc., would greatly enhance the utility derived from nuclear power. Directly converting particle emissions and fission products into electricity or other useful products could potentially make nuclear power far more efficient, as well as cheaper (e.g. direct conversion could potentially eliminate the need for turbine islands altogether, reducing a major cost for nuclear plants).

29

Perhaps the fundamental advantage of focusing R&D efforts on nuclear energy conversion is that they theoretically compatible with virtually every reactor technology. Thus, whatever reactor technologies ultimately emerge or possibly become dominant, the conversion technology can still be applicable. Therefore, this (long-term) plan of action may reduce the risks associated with the uncertainties on far future reactor technologies.

Non-electricity applications for nuclear suggest the need for smaller and hotter reactorsAlthough survey respondents expressed varying degrees of uncertainty with regards to future reactor technologies, there was general consensus and agreement that non-electricity applications for nuclear power in the future would likely consist of two main categories: (1) process heat applications, and (2) transportation applications.

If nuclear power will be used for process heat and transportation in the future, this suggests the need for reactors operating at higher temperatures that produce useful and meaningful heat, as well as reactors small enough to fit within whatever vessel or craft that could benefit from nuclear propulsion, whether spacecraft, trains, airplanes, ships, etc. Although it is uncertain what specific industrial or transportation applications will utilize nuclear for their various purposes (as well as what specific reactor technologies will be used for those purposes), it is arguably certain that those reactors must be characteristically “small” and “hot” in order to adequately fulfill those purposes.

SUPPLEMENT REPORT

The following supplementary information/analysis is provided in accordance with the specific requests

BEYOND GEN IV/2030 FUTURE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIESThe majority of survey interviewees generally expressed varying degrees of uncertainty with regards to what technologies would emerge beyond Generation IV in the far future. Most respondents speculated as to what characteristics future reactors might possess, but did not refer to any specific reactor technologies. Within the total pool of responses on this issue, only five specific reactor technologies were mentioned: (1) fusion reactors, (2) fission-fusion hybrid reactors, (3) accelerator driven systems, (4) traveling wave reactors, and (5) molten salt reactors and their variants, specifically the fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactor (FHR).

Fusion TechnologyPromise and Advantages: Fusion power, like conventional fission power technologies, produces no greenhouse gases and is clean. However, compared to conventional fission power reactors, there is little to no waste that results from the fusion reaction. Moreover, there is virtually a limitless supply of fuel available—deuterium can be distilled from water and tritium can be produced within the reactor—resulting in a ubiquitous and cheap fuel source. Thus, fusion is often considered “the holy grail of humanity’s quest for energy security.” Additionally, there is no chain reaction in a fusion reactor, making it easier to control than a conventional light water fission reactor. One survey respondent went into detail about a specific type of fusion reactor: helium-3 fusion reactors with charged protons that utilize magnetic fields to direct the protons.

30

He argued that helium-3 is abundant on the moon, and thus, could theoretically be harvested on the moon for use as fuels on earth or extra-terrestrial applications.

Timeline for Development: Fusion has generally been considered as being “30 years away,” but there has been little to no progress on achieving a fusion-based power plant, meaning that this 30-year developmental horizon has remained fixed. Therefore, from many circles, the expectation is that fusion power is unlikely to achieve anything close to a state of commercialization before 2050. In the U.S. and Canada, there is a plethora of startup companies that are seeking to commercialize fusion technology for power generation purposes, and according to some of these companies, an electricity generating fusion reactor can theoretically be developed within ten years. Although on the surface, such estimates appear unrealistic, the Washington-based American Security Project recently released an expert committee white paper outlining a plan to demonstrate fusion power within 10 years. Clearly, there are significant differences in estimated timelines for fusion development. Among survey interviewees, opinions regarding fusion varied widely, with some optimistic that fusion could be achievable within a relatively short period, while others were highly doubtful that fusion would ever become a practical energy source for humanity. One interviewee argued that the developmental period for fusion is still sufficiently long that another generation of fission technology would come and pass before the arrival of fusion power for electricity generation.

Technical Hurdles and Challenges: At present, fusion reactors consume more energy than they produce, as significant energy is required to initiate a fusion reaction, thus making electricity generation through fusion currently impractical. The heat and temperatures produced by a fusion reaction are so high that temperature-resistant materials will likely be a critical component for the future viability of fusion as an energy source. Any known materials in direct contact with a fusion reaction will melt, and thus, current approaches to managing this situation involving suspending the reacting elements so that they do not touch the reactor vessel walls. The current leading methods to achieving this has been the tokamak, a magnetic field to confine the plasma in a torus shape, and inertial confinement fusion (ICF), through which lasers have generally been used to heat and compress a fusion fuel target containing a deuterium and tritium mix. The LIFE (Laser Inertial Fusion Energy) reactor under development at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory uses the latter ICF method. Reportedly, the LIFE reactor uses available materials and technologies, and would be constructed in a modular, factory-built design for plant availability. Although construction and operation of the LIFE reactor are both allegedly feasible with currently available technologies, economic feasibility for the reactor will likely depend upon whether the cost of certain key inputs fall in the future, such as the price of deuterium. One concern that was raised about hypothetical fusion plants is that they would likely require massive upfront capital investments, at least initially: if capital costs for fission plants using mature technology are already problematic for the construction and deployment of such plants, then a theoretical fusion plant using untested technology projects to be far more capital intensive and expensive. However, another interviewee mentioned that smaller fusion reactors are being developed, which could be a potential means of offsetting overly massive initial construction costs.

31

Infrastructure, Policy, and Regulatory Considerations: Given that fusion power is generally considered decades away, no national regulatory body has developed fusion-specific laws, regulations, or safety standards. Although the U.S. has guidelines for experimental fusion facilities through the Department of Energy and France also has rules for the ITER facility, there are no rules or regulations for commercial fusion plants that may be constructed and come into operation in the upcoming decades. In the U.S., the present options for fusion regulation are: (1) following existing NRC rules for fission plants, (2) considering ITER regulations for licensing in France, and (3) developing new fusion-specific regulations. Although the “third option stands out as the most logical… (it would require) a well-coordinated effort (among) DOE, regulatory agencies, and the fusion community with considerable funding and long lead-time.” In particular, if fusion R&D is accelerated, there would be greater urgency to develop regulations and laws appropriate to the fusion reactors that would emerge. However, policy support for fusion research is lukewarm at best in the U.S., where fusion is “treated as a science experiment, not as an energy program.” Whereas fusion research is considered a national energy priority in many other countries—such as China, South Korea, and numerous states in Europe—the same emphasis on fusion energy arguably does not exist in the U.S. However, it can also be argued that there is even less emphasis in the U.S. on Generation IV and advanced fission-based technologies relative to fusion technologies.

Fission-Fusion Hybrid TechnologyPromise and Advantages: Fission-fusion hybrid reactors have the potential to accelerate the commercialization of fusion power technologies, primarily by increasing the energy output of fusion reactions and thereby making fusion more economical. Fission-fusion hybrids work by surrounding the central fusion core with a blanket of fertile material, creating a fission reaction from the high-energy neutrons emanating from the fusion reaction—this would theoretically multiply the energy released by the fusion reaction by orders of magnitude. An additionally benefit of such hybrid reactors would be the ability to transmute and fission transuranic and other long-lived elements through the fast neutrons created by the fusion reaction. Thus, such reactors could be utilized to better manage spent fuel from conventional fission power reactors.

Timeline for Development: The commercialization timeline for fission-fusion hybrids would theoretically be less than that of a pure fusion reactor. According to some fusion advocates, “pure nuclear fusion of the type that ITER hopes to pave the way to is, of course, a beautiful option. But it will be some time before the first kilowatts of ‘fusion electricity’ can be fed to the grid. And time is running short to provide for mankind’s growing needs…” Thus, hybrid reactors would be needed to hasten the use of fusion for power generation and reignite the so-called “Nuclear Renaissance.” As a “stepping stone” to pure fusion, fission-fusion hybrid reactors should hypothetically appear earlier than reactors that solely rely upon fusion, although the exact timeline for development and commercialization of these technologies is about as certain as it is for fusion.Technical Hurdles and Challenges: The pace of fission-fusion hybrid technology will likely be constrained by the same limitations and challenges faced by pure fusion technology development. Moreover, technology specific to hybrids must also be researched, tested, proven, and developed. Although some interviewees spoke about fission-fusion hybrids in a

32

positive tone, an equal number of interviewees mentioned the significant challenges faced by developers of fission-fusion hybrids, with some saying that they are “extremely unlikely.” One interviewee, with a fusion energy background, stated that including fission technology in the overall system equation reduces the performance parameters of the fusion reaction, forcing reduced confinement and pressure for the fusion reaction, reduced wall load, transuranic breeding, etc. Another interviewee argued that the fission-fusion hybrid reactors are unlikely not for technical reasons, but primarily because of the technology tribalism that will emerge and divide the fission and fusion communities, with each community “protecting” their own technology. Certain skeptics of fission-fusion hybrids argue that the hybrids employ fusion without any of fusion’s inherent benefits: hybrids are still constrained by limitations in fissile fuels, proliferation concerns, possible safety and criticality issues, etc.

Infrastructure, Policy, and Regulatory Considerations: Fission-fusion hybrids are likely to face the same infrastructure, policy, and regulatory challenges as fusion reactors. In some ways, they may theoretically exacerbate these issues. For example, if fission-fusion hybrids accelerate the onset and commercialization of fusion, there will be greater urgency in developing regulatory frameworks for fusion technology. Furthermore, since fusion-fission hybrids will contain fertile and fissile materials, there will be a finite proliferation risk which may require IAEA safeguards and involvement in a commercial facility.

Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS)Promise and Advantages: The primary advantages of accelerator driven systems, or ADS, are twofold: (1) they can be utilized for transmutation of actinides and transuranium elements, and (2) they operate subcritically through creating spallation neutrons from heavy nuclei, allowing for inherent passive safety. The characteristics of ADS also allows for a number of possible capabilities and roles, such as the use of thorium as fuel, plutonium disposition, and process heat applications such as synthetic diesel production from natural gas and carbon. Moreover, the ideal fuel source for ADS is thorium, allowing for the alleged benefits of the thorium fuel cycle: shorter-lived waste, less proliferation risks, etc.

Timeline for Development: Timelines for ADS development and deployment are reportedly relatively short, as ADS developers have actively proposed their designs for use in current plutonium disposition programs in the U.S. Although the individual technologies and components of an ADS system are available, such as the particle accelerator, testing and demonstration would still be required for whole systems, lengthening the development and deployment horizon. ADS demonstrations have already been constructed, such as the first-of-a-kind system set up in Belgium known as Guinevere, which was completed in 2012. ADS R&D programs have also already commenced in Japan, India, and Sweden, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA). According to a British article in 2012, ADS “could be operational in the UK by 2025.” Although estimates vary, it does appear that ADS technologies may be deployed prior to 2030, and that the development horizons for the technology are considerably nearer than fusion-based technologies and even comparable to those of many Generation IV technologies.

33

Technical Hurdles and Challenges: ADS requires a particle accelerator that is high intensity and highly reliable. Reportedly, concerns have been raised about the high-stress exposure of the window separating protons from the particle bombardment target to produce spallation neutrons. Accelerators are large, expensive, require relatively high energy input, and limited in terms of options. If ADS technologies are going to be deployed for electricity generation, then accelerators would have to operate at high-levels. However, current particle accelerators experience frequent power trips, with even top-of-the-line accelerator technologies tripping numerous times on a daily basis; this limitation would be too disruptive for reliable electricity generation. Therefore, particle accelerator technology must become more reliable, and significant operating data must be collected in order to optimize these systems as a whole. Until these issues are addressed, it is likely that the initial applications for ADS will not be for power, but plutonium disposition, spent fuel management, etc.

Infrastructure, Policy, and Regulatory Considerations: ADS technologies, because of their purported walk-away safety characteristics, would likely have some advantages in terms of licensing and regulation. If ADS facilities are truly walk-away safe in practice, then there would be little need for exclusion zones or emergency planning areas and contingencies. However, because ADS technologies are relatively untested and unknown, there is also relatively little political will supporting their research and development. Moreover, if ADS is used for actinide burning and spent fuel management purposes, they may encounter the same opposition based on proliferation concerns as other reactor and fuel cycle systems that feature recycling and closed fuel cycle concepts. Developing sufficient infrastructure for reliable particle accelerators will also be key, as there are very little market options for commercial accelerator technologies. As of now, because there is not a robust market demand for accelerator technologies stemming from the relatively limited industrial applications for accelerators, choices are restricted and there will be less market impetus towards developing more reliable accelerators that can theoretically be used in ADS power facilities.

Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR) TechnologyPromise and Advantages: The TWR is a variant of fast neutron reactors that purportedly does not require reprocessing in order to achieve high rates of uranium utilization by allowing for simultaneous conversion of fertile material into usable fuel and burn-up of fissile material. In an ideal TWR system, this “breed and burn” concept is executed by confining the fission reactor within a boundary zone within the reactor core, with the boundary of this zone slowly advancing over time. Theoretically, TWRs could operate for decades without refueling or spent fuel removal. At present, the primary commercial entity pursuing development of the TWR concept is TerraPower in the U.S. TerraPower’s TWR concept requires only a small amount of enriched uranium fuel in the initial core; the rest of the fuel can consist of natural or depleted uranium. TerraPower’s concept also features a breed-burn wave that gradually moves from the center to the outside of the core, as opposed to one end of the fuel to the other. TerraPower claims that eliminating the need for continual enrichment and reprocessing “reduces proliferation concerns and lowers the cost of the nuclear energy process.”Timeline for Development: According to TerraPower, the company is “committed to the near-term deployment of TWR technology. We aim to achieve the startup of a 600 megawatt-electric prototype in the mid-2020s, followed by global commercial deployment.” Although plans to

34

develop and commercialize the TWR seek to achieve deployment well before 2030s, many survey interviewees were skeptical. One interviewee criticized the TWR as a problematic and difficult implementation of fast neutron reactors, which he claims are already difficult to build at present. Allegedly, aiming to refine fast reactor technologies to achieve TWR characteristics and specifications would significantly lengthen the RD&D and commercialization timescale.

Technical Hurdles and Challenges: More recently, TerraPower has scaled back expectations of its TWR concept, preferring to refer to its reactor design as a standing wave reactor. TerraPower anticipated that earlier iterations of its reactor concept would not be a true traveling wave reactor because of the technical challenges of excess neutrons behind the traveling wave and difficulties in having the coolant system follow the pattern of the wave. Thus, TerraPower has resorted to fuel reshuffling for its early design—the reactor will continue to focus the fission reaction at the center of the core, but then periodically reposition the irradiated center rods to the edge of the core while bringing new and fresher fuel to the center. Thus, TerraPower’s design is not a true TWR, but the aforementioned design feature would imitate some of the characteristics of a TWR. In this sense, it appears that achieving a true TWR would require additional R&D, and that TerraPower’s design would be more like a standard SFR with some unique features in terms of core shuffling.

Infrastructure, Policy, and Regulatory Considerations: If the full design characteristics and specifications of the TWR are achieved, then stringent requirements for regulations and policies regarding proliferation and safety would reportedly be mitigated. Removing the need for continual reprocessing could theoretically reduce safeguards requirements, and the passive safety characteristics of this type of reactor would reduce the need for safety measures typically required by regulators for conventional LWR plants. TerraPower’s design would require unique materials, components, and fuels, and the company has been very active in partnering with international vendors and research institutes to assist with the development of the necessary infrastructure to support a hypothetical future fleet of TerraPower reactors. For example, the company has worked to establish “a commercial supply of the advanced steel alloy, HT9, for use in the TWR’s fuel cladding and ducts,” partnering with national labs, universities, metal fabricators, and international private firms in this endeavor. TerraPower is also partnering with Idaho National Laboratory on a joint project to develop fast reactor fuel for the TWR, commissioning a laboratory-scale fuel fabrication facility “which is on track to produce the first extrusions of metallic nuclear fuel in the U.S. since the 1980s.”

Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)/Fluoride Salt-Cooled High Temperature Reactors (FHRs)Promise and Advantages: Although the molten salt reactor (MSR) is technically listed as a Gen IV reactor technology, it is considered perhaps the least mature of the Gen IV technologies identified by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), as well as arguably the most ambitious in terms of design criteria. Thus, some interviewees even identified the MSR as a Gen IV+ technology, stating that a functional MSR would likely come well after the other Gen IV designs have already been developed and deployed. One interviewee even claimed that the “ultimate objective of Gen IV development will be to achieving the capabilities that the molten salt reactor can provide.” A variant of the MSR, the Fluoride Salt-Cooled High Temperature Reactor (FHR) under development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was

35

frequently cited by many survey respondents as an innovative reactor concept that could potentially make nuclear power more cost competitive, flexible with future energy systems and grids, and viably competitive with fossil generation sources such as coal and natural gas. The FHR features a high temperature molten salt reactor as its central feature, and is combined with an air Brayton cycle and gas turbines (similar to that of a natural gas combined cycle plant), a purportedly optimal combination. It is capable of load following through an immediate ignition of fuel and an instantaneous and wide load response, allowing the FHR to be more compatible with intermittent and distributed generation sources. According to its proponents, it is the “most efficient power generating concept” that should receive priority in dispatching. Theoretically, FHRs should reduce the load from natural gas plants and allow nuclear to be more cost competitive with natural gas, which is extremely cheap in North America as a result of hydraulic fracturing techniques. Additionally, the FHR has high inherent safety, and will become more attractive with improvements in the efficiency of gas turbines. The Brayton cycle and gas turbine coupling may also hypothetically work with SFRs.

Timeline for Development: The timeline for commercialization of the FHR is uncertain, although “because the fuel, molten-salt coolant, decay-heat removal systems, and power-conversion technologies have been partly or fully developed as part of other reactor concepts, the major R&D needs are restricted to a limited number of areas.” The concept is reportedly under development by The Chinese Academy of Science, which “plans to start up a 10 MWt test reactor by 2020.” Commercialization of the FHR will thus likely take place well after 2020, and possibly, well after 2030.

Technical Hurdles and Challenges: There are a number of technical hurdles for the FHR, with materials being arguably the main issue. Materials development is the foremost obstacle for all reactors operating at high temperature, and the FHR is no different given its high temperature characteristic. Another major issue is system design, as “detailed system designs must be developed with supporting experimental work to understand the trade-offs between high-temperature performance, reliability, and various design choices (molten sale composition, core power density, etc.).” Other R&D requirements for FHRs include developmental work on high-temperature heat exchangers, RCCS systems, and high-temperature hydrogen production cycles (if the FHR will be deployed for hydrogen production).

Infrastructure, Policy, and Regulatory Considerations: No FHR has been constructed and there is no FHR design that has been licensed or is under regulatory review. However, the FHR has high inherent and passive safety characteristics, and may theoretically be easier to regulate and license in that regard. Given that the FHR combines technologies that are in development through other more established concepts, infrastructural needs may be less of an obstacle.

Characteristics of Future Reactors Beyond Gen IVA solid majority of interviewees did not reference a specific technology when discussing future reactors beyond 2030 and Generation IV, generally expressing uncertainty about how nuclear power technologies will develop in the upcoming decades. Many interviewees also expressed the notion that a great deal of uncertainty remains about the development of Gen IV technologies, and thus, to speculate about technological developments beyond that would be

36

challenging at best. Some interviewees argued that future generations of nuclear technologies would feature the coexistence of multiple concepts and technologies, and perhaps even more multi-purpose reactors with applications and uses outside of only electricity generation. One interviewee even argued that the reactor technology that would emerge as the dominant fission technology of the future would be whatever receives the most investment and financing; one respondent even claimed that the dominant future reactor technology would be whatever China pours its R&D funding towards. Nevertheless, most respondents nevertheless did identify characteristics that they believed future reactors should possess.

“Walk Away” SafetyMany respondents suggested that future reactors should all be walk away safe, stating that public acceptance concerns with nuclear primarily stem from the finite possibility of core meltdowns and accidents that exist with conventional light water reactor NPPs. A reactor possessing walk away safety would theoretically be more economical because it does not require redundant safety systems, as well as less staff and operators as the reactor would be safe even with operator inaction. A reactor that is walk away safe would also theoretically be easier to regulate and license, as with virtually no probability of offsite consequences of any incident concerning the reactor, there would be theoretically no need for exclusion and emergency planning zones. Many reactor technologies that are currently emerging or in development are claimed to have extreme inherent and passive safety characteristics by their proponents. These technologies range from light water SMRs to ADS to traditional Gen IV technologies like SFRs. For instance, in 2013, NuScale representatives claimed that its SMR would safely shut down and self-cool without any operator inaction for an indefinite period—essentially claiming that the coping time is indefinite, even with no power or additional water. Likewise, Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) proponents also claim what is essentially walk away safety, based on the landmark experiments of the EBR-II. ADS technologies are also reportedly walk away safe, based on the fact that they operate subcritically and neutrons for the fission reaction are produced through the spallation of heavy elements rather than through a sustained chain reaction. Furthermore, significant research is being done on accident tolerant fuels, which are theoretically compatible with a broad range of reactor technologies. Some interviewees also mentioned that future reactors would operate at lower pressures for greater inherent safety. It is theoretically possible that a number of different technologies could fulfill this criterion of future reactors, and given the overriding concerns about safety in the global nuclear power establishment overall, many reactor developers are seeking inherent, passive, walk away safety as arguably the fundamental design criterion for their concepts.

Higher TemperaturesMany interviewees commented that higher operating temperatures would be a feature of future reactors, as this allows for greater energy output, potential process heat applications (desalination, hydrogen production, etc.), and so forth. However, it is clear that high temperature characteristics are primarily constrained by materials, and so progress and advancements in materials science is likely the sole factor preventing higher temperatures from being achieved in nuclear reactors. Materials was frequently cited as a challenge for Gen IV reactors, and achieving higher temperatures than even Gen IV concepts will likely require even further advances in materials. Given that many materials advances occur outside of the nuclear

37

research realm, one interviewee suggested that serious efforts should commence on materials research and development specific to nuclear applications.

Closed Fuel CyclesSome interviewees suggested that closed fuel cycles will inevitably be a feature of future reactors for a number of reasons. Given the spent fuel issues that result from conventional LWRs, reactors that can burn recycled fuels and long-lived transuranic elements would be highly useful for long-term spent fuel management. Furthermore, if global fleet projections grow dramatically and civil nuclear programs in countries such as China and India reach their full potential, then uranium fuel may indeed become scarce in the far future. If the supply of uranium fuel becomes scarce as a result of dramatic worldwide fleet growth, then recycling and use of breeder reactors may become more economical with the rise of uranium prices. Thus, although objections against closed fuel cycle systems based on proliferation and economics reasons are considerable at present, it is highly possible that the factors underpinning these objections will become less pertinent in the upcoming decades should the relative costs of fresh uranium fuel and recycled fuel change. Also, given the significant effort, money, and time that have been dedicated to spent fuel repository programs, recycling may indeed be economic compared to once through fuel cycles if one factors in repository and back-end management as part of the overall lifecycle costs of nuclear. Developing reactors that can burn recycled fuel may also allow capabilities to transmute/fission spent fuel TRU and weapons plutonium stockpiles. Furthermore, Russian programs for spent fuel takeback services may prompt other nuclear vendors to develop reprocessing and closed fuel cycle technologies in order to compete. Arguments against closed fuel cycles typically revolved around proliferation concerns, political opposition (particularly in the U.S.), high burn-up characteristics of certain reactors (reducing the attractiveness of breeding/recycling), forecasts regarding the continued abundance of uranium supplies, and the present high costs of separations technologies.

Higher Energy Conversion EfficienciesAn idea that was frequently raised by respondents to the survey is that innovation in the reactor island is “saturated.” In other words, most combinations of coolant, neutronics, etc. have already been considered, and many of these ideas were conceived very early in the nuclear age—many Gen IV technologies have their root in concepts that date back to the 1950s and 1960s. Given this state of affairs, a significant number of interviewees did mention that future nuclear power innovations may rest in the turbine island or more exotic energy conversion technologies. For example, supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles are being considered for a number of Gen IV reactor technologies. A number of interviewees suggested that more direct energy conversion with nuclear reactors may be possible in the far future, such as converting particle emissions and fission products directly into electricity. Some even mentioned that radiothermal generator (RTG) technology that converts heat from Pu-238 for deep-space craft and modules could be adapted for large power reactors, dramatically increasing the energy conversion efficiency of those plants. Others mentioned the possibility of utilizing and adapting bi-metal thermocouples for more efficient energy conversion from nuclear reactors. If energy from fission reactions can be more directly converted, this could also eliminate the turbine island altogether, dramatically reducing the footprint and cost of NPPs. Moreover, advanced conversion technologies could be compatible with a wide range of reactor technologies, thus

38

mitigating risks stemming from uncertainties with regards to what reactor technologies will emerge in the future.

Proliferation ResistanceGiven security and proliferation concerns, some interviewees suggested that far future reactors be proliferation resistant in order to increase acceptance for nuclear power. Clearly, this is a characteristic that is difficult to quantify, and could theoretically be addressed by a number of approaches and design criteria. The TWR concept boasts increased proliferation resistance through removing the need for continual reprocessing and having decades-long refueling periods. Other concepts address proliferation resistance through advances in separations technologies—pyroprocessing methods do not separate pure plutonium, and pyroprocessing facilities are significantly smaller and more compact than conventional aqueous PUREX facilities. Some survey respondents suggested that proliferation resistance could be achieved through higher burn-up reactors, which would minimize waste and make reprocessing of spent fuel less urgent. Yet other interviewees suggested that the development novel safeguards technologies and approaches could be beneficial in improving proliferation resistance. However, it is likely that unique approaches and technologies would need to be developed and adapted to specific reactor technologies and concepts.

ScaleThe pool of interviewees was highly divided on the issue of scale of future reactors. Some respondents argued that small and micro reactors would be the norm for future reactors, arguing that small reactors have less siting (smaller footprint) issues, more public acceptability, smaller capital costs, potentially enhanced inherent safety, potentially enhanced load following capabilities, and easier application of modular construction techniques. Moreover, smaller reactors would be needed if nuclear power is to be harnessed for transportation, whether deep space, civilian vessels, etc. However, others argued that smaller reactors are contrary to the economics of nuclear, and that large conventional reactors achieve the economies of scale needed to make nuclear cost competitive. One interviewee also mentioned that smaller reactors, if deployed in remote and dispersed areas, could complicate issues concerning nuclear waste, security, proliferation, etc. The spectrum of responses regarding the scale of future reactors varied widely, from some projecting that future reactors would be micro and portable, and others arguing that future nuclear plants would be “supercomplexes” with reactor units above 2000 MW each. One interviewee in particular argued for larger NPPs because they “make the most sense for nuclear’s natural advantage: high density of energy.” Moreover, he argued that micro reactors would be worse for the economic realities of nuclear, and would require a significant degree of knowledge and familiarity of nuclear engineering and science on the part of every end user, which would be rather unfeasible. Although the majority of interviewees did argue for scaled-down reactors in the future, most did not specify an exact size or scale that would be ideal.

Unique Fuels and Fuel CyclesAnother issue that was debated among the survey respondents was the use of unique fuels and fuel cycles, with the use of thorium fuels most frequently mentioned and considered. Thorium proponents argued that thorium is abundant, offers better proliferation resistance, and is

39

superior to uranium fuel cycles in terms of spent fuel management. Some argued that MSRs would be an ideal platform to introduce thorium fuel cycles, and that the adoption of thorium as fuel for commercial reactors could lead to new reactor concepts. Respondents who argued against thorium argued that thorium fuel cycles have only insignificant advantages compared to uranium, and that fuel fabrication infrastructure would need to be retooled and recertified in order to produce thorium fuel. Another interviewee argued that uranium is “too plentiful,” and that extraction technologies (hydraulic fracturing, seawater extraction, etc.) currently in development will likely reduce the costs of uranium even further.

GEN-IV: TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR COMMERCIALIZATIONSolutions to Technical Challenges of Gen IV SystemsSome interviewees mentioned a number of key insights and issues with regards to resolution of the technical issues surrounding Gen IV technologies more generally.

Varying levels of technological maturity for Gen IV conceptsThere was general agreement amongst the survey respondents that the most mature Gen IV technologies are the SFR and VHTR, which some interviewees arguing that these systems could be commercialized now given sufficient funding and political will. One interviewee argued that General Atomics’ pebble-bed modular reactor will be the first Gen IV to enter the commercial market. Assuming equal levels of funding and R&D, the SFR/VHTR would be ready for commercialization first, and the MSR most likely last, with MSRs using solid fuel (discrete) fuel elements coming before MSRs using fuel suspended and mobile with the molten salt medium. With regards to the MSR in particular, it was frequently mentioned that the mobility of tritium is a major issue with regards to MSRs, with little insights on how this technical issue might be addressed. Although adoption of certain Brayton cycles or secondary coolant loops that chemically react with tritium may theoretically address this problem, it is arguable that tritium migration is the major technical challenge and unknown with regards to the MSR.

Intersection between materials and temperatureThroughout the survey, the materials issue was the most frequently mentioned technical challenge for Gen IV reactors. However, numerous experts did mention that materials issues could be circumvented, at least initially, by operating at lower temperatures. For example, lead-cooled fast reactors face extreme corrosion problems that can be mitigated by simply lowering the temperature of operation. If developers can test their designs at lower temperatures to determine issues such as optimal core configurations, optimal plant design, and so forth, then R&D progress on these concepts can be achieved while the more difficult materials issues are tackled simultaneously. This would be a potential pathway towards accelerating R&D on certain Gen IV designs.

Importance of testing, prototypes, and computer modelingIt is clear that test facilities will need to be built in order to gather data and verify hypotheses. Actual testing of neutronics, hydraulics, and materials in a test reactor is an absolute necessity. However, using computer programming and models to predict and project reactor behavior can simplify actual reactor testing, validation, and scale-up of Gen IV technologies. If reactor tests

40

match the data points from computer modeling, then simple extrapolation can facilitate scale-up and clearer/more convincing proof can be offered to regulators.

U.S. specific issues and fundingThere was overwhelming agreement that prospects for a specific Gen IV technology will be tied directly to the funding available for R&D for that technology. In the U.S., much of the nuclear power R&D budget is currently being directed towards LWR sustainability, rather than Gen IV concepts. Moreover, in the U.S., resources are being spread thinly among too many different reactor concepts, and some argued that it may be preferable to concentrate on just one or a few Gen IV technologies. Another issue is that much of the Gen IV research in the U.S. is taking place through smaller private sector firms and companies, rather than in large, secure national programs.

Technology-Specific Challenges of Gen IV Systems and Possible SolutionsTypically in response to Question 1 of the survey, interviewees offered a number of technology-specific technical challenges to each of the six Gen IV concepts. Most interviewees did not elaborate on these technical challenges and did not provide potential solutions.

Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs)Sodium-cooled fast reactors have a number of technical challenges, many of them stemming from the properties of the sodium metal coolant. They also experience issues concerning corrosion and neutron degradation.

Pyrophoricity of sodium coolant : Sodium is flammable when in contact with oxygen, and will explode when it comes into contact with water. Thus, special care must be taken in order to ensure that the sodium coolant in the SFR is separated from air and water so that the sodium does not exhibit its chemical reactivity. Fires are a serious threat to structures and plants.Possible solutions: Double-walling pipes and vessels containing or moving sodium coolant, inert chambers and vessels within the reactor containment

Opacity of sodium coolant : Sodium is opaque, making fuel handling in this environment challenging because there is no visual reference for such operations. Ultimately, difficulties with fuel handling can negatively impact the economical and reliable operation of SFR plants.Possible solutions: Under-sodium viewing technologies, reductions in the frequency of refueling and fuel handling operations

Materials corrosion : Sodium coolant in the SFR creates a corrosive environment for the core and structural materials of the reactor and plant. Corrosion negatively affects the expected lifetime of the SFR.Possible solutions: Modular construction, greater use of stainless steel in construction, lower temperature operation, reduced flow velocity, maintaining high sodium purity (limiting contaminants)

41

Positive reactivity coefficients : Voids in the sodium coolant raise the reactivity of the core, potentially increasing coolant boiling and the probability of loss of coolant. A positive void coefficient is suspected to have been a major factor leading to the Chernobyl disaster.Possible solutions: Adapting core design to mitigate reactivity, implementation of active reactivity response systems

Neutron degradation : Fast neutrons, given their higher kinetic energy, have different damage and degradation effects to structural materials than the thermal neutrons in LWRs. Over time, bombardment by fast neutrons can cause metals to become brittle, crack, and lose strength, reducing plant life.Possible solutions: Neutron absorbing materials near key structural areas, tests and data collection on fast neutron effects on structural materials, oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) steels, increasing the grain boundary area in materials

Extensive use of stainless steel : SFRs generally require more stainless steel in their structures, increasing overall costs of the system and impacting cost competitiveness.Possible solutions: Nickel based alloys, oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) steels, ceramic-based materials

Lead-Cooled Fast Reactors (LFRs)Lead has a very high boiling point, leading to excellent safety properties for LFRs. Furthermore, unlike sodium, lead is not reactive in contact with air or water. However, lead is dense and creates a number of issues for the overall LFR system that will need to be addressed.

Corrosion issues: Lead is relatively corrosive on structural materials, especially at higher temperatures, requiring careful design, operating, and materials choices for LFR systems.Possible solutions: Lower temperature operation, maintaining purity in lead coolant, use of ferritic-martensitic stainless steels in cladding and construction, reduced flow velocity, aluminization of heat transfer surfaces

Lack of operability at high temperatures : Higher temperatures dramatically increase the corrosion of and negatively impact the integrity of structural materials in an LFR.Possible solutions: Use of corrosion-resistant materials in structure

Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors (GFRs)Standard GFRs typically used helium coolant with high outlet temperatures. However, there is virtually no operating history for these types of reactors—no GFR has ever been brought to criticality.

Lack of fuels that can operate in high temperatures and high fluence : Options for fuel forms are limited because few materials can operate at the high outlet temperatures of GFRs and also display retention of fission products.Possible solutions: Composite ceramic fuels, advanced fuel particles, ceramic clad elements of actinide compounds

42

Passive decay heat removal issues : Gas coolants have poor heat transfer properties and low thermal mass inertia compared to liquid metal coolants, making decay heat removal more difficult and problematic.Possible solutions: Increasing fuel form thermal inertia, increasing flow coast down times, core internal heat sinks, primary system heat sinks, radiation/conduction cooldown, natural convection heat transport

High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGRs)HTGRs can reach outlet temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Celsius, allowing for higher energy output and process heat applications.

Materials integrity in high temperatures: Temperatures that are produced by the HTGR can decrease durability of structural materials, as well as heighten creep and mechanical stresses. Advanced materials issues is a fundamental issue for development of HTGRs.Possible solutions: Nickel-based alloys, silicon carbide, graphite, high-chromium steels, refractory alloys, oxide dispersion strengthened steels

Supercritical Water Reactors (SCWRs)SCWRS use supercritical water as the working fluid, operating at higher temperatures and pressures than conventional LWRs. It displays high thermal efficiencies and a simpler design. However, the chemistry of supercritical water under radiation requires extensive material development and research.

Corrosive environment : Corrosion is a major issue in SCWRs, primarily because of the properties of supercritical water.Possible solutions: Stainless steels with higher corrosion-resistance (including ODS steels)

Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs)MSRs contain the fuel in a molten salt medium, originating from concepts developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The development of MSR concepts is currently being pursued by a number of private developers in the U.S., including Transatomic Power, Terrestrial Energy.

Off-gas management : Xenon and krypton and other fission products will accumulate in the fuel of MSRs and will need to be removed; arguably, this issue is more acute in MSR systems that use fully suspended fuel rather than discrete fuel particles.Possible solutions: Off-gas trapping systems

Tritium migration : MSR operations revealed that tritium would escape the system into the atmosphere, posing an immediate environmental risk to operators and nearby populations and communities.

43

Possible solutions: Implementation of Brayton cycles using nitrogen or helium, installing a secondary coolant that chemically reacts and traps tritium escaping from the primary system

Possible Pathways to CommercializationThere are a number of key barriers for the commercialization of Gen IV concepts, perhaps most notably the inertia of a global nuclear power industry built completely around LWR technology. The world’s commercial nuclear fleet consists almost entirely of LWRs, and there is considerable worldwide construction experience, making NOAK LWRs relatively less expensive to build than hypothetical Generation IV FOAK plants. Given the overwhelming predominance of LWRs, national nuclear regulatory bodies and the global civil nuclear supply chain are adapted and tailored to LWR technology. Thus, in addition to the aforementioned technical issues associated with Gen IV technologies, Gen IV reactors must also overcome cost, regulatory/licensing, and infrastructural disadvantages vis-à-vis LWRs.

(1) Improving Cost CompetitivenessReducing the costs of Gen IV systems will be a critical factor for their commercialization. Achieving cost competitiveness with LWRs, if not cost parity, would dramatically improve prospects for commercialization of Gen IV systems. One survey respondent claimed, “utility interest in advanced reactors will be low unless it can be demonstrated that there is cost-parity with conventional LWR generation.” Furthermore, some interviewees argued that from the perspective of profit-seeking utilities, there is little incentive to move from LWR to non-LWR designs as the cost-to-benefit ratio is relatively high. In the U.S., given the presence of deregulated electricity markets where nuclear is at a competitive disadvantage, economic considerations are of utmost priority, particularly with direct competition from low-cost natural gas and heavily-subsidized renewables.

Given the relatively high capital costs of nuclear, reducing costs could potentially increase the proportion of nuclear in the world’s overall energy mix. Achieving cost competitiveness with other energy generation sources would help Gen IV systems displace fossil generation such as coal or natural gas. Interviewees offered a number of recommendations or possible pathways to reduce costs of Gen IV systems and allow them to be more cost competitive:

Improved construction techniques and reduced construction timesReducing the construction time of nuclear plants has a dramatic impact on the overall costs of nuclear energy, primarily because the vast majority of nuclear’s overall costs are in upfront capital and construction. Any means to reduce construction times, including novel construction technologies, would therefore tremendously boost the cost competitiveness of Gen IV systems and nuclear in general.

A frequently mentioned pathway towards reduced construction times was to reduce the scale of reactors and move towards SMRs. Although opting for smaller reactors potentially eliminates benefits and advantages from economies of scale, it does introduce the possibility of developing economies of mass assembly, learning, and repetition. If smaller units can be

44

manufactured repeatedly in a factory setting, that can be a fundamental means towards reducing the time and costs of production. Smaller reactor units would also be inherently easier to finance, which has become a major issue for conventional NPPs in recent years given their typical multi-billion dollar capital costs. As additional SMRs can be introduced if the demand for energy grows, adding and financing units can be done in a graduated and stepwise fashion. Although smaller units can theoretically improve construction cost and time, one interviewee mentioned that a minimum 180 MW output would be required for such units to make any economic sense. However, some interviewees argued against smaller scale reactors based upon the realities of nuclear power economics, which at present, are primarily characterized by low marginal costs and high fixed costs in terms of licensing, siting, etc. These fixed costs encourage NPP and reactor designers to seek larger outputs.

Many Gen IV concepts are inherently simpler in terms of their design, and thus lend themselves well to streamlined construction techniques and methods. One of the major issues with many Gen IV reactor technologies is materials—for example, many SFR designs require significant quantities of high-grade stainless steel in their construction, raising the costs of construction for those designs. Advances in materials science may reduce the amount of materials used in reactor construction (such as concrete and rebar), as well as reduce required amounts of more expensive inputs such as stainless steel. However, some interviewees did note that advanced materials themselves are quite expensive given the cost and time needed for their development, and thus their use can also hypothetically raise capital and construction costs. Thus, development and use of advanced materials must be done judiciously with careful calculation of the benefits and costs.

Increasing modularity and introducing novel construction techniques was also widely cited as a potential means to reducing construction times and cost. In general, survey respondents suggested that increased modularity would be a fundamental pathway towards reduced costs and construction times. Many interviewees also pointed to novel approaches being pursued by certain private Gen IV technology developers in the U.S. and Canada. For instance, ThorCon is seeking to employ Korean shipyard construction techniques for its MSR unit, relying upon prefabricated components in order to execute “low-cost, high-precision, block-unit manufacturing.” One interviewee suggested that the U.S.-based NuScale’s SMR concept was “revolutionary” in terms of its construction approach, and that NuScale’s method allows it to achieve both economies of scale and economies of mass production. A NuScale SMR plant holds multiple SMR modules within a single building, and the interviewee pointed out to the fact that NuScale has correctly perceived that economies of scale can be achieved in the reactor building itself, while the modules and primary containments themselves can be mass produced in a factory setting, allowing for economies of mass production/assembly line manufacturing. He said that this approach would lead to a high probability of success, and could be easily applied to other reactor systems and concepts. Yet another novel approach is the one presently being pursued by Terrestrial Energy, which has a modular construction that is advantageous in terms of capital costs, ease of operation, waste, and addressing materials durability/integrity. Key parts of Terrestrial’s module are disposable, including its graphite moderator which does not have a long life-span. With Terrestrial’s design, sealed units can be easily “swapped out every seven years, theoretically making operating the plant easier” as well as reducing costs

45

and simplifying waste issues. The modularity of design simplifies many Gen IV issues (materials, costs, operability, etc.) concurrently.

Higher temperatures and efficiency energy conversionHigher operating temperatures potentially mean higher productivity and energy output for reactors. If future reactors can operate hotter and generate more energy per unit, cost, or space, then that would theoretically increase the profitability of nuclear (more electricity, process heat applications, etc.). There was generally concurrence amongst the interviewees that the limiting factor to higher temperatures is materials—materials must be sufficiently durable in the high-temperature conditions of such reactors.

Many energy conversion systems in development today, including supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles, have potential to be significantly more thermodynamically efficient than today’s steam turbine cycles. More direct energy conversion technologies, possibly based on radiothermal generator (RTG) concepts, can be even more dramatically efficient in converting the massive energy from fission reactions into electricity, heat, and other useful products. Without any increase in the actual energy output from a reactor, such technologies can improve the productivity and profitability of any commercial reactor, existing or future.

Direct energy conversion systems can also improve the cost effectiveness of nuclear by dramatically reducing or even potentially eliminating the need for large turbine islands, which are a significant component of the capital costs of nuclear. If large and cumbersome steam turbines become superfluous, that can have a significant impact on lowering the time and cost of construction.

Developing new revenue streamsAnother means to improving the profitability of NPPs is to diversify and expand their revenue streams. With most NPPs deployed today, the only product is electricity. However, nuclear reactors can also be used for industrial heat, desalination, syngas and hydrogen production, waste incineration, and so forth. If nuclear plants can provide fresh water, clean transportation fuels, and heat for industry and manufacturing in addition to electricity, then they can theoretically have access to new revenues streams and thus, more easily and quickly recoup their initial capital investment. Already, some conventional LWR NPPs are being utilized for desalination purposes in areas where access to fresh water is scarce. Many arid Middle East countries are exploring the use of nuclear for desalination, and the U.S. state of California, which has been plagued by droughts over the past decades, has used its lone remaining NPP (Diablo Canyon) for desalinating ocean water.

The key factor in enabling more non-electricity applications for nuclear is higher operating temperatures, which many Gen IV concepts—the VHTR in particular—feature as a prime characteristic. Such temperatures allow process heat applications for nuclear, which can be used for industrial processes, chemical processing, water desalination, syngas production, hydrogen production, etc. Therefore, certain Gen IV technologies have advantages over today’s LWRs in this regard.

46

Propulsion (marine, deep sea, deep space) is also being explored as a potential application for future reactors, which would also potentially provide added revenue streams for nuclear and Gen IV technologies overall.

Streamlining operations and maintenanceWhile capital costs represent a significantly large portion of the total costs of nuclear, the overall lifecycle costs of nuclear are what directly impact a plant’s cost effectiveness and profitability. Thus, while reducing capital and construction costs have tremendous bearing on the overall cost of the plant and factors such as operations, fuel, and maintenance costs are relatively smaller, reducing the latter can still improve the overall economics.

Improving operations (e.g. higher capacity factor and higher burn-up of fuels) can guarantee more profits and productivity from a plant within the lifetime of that plant. Streamlining maintenance can also have a tremendous impact on costs—reducing downtime and time needed for refueling are major factors in maximizing the profit margins and potential of a particular nuclear plant.

Many Gen IV technologies feature characteristics that assist with streamlined and efficient operations and maintenance. For instance, many Gen IV concepts feature inherently higher capacity factors and higher burn-ups, making these reactors more efficient with time and fuel. Many future Gen IV concepts also boast infrequent refueling—many SMR designs refuel only once a decade, and TerraPower’s TWR/SWR concept is designed to be refueled once every 30 to 40 years. For some Gen IV systems, streamlined refueling is one of the key factors to enabling their deployment and commercialization—for example, the opaque nature of the sodium coolant in SFRs creates difficulties for refueling operations. Thus, development of under-sodium viewing capabilities will be critical in improving the profitability and productivity of SFR plants.

Passive safetyIncreasing inherent and passive safety in nuclear plants further removes the need for backup, active, and redundant safety systems that add to the cost of plants. A theoretically “walk away” safe reactor not only has no need for active safety systems and emergency generators, but has smaller footprints and regulatory requirements—with virtually no chance of core meltdowns or accidents, there is less need for regulations and planning for exclusion and emergency zones. Thus, a more intrinsically safe reactor could also avoid costs from excessive, superfluous, or overly burdensome regulations.

Numerous Gen IV concepts display inherent and passive safety characteristics that considerably exceed their LWR counterparts. Therefore, at least in this regard, Gen IV reactors have a cost advantage over LWR designs that require costly active and redundant safety measures. For example, one respondent claimed that the prevention of low probability events is a huge cost sink for LWR plants and systems. Accident tolerant fuels are also in development; they improve radiation resistance, meltdown resistance due to higher conductivity, etc. If active safety

47

systems can be removed as necessary features for nuclear plants, this can have a dramatic effect on the cost competitiveness of future nuclear systems.

Regulatory costs stemming from requirements for exclusion zones, emergency planning, and redundant safety features originate from assumptions regarding LWR technology. If the adoption of passively safe Gen IV technologies can change these regulatory assumptions, then the ultimate consequence will be the streamlining and reduction of regulatory/licensing costs and time as well. Thus, part of the challenge of translating the inherent passive safety characteristics of Gen IV technologies to reduced costs is convincing regulators that the intrinsic safety of Gen IV reactors renders many of their previous assumptions about LWR safety obsolete.

(2) Regulatory/Licensing IssuesThe regulatory obstacles for advanced reactors, particularly in the U.S. with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), are high. NRC regulators are primarily familiar with LWR technologies, and many regulatory assumptions are built around the realities of LWRs. The NRC has more than 50 years of experience with LWRs, and licensing and regulation in the U.S. have developed and evolved based on experience with LWR technologies. Although the regulatory and licensing process for even LWR operators/licensees is burdensome and protracted, the process is likely to be more complicated and uncertain for advanced reactor license applicants that are seeking to construct prototypes and FOAK commercial plants. Building confidence in moving away from LWRs is a considerable problem, and regulatory practices at the NRC have yet to adapt to changing technologies. The greatest issue for most Gen IV license applicants is the large upfront commitment in terms of time (the regulatory process in the NRC takes years) and cost (licensing fees are significant, particularly for the smaller Gen IV developers and companies) which most large utilities in the U.S. are unwilling to bear. While established companies like Westinghouse may theoretically be able to afford the time and licensing fees necessary for a full regulatory review, many private companies developing Gen IV technologies in the U.S. are small startup firms. The licensing process would be extremely risky for these companies because should the results of the regulatory review turn out unfavorably, these companies would have little recourse. Moreover, the presence of a market and buyers/customers for a specific technology is an important factor for the NRC when making regulatory decisions about that technology. However, for many Gen IV developers, it is difficult to develop a market or customers for their product without regulatory approval or at least a favorable regulatory ruling or decision. Thus, Gen IV developers in the U.S. face a Catch 22 with regards to regulating and licensing their designs.

Perhaps the key factor to improving the regulatory environment for Gen IV development is to change the regulators’ (and the public’s) perceptions about the safety risks of nuclear power, which have long been influenced by the deficiencies of LWR technology. Assumptions about LWR negatively impact prospects of Gen IV systems and impose unnecessary regulations and costs on operators of Gen IV plants—for example, active safety systems that may be required for Gen III/LWR plants may be unnecessary for certain Gen IV systems, but regulators will continue to require the installation of these active systems for Gen IV operators based upon the fact that they are only familiar with LWR technologies. Not only will growth in the deployment

48

of Gen IV systems require changes in the types of safety issues regulators will be required to evaluate, but also their assumptions about intrinsic levels of safety. Thus, education and greater technical fluency/familiarity (on the part of the public and regulators) with Gen IV technologies will be crucial in order to develop a regulatory framework suitable for these technologies. According to one interviewee, “regulators must adjust and evolve from traditional paradigms based on LWR safety.” The same interviewee also noted that while measures such as containments and emergency planning zones “may not be appropriate (for) Gen IV systems,” these are “concepts that may be difficult to backtrack” by regulators and regulatory agencies.There are two primary licensing pathways towards successfully constructing and operating nuclear power plants: one is 10 CFR Part 50 and the other one is 10 CFR Part 52. The fundamental difference between the two pathways is that Part 50 issues the license in two parts—the construction permit is issued first, and then an operating license is issued thereafter. Part 52 is a single combined license (COL). For advanced reactor regulation and licensing, a stepwise process is likely the preferred method given uncertainties about feasibility, economics, market, etc. According to some NRC officials, NRC is ready to review any Gen IV license applicant, although to some interviewees, that process would be “hard and messy” and would likely require exemptions from Part 50. The NRC’s capacity to allow for these necessary exemptions is fundamentally contingent upon whether NRC is prepared to license Gen IV reactors in a different manner from conventional LWRs—preparedness, in this case, is likely dependent upon the level of knowledge, familiarity, and expertise of the Gen IV technology in question at the NRC. Generally speaking, the level of knowledge of advanced reactor concepts and systems at the U.S. NRC is lacking. However, given a choice between the two available regulatory pathways, an advanced reactor license applicant will likely pursue the Part 50 path, given its greater level of flexibility and the ability to proceed in a gradual, step-by-step process rather than everything at once.

One of the measures that NRC is currently considering in order to encourage advanced reactor license applicants is the creation of a pre-application certification process to be added to the regulatory structure, similar to what is currently being done in Canada. The primary advantage of a pre-application certification process would be allowing applicants to submit just the reactor design section to the NRC rather than the entire balance of plant, which would require a full-design certification. Allowing the NRC the ability to grant pre-certification and approvals would allow smaller reactor vendors and designers to show potential investors that they have at least succeeded in obtaining a preliminary seal of approval from the NRC, as well as give these vendors/designers some confidence that their designs would ultimately be licensed if they were to go through a full-design certification process. The preliminary approval from the NRC would also empower Gen IV developers to better raise capital for their projects, as well as address any concerns from investors or potential investors.

A number of measures are already underway in the U.S. government to streamline regulation and reduce regulatory risk for advanced nuclear and Gen IV concepts. In 2012, both the DOE and NRC recognized the need for regulatory guidance for non-LWR technologies, with existing licensing guidance solely addressing LWRs. In order to better regulate, review, and license Gen IV technologies, a regulatory framework is required to develop reasonable and realistic timelines for certification and licensing for these advanced systems. Thus, the Office of Nuclear

49

Energy (NE) at DOE and NRC began a collaborative project for General Design Criteria (GDC) for non-LWR concepts. In March and July 2014, DOE conducted workshops and prepared draft design criteria, which was completed in October 2014 for advanced reactors, sodium fast reactors, and modular high temperature reactors. As part of the same initiative, NRC has also been holding public meetings, receiving advanced reactor training sessions from DOE, and has announced plans to develop and issue regulatory guidance for a number of advanced/Gen IV designs by the conclusion of 2016. Regardless of the specific outcome of such collaboration, there will be increasing awareness and knowledge of Gen IV technologies in the NRC through such a program, allowing for progress in better regulation and licensing of advanced nuclear power technologies.

Although other pathways are being explored within U.S. government on this issue of developing regulatory frameworks for advanced reactors, some survey interviewees suggested that cooperation could also take place internationally, among and between national nuclear regulatory agencies and bodies. For example, the MDEP (Multinational Design Evaluation Program) project can be an ideal vehicle to share best practices and knowledge on regulatory and licensing of advanced Gen IV reactor technologies. The U.S., ROK, and UAE already cooperate through MDEP for the APR-1400, and it is not difficult to envision that regulatory bodies of participating countries could compare and contrast their respective safety reviews of a particular reactor technology or type. Such a multinational approach could create greater uniformity globally in terms of Gen IV reactor regulatory/licensing methods, and perhaps even raise the safety/regulatory standards for future nuclear power worldwide.

Ultimately, political will at the highest levels of national government will be required in order to streamline regulation for Gen IV reactors, and in the U.S., nuclear power receives only nominal support under the Obama Administration’s All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy. Nuclear energy policies in the U.S. are currently set up to discourage nuclear energy innovation and the development of Gen IV technologies. For example, the Obama Administration staunchly opposes reprocessing and the spread of reprocessing based on stringent nonproliferation policies. Moreover, U.S. back-end policies disincentives licensees and operators from pursuing the development of Gen IV technologies with more optimal and manageable waste streams—as the U.S. government is responsible for the management of all commercial spent fuel, there is no encouragement to develop technologies such as fast reactors that may be advantages on the back-end. Furthermore, although significant attention has been paid towards the development of a fast-flux test facility in the U.S., such a facility is sorely needed now and is not likely to be constructed for decades. Such a test facility would allow Gen IV developers to test their hypotheses and designs. Data collected at such a facility would confirm computer modeling projections of Gen IV reactors, and would be invaluable for regulators to make proper safety evaluations and regulatory decisions. However, such a facility does not exist in the U.S. and the only available fast neutron test facility is located in Russia—a situation emblematic of the relative lack of high-level support for nuclear power in the U.S. government.

(3) Infrastructure IssuesThe current global nuclear supply chain has, given the predominance of LWRs in the world commercial fleet, has developed solely around LWR technology. Thus, Gen IV designs and

50

concepts, with their unique components, needs, materials, fuels, and coolants, will require the development and growth of new suppliers and products, which will take both time and funding. For example, there are only a limited number of suppliers and manufacturers of VHTR fuel, and future expansion in the deployment of VHTRs would likely require significant growth in producers of this type of fuel.

One of the ways in which Gen IV developers in North America have addressed this infrastructure challenge has been to utilize, to the greatest extent possible, components and materials from the existing LWR supply chain or other industrial supply chains. For example, Terrestrial Energy’s IMSR design “can be manufactured with material readily available in today’s industrial supply chain, with methods common in modern factory production and in high unit volume.” Ultimately however, market signals will likely be the key factor in adapting the current LWR supply chain to Gen IV technologies, depending on which advanced reactor technologies emerge commercially in the future.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: List of interviewees

David Amerine – Consultant, Longenecker & AssociatesRonald Ballinger – Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, MITNathan Bennett – Lead Consultant in Nuclear Asset Management, MCR Performance SolutionsSama Bilbao – Associate Professor and Director of Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityWillis Bixby – Senior Advisor, Gen4 EnergyTom Blees – President, Science Council for Global InitiativesDerek Boyd – Professor Emeritus, University of MarylandChaim Braun – Consulting Professor, Stanford UniversitySamuel Brinton – Clean Energy Program Fellow, Third WayGilbert Brown – Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of Massachusetts, LowellScott Burton – Partner, Hunton & Williams LLPTim Cahill – Licensing Engineer, Bechtel Power CorporationLane Carasik – NEUP Fellow, Texas A&M UniversityFerenc Dalnoki-Veress – Scientist-in-Residence, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Chaitanya Deo – Associate Professor, Georgia Tech UniversityPaul Dickman – Senior Policy Fellow, Argonne National LaboratoryMary Lou Dunzik-Gougar – Acting Chair of the Nuclear Engineering and Health Physics Department, Idaho State UniversityJacob Eapen – Associate Professor, North Carolina State UniversityCharles Ferguson – President, Federation of American ScientistsCharles Forsberg – Professor, MITTim Frazier – Senior Advisor, Bipartisan Policy CenterGuy Frederickson – Pyroprocessing Department Manager, Idaho National LaboratoryTed Garrish – Managing Director, Wolverine Nuclear ServicesHans Gougar – Nuclear Engineer and Technical Manager, Idaho National Laboratory

51

Seth Grae – President and CEO, Lightbridge CorporationGene Grecheck – President, American Nuclear SocietyJohn Greenwood – Nuclear Engineer, FirstEnergy CorporationAlan Hanson – Executive Director, International Nuclear Leadership Education Program, MITBob Hill – Technical Director of Nuclear Energy R&D, Argonne National LaboratoryRol Johnson – President, Muons Inc.Creighton Jones – President and Founder, Future-Science FoundationEdward Kee – Principal Consultant, Nuclear Economics Consulting GroupLlewellyn King – Executive Producer of the “White House Chronicle,” PBSTomasz Kozlowski – Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDaniel Lipman – Vice President of Supplier and International Programs, Nuclear Energy InstituteEdwin Lyman – Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned ScientistsDigby Macdonald – Professor of Nuclear Engineering, UC BerkeleyIvan Maldonado – Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of Tennessee Melissa Mann – President, URENCO USAPaul Murphy – Special Counsel, Milbank TweedJohn Parmentola – Senior Vice President, General AtomicsTimothy Persons – Chief Scientist, U.S. Government Accountability OfficeSupathorn Phongikaroon – Associate Professor of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityMiles Pomper – Senior Research Associate, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation StudiesRoger Reynolds – Senior Technology Advisor, TerraPowerAlan Scheanwald – ISI Engineer, FirstEnergy Corporation (Davis-Besse)Michael Simpson – Associate Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of UtahCliff Singer – Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignKirk Sorenson – President, Flibe EnergyAndrew Sowder – Principal Technical Leader, Electric Power Research InstituteJack Spencer – Vice President for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, Heritage FoundationJoseph Talnagi – Research Associate (ret.), Ohio State UniversityJeff Terry – Professor, Illinois Institute of TechnologyWilliam Thesling – Founder and Executive Chairman, Energy from ThoriumNicholas Thompson – Rensselaer Polytechnic InstitutePaul Turinsky – Professor and Chief Scientist, North Carolina State UniversityRizwan Uddin – Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignAaron Weston – Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and TechnologyArt Wharton – Program Manager, Westinghouse Electric CompanyYong Yang – Professor, University of FloridaDan Yurman – Editor, Neutron Bytes

52