Advanced Nuclear Industry to Regulators: Give Us a Chance

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542411/advanced-nuclear-industry-to-regulators-give-us-a-chance/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Advanced Nuclear Industry to Regulators: Give Us a Chance[/font]

[font size=4] Entrepreneurs argue that reactor technology innovation is limited by regulatory barriers. [/font]

By Richard Martin on October 13, 2015

[font size=3]The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensed one new nuclear plant in the last 35 years. Yet there are now nearly 50 companies in the U.S. and Canada researching and developing advanced nuclear power technologies, according to Third Way, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization focused on energy, climate change, and national security. These companies are backed by more than $1.3 billion in private capital from individual investors like Bill Gates and from major venture capital funds (see “Experiments Start on a Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactor” and “Advanced Reactor Gets Closer to Reality”).

Several of those companies were on the MIT campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, last week for the Solve conference, participating in a workshop called “Building a Scalable, Safe New Nuclear Reactor Design.” Among the companies represented were Transatomic Power, TerraPower, Moltex Energy, Tri-Alpha Energy, and Terrestrial Energy.

Many of these new entrants view the NRC’s prolonged and expensive licensing process as a barrier to innovation. It can take a decade or more, and hundreds of millions of dollars, just to get a license for a prototype reactor from the NRC.

This, says Allison Macfarlane, who was NRC chairman from 2012 to 2015 and is now the director of the Center for International Science and Technology Policy at George Washington University, is the way it should be. The long time lines, safety concerns, and high capital cost of building nuclear plants all require a regulatory process that is thorough, painstaking, and costly. “Nuclear is a different beast,” Macfarlane said at Solve.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

1. McFarlane is absolutely correct

Nuclear is a different kind of beast. And a key point to remember is that there is very poor evidence to support claims these alternative designs will have economics that are any better than what is currently being marketed. In fact, most non-nuclear village analysts conclude that the challenge of winnowing down the field of designs and creating a high-quality supply chain would not only take decades (making it useless for climate purposes) but also end up delivering electricity at far higher costs than than the renewable alternative now available.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. On the other hand

I would like to Transatomic succeed. Not because I believe they will save us from climate change, but, because, if they succeed, they will do something positive with our current nuclear waste.

[kristopher]

3. Have you seen anyone actually run the numbers about the "deals with waste" claim?

Are the expected results as claimed by the thorium/MSR proponents or, as with all other aspects of commercial nuclear power, are the claims more inclined to be based on half-truths, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods?

I've seen a couple of analysis, and if I locate them I'll attach them to this thread. What I recall is that the claims regarding waste, costs and safety are all wildly exaggerated.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. “… I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition …

that this margin is too narrow to contain.” — Pierre de Fermat

[hr]

FWIW: http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/transatomic-white-paper.pdf

[kristopher]

5. Please don't give me a sales brochure to confirm a sales reps' claims.

In other words, it isn't worth squat for the purpose at hand.

I'll take it then that when it comes to their claims you have seen no critical analysis.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. You claim to have “seen a couple of analysis”

I haven’t seen anything I would call an analysis. The “White Paper” is the closest I have seen.

For example here’s an article from the IEEE. Would I call it an analysis? No.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/start-ups/start-up-transatomic-power-wants-to-build-a-better-reactor

[kristopher]

8. Try looking into the DOE reports and the reports of other interested nations (e.g. UK). nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Tell you what…

You’re the one who has seen these damning analyses. Why don’t you see if you can find them again.

[kristopher]

10. Why do you hope a technology like this succeeds based on a sales pitch?

Critical Thinking 101: Fail.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Interesting…

Once again, all you offer is personal abuse.

Please! Trot out those analyses!

[kristopher]

12. You are recommending something you don't know anything about...

...and criticizing others for not doing your homework?

Again Critical Thinking 101: Fail-

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Strange…

A number of publications have run stories on them, for a number of years now. None of them are what I would call analyses. I haven’t claimed that they were.

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2012/09/28/meet-transatomic-power-developing-an-alternative-reactor-with-silicon-valley-flair/
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/

You claim there are critical analyses that you have seen. So, produce them.

[kristopher]

14. Did you LOOK for them?

By all appearances you stopped at company PR. I looked deeper when this was more of a hot topic and found a lot of governmental analysis by various states that had been lobbied by the companies. None of the governments endorsed the technology as having - in sum - any substantial net benefit over the current system in place.

I know full well you are capable of doing your own research and beyond pointing out your gullibility, am not inclined to spend my time doing it for you in this instance. If you want to continue this pointless back and forth, I'll be happy to oblige.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. I have. Have you produced anything at all?

https://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/arpa-e-top-prize-goes-to-nuclear-start-up

Here’s the award:
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/sbir/excel/FY14_Phase_I_Release_1_Awards.xlsx
Basic Energy Sciences 16
HIGH PERFORMANCE MATERIALS FOR NUCLEAR APPLICATION
Transatomic Power Corporation
One Brdwy, 14th Flr
Cambridge MA
02142-1187
$223,500
Functionally Graded Composites for Molten Salt Reactors
This project will develop a domestically manufacturable composite material for innovative nuclear reactors that would cut waste by 95%, better resist proliferation, coast to a stop automatically, and support a major export industry around low-cost carbon-free energy


It appears that the Department of Energy thinks they might be something more than a sales pitch.

[kristopher]

17. Took 3 minutes on Google

Nuclear Engineering and Design
Volume 271, May 2014, Pages 106–113

Thorium-based fuel cycles: Reassessment of fuel economics and proliferation risk

Dawid E. Serfonteina, , , Eben J. Mulderb


doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.11.018

Abstract
At current consumption and current prices, the proven reserves for natural uranium will last only about 100 years. However, the more abundant thorium, burned in breeder reactors, such as large High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors, and followed by chemical reprocessing of the spent fuel, could stretch the 100 years for uranium supply to 15,000 years. Thorium-based fuel cycles are also viewed as more proliferation resistant compared to uranium. However, several barriers to entry caused all countries, except India and Russia, to abandon their short term plans for thorium reactor projects, in favour of uranium/plutonium fuel cycles.

In this article, based on the theory of resonance integrals and original analysis of fast fission cross sections, the breeding potential of 232Th is compared to that of 238U. From a review of the literature, the fuel economy of thorium-based fuel cycles is compared to that of natural uranium-based cycles. This is combined with a technical assessment of the proliferation resistance of thorium-based fuel cycles, based on a review of the literature.

Natural uranium is currently so cheap that it contributes only about 10% of the cost of nuclear electricity. Chemical reprocessing is also very expensive. Therefore conservation of natural uranium by means of the introduction of thorium into the fuel is not yet cost effective and will only break even once the price of natural uranium were to increase from the current level of about $70/pound yellow cake to above about $200/pound. However, since fuel costs constitutes only a small fraction of the total cost of nuclear electricity, employing reprocessing in a thorium cycle, for the sake of its strategic benefits, may still be a financially viable option.

The most important source of the proliferation resistance of 232Th/233U fuel cycles is denaturisation of the 233U in the spent fuel by 232U, for which the highly radioactive decay chain potentially poses a large radiation as well as a detection risk to would-be proliferators. However, countries with proliferation ambitions could give the U-mixture to terrorist groups directly after chemical separation, before significant build-up of the radioactive decay chain, which would significantly reduce the proliferation resistance of the mixture.

A roadmap for overcoming some of these barriers to market entry is suggested.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002954931300602X

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Of course, Transatomic is not planning to use Thorium

(As you would know if you looked at their White Paper)

http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/transatomic-white-paper.pdf

…

Why Not Thorium First?

The TAP reactor’s primary innovations – a novel combination of moderator and fuel salt – can also be adapted for use with thorium. Transatomic Power believes that the thorium fuel cycle holds theoretical advantages over uranium in the long run because of its generally shorter half-life waste, its minimization of plutonium from the fuel cycle, and its greater natural supply. However, we chose to start with uranium for several reasons: (1) there is a great deal of spent nuclear fuel, and we want to harness its energy while reducing the risk of onsite SNF storage; (2) the industry already has a commercial fuel cycle developed around uranium, which makes it cheaper to use uranium as fuel in this design; (3) we already greatly eliminate waste; and (4) we already greatly expand the energy potential of existing uranium supplies.

Thorium reactors do not contain plutonium, but they do have a potential proliferation vulnerability because of the protactinium in their fuel salt. Protactinium has a high neutron capture cross section and therefore, in most liquid thorium reactor designs, it must be removed continuously from the reactor. The process for doing this yields relatively pure protactinium, which then decays into pure U-233. By design, the pure U-233 is sent back into the reactor where it is burned as its primary fuel. The drawback, however, is that U-233 is a weapons-grade isotope that is much easier to trigger than plutonium. We believe that the proliferation objection to liquid thorium is actually related to protactinium-233 in the thorium portion of the reactor. If this can be extracted chemically, it decays quickly into pure U-233.

It is possible to denature U-233 by mixing it with other uranium isotopes, or to modify the design to further reduce diversion risk, but additional research is required to implement these measures in thorium molten salt reactors. Some may discount the proliferation risk of the thorium fuel cycle because the U-233 in the reactor would be mixed with U-232, rendering it a poor source for proliferation purposes. However, it is the decay products of U-232 that produce the high-energy gamma radiation that renders it difficult to handle. Therefore, even with this mixture, it may be possible to chemically extract the decay products before they become gamma emitters, leaving unprotected weapons-grade uranium.

…

[kristopher]

20. The Dept of Energy is the central hub of the nuclear industry and nuclear weapons.

The entire purpose of the civilian nuclear program is, IMNSHO, to shift the costs of keeping the US military supplied with nuclear engineers out of the direct military budget.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Fascinating

So, let me see if I’m following you here.

You do not believe the Department of Energy is a credible source when it comes to energy production. Is that right?

I just want to make sure here. The Department of Energy cannot be cited as a credible source when it comes to energy research.

So, for example, no valid research is being done by NREL or EERE or… it’s all tainted.

[kristopher]

22. No, that isn't what I wrote.

Their mission has diversified over the years, but their core business is still NUCLEAR POWER.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. OK, so, what was your point? Exactly

I pointed out that the Department of Energy apparently believes there is merit in Transatomic’s work.

You replied:

The Dept of Energy is the central hub of the nuclear industry and nuclear weapons.

The entire purpose of the civilian nuclear program is, IMNSHO, to shift the costs of keeping the US military supplied with nuclear engineers out of the direct military budget.

So, your point is…?

[dumbcat]

16. He really doesn't seem to have them

does he? Deflection, deflection.

[kristopher]

18. No, I don't have them, but I'm not the one spreading the nuclear industry sales pitch either

We could start with the rejection of thorium by one of the most comprehensive studies of nuclear technology done in the past 20 years - MIT's 2003 study "The Future of Nuclear Power".
Their analysis focused on 4 areas of major concern - cost, safety, proliferation concerns and waste. It concluded that, all things considered, the most benefit for the industry and public was to be found with the once-through uranium fuel cycle and that alternative fuel cycles held only marginal benefit in one or two of the areas examined.

The report was used to justify a new effort to make nuclear power marketable, but as predicted by outside analysts, the financial assumptions used underestimated the costs of nuclear new build and the conditions in the electricity marketplace. The resurgence for nuclear has failed. Rather than give up, the industry has now resorted to a new bait and switch plan trying to foist off even less viable technologies with the same, boilerplate claims of "we can do it this time if you just give use a chance".

They've been all over the world making the same sales pitch and no one is buying. The national reports are scattered around the internet and can be found by anyone WANTING to find them.

[hunter]

6. If it doesn't happen here, it will probably happen somewhere else.

Meanwhile the international economy will continue to be a voracious consumer of fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

23. A question for you.

If the technology has the advantages you claim and
If those advantages do, in sum, outweigh the weaknesses of the technology in the other areas of the 4 metrics of costs, safety, waste, and proliferation then
Why isn't it being snapped up by countries like the UK where they are hell bent on building nuclear plants but can't make it happen because of the costs?

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. In your rush, you apparently missed the excerpt from the “White Paper”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112792361#post19

However, in short, if they have a credible way to potentially neutralize the vast majority of our current stockpile of nuclear waste, in a safe fashion, and, in the process, produce useful energy… How could I be opposed?

[kristopher]

26. First because there are other solutions for the waste...

...that do not come with the associated negatives of continued production of a waste stream because....

Second, it does NOT "neutralize the vast majority of our current stockpile of nuclear waste". It, according to a theory with many untested elements and substantial technical challenges, changes the composition of the waste issue but it does not by any means eliminate the problems associated with it.

The standard part of corporate propaganda of all types that you're ignoring is the glossing over of very predictable difficulties. We saw it a decade ago also with the AP1000 where "modular construction" was going to solve the cost problem.

Now we are seeing the same type of duplicitous presentation being made. They take very complex systems and presell it based on predictions of an optimum solution being found for all outstanding variables. What they omit is the inescapable fact that many of the problems-in-search-of-solutions aren't there because there are no solutions, they are there because perfecting the solution to one problem almost always has a trade-off cost in terms of achieving the optimum solution to a different problem. The problem with these individual new designs is the same one that has existed since day one for the nuclear industry, they don't need to just solve virtually ALL of the problems in the 4 areas of evaluation, they need to solve all of those problems in a single design.

They haven't been able to do it.
They aren't doing it.
There is no indication they are going to be able to do it.


When you cite the claim of they can solve the waste issues in response to my question about why the UK isn't jumping on the new tech bandwagon, I'm guessing you've forgotten Shellafield's place in the matrix of the UK's nuclear problems.

If they thought this reactor could do what the company's sales agents claim, why isn't the UK jumping on it???

If you've overlooked it, you might want to google 'Shellafield plutonium' or 'Shellafield cleanup costs'.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. “Did you mean Sellafield”

Not exactly relevant, now is it? Sellafield is a very different operation

…

The Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant, or THORP, is a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, England. THORP is owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and operated by Sellafield Ltd (which is the site licensee company). Spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors is reprocessed to separate the 96% uranium and the 1% plutonium, which can be reused in mixed oxide fuel, from the 3% radioactive wastes, which are treated and stored at the plant. The uranium is then made available for customers to be manufactured into new fuel.

…

Clearly, you either don’t know what Transatomic is trying to do, or you’re simply trying to ignore it. They are not burning thorium. They are not reprocessing fuel for other reactors to use. They are not using a “fast reactor.” From the “White Paper”:

…

Transatomic Power (TAP) is developing an advanced molten salt reactor that generates clean, passively safe, proliferation-resistant, and low-cost nuclear power. This reactor can consume the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) generated by commercial light water reactors or use freshly mined uranium at enrichment levels as low as 1.8% U-235. It achieves actinide burnups as high as 96%, and can generate up to 75 times more electricity per ton of mined uranium than a light-water reactor.

…

[font size=4]1.2 What’s New Here?[/font]

Transatomic Power has greatly improved the molten salt concept, while retaining its significant safety benefits. The main technical change we make is to change the moderator and fuel salt used in previous molten salt reactors to a zirconium hydride moderator, with a LiF-based fuel salt. During operation the fuel in the salt is primarily uranium. Together, these components generate a neutron spectrum that allows the reactor to run using fresh uranium fuel with enrichment levels as low as 1.8% U-235, or using the entire actinide component of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Previous molten salt reactors such as the ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) relied on high-enriched uranium, with 33% U-235 [1]. Enrichments that high would raise proliferation concerns if used in commercial nuclear power plants.

Transatomic Power’s design also enables extremely high burnups – up to 96% – over long time periods. The reactor can therefore run for decades and slowly consume both the actinide waste in its initial fuel load and the actinides that are continuously generated from power operation. Furthermore, our neutron spectrum remains primarily in the thermal range used by existing commercial reactors. We therefore avoid the more severe radiation damage effects faced by fast reactors, as thermal neutrons do comparatively less damage to structural materials.

…

They have begun laboratory testing. (Oh, and yes, others are pursuing similar technologies.)

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/535021/experiments-start-on-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Experiments Start on a Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactor[/font]

[font size=4]Transatomic Power has begun tests on a very cheap and compact molten-salt reactor.[/font]

By Kevin Bullis on February 10, 2015

[font size=3]Transatomic Power, a startup that’s developing a novel type of nuclear reactor, has begun a series of experiments that will either verify its design or send it back to the drawing board. The experiments were made possible by $2.5 million in new investments from Founders Fund, the venture capital firm cofounded by Peter Thiel, and two family funds.

The reactor would be smaller and safer than a conventional nuclear unit, potentially making it far cheaper. It would use molten salt as its coolant, making it meltdown-proof and thus requiring fewer costly safety systems. Transatomic’s design could also consume nuclear waste, and it could use nuclear material that couldn’t easily be used to make a weapon.

A few other companies, as well as a large project in China, are pushing forward their own molten-salt reactors (see “Resurrecting a Meltdown-Proof Reactor Design”). But Transatomic’s is more compact and potentially cheaper (see “Safer Nuclear Power at Half the Price” and “TR35: Leslie Dewan”).

…[/font][/font]

http://www.popsci.com/leslie-dewan-and-mark-massie-are-reviving-nuclear-dream

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Building A Safer, Cleaner Nuclear Reactor[/font]

[font size=4]Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie are reviving the nuclear dream[/font]

Paul Kvinta Posted May 19, 2015

[font size=3]One day in 2009, Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie were rummaging through old articles in an MIT library. There, they found two things the nuclear industry had abandoned a half century before. One was a sense of urgency: The first fast-neutron reactor had gone from scribbles on a napkin, in 1945, to a working prototype in only 18 months. The other was something called a molten salt reactor.

In the 1960s, scientists had operated one at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. But then funding dried up, light-water reactors became the industry standard, and molten salt was all but forgotten. That seemed absurd to Dewan and Massey. Molten salt reactors, they learned, are safer than what’s used today. They burn liquid uranium fuel, rather than solid fuel, which reduces the chance of a meltdown. As part of a generation of young nuclear scientists motivated by climate change, and willing to take a fresh look at nuclear power, Dewan and Massey wondered why the world wasn’t using this. They knew that to beat out cheap coal and natural gas, new reactors needed to be safer and more efficient. So they dusted off the Oak Ridge design and got to work.

Today, their start-up, Transatomic Power, is poised to build a new, even better molten salt reactor. Their reactor will burn up to 96 percent of its fuel, compared with only four percent used by light-water reactors, and generate 75 times the electricity per ton of uranium. It’s virtually accident-proof and can run on the spent fuel of other reactors. With nearly 80,000 tons of radioactive waste in the U.S. (and with 2,000 tons added every year), it could turn something toxic into something useful. “That’s what sets Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie apart,” says Richard Lester, head of the nuclear science and engineering department at MIT. “Their design addresses radioactive waste, which is huge.”

So far, Transatomic has obtained $6 million in funding, including $2 million from venture capital firm Founders Fund (backers of Spotify, Airbnb, and SpaceX). Dewan and Massie have used some of this seed money to set up a lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where, for the next three years, they will test materials for their future reactor under the extreme conditions created by nuclear fission. But their road to an actual reactor will be a very long one.

…[/font][/font]

Please, point me to some authoritative source which says, specifically about Transatomic:

They haven't been able to do it.
They aren't doing it.
There is no indication they are going to be able to do it.

[kristopher]

28. You post PR piece after PR piece after PR piece...

This is the 3rd time for this direct question:
Very recently the UK, (among several other countries) reviewed their nuclear options, and based on no net advantage over the current designs, rejected all of the new designs.

Why?

You've evaded this direct question twice - once by pretending the UK isn't concerned about nuclear waste and then by pointing to a spelling error while you misrepresented the situation at Sellafield.

Why not answer it this time? Surely you could find some real analysis by independent people competent to perform a review in the same amount of time it has taken for you to plaster the walls with the company's publicity, no?


Concurrent with the recent UK review of new designs in reactors for power, the US completed a review of the options for dealing with nuclear waste. These are their recommendation of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future :
1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.
3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management.
4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.
6. Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of used nuclear fuel and high-level waste to
consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available.
7. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development.
8. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and security concerns.

Why did they not look to new reactor technology as a solution?

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. And you make baseless claims

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2014/06/09/uk-technology-strategy-board-backs-new-molten-salt-reactor-study/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]UK Technology Strategy Board backs new Molten Salt Reactor study[/font]

June 9th, 2014

[font size=3]In an exciting development, a bid to study next-gen Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) has won funding from the Technology Strategy Board, the UK government’s strategic innovation agency. MSRs could be a game-changing way of producing clean electricity, so this is great news for all who support the revival of clean energy R&D to tackle climate change.

The bid was led by the indefatigable Jasper Tomlinson and Professor Trevor Griffiths. In a first for the UK, the project will produce a rigorous desk- and computer-based study of the feasibility of a pilot-scale MSR, based on the latest science.

The TSB’s decision is welcome. This project marks another step in the revitalization of the UK’s next-gen nuclear R&D — although it goes without saying that much more needs to be done.

That said, it is further confirmation that MSRs are no longer seen as “pie in the sky” technology. As R&D gains momentum worldwide – from startups like Transatomic Power and Bill Gate’s Terrapower to China’s research efforts — MSRs are becoming increasingly serious contenders. As the TSB has recognised, the potential prize of safer, cheaper, more-efficient low carbon energy is too attractive to pass up.

…[/font][/font]

Please, point me to some authoritative source which says, specifically about Transatomic:

They haven't been able to do it.
They aren't doing it.
There is no indication they are going to be able to do it.

[kristopher]

30. "specifically about Transatomic"

They don't specifically identify any of the nearly 50 companies by name, as I recall. All of them are category based analysis by reactor type and fuel cycle. If the one you post here was 2014, then it postdates the other one by about a year. Since the one by UK's National Nuclear Lab rejected all of them, it will be interesting to see the results of this one.

Where are they?

PS: We're still waiting for the answer to why the National Nuclear Lab said they saw no net advantage to the newest bandwagon.

PPS: The agency giving out the funding in your post is all about "encouraging" entrepreneurship. Do you really think that the best reference?

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. And of course, ARPA-e specifically awarded Transatomic…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112792361#post15


http://www.zdnet.com/article/and-the-doe-energy-innovation-award-goes-to-a-new-type-of-nuclear-power/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]And the DOE energy innovation award goes to ... a new type of nuclear power[/font]

[font size=4]Transatomic's founders look more Twitterati than Nuclearati. But their "molten salt reactor" trumps great ideas from across all energy areas at this week's investor/entrepreneur summit.[/font]

By Mark Halper | March 1, 2013 -- 05:31 GMT (21:31 PST) | Topic: Innovation

[font size=3]A couple of Transatomic Power's young co-founders - Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan - look more Twitterati than Nuclearati. But make no mistake. They're obsessed with nuclear power. So much so that this week, the newfangled nuclear reactor they're developing beat over 200 inventive contestants from across all areas of energy to scoop the top award at a U.S. Department of Energy "innovation summit," voted by investors and entrepreneurs.

Massie, Dewan and fellow co-founder and CEO Russell Wilcox - the former CEO of electronic display innovator E-Ink - are developing what's called a "molten salt reactor" (MSR). Proponents of MSRs say they are meltdown-proof, and that they are safer and more cost effective than the conventional reactors that the nuclear industry has built for some 50 years. Transatomic's MSR would also use existing nuclear waste as fuel, thus alleviating the vexing problem of where to store nuclear waste (see their YouTube video below).

Pitted against breakthroughs in solar, water treatment, clean fracking, biofuels and other areas, the company this week beat eight finalists in a "pitch-off" in front of a clean technology group that included a panel of four corporate and venture capital investors who moderated the pitches.

…

The company has an impressive advisory panel of senior nuclear veterans, to which it added this week. Among others, the board now includes retired Westinghouse Electric chief technology officer Regis Matzie, who is also the leading commercial adviser to the molten salt nuclear collaboration between China and the U.S. Department of Energy.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

32. You mean "the ... award ... voted by investors and entrepreneurs"?

On the advice and presentations of the sales force for the company?

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that any outside credible experts are on board. Again, the US waste panel passed it by, the UK passed it by, Norway passed it by, Finland passed it by.

You have utterly failed to explain why the agencies behind these national evaluations have not embraced this latest iteration of the nuclear miracle. Perhaps they are just sick of being hoodwinked with the by-now-well-recognized nuclear misinformation machine when it starts efforts to drum up yet another bandwagon market boom (then bust).