Powering Progress: Nano Nuclear and the Future of Clean Energy

James Walker, CEO and Director of Nano Nuclear Energy Inc., explores next-gen reactors and their impact on the changing energy landscape. Learn more about how small-scale reactors are poised to deliver big results for sustainable power.  ⚡🔋

Transcript

(0:00) Welcome to the Tomorrow's World Today podcast. (0:03) We sit down with experts, world-changing innovators, creators, and makers to explore how they're (0:09) taking action to make tomorrow's world a better place for technology, science, innovation, (0:15) sustainability, the arts, and more. (0:17) In this episode, George Davison, who is also the host of Tomorrow's World Today on Science, (0:22) talks with James Walker, president and CEO of Nanonuclear Energy, about the groundbreaking (0:27) future of nuclear power.

(0:29) Discover how portable nuclear reactors are set to transform the energy industry, paving (0:35) the way for cleaner, more reliable, and sustainable power solutions. (0:40) Welcome to our show. (0:41) It's great to have you here, James.
(0:43) Oh, no. (0:44) Thank you very much for having me on the show, George. (0:45) Very pleased to be here.

(0:47) Well, you know, I'm hoping that you're going to share with our audience a little of your (0:51) background and your position, your role at Nano, and then maybe we could get into the (0:58) details a little more about what Nano does. (1:01) Absolutely. (1:02) Look, I'm happy to share all of that, a little bit more about my background.

(1:06) I am a nuclear physicist and nuclear engineer in the past, and I got my start in the submarine (1:11) program where I was involved in secondary and primary systems for submarines, and I (1:17) was seconded to Rolls-Royce for a little bit of time, where I worked in the reactor physics (1:21) and thermal hydraulics departments in the design of reactor systems, and eventually (1:26) I was promoted out of that role, and I ended up at the Ministry of Defense, where I was (1:29) involved in building the manufacturing facilities to mass-produce these reactor systems to (1:34) go into the next class of submarines. (1:38) That's pretty exciting, James. (1:39) I don't mean to interrupt you, but that's really fun, so that's great.

(1:43) I agree. (1:46) Especially when you get into things like reactor physics, it can be very technical, (1:50) but it's still very interesting. (1:52) I think nuclear physics and nuclear engineering is a very interesting subject.

(1:57) Well, of course I do, because it's my job. (2:00) Yes. (2:00) Well, and it's an emerging area, so I'm hoping we can peel the onion back a little (2:05) bit on that today.

(2:06) What does Nano nuclear energy do, now that you're not on submarines or making submarines (2:13) anymore? (2:14) Can you walk us into that world? (2:16) Yes, absolutely. (2:17) A few years ago, I was living in North America, and I was building manufacturing operations. (2:23) Through that network, I met the founder of the company, who had a bit more of a background (2:28) in banking.

(2:30) His thesis was that nuclear would have resurgent interest in the next coming years, because (2:36) the power that would be required by the country was quite substantial, and the means to supply (2:43) that power was actually not there at all.

 (2:46) If you were looking at everything, so solar, geothermal, wind, hydro, upscaling gas or (2:54) coal, it was very difficult to see a way to actually meet the demands of industry and (3:02) domestic infrastructure as well. (3:04) We knew that nuclear was going to make a big resurgent comeback into the frame, so we looked (3:10) at where the company could position itself, where it could be the most successful, because (3:14) we knew that there were a lot of companies building small modular reactors, which are (3:17) fairly big systems.

(3:19) We saw that, actually, microreactors, they were the least developed part of the industry (3:24) and potentially the much larger market, because if you were to build a microreactor, so you're (3:28) talking very small nuclear device now, and you could cater for military bases, mining (3:34) projects, remote oil and gas, island communities, remote habitation, other remote industry. (3:40) It's a trillion-dollar industry where these diesel generators are catering almost exclusively (3:45) for all these projects and communities without any competition, and we thought that a microreactor (3:51) could be inserted into these areas, and if we were successful, it would be an enormous (3:55) market, and with the right financing structure and the right personnel, we could pull out (4:00) into the race of producing this product first. (4:02) So, when you say small, right, or I guess that's why it's called nano-nuclear, but give (4:12) us a sense of scale.

(4:13) When you say, I think most people, at least in North America, they have pictures of those (4:18) big silos that they see from the road, and that's probably what is in most of their minds, (4:26) so can you give me a sense of just how small we've gotten here? (4:30) Yes, so, and look, the conventional civil nuclear power plant, that's what we're all (4:36) familiar with, you know, with the big plumes of steam coming out of the funnels, but microreactors (4:43) are tiny by scale, so we're talking really with an isocontainer-sized dimension, so when (4:50) you're going down the highway and you're seeing trucks just shipping the standard containers, (4:54) that's the scale we're talking about here. (4:56) We want to get the core and the turbine system into one isocontainer, and the reason for (5:04) that is deliberate. (5:05) If we can fit everything into an isocontainer, then we can move it by road or by rail or (5:10) by ship anywhere in the world, and then essentially what we want is to basically get it to somewhere (5:15) where we can put it down and plug it into a local microgrid, and the construction at (5:19) the deployment site would be minimal, if anything, and if we do that, then we can begin to compete (5:25) with diesel generators.

(5:27) That makes sense, because those are transported around on trucks, so yeah, that's a good vision. (5:34) How close are you to achieving that vision? (5:37) So I think we're pretty advanced. (5:40) We've gone through all the detailed design work, we've done all the computer models, (5:44) the physics verification of what we're trying to do, now we're moving into a very different (5:48) phase where we're going to be building prototypes and rigs, and we're going to be doing data (5:53) collection so we can then go to licensing.
(5:55) So it's shifted into a very different arena now, and I think we're not unique exactly, (6:02) but one of the very few microactive companies in the world that are in this stage where (6:06) we're taking it out of the academic exercise and the design phase and we're going into (6:11) demonstration work. (6:12) So we're building rigs, we're doing irradiation testing, materials testing, so we're just (6:18) validating all of our models, and once all of that's done, we'll build a prototype and (6:22) we'll get that licensed and then we'll commercialize it and deploy it. (6:26) So in the world of, let's say, going to where we are now with diesel generators that are (6:32) fulfilling a function of generating power for all the different needs that we have, be (6:38) it a computational farm for the internet or whatever, those things, they consume a lot (6:45) of energy.

(6:45) But if I was to ask you, if I put a diesel generator there, I get X, and in order to (6:53) do that, I have to do a few other things. (6:56) I have to continually put fuel in it, I have to do some things to make it go, but if I go (7:02) in this other route, which let's say it's the same footprint, it's mobile, what would (7:07) you say are some of the benefits if it's me and I own this facility where your device (7:14) is coming in versus a diesel generator system? (7:17) What's the advantage to me as the owner? (7:20) So it's actually a very good question because this is the marketing we want to use, is that (7:25) let's take a couple of examples. (7:27) So we spoke to the governments in the Philippines, and they have the most expensive power in the (7:33) whole of Southeast Asia, and that's principally because they have a lot of island communities.

(7:38) Indonesia kind of has the same issue, and that means that they all subsist on diesel (7:42) and they need to basically bring in diesel on a daily basis, and that is very logistically (7:47) complicated, it requires a lot of personnel, and it's expensive. (7:51) Now, if you were to have a microreactor in these sort of situations, that means that (7:54) those island communities have a consistent baseload power for 10, 15 years, and the whole (8:01) logistics around that daily importation of diesel goes away. (8:04) Now, that's true for any remote project.
(8:07) So if it's a mining project, they still need to bring that diesel in, and that can kill (8:11) a lot of the economics with regard to those projects, and you see that mirrored in things (8:16) like military bases. (8:17) The US military has a mandate that the military bases should be able to be self-sufficient (8:23) for at least a two-week period, and currently I don't think they can meet that mandate (8:27) because they still have to subsist on a lot of these remote locations on diesel, and they (8:31) can't bring in two weeks' worth of diesel at any one time. (8:35) So there's all these different areas where microreactors will have a significant advantage (8:39) over bringing in diesel, and just reverting back to the Philippines, that's true for (8:46) Indonesia and Thailand, where they've got, between them, hundreds of millions of people (8:49) scattered across hundreds of islands that subsist on diesel.

(8:52) But that also means that there's blackout periods. (8:55) There's loss of power. (8:56) There's delays in the delivery.

(8:58) That means that there can't be—industry suffers there. (9:01) So it's not just a way of giving people more consistent power. (9:05) It's a way of actually ensuring that industry can take off in these areas.

(9:08) Right. (9:09) I gotcha. (9:10) So let's say that I have this rectangular box, and I've got my nuclear power in here.

(9:17) How long—if you put one of these in it, let's say, the military facility, how long (9:24) can I get power? (9:25) And given that we're drawing on it about at an average level, let's say, how long (9:32) can you get out of that? (9:33) So the calculations that we've done on the operability of the reactor at about average (9:39) level is about 15 years. (9:42) And if you're running it, obviously, a bit more intensively, it would still be around (9:46) about 10 years' time, time frame. (9:48) So if you were running a community, which is a fairly consistent level of requirement, (9:54) you could go as high as about 15 years of power output from these reactor systems.

(10:00) Obviously, that saves you 15 years of logistical work around bringing the fuel. (10:06) Right. (10:06) Right.

(10:07) Yeah, it's not just the cost of fuel. (10:08) It's all that logistics, all that chaos, the instability if something happens, that (10:13) truck getting there or a helicopter dropping something in. (10:16) It sounds very exciting.

(10:18) So I guess you're pretty familiar with this. (10:20) Maybe it's because a part of your background was submarines, because they've had nuclear (10:24) powered submarines for a long time now. (10:26) Did you have a knowledge transfer from that world over to this world now? (10:34) Yeah, so certainly the principle upon which all reactors work, the fission reactors, is (10:40) the same.
(10:40) So it's still uranium enriched to a certain level. (10:44) And that fission process obviously creates the chain reaction that creates the heat. (10:49) And then that heat can obviously be converted into electricity as needed.

(10:52) The submarine reactors are obviously a little bit different. (10:55) They can use a much higher grade of material because they're for military purposes. (10:59) And obviously, the reactors that we're building with are a much lower level of enrichment.

(11:03) There's certain reasons for that. (11:05) But principally, it also makes them inherently safe reactor systems. (11:09) These reactors we're putting together cannot blow up.

(11:11) They cannot be turned into weapons. (11:14) There are an intrinsically safe technology, whereas a submarine reactor, you would want (11:19) to guard the fuel in that much more closely. (11:21) And obviously, you are because you're in a submarine.

(11:23) So it's very well guarded. (11:24) But it's a much higher level of enrichment. (11:27) So I imagine that is a very important part of your design, public safety, because these (11:31) things could be dropped in anywhere.

(11:34) And what I just heard was that you really can't tinker with them to make them dangerous. (11:40) But you know, oh, go ahead. (11:41) Oh, no, I was just going to say, we do, of course, I think the communication with the (11:46) public around about the safety with nuclear is very important.

(11:49) And just communicating the fact that these systems cannot blow up. (11:53) Some of the disasters that you've seen, say, in America, like Three Mile Island or something (11:58) like that, are not possible with these sort of designs. (12:00) They are an inherently safe system.

(12:03) So you can deploy these things to the middle of nowhere. (12:05) And we even get asked questions about like, what happens if this blows up or a terrorist (12:10) takes it? (12:11) And the response is like, if you were to blow up the reactor, like fire a missile or something, (12:17) the reactor actually becomes cooler because you separate the material. (12:21) So it becomes less critical.

(12:22) And if you were to, if a terrorist was to steal it, I mean, I don't know what they would (12:26) do with it, apart from like warm their house, because you'd have to take the fuel out, (12:31) separate it with a big chemical process, enrich it, deconvert it and fabricate it. (12:35) And you'd need billions of dollars worth of capabilities to do that. (12:39) And I don't even think the US government could do that itself.

(12:43) So like it's, you know, a terrorist can steal it all day long. (12:45) It wouldn't really make a difference. (12:47) Gotcha.

(12:47) So in your world, your organization, you probably need up and coming scientists, physicists, (12:57) engineers, you know, that type. (12:59) How is that going? (13:01) Are you getting enough young up and coming people that can really help support the growth (13:07) of your organization? (13:09) Yes, we actually have. (13:11) It was a major concern of ours, because what happened with nuclear is after Fukushima, (13:16) there was a decline in interest in nuclear.

(13:20) And that and that led to essentially what we call the middle of the nuclear employees (13:24) leaving the industry and then going to other pastures. (13:27) And so you have now in nuclear, you've got the older generation, which I think are really (13:31) the backbone still of the nuclear industry. (13:33) And then you've got the new incoming people coming in now.

(13:36) But because of this research and interest, there's a big fight for those new incoming (13:41) people, the nuclear physics graduates, the new engineering graduates. (13:44) So what we've done is we've had partnerships with universities where we will fund things (13:49) like master's programs, PhD programs, and then give the jobs available for these individuals (13:55) straight afterwards. (13:56) And in recent, certainly within the last year, we've made a lot of announcements actually (14:02) about recruiting directly these engineering students straight from university and putting (14:07) them straight into work for us.

(14:09) And it's part of obviously ensuring that we've got the workforce to actually realize our (14:14) ambitions, because we're going to need a lot of nuclear engineers and they are going (14:18) to be very heavily fought over, especially with this research and interest. (14:21) And there is that gap that was created by that decline in nuclear. (14:26) So there aren't enough personnel, I think, to satisfy the demands of all these SMR companies, (14:34) enrichment companies, deconversion companies as well.

(14:36) What's in the way? (14:38) Are we overregulated or do we need to change how we regulate this low grade level of nuclear? (14:46) Are we dealing with the same type of security and regulatory oversight in the high grade (14:54) materials versus the materials you're dealing with, or is it a lot easier to get into that (14:59) side of things? (15:01) So I think you're hitting upon the right point. (15:03) I would say not the biggest obstacle exactly, but one of the obstacles that does need to (15:09) be navigated to put out a commercial product is the regulator. (15:13) Now, the US is the oldest nuclear energy power in the world, and that basically means that (15:19) the regulator is one of the oldest in the world too.

(15:22) It has had decades and decades to increase the licensing requirements around the designs, (15:28) and therefore it does have a very big bureaucratic element to it. (15:31) This is partly why nuclear energy in the United States is the most expensive nuclear energy (15:37) in the world. (15:38) The US is definitely aware of this issue, and the government has actually put mandates (15:43) on the regulator to reform in the form of the Advance Act, which includes provisions (15:48) within it, say, mandating that the regulator takes a maximum of 25 month period to license (15:56) a new reactor system.

(15:57) And with obviously that, they are aware of the issue and they are putting pressure on (16:02) there. (16:02) And the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it does have entrenched systems, but it is (16:08) making efforts to reform now, and it is looking at different frameworks for new technologies. (16:13) A lot of these new SMR designs, microreactor designs, they are not novel exactly, but the (16:19) NRC is not as experienced in licensing these systems as it is with a conventional water (16:24) based reactor system.

(16:25) So it is making efforts. (16:28) It's looking at should certain frameworks be reformed or should new frameworks be brought (16:34) in. (16:35) And they are obviously making these endeavors now, but they are trying to basically catch (16:39) up with a private industry that is trying to move a lot faster than they might be able (16:43) to.

(16:44) So it certainly is something that needs to be navigated. (16:47) And I wouldn't call it an obstacle exactly, but it is an issue that all developers face. (16:52) I see.

(16:53) Yeah, that makes sense. (16:55) We pay attention to that and try to make it as easy, but also safe, right? (17:01) Exactly. (17:01) Let's talk a little bit about where this technology can go in the future.

(17:06) Do you think this will work in space? (17:08) If we were going to start to talk about what Musk or others are doing and trying to get (17:13) more colonization in space, will your technology be able to create power for, let's say, a (17:20) station up there? (17:21) Yeah. (17:22) So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think the only feasible power for something (17:28) like a moon base would have to be some sort of nuclear device, because you are going to (17:33) have to need a consistent baseload power that can output for a long period of time. (17:40) And the advantage with uranium is that the energy density is so great that you could (17:47) not ever ship an equivalent amount of fuel into space to be commensurate with that level (17:52) of energy because of the energy density.

(17:55) The amount of fuel that you would have to ship to space, it would be orders of magnitude, (18:00) maybe millions of times more cargo that you would have to ship as an alternative to nuclear (18:06) than a nuclear device. (18:08) So certainly the first moon bases, Mars bases, wherever you're going, you're going to need (18:12) nuclear power reactors to power these bases. (18:15) And does nanonuclear, does it give off as a waste product? (18:21) Does it give off steam as a natural? (18:24) Would it still do that same kind of thing? (18:26) And if so, would it also do that in space? (18:29) So the primary output of the reactor system will be the heat that will be generated from (18:35) the fission of the uranium.

(18:37) And typically, if you think about that standard power station that we were discussing earlier, (18:42) that heat was in the past used to heat up water to create that steam that would then (18:47) turn a turbine. (18:49) It's basically just like a nuclear battery that creates heat that turns turbines. (18:55) Effectively, on the surface, it's quite a basic idea.

(18:58) With these more advanced reactors, you might have a different coolant than water. (19:02) So some sort of salt-based system with a higher boiling temperature. (19:07) But the principle is still the same, that the heat from the fission product will heat (19:10) up that coolant and that heat will be used to turn turbines to generate that electricity.

(19:16) And if you do that in space, it will be the same principle. (19:19) Would you have to capture that release and circle it back through? (19:23) Or would that be released into whatever that atmosphere is up there? (19:28) So it's a good question. (19:30) So it's a closed system.

(19:32) So the coolant that goes through, the heated coolant that goes through to power the turbine, (19:38) that the process of actually moving that turbine takes the heat off. (19:42) And so the coolant then returns back to the reactor cooler than it did going into the (19:47) turbine system. (19:48) And so you just have that closed-loop system where that coolant essentially just goes around (19:53) and around the system.

(19:54) All you're going to do is just monitor the chemistry of that coolant. (19:57) And through that process, the thing that you're losing to the atmosphere is the heat. (20:01) But the components and the coolant, they are not lost to the environment at all.

(20:07) So I get you. (20:07) So it's closed-loop. (20:09) Heat is the benefit that you're getting from it.

(20:12) So we can capture that for all sorts of different uses, right? (20:16) Yes. (20:16) Like there's going to be industrial heat for any sort of manufacturing that would need (20:21) to be done, but then the conversion over to electricity through the turbine system that (20:25) would power accommodations, desalination, vertical farms, anything like that. (20:32) So you could have a fairly substantial colony with a very small reactor system.

(20:36) So I would say with one of our ITO container-sized reactor systems, you could be powering a community (20:44) of 1,000, 2,000 people pretty comfortably. (20:47) And how far away from deployment are you, let's say, of getting this accomplished? (20:54) So it actually comes back to the regulator, I would say. (20:58) So if it wasn't, a lot of reactor companies have put out timelines like 2027, 2028.

(21:05) And they are completely feasible based on the fact that they can realize this technology (21:10) in time. (21:10) We have moved our deployment timelines to about 2030, 2031. (21:14) But that factors into consideration the licensing with the regulator.

(21:19) Yes. (21:19) The fact that the US does need to rebuild a portion of its infrastructure to support (21:25) the manufacture of the fuel that would need to go into these. (21:28) But factoring into consideration those considerations, early 2030s, 2030, 2031 is a (21:34) very reasonable timeline for when we can mass manufacture these systems and deploy (21:39) them to market.

(21:40) OK. (21:40) So getting to mass production, scaling and production, of course, we got to have physical (21:46) prototypes built that would match up with mass production methodologies. (21:52) When you build your first prototypes, do you build them just to get them to function? (21:56) Or are you also incorporating your mass scale manufacturing knowledge to make sure your (22:02) prototype represents what it would look like at scale? (22:05) That's a great question, because part of the construction of that prototype will be (22:09) looking at how we will be able to mass manufacture these systems.

(22:13) So we want to reduce the reactor to the most simple design it can possibly be to aid in (22:19) the mass manufacture. (22:21) And the advantage with smaller systems is if you just take a conventional civil nuclear (22:27) power plant, if you shrink it down to small modular reactor level, it gets more simple, (22:31) less mechanically complex. (22:33) By the time you get it to micro level, it's basically as simple as you could possibly (22:37) make a nuclear device.

(22:38) And that allows for you to utilize manufacturing processes like 3D printing, where a lot of (22:43) it could just be put on an automated schedule of the major components being produced and (22:49) then essentially assembled within a plant and to go out. (22:52) The prototype will certainly be looking at what can be 3D printed, what can be simplified. (22:57) And that will form the basis of how we build the manufacturing facilities to produce that.

(23:02) And there will be some concurrent activity as we are building that prototype and getting (23:07) it licensed. (23:07) The design that goes into the manufacturing facilities will come out of that work. (23:11) And so the manufacturing facilities will be produced concurrently with the prototype (23:17) construction and the licensing of that prototype.

(23:20) I see. (23:21) So how many years away are you at getting one of those prototypes built? (23:25) We would obviously like to start on it straight away. (23:28) I think we're going to do in the next year some very significant test work just to make (23:34) sure the coolant can stand up to irradiation, the materials can stand up to the heat transfer (23:39) and the thermal conductivity.

(23:41) When we have all of that information, we'll start on the prototype construction. (23:45) I imagine that's likely going to start next year. (23:48) We already have the sites in mind where we're going to build this and the teams that we're (23:51) going to be building this with.

(23:52) We just need to do that initial investigatory work to be confident of what we're going to (23:58) build. (23:58) It would even be great if we can get some of that work started at the end of this year (24:02) where we begin to look at some of the final design work for the prototype, preparing the (24:07) site and putting in place the staff. (24:09) But certainly next year, that prototype construction will begin.

(24:12) Well, James, that's real exciting. (24:14) I mean, it's a great development. (24:17) I wish you the best of luck with everything you're working on.

(24:20) Hopefully those regulators can work with you and not against you some more and speed up (24:24) that timeline. (24:26) As we all know, the draw on... (24:28) Who would have thought? (24:29) Everybody years ago thought, well, we're going to conserve and we're not going to need that (24:33) much power. (24:34) But the opposites happen.

(24:36) Now, it's just getting... (24:38) Now, we've got all these devices and everything just needs more and more and more energy. (24:41) So what an interesting span of life we've gone through so far. (24:47) So I wish you luck because we really need this form of technology going forward.

(24:51) George, it's been very interesting talking to you. (24:53) And Luke, you're 100% right. (24:55) Even if you talk to the tech companies, some of the power requirements that they're projecting (25:00) that they'll need are crazy numbers, almost a third as much as the US is using at the (25:06) moment for themselves.
(25:08) And that's why you see the Googles, the Amazons, the Microsofts of the world going big into (25:15) nuclear now because they've got these big power requirements. (25:18) And I wouldn't say they're panicking, but they need to de-risk their business. (25:21) And they've settled on nuclear as being that solution.
(25:24) So we're going to need a lot more power. (25:26) It's looking very likely that for a long time to come, we're going to have to develop these (25:30) nuclear capabilities in these devices. (25:33) Well, thanks for all your work.

(25:34) I mean, James, I wish you the best of luck. (25:37) And I want to thank you for being on Tomorrow's World today. (25:40) That's it for today.

(25:41) Thank you, George. (25:42) Thank you, James. (25:43) Thank you for listening to this episode of Tomorrow's World Today podcast.

(25:47) Join us next time as we continue to explore the worlds of inspiration, creation, innovation (25:52) and production. (25:54) Discover more at Tomorrow's World today dot com. (25:56) Connect with us on social media at TWT Explore and find us wherever podcasts are available.