Spent nuclear fuel comes in the form of small pellets.
The issue of nuclear waste and the history of how it has been handled in the United States and worldwide is a complicated one. When it comes to discussing the issue of finding solutions, the conversations can be difficult due to conflicting opinions and viewpoints.
Growing up, nuclear waste was not a topic that ever crossed my mind or came up in conversation. In high school, when I was deciding on my college major, a desire to help solve the global climate crisis motivated me to study nuclear engineering. Yet at the time, I didn’t have a clear understanding of the complex nature of the nuclear fuel cycle and the industry at large.
When I started taking nuclear engineering courses at the University of California, Berkeley, nuclear waste was seldom discussed in classes or seminars. Even when I eventually took a nuclear waste technical course, the societal challenges of nuclear waste storage and disposal were barely discussed, and if they were, the issues were often dismissed because it was considered that the public’s concerns were not “based in science.”
As a student, I spent time volunteering at different science education events throughout the San Francisco Bay Area where I learned how to talk to people about nuclear science. I was and still am incredibly passionate about nuclear and broader science education.
As someone approaching nuclear science from a technical perspective, and as someone who was surrounded by peers who viewed nuclear science similarly, it was difficult to honestly understand why the public was skeptical of nuclear power and fearful of nuclear waste. However, I have learned from listening to all sides, that the public has incredibly valid concerns and questions about nuclear power and radioactive waste, and the industry has to do a better job of understanding these concerns.
Jessica Chow as a nuclear engineering student at the University of California, Berkeley.
The storage and disposal of nuclear waste is more than just a technical problem, and solving the puzzle of how to permanently dispose of nuclear waste requires a greater understanding of its intersection with our own lives and well-being.
A desire to advance this understanding is behind Deep Isolation’s decision to launch a new resource, About Nuclear Waste. (It’s also why we launched an educational podcast last year called Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story.)
As the curator for the About Nuclear Waste content, my goal is to outline the facts of nuclear science within the context of valid concerns in order to find common ground that helps our readers have more productive discussions about this important issue.
There are approximately 500,000 metric tons of nuclear waste worldwide, and none of it has been permanently disposed of yet. Every year more nuclear waste is generated from nuclear power plants and nuclear industries. As the world begins to seriously explore advanced nuclear options to develop more low-carbon energy sources, nuclear waste will continue to be a problem for future generations unless an equal effort is put into finding a solution for it.
I hope you find About Nuclear Waste helpful and informative. Sharing this knowledge of what nuclear waste is will hopefully be a good step toward a shared understanding that will help build public support for a permanent disposal solution. If you don’t find your questions answered please let us know, and we will do our best to address them in future updates to this resource.
Berkeley, CA – Deep Isolation, a leading innovator in spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level nuclear waste (HLW) storage and disposal solutions, has signed a cooperative agreement with Dominion Engineering, Inc. (DEI), a global leader in specialized nuclear fuel services and technology, with a focus on inspection and maintenance equipment that ensures safety and integrity of nuclear fuel during operation and long-term storage.
Deep Isolation and DEI will cooperate in the sales, development, and deployment of Deep Isolation’s patented SNF and HLW disposal technology, with an initial focus on Latin America and an option to expand to other markets. There is currently an estimated 7,000 metric tons of SNF awaiting disposal in Latin America, and the nuclear energy infrastructure and waste management considerations in this region make it an ideal candidate for Deep Isolation’s deep borehole technology.
“There is a growing awareness that nuclear waste belongs in deep geologic isolation, and that it’s no longer acceptable to push this problem onto future generations,” said Elizabeth Muller, CEO of Deep Isolation. “DEI’s reputation for delivering innovative services and technologies that enhance the safety and integrity of nuclear fuel is wholly consistent with our own objectives of delivering safe disposal solutions. By working with DEI’s established clients and active operations globally, we have an opportunity to assist them in developing a comprehensive strategy for the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste.”
Founded in 1980, DEI provides technical consulting services, field services and technology for the full life cycle of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste management installations. DEI’s Smart-SipTM technology is an industry-leading vacuum sipping technology that ensures the integrity of nuclear fuel assemblies before they are reloaded to a nuclear reactor or transferred to a storage or disposal canister. DEI also provides specialized engineering services to ensure the long-term safety and integrity of SNF canisters during long-term storage. DEI previously analyzed technical issues such as residual heat generation and long-term corrosion predictions for SNF canisters in support of the Yucca Mountain deep geological repository.
“DEI is excited to be working with Deep Isolation and its partners to bring this innovative and much-needed SNF and HLW management solution to the nuclear industry worldwide,” said DEI President Mike Little. “Nuclear energy technology is essential to deep decarbonization and the fight against climate change. By catalyzing this solution for long-term management of nuclear waste, we are meaningfully contributing to greater confidence in nuclear power by eliminating what has been a historical barrier to greater acceptance within the clean energy landscape.”
The Agreement adds momentum to Deep Isolation’s recent progress. As its global presence expands to address a problem in need of innovation, the relationship with DEI meets a critical need in a new market.
###
About Deep Isolation
Berkeley-based Deep Isolation is a leading innovator in spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste storage and disposal solutions. Founded through a passion for environmental stewardship, scientific ingenuity, and entrepreneurship, Deep Isolation has developed a patented solution using directional drilling and inclusive community engagement to safely isolate waste deep underground.
About DEI
DEI is a global leader in specialized nuclear fuel services and technology, with a focus on inspection and maintenance equipment that ensures safety and integrity of nuclear fuel during operation and long-term storage. DEI additionally provides specialty engineering services to analyze the safety and long-term integrity of SNF canisters in deep geological repositories. DEI is a privately-held company with corporate headquarters in Reston, VA and active operations in 10 countries.
BERKELEY, California, 4 de mayo de 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Deep Isolation, un innovador líder en soluciones de almacenamiento y disposición de combustible nuclear gastado (SNF) y desechos nucleares de alto nivel (HLW), firmó un acuerdo de cooperación con Dominion Engineering, Inc. (DEI), líder mundial en servicios y tecnología especializados en combustible nuclear, centrado en equipos de inspección y mantenimiento que garantizan la seguridad y la integridad del combustible nuclear durante las operaciones y el almacenamiento a largo plazo.
Deep Isolation y DEI cooperarán en ventas, desarrollo e implementación de la tecnología patentada de disposición de SNF y HLW de Deep Isolation, con un enfoque inicial en Latinoamérica y la opción de expandirse a otros mercados. Se estima que actualmente hay 7.000 toneladas métricas de SNF en espera de su disposición en América Latina, y las consideraciones de infraestructura de energía nuclear y gestión de residuos en esta región lo convierten en un candidato ideal para la tecnología de pozos barrenados profundos de Deep Isolation.
“Cada vez hay más conciencia de que los desechos nucleares deben estar en profundidad y en aislamiento geológico, y que ya no es aceptable trasladarles este problema a las generaciones futuras”, señaló Elizabeth Muller, directora ejecutiva de Deep Isolation. “La reputación de DEI por ofrecer servicios y tecnologías innovadores que mejoran la seguridad y la integridad del combustible nuclear es totalmente consistente con nuestros propios objetivos de ofrecer soluciones de disposición seguras. Al trabajar con los clientes y en las operaciones activas de DEI a nivel mundial, tenemos la oportunidad de ayudarlos a desarrollar una estrategia integral para la disposición de combustible gastado y residuos de alto nivel”.
Fundado en 1980, DEI ofrece servicios de consultoría técnica, servicios en campo y tecnología para todo el ciclo de vida de los reactores nucleares y las instalaciones de gestión de desechos nucleares. Smart-SipTM de DEI es una tecnología de descarga en vacío líder en la industria, que garantiza la integridad de los ensambles de combustible nuclear antes de ser recargados a un reactor nuclear o transferidos a un contenedor de almacenamiento o disposición. DEI también ofrece servicios de ingeniería especializados para garantizar la seguridad e integridad a largo plazo de los contenedores de SNF durante el almacenamiento a largo plazo. DEI analizó previamente cuestiones técnicas como la generación de calor residual y las predicciones de corrosión a largo plazo para los contenedores de SNF como apoyo del repositorio geológico profundo de la Montaña Yucca.
“DEI está entusiasmado de trabajar con Deep Isolation y sus socios para llevar esta solución innovadora y muy necesaria para la gestión de SNF y HLW a la industria nuclear de todo el mundo”, expresó Mike Little, presidente de DEI. “La tecnología de la energía nuclear es esencial para la descarbonización profunda y la lucha contra el cambio climático. Al catalizar esta solución para la gestión a largo plazo de desechos nucleares, estamos contribuyendo de manera significativa a una mayor confianza en la energía nuclear, eliminando lo que ha sido una barrera histórica, y logrando mayor aceptación dentro del panorama de la energía limpia”.
El acuerdo agrega impulso a los avances recientes de Deep Isolation. A medida que su presencia global se expande para abordar un problema que necesita innovación, la relación con DEI satisface una necesidad crítica en un nuevo mercado.
In this episode, Kalev Kallemets explains his motivation in bringing advanced nuclear technology to Estonia and his hope to bring Estonia closer to reaching its climate change goals.
Note: This transcript is the raw transcript of this podcast. Minimal edits have been made only for clarity purposes.
Kalev Kallemets (0:10):
And that, I think this is totally fair that the people are well, not only skeptical, but kind of pushing it away. And so we do have a practical value proposition to the municipality in terms of how much benefit they would monetarily gain over the operating period of the plant.
Narrator (0:37):
Did you know that there are half a million metric tons of nuclear waste temporarily stored at hundreds of sites worldwide? In the U.S. alone, one in three people live within 50 miles of a storage site. No country has yet successfully disposed of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it’s not for lack of a solution. So what’s the delay? The answers are complex and controversial. In this series, we explore the nuclear waste issue with people representing various pieces of this complicated puzzle. We hope this podcast will give you a clearer picture of Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story.
We believe that listening is an important element of a successful nuclear waste disposal program. A core company value is to seek and listen to different perspectives. Opinions expressed by the interviewers and their subjects are not necessarily representative of the company. If there’s a topic discussed in the podcast that is unfamiliar to you, or you’d like to more closely review what was said, please see the show notes at deepisolation.com/podcasts.
Elizabeth Muller (01:56):
Hello. My name is Elizabeth Mueller. I’m the CEO of Deep Isolation. I’m here today with Kalev Kallemets, who is the CEO of Fermi Energia and really happy to have him. And maybe I’ll let you introduce yourself Kalev.
Kalev Kallemets (02:10):
Yeah, my name is Kalev from Estonia and we’re trying to do a small modular reactor deployment in Estonia likely to do at 59. And we right now have minus 15 degrees outside. So we really need heat and electricity.
Elizabeth Muller (02:30):
Yes. What first got you interested in nuclear?
Kalev Kallemets (02:35):
I was studying economics, and that is quite a long time ago, at the master’s level. And I did the master’s thesis on a listing of publicly owned companies. And one of the biggest is the government owned utility, which was engaged in an Lithuanian nuclear power plant project. And that was curious about the economics of nuclear energy. And it turned out that like I said, also in Bret Kugelmass’ “The Economics of Nuclear Energy” is really fantastic. So 20 years you’re paying down the capital cost. And after that for 20-60 years, which is the case with most older reactors, your cost is really much, much lower and it’s effectively like printing money.
Elizabeth Muller (03:23):
And how is Fermi Energia looking to bring nuclear or advanced nuclear to Europe?
Kalev Kallemets (03:31):
Yeah. So first up, I would qualify also in Gen III+ as advanced, compared to second generation plants that don’t have passive safety systems. So yeah, we are a small country in Estonia. We are basically a common system with two other Baltic nations, Lithuania and Latvia. So about a total of something like 5 million population and like roughly 30 million, 30 TWh hour consumption. So not a big place and we can’t do large nuclear and also from three perspectives and the cost perspective that’s prohibitive. And that was also demonstrated in the Lithuanian project in the vast complexity in a large nuclear deployment project, but if you have a smaller project that is much more manageable and you can approach it with a private capital angle. And yeah, we are currently in the European Union and we have CO2 pricing and today a CO2 price reached 40 euros per ton, meaning something like close to $50 per ton. And that’s, I mean, with that price, all of coal would be shut down in the United States. And, I mean, and it has to happen also in Europe eventually, actually in 15 years and, our current government has decided to shut down oil shale, which is the predominant fuel for power generation in Estonia, to shut it down in 15 years. So we have to do a base load that is really dispatchable and we have to, so we don’t know any other alternatives.
Elizabeth Muller (05:24):
Yeah. And what is the hardest part of your work?
Kalev Kallemets (05:29):
Yeah, the complexity of it. So it’s not just about technology, it’s just not about economics. It’s the many, many issues happening at the same time. You have to be at the top of your game on energy economics, technology, I mean nuclear technology, but also the waste issues, international cooperation, politics, I mean domestic politics, energy policy, geopolitics communication, team-building, financing. And I mean, the list goes on. So it’s a, yeah, I love it.
Elizabeth Muller (06:04):
And, and why did you decide to do this through a startup company rather than through other methods?
Kalev Kallemets (06:12):
Yeah, that’s the best question I think. So yeah, we started up talking with the Estonian government on utility, but they said this is not our strategy. Our strategy is the mainstream thing, which is doing windmills and solar and keeping the existing fossil plants running. And also obviously the politicians, they don’t have the vision of 15 years, what is their thinking about the next elections. And which is kind of natural – I’ve been a member of parliament so I know. So I thought, and I have the practical experience working within the government, that if you are able to make a concrete proposal, which is actionable, timely, budgetary, and has a meaningful positive impact to the society. And the alternative is to do nothing. Then sometimes if you’re lucky and have good timing and everything works in your favor, you might get the positive outcome. So we thought we’d give it a try. And we have in Estonia, a culture of actually having multiple, multiple globally successful technology companies. Well, I wouldn’t say we’re Silicon Valley or something like that, that would be too exorbitant. But yes, we do have some companies that have been successful, some openness to technology, ability to learn, and execute and raise money.
Elizabeth Muller (07:49):
What are the longer term goals for the company, are you going to stop at Estonia? Or are you also looking at other locations?
Kalev Kallemets (07:57):
Yeah, Estonia first. So what I’m aiming to do, I’m so enthused about what you are doing, Elizabeth, it’s bringing the best product to the market and you have a best product on the waste issue. I want to have the best product on nuclear energy deployment service, like product. And that’s what we are aiming to do. And I see a market opening in wider Europe for multiple, multiple projects, but nuclear is a very long term thing. It’s like a glacier, but if you’re stuck, get going, we think we’re good.
Elizabeth Muller (08:33):
So you mentioned the nuclear waste issue. Is that a big concern in Estonia and what do people think the right thing to do is?
Kalev Kallemets (08:43):
Yeah, absolutely. The same has been so successful. And we’ve been doing many surveys among the population and even the accident risk doesn’t play as strong as the concern about the waste. Somehow there is a perception that it’s a kind of gaseous thing that kind of emits and goes somewhere and moves somehow and is kind of mobile. So which is kind of a very easy thing to refute.
Elizabeth Muller (09:15):
So in many ways it looks like you’re actually doing the responsible thing by talking about, and by planning for the nuclear waste disposal before you’ve created a reactor in the first place. Is anybody else thinking like that or is it mostly a legacy problem?
Kalev Kallemets (09:34):
Yeah, it’s probably a legacy problem, but my background also led me to think about it immediately. I’m kind of a weird person that I’ve been in so many places, and I’ve been a founder of Estonian Geological Survey, a government agency when I worked in the Ministry of Economic Affairs. And I know about Estonian geology, even though I’m an economist by training. And I knew that we have a solid bedrock that is the same bedrock that Finland and Sweden have. So my presumption was that it should be possible in Estonian territory to determine the locations or areas where the bedrock is a safe environment for Deep Isolation solution. And I’m pretty pleased to see that confirmed.
Elizabeth Muller (10:32):
Now, of course, we’ve just published a joint piece of work on the geology of Estonia and how it could potentially be a suitable solution for nuclear waste disposal. What’s next? What is coming up and what are the next steps to move forward?
Kalev Kallemets (10:51):
Yeah, yeah. Like with any study, I think that the rational thing is to end up, what really happens is that the reports are looked at skeptically. And I think the government is well-advised that they would review from third sources. Then they would read the report carefully first and then consult with third-party consultants from International Atomic Energy Agency and other let’s say international partners on the details. And I would, I’m pretty confident that they find the satisfactory confirmations that the deep borehole solution has very strong potential. And then the rational thing is to, if the government decides to move ahead with the SMR consideration option, first planning and then other steps, then strategy should be developed then permitting that would, when we would go into actual construction permitting of the SMR deployment, it would be also at the same time. How do I say, permitting for specific action plan with dates, budgets, organization, arrangements, legal arrangements in place to make sure when, who, where, how, the spent fuel is being taken care of safely for the public. And if you have that, I think it is, yeah, it’s a very good product.
Elizabeth Muller (12:41):
And what about stakeholder engagement and community consultation? How and when would that happen?
Kalev Kallemets (12:48):
All the time? That has to happen all the time. I was just on the phone with some folks in the region that I know already first name basis and like in official meetings, meeting after work and discussing things openly, honestly – we have in Estonia because we are such a small nation. We have a very unofficial way how we just talk with each other. So it’s kind of a small family.
Elizabeth Muller (13:28):
So you feel like you’re already on the path to, to gaining the trust of the people who will be impacted?
Kalev Kallemets (13:35):
Yeah, I’ve been, I’ve been actually working in this area for a better half of my working life and I, yeah, I know many people there. Well, it’s more than 1000 kilometers away from Chernobyl so that this accident definitely is something that we need to address and the concerns related to potential of hazard to the population or capability to develop as an operating organization in the future. And also the basic know how about SMR technologies that we are currently considering. So there is some, what is the procedure of actually regulating, permitting, what are the political decision points? And obviously, like I explained, rational human responses, skepticism, and there is a lot of talking that needs to be happening. And this is the only way that human relations do development. You cannot assume that you’ll have, you can go in some place and start building stuff. So then you have to get familiar with the people.
Elizabeth Muller (14:51):
Yeah. And, what do they see is the upside, what, what is it that is positive from the perspective of stakeholders and communities and citizens?
Kalev Kallemets (15:02):
Yeah, I think that there definitely has to be a value proposal if you want to deploy something serious in a location, and we in Estonia call it like a billion dollar project and you do not offer a value proposal to the people. And your value proposal is you’re going to have jobs, some kind. This is like not serious. This is like lying, or it’s just like cheating or something. And that, I think this is totally fair that the people are well, not only skeptical, but kind of pushing it away. And so we do have a practical value proposition to the municipality in terms of how much benefit they would monetarily gain over the operating period of the plant. And also, I believe that one benefit that the nuclear power plant is producing is power, right?
Kalev Kallemets (16:11):
So it should, it should deliver power to the people. And we did the numbers. And if the municipality there, the population is reasonably low, it’s not like tens of thousands, or is relatively, let’s say a few thousand people. It can supply free power for thousands of people, and it is absolutely possible. And doesn’t impact, like in a major way, the economics, it’s a much bigger problem if you neglect that issue. And then you would have the situation that you have in the Kingdom of Belgium, the situation in Sweden, or the situation in Germany. And that is a much bigger financial and fiduciary risk for the whole project. And I would say for the whole society, if, if there are misalignment of interests.
Elizabeth Muller (17:03):
Could you say a little bit more about that? What do you see as the big issues in those locations?
Kalev Kallemets (17:09):
Alright, you have massive taxation and the nuclear phase out policies in place, because there is a misalignment of interests. So if there is a, in a society as well, if there would be very severely strong misalignment of wealth then you would have social unrest. If you would have a misalignment of, I don’t know, other interests, then you would have instability, inherent instability in the system. So I think I’m looking north to Finland, and there are two reasons I find why they are able to build new nuclear power plants in Finland, even to this point the Chernobyl and Fukushima events happening, that they do have a wide ownership base within the society. And wide benefit sharing around the society, Like when you say municipalities, shareholders in a nuclear power plants, like tens of municipalities and also industrial companies, not just some kind of anonymous big power company, big, bad, ugly, like a utility, but it is owned by the people. So it’s not, it’s not like communism, but it’s like shareholder capitalism, and that really works.
Elizabeth Muller (18:36):
And then at the Estonian sort of, whole of country level what do you see as the vision, if they’re able to move forward with this reactor, how will it impact the country as a whole?
Kalev Kallemets (18:50):
Oh, definitely very significantly. Like I said, we’re population wise 1.3 million. So economically it’s, it would be a very substantial project to deploy even two or three reactors, very substantial. Andit would require very significant learning for the whole society. And I think that this is one of the things that excites me and why we call our company Fermi Energia, because this is a fascinating science of controlling the strong force. How we discovered this strong force and how it was like this international project, how nuclear energy continues to be, always continues to be absolutely international like you and me speaking. So it’s, I love it.
Kalev Kallemets (19:43):
I love, I love the international element of it and bringing like truly people get together around science and knowledge then, and taking the effort, mental effort and discipline of learning and engaging deeply and seriously with other people. And I think that this is the heart of democracy as well, and I’m very passionate about our Western values about cooperation, transcend that think manner and very passionate about market economy, also working for the benefit of the people. So I want all of those aspects happening, then I would be very pleased to pass it on to my children.
Elizabeth Muller (20:28):
Well, your passion certainly comes across. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Kalev Kallemets (20:35):
Yeah, I think I’ve, I’ve said so much. So we are, we’re very early in the beginning and and we’re right now in the money raising period, and it’s so fascinating to see new investors coming in. We need to do nuclear? And we need to cooperate with really a lot of people. And there is no one else, no one else, but us to do that. I know for a fact, so this brings a responsibility for me that kind of fate has spoken that, that we have to do with this. And yeah, we’re doing it and we have to face out for sides. We have to do it, and we have to make practical, smart decisions to have nuclear reach the potential that well, maybe it’s like a CMO wrote about, and the people dreamt about when, when nuclear was originally developed.
Elizabeth Muller (21:34):
Well, thank you so much, Kalev. It was really wonderful talking to you. I think we share a passion for the future, so really thank you. And thank you for your time.
Kalev Kallemets (21:45):
Yeah. All right. Right.
Nuclear Waste 101
Understand more about nuclear waste and its implications for you and your community.
On March 12 climate scientist Dr. Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy for The Breakthrough Institute and research scientist for Berkeley Earth, was among several experts to offer testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in a session titled “The Science Behind Impacts of the Climate Crisis.” This was the first time the committee addressed this topic, marking a significant milestone in the national conversation around global warming.
Zeke Hausfather, Berkeley Earth Research Scientist and Director of Climate at Energy, Breakthrough Institute
Since Berkeley Earth was established by Liz Muller and Richard Muller, co-founders of Deep Isolation, we are highlighting this important testimony in recognition of Earth Month 2021 and the 51st Earth Day. Deep Isolation recognizes that nuclear energy is an important means of addressing climate change, and without a nuclear waste solution, finding public support for nuclear may be challenging. The introduction to Hausfather’s testimony follows:
Good morning Chairwoman (Eddie Bernice) Johnson, Ranking Member (Frank) Lucas, and members of the Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to join you today and the opportunity to share my perspective on the science behind the impacts of climate change. My name is Zeke Hausfather. I am the director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank located in Oakland, California. I also serve as a research scientist with Berkeley Earth, and a contributor to Carbon Brief.
I am a climate scientist whose research focuses on observational temperature records, climate models, and mitigation technologies. I am also a contributing author to the IPCC 6th Assessment Report. My testimony today will draw upon my work and that of my colleagues to present a view of our changing climate and its impacts, the future warming pathways the world may take, the accelerating global energy transition away from carbon-intensive fuels, and the technologies needed to decarbonize the U.S. economy.
In many ways, 2020 was the year in which both climate change and the accelerating energy transition became impossible to ignore. On the climate front, we saw 2020 tie with 2016 as the warmest year since records began, with global temperatures around 1.3ºC (2.4ºF) above the temperatures of the late 1800s. Land areas – where we all live – were nearly 2ºC (3.6ºF) warmer. We saw devastating wildfires in California and Australia, extreme heat in Siberia, and the second-lowest level of Arctic sea ice ever observed, among other climate extremes.
This map shows how local temperatures in 2020 have increased relative to the average temperature in 1951-1980.
At the same time, the world has made substantial progress in moving away from the worst-case outcomes of climate change over the past decade. Rather than a 21st century dominated by coal that energy modelers foresaw, global coal use peaked in 2013 and is now in structural decline. We have succeeded in making clean energy cheap, with solar power and battery storage costs falling 10-fold since 2009. The world produced more electricity from clean energy – solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear – than from coal over the past two years. And according to major oil companies peak oil is upon us – not because we have run out of cheap oil to produce, but because demand is falling as consumers shift to electric vehicles.
Current policies adopted by countries put us on track for around 3ºC (or 5.4ºF) of warming by the end of the century, compared to the late 1800s. Including pledges and targets – such as those included in the Paris Agreement – brings this down to 2.5ºC (4.5ºF). We have seen a proliferation of longer-term decarbonization commitments in recent years, with countries representing around half of global emissions – including China – pledging to reach net-zero by 2050 or 2060. If these longer-term commitments are achieved, it would bring end-of-century warming down close to 2ºC (3.6ºF).
Some caution is warranted here; long-term pledges should be discounted until reflected in short-term policy commitments. And warming could well be notably higher – or lower – than these best estimates, given scientific uncertainties surrounding both the sensitivity of climate to our greenhouse gas emissions and likely changes in the ability of the land and oceans to absorb a portion of what we emit. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over time, and until emissions reach net-zero the world will continue to warm.
This is the brutal math of climate change, and it means that the full decarbonization of our economy is not a matter of if but when. Cost declines in clean energy go a long way toward making deep decarbonization more achievable at a lower cost than appeared possible a decade ago. Low-cost renewables can provide a sizable share of our energy needs in modern grid-integration models. In the near term, however, America’s cheap and abundant supplies of natural gas will play a key role in filling in the gaps as we build out more wind and solar and keep existing clean energy sources like nuclear online.
In the longer term, there is a growing recognition of the need for both complementary technologies – such as grid-scale storage and long-distance transmission – as well as clean firm generation like advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and gas with carbon capture and storage to wean the system off natural gas. Studies have consistently shown that low-carbon power grids with a sizable portion of clean firm generation are a lower cost option than wind, solar, and hydro alone.
Debates around climate mitigation are often framed as a choice between the technologies we have today and future innovations. In reality, we need to do both; to deploy what is cost-effective today, and to invest in the range of solutions needed to tackle the hard-to-decarbonize parts of the economy. The recent omnibus bill takes an important step in this direction, authorizing billions of dollars for investments in clean energy, vital energy R&D, and grid modernization. It shows that there is real potential for bipartisan energy solutions that both reduce emissions and create jobs.
If we want to ensure that the rest of the world follows the U.S. lead in reducing CO2 emissions, there is no better step that we can take than making clean energy technologies cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. Making clean energy cheap can set the U.S. up to be a leader in developing and selling these technologies to the rest of the world while building new industries and creating jobs at home.
Find a link to the full testimony and a video of the hearing here.
In this episode, Andrew Sowder dives into the global need for carbon-free electricity, his experience engaging with indigenous communities, and EPRI's role in the nuclear industry.
Note: This transcript is the raw transcript of this podcast. Minimal edits have been made only for clarity purposes.
Andrew Sowder (0:10):
I have learned from my time working with geologic disposal and reactor technology, is it’s important to keep in mind that no matter what technology you use, there will be some amount of something that needs to be disposed of for a very long time.
Narrator (0:28):
Did you know that there are half a million metric tons of nuclear waste temporarily stored at hundreds of sites worldwide? In the U.S. alone, one in three people live within 50 miles of a storage site. No country has yet successfully disposed of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it’s not for lack of a solution. So what’s the delay? The answers are complex and controversial. In this series, we explore the nuclear waste issue with people representing various pieces of this complicated puzzle. We hope this podcast will give you a clearer picture of Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story.
We believe that listening is an important element of a successful nuclear waste disposal program. A core company value is to seek and listen to different perspectives. Opinions expressed by the interviewers and their subjects are not necessarily representative of the company. If there’s a topic discussed in the podcast that is unfamiliar to you, or you’d like to more closely review what was said, please see the show notes at deepisolation.com/podcasts.
Kari Hulac (01:53):
Hello everyone. I’m Kari Hulac, Communications Manager for Deep Isolation. And today I’m talking to Andrew Sowder, a scientist and senior technical executive for the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit that conducts research development and demonstrations focused on electricity generation and how it can be safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible. Welcome, Andrew. Thank you so much for joining us too.
Andrew Sowder (02:21):
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.
Kari Hulac (02:25):
So first off why don’t you give us a high level look, your thoughts on what are the concerns for the world right now when it comes to safe, reliable, affordable electricity generation. What’s top of mind for you on what we need to be concerned about?
Andrew Sowder (02:45):
Sure. Well, I think in general globally, electricity is associated with quality of life and all these things that are measured on the human development index from the United Nations. And so certainly granting access to more and more people to safe, affordable, reliable electricity is a good thing. I think the challenge is how do you do that within the constraints of climate change concerns, resource concerns, and other environmental concerns like that. So really it’s about how do we continue with progress and electrifying more of the world while also living within our means and reducing perhaps our footprint that we leave in the environment. So EPRI is about initially electricity, but I think the other key thing is that electricity is not separate from other key infrastructures, like transportation, broader industry, and just broader energy infrastructure. So infrastructures play with one another and also can actually compliment one another to solve these big problems.
Kari Hulac (03:59):
Great. Yeah, it’s something that so many of us just take for granted, you know. So what are your kind of top goals at EPRI coming up for 2021? What are you kind of looking forward to? What do you hope to accomplish this coming year?
Andrew Sowder (04:14):
Well, I think the big one for EPRI writ large, and again, I’m just in one little section of EPRI, EPRI addresses everything from the actual generation of electricity to its delivery to the wires and then to the end-user and how it’s used, and now even how it also interacts with other energy sources and providers and users. So broadly we have rolled out a new low carbon resource initiative this year that’s gaining traction. And so, I’m working with the Gas Technology Institute on their similar organization, obviously for the gas industry, natural gas industry, on how we can actually achieve reductions in carbon emissions while also still meeting the needs of society in an affordable way. So that’s probably the big one. And I would say for nuclear, the area I’m in, it’s really about how, what role does nuclear play in the future in the, in the areas of, you know, mitigating climate change, reducing carbon emissions, but also perhaps even more importantly, just providing that reliable, safe, affordable power and energy that people also need in order to stay alive.
Kari Hulac (05:39):
So let’s go back in time a little bit how you ended up in nuclear yourself. You’re a health physicist. So I was reading that before you started your career at EPRI, you did some interesting scientific environmental work around uranium and nuclear weapons production, including working with the Navajo nation and communities affected by uranium mining. So how did those early experiences shape what you’re doing today?
Andrew Sowder (06:04):
Sure. And so as a graduate student, I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time on a former nuclear weapons production facility, the Savannah River Site here in South Carolina, where I actually still live now. And so I spent a lot of time working on the impacts and the fate and transport of things like uranium and heavy metals once they’re released to the environment associated with the production activities there. So I got to work there with the ecologists you know, plant biologists, animal wildlife biologists, my work focused on the soil part. So there, I got a real appreciation for the importance of considering, you know, the entire system and how things interplay and the things you need to consider anytime you’re undertaking a new activity. I really did enjoy it and it was really an honor to spend time on the Navajo Nation.
Andrew Sowder (07:02):
So one of the projects that I was able to participate in was educational outreach on the Navajo Nation. And so as part of that, I got to meet folks that were working on this abandoned uranium mine project. And it was real education, an eye-opener, you know, I had been in grad school, I thought I knew a lot of stuff about the history in the U.S. and I had assumed that a lot of these legacy, these are from the Cold War days, legacy mine and milling sites had all been cleaned up or at least addressed. Well, it turns out the mill sites and things had been addressed under one federal program and a lot of those mines were left just abandoned and left unreclaimed.
Andrew Sowder (07:50):
And you can imagine there’s a physical hazard of open shafts, but also, you know, mine tailings with a lot of uranium in them laying around on the surface. So, that really opened my eyes about the importance of, again, considering you got to think about the whole lifecycle when talking about technology from cradle to grave, so to speak. And there was a case where actually there were some real exposures to hazards from radiation and radioactivity simply because of the proximity and people incorporated some of that uranium ore into their homes, into concrete. And so, you know, it’s ironic in many ways we worry about isolation of spent nuclear fuel, used nuclear fuel, and other high-level waste and really managing those to very low doses and dose rates. When, in fact, in other parts of the fuel cycle and other activities that we may not think of, the risks and hazards can be higher, for example, radon, everyone knows radon is a problem.
Kari Hulac (08:58):
Interesting. Interesting. And so, kind of tying this to the present with the issue of, like you mentioned, spent nuclear fuel. I know that EPRI did a lot of research. I think I counted like more than 180 reports on your website with Yucca Mountain, which is designated to be the United States mined repository for nuclear waste, but has an uncertain future. So what are some learnings there? How can this body of technical expertise that you bring to the table and EPRI’s work on this, move the U.S. toward a permanent nuclear waste solution?
Andrew Sowder (09:36):
Sure. So, you know, again, I should just point out, you know EPRI’s role, no matter what we do, is technical. We stay clear of the policy space and that’s for others to decide. So, you know, our bread and butter is doing the technical work that’s credible and defensible. And so, really our role in the Yucca Mountain days, as I would call them, was providing an independent evaluation of the performance, including safety of the repository that ended up being designated at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. So we actually conducted work probably over two decades and actually led some of the development of really the contemporary way of how do you evaluate something like a geologic repository that’s supposed to contain its inventory and perform over, in the U.S. at least, a million years.
Andrew Sowder (10:40):
And so we really helped develop the total system performance assessment, PSPA method. And so in many ways, you know, we were at the forefront of some of that, just even how you think about, how you get your arms around the evaluation process. In that regard, we worked very well, kind of complimentary with the Department of Energy. They had their own innovation program, we had a different purpose. We were really on here to inform the utilities in the U.S. at least, our members, and keep them apprised, but also to provide technical peer review and insights into repository performance because obviously, that is, it was and is such an important issue.
Kari Hulac (11:30):
So you were the point person for the very in-depth, the 190 pages EPRI report that was recently released about how deep horizontal boreholes could work for advanced reactor fuel disposal. Full disclosure, my colleagues did contribute to this report along with many others. And thank you for your work on it. Now that it’s complete, it’s been published. Any insights or takeaways and anything about how it’s been received?
Andrew Sowder (11:59):
I’ll go back to actually how long ago it was that we did active work on disposal. We actually exited from the Yucca Mountain work as it went into licensing. And so since then, it’s been all over a decade since we had actually done work in geologic disposal. And so now that we’re looking forward and most of the work I do now is in the advanced reactor space. You know, there was a perceived need to come up with a new story for maybe the new generation of reactors. Again, separating this from the existing fleet and existing inventory.
Andrew Sowder (12:39):
But we really thought it was time to actually think about options for the next generation of reactors. And so the spirit of the report is really one of exploring options. And so I think, I don’t think anyone would argue with the idea that it’s important to have options. But in order to have an option available when you need it, you actually have had to think about it, pursue it and develop the option. So this report was really, in my mind, just the first step towards thinking about, well, could you actually utilize some of the now developing technology that is just now being demonstrated by companies like Deep Isolation and also by other researchers here in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Andrew Sowder (13:27):
Could it be done? What does that look like in terms of scale? How does it fit in with the operation of a plant? And even things like preliminary costs because costs and schedule are always important. So that’s kind of our role. And we basically, since Deep Isolation really was the only commercial developer out there that we identified. We did appreciate being able to utilize your technology as the example in a way. So we use it as a kind of a proxy for what the technology could do. I think the conclusions of the report are, again, it’s preliminary. It was strictly based on a hypothetical non-existent site, we just chose a region of the country and looked around and said, you know, what would be involved in deciding this?
Andrew Sowder (14:23):
But what we really determined was there were no clear showstoppers technology-wise at least to the deployment of the technology on some reactor sites, again depending on where you’re located. Really the devil is in the details, and this will really depend on, you know, what, where the site is, and as with Yucca Mountain, the real important aspects are more the social and political aspects of will a community let you utilize the technology and will the powers that be you know, likewise agreed to allow the technology to be deployed.
Kari Hulac (15:06):
I’m glad you brought up the community again because I actually was thinking of that when you were talking about the Navajo nation, how eye-opening that was to see how they were affected. And, you know, that’s really important, and I know that’s important to you all as well. You know, if this is going to happen, there has to be great community engagement.
Andrew Sowder (15:28):
Yeah. And in the report itself, for example, you know, we do spend some time exploring actually a unique option that the technology offers in terms of using it in both an interim storage mode, as well as the permanent disposal mode, but part and parcel with that does come the requirement which is pretty broadly recognized for early and continuing engagement with the community and really giving the community the option to change their mind up to a certain point. When is enough, enough? And when does that ability to change their mind end? And what does that all look like? That has to be worked out, you know, politically and with the community, but what’s key is sound science, having the technical basis, and communicating it effectively with the community, listening to the community, and having the credibility that they actually believe you, because if you have no credibility, then there’s nothing you can say to actually get them to buy into plans.
Kari Hulac (16:38):
So let’s talk a little bit more about advanced reactors, as you mentioned, that’s kind of what you’re focused on. So what are the next best steps for continuing the nuclear waste dialogue with the advanced reactor community? This was, you know, that report was a huge big first step, as you said, you hadn’t done anything in a decade, so exciting that there’s this work, body of work now. So what, what do you see happening next? And I know you’re on a, I know you have an advanced reactor team at EPRI, and you can kind of talk a little bit about that, how that fits in.
Andrew Sowder (17:09):
Sure. So really, you know, one thing that came to light as I mentioned, is the report is very generic and conceptual in nature. So one of the important things to know is, well, what is the fuel or the waste that you want to manage, to store, dispose of? And so without a specific technology in mind you know, it’s really difficult to also make a lot of explicit and straightforward conclusions. So I think one of the important things for EPRI and others is to understand more what the technology developers are proposing and it will be important to actually tell this story and understand what comes out of the reactor at the end. Because as we’ve seen with the current fleet you know, it is an important consideration. You know, in relation to the amount of energy that is derived from the technology, but the waste still, because it is so concentrated, it is very hazardous and so needs to be managed appropriately. So I think really understanding the technologies and what different fuel forms because that’s the one thing that is going to change with the new technologies is you have really a full spectrum of fuel types from traditional solid fuels, all the way to liquid fuels. And a liquid fuel, you can imagine a dissolved fuel, will need to be somehow addressed in a way that can be managed and disposed of.
Kari Hulac (18:46):
From what, you know, do you think multiple technologies are likely, so there’ll be multiple paths? Or do you think a few may rise to the top and be most likely to be adopted?
Andrew Sowder (18:58):
Well, I think some will likely continue to just use the fuel once, at least in the near term, and other technologies are really pinning their case on being able to continually recycle fuel or use fuel from another era or another design of reactor. So again, that’s really where the complexity comes in and you have a lot of different use cases. And I do think there will be multiple reactor designs because moving forward there will be probably different missions beyond just straightforward electricity production. And some reactors are better suited for higher temperatures and compatibility with providing heat to industry. I have learned from my time working with geologic disposal and reactor technology, it is important to keep in mind that no matter what technology you use, there will be some amount of something that needs to be disposed of for a very long time.
Andrew Sowder (20:01):
And people debate how long that is, but some of these, you know, last for hundreds of thousands of years, and I’m talking fission products, not just the other things that can be potentially reused, like the uranium, plutonium, those sorts of things. So that’s really why it’s important to have options for disposal because you’re gonna need to dispose of something for a very long time.
Kari Hulac (20:29):
That makes sense. So there’s a, you have, you’re part of a team now, is that kind of a recent development? Tell me a little bit about what that group is within EPRI?
Andrew Sowder (20:38):
Sure. When I first started at EPRI things were looking very rosy for nuclear. There was a nuclear renaissance on its way, but that’s all in a context. And the context was natural gas was expensive, climate change was a concern, and there was a recognition that reduced carbon emissions would be something needed in the future. And so natural gas did not look so great at the time. And nuclear looked to be really one of the mainstays. Within a year of that, all changed with the arrival of shale oil and gas production.
Andrew Sowder (21:15):
So that shows you how a simple, well, I won’t say simple, but a single technology disruption can change the picture almost overnight, at least in a country like the United States. And so getting to your question, around 2015, you know, well I was given the chance to, with some seed funding within EPRI, to start up a small program or a strategic area looking at, you know, what would it take essentially to convince folks to consider advanced reactors, something beyond what the current technology is? And so in the meantime, we’ve had the small modular reactor. And so that kind of provided a bridge from the large reactor to really the more advanced or very different non light water reactor cooled designs. And so about 2015 was when we started something and fast forward five years or so. Last year we formally incorporated that advanced reactor focus area into our EPRI so-called portfolio. And so it’s significant because it’s really the first time that EPRI has really focused explicitly on this area beyond just, you know, sponsoring one-off projects.
Kari Hulac (22:37):
That seems hopeful because, as you said, there was this chance of a Renaissance. And then it kind of died out for pricing reasons of energy. And now you have this, so does this make you feel hopeful about the future? Like, okay, we’re kind of looking at this closely.
Andrew Sowder (22:55):
Oh, it does. And I would say it feels different than it has before, although again, I’m only at midlife in my career. But you know, certainly, I think there’s a lot of energy. And then what I think is really important, at least in North America, is there’s private investment, significant private investment because in the past a lot of the realm of R&D and necessities fell to the governments. And so, you know, a lot of times technology developed exclusively by the government doesn’t always match up with what the industry needs, at least in the United States. I think it’s been a very good sign that you have so many entrepreneurs with so many ideas, and I call it like multiple shots on goal in hockey terms. And again, what’s different also is that you are offering these at different scale sizes and also capabilities.
Andrew Sowder (23:58):
You know, that’s essentially a given that the current fleet is safe, but you know, anything new has to perform as well, if not better. And so I am hopeful and recent developments, even in just the U.S. have been very positive, such as the U.S. Department of Energy has invested a lot of money in demonstrations, which in my mind are key. The customer needs to see the technology operated and it needs to be de-risked before someone takes a real risk. Why would someone buy and risk a lot on a technology that hasn’t been really proven before when they already have, you know, something that they could buy today? So that’s, I think what has changed is, you know, really this diversity of ideas and also in private sector investment.
Kari Hulac (24:49):
So I know EPRI is not just focused on the U.S. of course. Maybe we could talk a little bit about the international market for advanced nuclear, any countries to watch there, any guesses on who might be first to deploy an advanced reactor elsewhere?
Andrew Sowder (25:05):
Sure. We’re now an international organization and a lot of our funding and membership is international. In fact, in the nuclear sector over half of our funding and membership is outside of the United States. So, which makes it for a very exciting place to work. And it forces us, we do have to keep a view that’s not just U.S. centric. And so looking outside of the United States, you know, we already see countries like China, you know, really expanding their nuclear builds, you know, at a scale that’s reminiscent of the United States actually during the 1970s, when we built out the majority of our fleet. So they’re kind of going through that same rapid growth that we had and France had and other countries.
Andrew Sowder (25:53):
But looking ahead, you know, in the past, when someone mentioned these advanced reactor concepts you know, generation four reactors, a lot of people would roll their eyes and say you know, I don’t believe that is that really going to happen? But you know, now my favorite phrase is really, it’s not no longer if, it’s when and by whom. And so it’s clear that there’s a lot of action going on in many countries around the world.
Andrew Sowder (26:24):
If you look to China, you know, they’re about to start up a high temperature gas-cooled reactor, their HTR-PM reactor design, which is similar to ones that companies in the U.S. are looking to commercialize. And again, it’s kind of important to remember most of these concepts aren’t new. In fact, many of them were operated at some scale back in the 1950s and 60s.
Kari Hulac (26:51):
This has been a great discussion, Andrew, I guess I’ll just kind of give you a chance to mention, are there any other projects, upcoming work that you’d like to highlight for our audience today that we haven’t touched on yet?
Andrew Sowder (27:06):
Well, sure. You know, one of the things that I’ve been championing over the past several years is trying to recreate what we did for large light water reactors, but more geared towards the new generation of advanced reactors. And that’s really the development of a common owner operator requirements, a guide, which would help really align the needs of the customer with the developers. Because again, it’s easy to develop things in a silo and lose touch with your customers. And so this is a function that EPRI’s done before. And what’s different now is there’s so many technologies. We are looking to make this a much more high-level open framework, that’s technology and mission inclusive. And so this year we’re really trying to internationalize that more, reach out to partners, and work with others so that, you know, it’s not just focused in the U.S. or one area, but really could end up being a template for helping developers understand what the market needs are and helping the customers understand what they should be asking of the developers. And then the regulators can also use these frameworks because then they can kind of see, well, here’s the things we’ve got to get ready to actually license and regulate. So that’s kinda my big push is this internationalization harmonization, and that would be working with other organizations around the world.
Kari Hulac (28:44):
Well, great. Thank you so much for joining us today. It sounds like a lot of exciting things going on and we’ll keep an eye on what’s next there at EPRI.
Andrew Sowder (28:53):
Well, thank you very much. I’ve enjoyed it.
Kari Hulac (28:57):
All right. Have a great day. Thank you.
Nuclear Waste 101
Understand more about nuclear waste and its implications for you and your community.
In December 2020, the peer-reviewed journal Energies published a new paper by the Deep Isolation technical and geo-science team that explores what might happen if a deep borehole repository for nuclear waste had an improperly sealed access hole connecting the disposal section of the repository to the Earth’s surface.
In a public webinar set for March 30 and 31, Stefan and other Deep Isolation team members will present the results of this updated safety report and field your questions and comments.
Get to know Stefan better through this Q&A.
Lead Hydrogeologist, Stefan Finsterle
Q. Hydrogeology is defined as a branch of geology that deals with the distribution and movement of groundwater in the soil and rocks, including aquifers of the Earth’s crust. Why is this so critical to understand for nuclear waste disposal?
A. Groundwater is the main vehicle by which radionuclides could be transported from a breached waste canister through the rocks, aquifers and soil to the land surface, where they may find their way to people, either directly through drinking water or more indirectly through other exposure pathways. It is therefore crucial to understand how water moves through rocks, how dissolved radionuclides would migrate within the groundwater, and what natural or repository-induced driving forces may exist in the deep subsurface. Geologic layers considered suitable to host a repository for nuclear waste are very tight, that is, groundwater flows extremely slowly through the small pores of the rocks, effectively isolating the waste for very long times. I hope this clarifies why understanding hydrogeology — the interaction of water and rock — is essential when trying to find a suitable site and for assessing the safety of a nuclear waste repository.
Q. Tell us about your background as a hydrogeologist who studies deep geologic repositories for nuclear waste. What interests you most about this work?
A. As an environmental engineer, I want to understand the natural environment, protect it, or at least help minimize or mitigate the potentially negative impacts of our intrusions. Hydrogeology has always been fascinating to me because the deep subsurface is both vast and difficult to observe, requiring innovative methods to understand and characterize it, with the response of the groundwater to our testing being the most telling messenger. Nuclear waste disposal is obviously a multifaceted challenge; the fact that answering hydrogeological questions is key to finding a viable solution is certainly a great motivation for me. Moreover, I find the idea of borehole disposal intriguing because this concept indeed minimizes the interference of the repository with its host rock and the fluids that flow through it.
Q. This latest study looks at what the consequences would be for an improperly sealed borehole containing nuclear waste. Why was this important to study?
A. There are two main reasons why it is important to analyze the safety effects of an improperly sealed borehole. First, building a repository invariably perturbs the otherwise impermeable host rock. The access hole and the disturbed rock around it are often considered the weakest elements of the repository system, as they pose a risk for radionuclide leakage. Second, even if the borehole is carefully sealed and tested as part of the repository closure activities, it is difficult to demonstrate that the seals will remain tight for the long time periods over which the safety of the repository must be assessed. Rather than studying the effectiveness of different sealing methods, we decided to examine the impacts of a poorly sealed borehole (or a seal that has degraded over time) on safety, to better understand how much we will have to rely on the long-term integrity of the seal. It is important to note that the design of a Deep Isolation repository includes proper sealing of the boreholes.
Q. The results seem to imply that a tight seal is not really necessary. Yet, Deep Isolation plans to install an impermeable sealing barrier. Given the results of your study, why spend the time and resources to do so?
A. There will always be irreducible uncertainties in predicting the long-term behavior of both the engineered and natural barrier systems. It simply makes good sense to install plugs at strategic locations and to backfill the access hole, specifically since such safety measures are relatively inexpensive. For example, installing a sealing plug at the beginning of the horizontal disposal section or another point along the access hole within the host rock would be very effective in retarding axial radionuclide transport. Special attention should also be given to the uppermost section of the vertical access hole. A suitable backfill would reduce the near-surface hydrological disturbances that propagate along the borehole into the repository, specifically pressure drawdowns caused by climate change effects or groundwater pumping. It would also directly protect the aquifer and inhibit inadvertent or malicious human intrusions into the repository. Hydraulic feed or thief zones identified during drilling and borehole logging can be plugged, and the drilling-disturbed zone around the borehole can be grouted at certain intervals. Sealing of boreholes and abandoned wells is required by regulation in other areas of engineering, specifically oil and gas production, energy storage, and geologic carbon sequestration systems. Similar requirements are expected for a borehole repository for nuclear waste. Nevertheless, it is certainly reassuring to know that a deep borehole repository does not need to rely on the long-term integrity of its backfill materials and sealing methods.
Q. What do you see as next steps or a follow-on study to this one?
A. I’m looking forward to engaging in discussions that further probe our assumptions about potential axial driving forces, the dissipation of pressure and dispersion of radionuclides into the overburden, and the overall arguments about the inherent, passive safety afforded by the geometry of the borehole repository. The topic of sealing will definitely need to be revisited for each potential repository site, as the site-specific geology and design adjustments will influence the effectiveness of the seals as well as alter seal degradation processes. In summary, extending the current, generic study to a site-specific performance analysis will be the next step in further examining the sealing of a deep borehole repository.
Two sessions of the webinar “Safety in Depth Part 2: Sealing of a Deep Horizontal Borehole Repository for Nuclear Waste” will be offered. Click here to register for the 10:30 a.m. PST March 30 session. Click here to register for the 3:30 p.m. March 31 CET session. Both sessions will feature a live question-and-answer period following the presentation.
Berkeley, CA — Deep Isolation, a leading innovator in nuclear waste storage and disposal solutions, will discuss horizontal borehole disposal as an option for spent fuel from advanced reactors at the upcoming Waste Management Symposia.
Rod Baltzer, Chief Operating Officer at Deep Isolation, will present a session titled “Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Advanced Reactors in Horizontal Boreholes” as part of the High-Level Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel/Used Nuclear Fuel track, 7 a.m. to 10:10 a.m. PST on March 11. Baltzer is responsible for Deep Isolation’s waste management operations, domestically and internationally, including interactions with communities, utilities and government entities. He has more than 20 years of experience in leadership positions in the nuclear waste industry.
Baltzer’s presentation will include insights derived from the recently published Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) study, “Feasibility of Borehole Co-Location with Advanced Reactors for Onsite Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” The report indicates that locating a deep borehole repository at the site of a hypothetical advanced reactor in the southeastern United States could be a potentially safe and cost-effective waste management technology option.
“The EPRI study is important as it evaluates new pathways for future nuclear waste disposal,” said Deep Isolation CEO Elizabeth Muller.
“We’ve seen a heightened interest in advanced reactors this past year, and I’m excited to discuss the back-end of the advanced nuclear lifecycle,” Baltzer said. “I’ll discuss why we think that a borehole repository can provide a safe and cost-effective disposal option for advanced reactors.” Baltzer will hold office hours on March 8 from noon-2 p.m. PST, for those wishing to ask questions before his session, and on Thursday, March 11, from 7-10 a.m. PST, during the session.
Also on the agenda for Deep Isolation will be a session on stakeholder engagement.
Jim Hamilton, Director of Partnerships, will participate in the panel session, “Stakeholder Involvement in Consolidated ISF Storage, Disposal, and Transportation Initiatives,” 7-8:30 a.m. PST, on March 11. Hamilton has more than 25 years of experience in the public, private, and NGO sectors and has advised the U.S. Department of Energy on its spent fuel management program.
The panelists will discuss elements needed for success in engaging various stakeholders at all levels of a project’s lifecycle and will share best practices and lessons learned from current and previous projects.
“We have been talking with and listening to stakeholders across the waste management spectrum from the company’s inception, and it remains a key element of our success strategy,” Hamilton said. “While we do not have a disposal location yet, the work we are doing now will put us in a good position to continue to earn stakeholder support for our future implementation.”
Deep Isolation is a leading innovator in nuclear waste storage and disposal. Founded upon values of environmental stewardship, scientific ingenuity, and social responsibility, Deep Isolation offers a solution that leverages directional drilling technology to safely isolate nuclear waste deep underground.
Next week, two Deep Isolation company leaders, Chief Operating Officer Rod Baltzer and Director of Partnerships Jim Hamilton, will be presenting at Waste Management Symposia 2021, an annual conference that provides an opportunity for education and information exchange among those in the radwaste industry.
For this year’s event, featuring the theme “Reducing Risk Through Sound Technical Solutions,” Baltzer will highlight the results of a recently published EPRI report in his session, “Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Advanced Reactors in Horizontal Boreholes.” The session is part of the High-Level Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel/Used Nuclear Fuel track, 7 a.m. to 10:10 a.m. PST on March 11. Hamilton will participate in the panel session, “Stakeholder Involvement in Consolidated ISF Storage, Disposal, and Transportation Initiatives,” 7-8:30 a.m. PST, also on March 11.
To help conference attendees get to know Baltzer and Hamilton, we sat down with them for a short Q&A.
Chief Operating Officer, Rod Baltzer
Director of Partnerships, Jim Hamilton
Q: Let’s get to know you both a bit. Why did you choose careers in something as challenging as nuclear waste disposal? What keeps you inspired each day?
Rod: I think nuclear waste chose me. I got a degree in accounting and agricultural economics. After working in public accounting, I worked for a company that owned a nuclear waste company. It was fascinating, and I really enjoyed working on the issue and have been in the nuclear waste industry ever since.
Jim: In the literature, nuclear waste is described as a “wicked problem.” Any attempt at a fix requires balancing technology, policy and pragmatism combined with a deep appreciation of the societal issues surrounding nuclear energy. It also requires forming collaborations and partnerships across sectors, cultures and disciplines. Sure it’s not for the faint of heart, but I find it fascinating and feel lucky to be working toward a solution.
Q: If I’m a first-time WM Symposia attendee, what should I expect? What are some highlights, learnings etc. from past conferences?
Rod: I can’t imagine attending WMS for the first time in a virtual format. I’ve attended the conference for the last 15 years, and I’m not sure what to expect this year. Typically, you have about 3,000 people from around the world in a large exhibit space with hundreds of exhibitors. There’s really good content and intriguing new ideas and discussions. The best part is randomly meeting new people and then seeing them every year after that.
Jim: I agree with Rod. The real learning comes from the interactions in the hallways, meeting new people, then building on those relationships in the future.
Q. When you think of this year’s theme, “Reducing Risk Through Sound Technical Solutions,” what’s top of mind for you in terms of your respective roles at Deep Isolation?
Rod: Deep Isolation believes that fitting the right disposal solution to the right situation can allow disposal to be accomplished sooner and more cost-effectively. Borehole disposal — whether vertical or horizontal — may provide a safe, cost-effective solution to reduce risk and make progress on waste disposal.
Jim: I’m a bit of a contrarian. Yes, we need sound technological solutions. Nobody will argue with that. But technology by itself is only half the issue. In parallel, we need to earn public trust and support.
Q. Let’s give conference attendees a couple of reasons to attend your sessions. Can you share a few high-level goals for what you’d like attendees to learn in your presentations?
Rod: Well, first off, we’re having a swag giveaway for my office hours session. (Sorry, Jim!) So if you show up, you can enter a drawing for your choice of a cool portable speaker or a nifty set of earbuds.
Other than that, I think a discussion about costs for disposal for advanced reactors is very timely.
Jim: Ok, Rod. Well, I can’t top you on the swag, but I’ll do my best here. I can promise my session will give an update on how we view stakeholder engagement and its importance in supporting our overall mission.
Q. Aside from your sessions, is there a session that you’re particularly looking forward to attending? Tell us why.
Rod: I like the Plenary sessions and am looking forward to a session on the cleanup of Fukushima in Japan.
Jim: I’m a fan of the student poster sessions. It’s always invigorating to see new ideas and innovations coming from national and international research institutions.
The virtual Waste Management Symposia is set for March 8-12. Register or learn more about sessions and speakers. See Swag Bag Giveaway contest rules here.
Subscribe to Receive Our Newsletter
Contact
For more information about our solution, please contact us.
