Risk at a nuclear power plant can take many forms. Operators are concerned about factors that impact consistent, efficient energy production. Engineers are concerned about component reliability, compatibility and quality. All are focused on safety on the job. As a result, plant managers seek methods of mitigating risk. Any technique that is able to transform an “unknown” into a “known” factor is considered highly beneficial.

Metrology, the science of measurement, offers an easy method of mitigating risk. In fact, the smart application of modernized metrology techniques can have substantial benefits for plant managers.

Photogrammetry uses high-resolution photography to measure discrete features using adhesive targets strategically placed on points of interest to capture as-built dimensions. Photo courtesy: AREVA NP

Now, the word “metrology” probably makes most plant managers think about as-built plans. Indeed, metrology techniques such as laser scanning are most commonly used to complete as-builts after a construction project. However, metrology goes far beyond this simple use.

There are many “tools in the toolbox” when it comes to metrology. Measurement technologies are ever evolving, getting more precise and accurate. Modern metrology equipment can make measurements so precise, they are accurate down to the atomic level. By recognizing all of the unique tools available and taking a holistic look at each project, it’s easier to match up the perfect tool for the project to ensure the most effective use of metrology each time.

Turning “I Think” Into “I Know”

Metrology’s greatest benefit for nuclear plants is the mitigation of risk. Metrology can be used on a wide range of projects to help reduce risk, dose, and maintain or improve schedule, safety, financial success and project predictability. When applied early, as projects are set up, these techniques can turn a set of unknowns into a set of knowns. This prevents stopping and starting due to mid-project delays. Ultimately, removing the unknowns helps turn “I think I can” into “I know I can” and mitigates any issues up front.

3-D CADD modeling creates 3-D models, animation, load-path type interferences and plans. Photo courtesy: AREVA NP

How? One example is where metrology provides the necessary information to allow a virtual reality simulation of components. The simulation tells you if you can remove and re-install components based on supplied plans versus real-world conditions. It also captures accurate as-built dimensions for the entire plant, reducing uncertainty and inaccuracy of plant components, locations and dimensions. This can help with retrofitting and reverse engineering of components in plants because it increases the ability to put the “knowns” down on paper, rather than taking the paper and trying to build it to fit the unknowns.

Ideally, metrology should be introduced in a project during the initial project planning phase in order to optimize and take full advantage of the benefits for the project. Metrology can also be applied at the design, fabrication and implementation stages of a project timeline. Depending on the complexity and needs of the project, application times can be measured from minutes to weeks as a project progresses. However, even if the project is measured in weeks, the typical industrial application survey duration tends to average a few hours.

Some project examples include:

• Component replacements – Component replacement projects come with many challenges such as load path interference identification, rigging and new versus old component dimensions, as well as installation challenges. These technologies can be utilized from planning through installation phases of the project, taking the guess work out of project decisions.
• Plant modifications – Using metrology techniques during the design phase of a project to capture the as-built configuration of the project area versus relying solely on original design drawings is a means to remove project risk while increasing confidence and predictability. The project team utilizes the plant’s as-built configurations for design purposes, reducing rework caused by original design versus as-built differences. Follow-on work includes the pre-fabrication of piping, hangers, etc., as well as layout for pumps, foundations and more.
• Flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) piping – As plants age, FAC continues to be an issue that all plants must monitor. The process allows project teams to better prepare and install more retrofitted piping in a shorter time with first time fit-up quality.
• 3-D modeling and animations – Laser scan data has many uses to enhance a project’s predictability. CADD systems can generate 3-D models of the plant’s as-built configurations, enabling the team to design and plan in the real-world environment. Additionally, rigging and component moves are created in the virtual database, enabling the team to prove out rigging scenarios and identify interferences along the prescribed load path.

The “Tools in the Toolbox”

Despite the advances of metrology tools and the myriad of uses it can have, adoptions of metrology techniques in the nuclear industry have been slow. Meanwhile, other industries such as civil engineering and heavy construction have eagerly adopted these technologies. Certain metrology techniques have even been used for accident reconstruction and crime scene investigations, proving the portability and versatility of these technologies.

This technology takes photogrammetry underwater and without the need for adhesive targeting. Photo courtesy: AREVA NP

There are a wide range of modern metrology tools to support projects within the nuclear industry. These include:

• Laser scanning – This technology is used to capture 3-D coordinate values for everything in sight between 18 inches and 500 feet. Three levels of scanners – a large volume scanner (± 0.125” accuracy, used to measure a whole building), a medium volume scanner (± 0.015” accuracy at 20 to 30 feet from an object) and small volume scanners (± 0.001” accuracy at 1 to 2 feet from an object) – can be used to ensure the best data collection for each project. This is a commonly used metrology technology, as it collects large amounts of incredibly detailed data.
• 3-D CADD modeling – Data collected through laser scanning creates 3-D models, animation, load-path type interferences and plans, with ± 0.125” accuracy.
• Portable coordinate measuring machine arm – This single-point portable measurement device can measure applications on its own with ± 0.0015” accuracy.
• Photogrammetry – Photogrammetry uses high-resolution photography to measure discrete features using adhesive targets strategically placed on points of interest to capture as-built dimensions at ± 0.005” accuracy. For context, most of today’s maps are made using this type of technology. In fact, industrial photogrammetry was developed from the aerial photogrammetry technique. This development drove the accuracy possibilities down to a few thousandths of an inch, making the application a versatile, easy to use measurement tool.
• Underwater photogrammetry – This technology takes photogrammetry underwater and without the need for adhesive targeting. For use in areas previously thought to be inaccessible such as spent fuel pools, jet pumps, core spray, etc., the housing and cabling for the camera has been designed specifically for these environments. Typically, this technique is accurate to ± 0.015”.
• Laser tracking – Laser tracking uses servo motors and encoders to accurately “track” a mirrored prism. The system has the ability to collect measurement data on the “tracked” prism thousands of times a second, rendering the statistical data to be accurate to ± 0.001”. It can have many applications, including placing a part or component in its final location or supporting machining operations.
• Total station – This device captures measurements of anything within its line of sight, similar to a land surveying instrument. This single tool actually incorporates all those used for land surveying, including an electronic distance meter (EDM) that aims at a point and shows distance from scope center, and computes slope and angle to provide 3-D coordinates at that point. It is typically accurate down to ± 0.024”.

For nuclear plants, where plant managers most frequently need to ensure accurate measurements on as-built plans prior to planning plant upgrades or replacements, laser- and photography-based tools are frequently the most effective. But, the exact technology used often depends on what one is trying to measure. For example, when measuring large areas for projects that require load path interference analysis or to capture plant as-builts in the case of planning and designing a plant modification, laser scanning technology is typically applied. This technique produces accuracies in the .065” to .125” range. However, when installing a new component or retrofitting piping, a higher degree of accuracy requires technologies such as photogrammetry and laser tracking. These produce accuracies in the .001” to .005” range.

Why Use Metrology

In short, metrology offers a practical, easy way for plant managers, engineers and project managers to make more informed decisions about the operation and maintenance of their plants. Smart application of a growing number of tools can increase detailed control of all project elements. In turn, this can help prevent mistakes, saving time and budget. Overall, metrology reduces project dose, risk and time, and improves safety, predictability and financial success.

A portable coordinate measuring machine arm. This single-point portable measurement device can measure applications on its own. Photo courtesy: AREVA NP

Author: Bob Timberlake is the product line manager for AREVA NP’s Metrology Services. He has more than 30 years of applied practice in the metrology field.

The Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI) “Delivering the Nuclear Promise” initiative was launched in December 2015 with the goal of increasing efficiency across the nuclear industry in order to ensure its long-term viability. With more than a year of evidence, it’s clear the initiative is working. According to a February speech from NEI President Maria Korsnick, the program’s efforts identified $650 million in potential savings that could be realized through new programs and processes in 2016. Additionally, people from across the industry collaborated to produce 46 efficiency bulletins which outline efficiency improvements across all aspects of nuclear plant operations. Korsnick said that 95 percent of those recommendations are being implemented across the industry.

As encouraging as the program has been, there is still significant work left to do. Engaging suppliers will be crucial to the initiative’s ultimate success. Last June, as part of an effort to reach out, industry leaders met with a group of suppliers to provide more information about how the initiative works. While it was an important gesture, suppliers cannot wait for nuclear utilities to engage them. A proactive approach to helping to deliver the nuclear promise is needed. Here are some initiatives that industry suppliers can take.

Share Improvement Opportunity Ideas

NEI has set-up a mechanism for suppliers to participate in the nuclear promise initiative by submitting improvement opportunity ideas. This is the most obvious way for suppliers to help and they should take advantage of it early and often. That’s because they are in a unique position to make recommendations. Suppliers often work at multiple sites and with multiple utility companies from across the industry. Many suppliers have been in the industry for decades and have seen what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to efficiently managing projects.

Suppliers must leverage their experiences and identify new ways to bring value to nuclear plant operations by passing on what they have learned and making sure best practices are incorporated into all of the projects they work on. This, accompanied with a detailed, well-executed change management plan is critical to success.

Be a Partner, Not a Participant

It’s one thing to share improvement opportunities ideas, but if those ideas are to be incorporated effectively, there must be an increase in collaboration between both utilities and suppliers. They must work together at the site and fleet levels to understand the unique context of the challenges utilities face and to identify opportunities for efficiencies savings, and innovations throughout the value chain. While suppliers and utilities always work together to complete projects, the level of collaboration can vary.

Suppliers are not always brought in at the earliest levels of project planning, making it difficult to ensure that projects are executed efficiently. Without a conversation before work begins, it is more difficult to accurately define project scope. This can leave both sides in a poor position if projects go over budget or past schedule. Suppliers need a seat at the table as a true partner in order to deliver the most efficiency possible. As the nuclear promise initiative continues to evolve, supplier and utility collaboration will be an essential part of its success.

Lead the Way in Standardizing Training & Qualifications

Effective worker training is a key contributing factor to the efficiency and reliability that nuclear plants currently enjoy. Workers are the ones on the ground that make sure tasks are executed safely and properly. Unfortunately, there is currently no standardized training certificate for workers in the nuclear industry. This means that workers often receive duplicative training when working for new plants or utilities. When a contract worker is a proven commodity — one that has worked on numerous projects and passed previous training programs — requiring them take an additional training course simply because they are working at a new plant is inefficient. While there should be some plant-specific orientation programs, the standardization of general practices and procedures across the industry would make for a better training experience for workers and utility operators. Steps are currently in place to address this through common “Hard Hat Ready” courses, yet work still needs to be done in terms of developing and recognizing standardized qualifications in welding, rigging, torqueing, and other tasks.

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is on 1,700 acres on the northern end of the Chickamauga Reservoir near Spring City, in East Tennessee. Each unit produces about 1,150 megawatts of electricity – enough to service 650,000 homes – without creating any carbon emissions.

Suppliers must take an active role with their utilities to identify these redundancies and collectively work with industry resource groups to develop and implement standardized task evaluations that can be recognized from site to site.

Engage with Other Suppliers

The nuclear promise initiative encourages utilities to work collaboratively to solve problems. It also encourages suppliers to participate by sharing ideas. But there is one notable gap in this system. It does not address the need for suppliers to collaborate with other suppliers. On any given nuclear project multiple suppliers are involved upstream and downstream. During outages the number of staff from outside vendors can double or even surpass the number of permanent on-site staff. There is natural interaction between vendors during the course of projects, but much like utilities, there needs to be more conversation that takes place outside of the vacuum of specific projects.

Groups like the Nuclear Suppliers Association are one way for suppliers to connect and share ideas, but they also must be conversing in more informal ways and more frequently; particularly at the site level. While suppliers are often competing against each other, they must find ways to collaborate to make each utility successful and maintain the viability of nuclear power. Suppliers do not need to share proprietary processes, but they can find ways to work more efficiently together and improve project coordination. While utilities will ultimately run point on managing projects, they can become much more efficient if suppliers show a willingness and ability to collaborate to solve problems.

A Continued Commitment to Safety Improvement

Nuclear suppliers understand the importance of safety. But safety cannot be taken for granted, especially in the midst of significant change. While the nuclear industry as a whole has a tremendous track record for safety performance, suppliers must be daring enough, along with their utility counterparts, to imagine a future with zero injuries. Such a drastic change won’t happen by executive mandate. It’ll happen when workers at every level believe it’s possible and are actively engaged in the process.

Suppliers and utilities must have one voice for safety that is modeled by leadership and supervision and reinforced through mutual accountability. This is the kind of bold thinking of years past that challenged the status-quo and helped us achieve unparalleled results. It’s time to challenge the status-quo again, to think beyond an incident rate and get to zero.

Working Together In an Uncertain Future

The nuclear promise initiative is needed to ensure the future of the nuclear power generation industry. But there are also many outside forces that will impact the industry’s fate. An increasing shift toward lowering carbon emissions in power generation, the regulatory policies of a new U.S. administration, and technological advances in nuclear reactors as well as other types of energy generation will all play a role in the industry’s ability to grow and prosper. Some of these factors are difficult or impossible to control. That’s why the nuclear promise initiative was focused on what the industry can control: driving down costs and finding new ways to improve efficiency.

Suppliers have a choice to make if they want to help secure nuclear energy’s future. They can choose to be another outside factor that is difficult to control, or they can choose to be part of the solution. Collaboration between suppliers and utilities will be necessary to put the industry in the best possible position to succeed.
About the author: Michael McMahon is President of Day & Zimmermann’s Engineering, Construction and Maintenance Group, a provider of total plant lifecycle solutions for the power, process, and industrial markets.

May 11

The Michigan Public Service Commission is considering the termination of a nuclear power purchase contract.

Entergy had announced they plan to shut down the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in 2018, and the power purchase agreement with Consumers Energy runs through 2002, the Associated Press reported.

Consumers had proposed to recover the $172 million buyout payment through customer rates, though a financing order application indicates customers would still save between $54 million and $1.1 billion by ending the contract early.

TVA’s Plan for SMRs Runs into Snags

May 2

Efforts by the Tennessee Valley Authority to build a small modular nuclear reactor at its Clinch River site has run into setbacks, TVA officials said.

Joe Hoagland, TVA’s vice president of stakeholder relations, told the Knoxville News Sentinel the project still has three significant barriers that must be crossed before the project can begin.

The first barrier is a lack of electrical demand. Hoagland said the TVA hopes to have the SMR in place by the time the TVA eventually decommissions its current nuclear plants.

Secondly, the installation and operational costs of SMRs are still too high compared to other power generation technologies.

And finally, the technology is still under development. Though companies have submitted SMR designs, the review process could take up to five years.

Though the TVA has filed an early site permit application for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it did so due to the lengthy process for planning and building a nuclear plant. The plans don’t specify a specific design.

Westinghouse Granted Assessment Extension at Sumner Nuclear Project

April 28

SCANA Corp. and Santee Cooper announced it has extended the term of its interim assessment agreement with Westinghouse Electric through June 26.

The agreement allows for a transition and evaluation period, during which South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, a subsidiary of SCANA, and Santee Cooper, can continue to make progress on a new nuclear reactor at the Virgil C. Sumner nuclear station.

The extension gives the owners more time to maintain all of their options and continue construction on the project while examining all relevant information for a thorough and accurate assessment to determine the most prudent path forward.

The announcement indicated the extension was subject to bankruptcy procedures.

Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March after over $6 billion in losses. Though parent company Toshiba had promised it would ensure new nuclear development projects undertaken by Westinghouse would continue, including the Virgil C. Summer nuclear station in South Carolina and the Alvin W. Votgle nuclear plant in Georgia, it is not yet clear how the bankruptcy filing would ultimately affect construction of those projects, both of which are three years overdue.

EIA: Most U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Built Between 1970 and 1990

April 27

A new study by the Energy Information Administration revealed that, of the 99 GW of operating nuclear capacity in the United States, 95 GW of that came online between 1970 and 1990.

Though the number of planned nuclear construction projects exploded in the early 1970s, additions slowed by the latter part of the decade due to slowing electric demand growth, high construction costs and public opposition. From 1979 through 1988, 67 planned nuclear plants were canceled.

However, due to lengthy permitting and construction times, plants planned in the 1970s continued to come online through the early 1990s.

EIA said the oldest operating nuclear reactor was built in 1969, while the youngest is Watts Bar 2, which came online last year and was the first new reactor completed since 1996.

Nuclear capacity has gradually declined, with the retirement of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station last year the fifth retirement since 2013.

Several other plants have announced plans to retire in the near future — Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, Palisades Unit 1, and Indian Point Units 2 and 3 — totaling more than 4 GW of capacity. In addition, Pacific Gas and Electric announced that it will not seek license extensions for its 2 GW Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

Currently four new reactors totaling more than 4 GW are under construction.

Dominion Energy to Receive License for Third Reactor at North Anna

June 5

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it will issue a license for a third nuclear reactor at Dominion Energy’s North Anna Plant in Virginia, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

However, Dominion has not yet indicated when or if it will build the reactor.

“Basically, having a combined operating license allows us the ability to build and operate a new unit at such time as makes business sense,” said Richard Zuercher, a Dominion spokesman.

Dominion has spent $600 million to design and develop a 1,600-MW GE-Hitachi reactor, though building the reactor would cost $19 billion.

The NRC had found no safety concerns but the agency imposed some restrictions, including mitigation strategies related to the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima reactors in Japan after an earthquake and tsunami. Mineral, Virginia experienced a 5.8-magnitude earthquake in 2011.

Approximately 40 percent of Virginia’s electrical power is generated at Dominion’s nuclear reactors and North Anna and Surry.

Three Mile Island to Shut Down in 2019

May 30

The owner of Three Mile Island, site of the United States’ worst commercial nuclear power accident, said it will shut down the plant in 2019 without a financial rescue from Pennsylvania.

Exelon Corp.’s announcement comes after what it called more than five years of losses on the single-unit power plant and its recent failure in a capacity auction to sell its power into the regional grid.

In the meantime, the Chicago-based energy company wants Pennsylvania to give nuclear power the kind of preferential treatment that are given to renewable energies, such as wind and solar.

Exelon and other nuclear power plant owners have made the pitch to states that zero-carbon nuclear plants are better suited than natural gas or coal to fight climate change.

So-called nuclear bailouts have thus far won approval in Illinois and New York, but the potential for higher utility bills in Pennsylvania is drawing pushback from rival energy companies, manufacturers and consumer advocates.

“Like New York and Illinois before it, the commonwealth has an opportunity to take a leadership role by implementing a policy solution to preserve its nuclear energy facilities and the clean, reliable energy and good-paying jobs they provide,” Exelon’s president and CEO, Chris Crane, said in a statement.

Nuclear Generation Expected to Decline with Reactor Retirements

May 12

Far more nuclear generation capacity is expected to be retired rather than added through 2050, a study by the Energy Information Administration indicated.

Though 9.1 GW of new capacity is projected to be added, 29.9 GW is expected to be retired. The reactors already announced for closure include Palisades in 2018, Pilgrim Unit 1 in 2019, Oyster Creek Unit 1 in 2020, Indian Point Units 2 and 3 around 2020 and Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 in 2025 and 2026.

Though Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 and Clinton Unit 1 were set for retirement, financial incentives passed by the state of Illinois caused the operators of those plants to keep them open.

EIA assumes 25 percent of nuclear capacity now operating without announced retirement plans will be removed from service by 2050.

The four new reactors under construction at V.C. Summer and Vogtle are included in the assessment, EIA said their future process is uncertain due to the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric.

New nuclear power plants are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 40 years, though 90 percent of currently operating nuclear plants are either operating under or have applied for 20-year license renewals. Nearly all nuclear plants now in use began operation between 1970 and 1990.

Sources: Southern Power and Toshiba Reach Financial Agreement for Vogtle

May 15

Southern Company and Toshiba have reportedly agreed on liability payments for the unfinished Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle nuclear power plant.

Under the deal, Toshiba’s liabilities will be capped at $3.6 billion and will be payable over the next three years.

Southern announced on Friday it would take over management of the Vogtle expansion from Toshiba’s Westinghouse subsidiary, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.

The deal is contingent on Toshiba reaching a similar agreement with SCANA over the similar nuclear expansion at V.C. Summer, the sources indicated.

Southern Company CEO Thomas Fanning said earlier this month the company hasn’t decided it will finish building the plant even if Toshiba pays out its liabilities.

By Tim Echols

Today, everyone seems to be talking about carbon dioxide (CO₂) and how to reduce it. Carbon-free energy sources are sought-after. Generous subsidies for wind and solar especially, both federal and state, have contributed to their individual success in various parts of the world. But if the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, green energy is not created. That is where carbon-free nuclear energy comes to the rescue. But in order to make it more “green and sustainable,” we must take action rather than letting the used fuel sit on a plant pad or be buried in the ground.

We put newspapers, milk cartons, aluminum cans, and all sorts of plastics on the curb in front of our house each week, yet the best we can do with used fuel is to bury it? We have in this country over 70,000 tons of used fuel stored at more than 100 sites in 39 states, and our 98 commercial reactors produce about 2,000 additional tons of used fuel each year. Because we don’t recycle this nuclear material, it would take nine Yucca Mountain repositories by the turn of the next century to house all of the used fuel being produced. Getting one Yucca has proved almost impossible, let alone nine.

Starting in 1990, the French did what the US backed away from–a commercial recycling plant for used nuclear fuel. They took the uranium-filled fuel rods, and figured out how to reuse 96 percent of the material, and how to do it safely. By separating the uranium and plutonium from the fission products, they took advantage of all the energy left in the material. More importantly, they turned the remaining four percent waste into an inert glass product that requires minimum security and safeguard protocols. If we did that here in the United States, it would significantly reduce potential waste going into a Yucca Mountain and extend the facility’s life.

So how is it that the United States would not want to do the same? Georgia Tech Professor of Nuclear Engineering Nolan E. Hertel, a renowned expert, notes that one result of the ban on nuclear recycling by President Carter, meant to prevent nuclear proliferation, is more than 2,400 tons of nuclear waste being stored on-site in Georgia.

In my opinion, the time has come for the nuclear energy industry to go greener and make the electricity it generates even more sustainable. We need to demonstrate the value of linking nuclear baseload and intermittent wind and solar. Here is how we can do it.

First, let’s recognize the energy value of the used nuclear fuel we currently discard. Did you know that our 70,000 tons of used fuel contains roughly enough energy to power every household in American for 12 years? “Valuing used fuel against the cost of permanent burial is a calculation best done by the companies that provide fuel management services,” says Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation. “Right now utilities have no incentive to do anything but store it.” This would require Congress to act.

Second, complete the federal construction project called MOX Project (Mixed Oxide) at the Savannah River Site, near Augusta. This plant, modeled after processes currently used in France at La Hague and Melox, will permanently change surplus nuclear warhead material into commercial nuclear reactor fuel. This reactor fuel could be used across the river at Georgia’s Vogtle reactors with slight modifications. The MOX Project facility is 70 percent complete, but haphazard funding from Washington is dragging out the project. We need Presidential support for this funding.

Third, recycling used nuclear fuel makes sense in the long run. This recycled material will be available at a discounted price compared to fresh uranium fuel the utilities currently buy. Ratepayers and shareholders will benefit from cheaper reactor fuel, especially in these times when low natural gas prices are causing nuclear plants to be at a financial disadvantage. The cost of nine Yucca Mountains will be astronomical, and recycling drastically reduces storage for the remaining 4 percent of used fuel.

Finally, let’s do the math. If we continue to close coal plants, which operate around the clock regardless of weather, and we continue to add intermittent energy sources like wind and solar and their natural gas backup generators, how are we going to reduce our net CO₂ emissions and provide the reliability that businesses and ratepayers expect? Nuclear energy is the answer, and recycling makes it greener and sustainable.

One of the perks of writing the Nuclear Reactions column is that I get to write about a wide variety of nuclear-related topics. I also get the opportunity on occasion to point out linkages (or differences) between seemingly unconnected topics. This column squarely fits into this latter category.

Two recent items caught my attention related to the “next generation” of nuclear professionals that prompted me to opine here on the perils and the promise of youth.

The first relates to Transatomic Power, a nuclear startup spun out of MIT in 2011 to pursue commercialization of a molten-salt reactor that purportedly could run on spent nuclear fuel at efficiency levels many times higher than conventional reactors. A white paper published in 2014 claimed that the reactor concept would be able to “generate up to 75 times more electricity per ton of mined uranium than a light water reactor.”

Transatomic became something of a sensation in the nuclear and new energy fields, leading to an influx of venture capital that has sustained the company’s growth and evolution over the past several years. The promise of recycling nuclear waste added green cachet to the company, burnishing a favorable public image.

That cachet has taken a hit in recent months. As reported in MIT Technology Review in February, the company is backtracking from certain claims based on an analysis by Kord Smith, an MIT professor and nuclear physics expert. “In early 2016, we realized there was a problem with our initial analysis and started working to correct the error,” said Transatomic CEO Leslie Dewan in an email response to MIT Technology Review.

The efficiency claim has been dramatically reduced; instead of the 75X advantage, Transatomic now lays claim to only “more than twice” with its reactor concept. Just as striking is the company’s retraction regarding recycling; Transatomic now states that their design will not reduce stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel or even use them as a fuel source.

To its credit, Transatomic has owned up to the errors and re-done its analysis acknowledging the “reduced” advantages. And if Transatomic can develop a reactor that increases efficiency by even 2X, that would remain a remarkable technical achievement.

The second item relates to a new mobile phone app that attempts to apply millennial technology to nuclear advocacy. Most of us have probably had conversations with strangers or casual acquaintances where nuclear power has come up and we’ve struggled to find just the right way to convey its attributes while simultaneously highlighting its stellar safety record and acknowledging the potential risks. It’s a tricky balance and has to be tailored to the person you’re talking to.

Generation Atomic, a non-profit nuclear group that uses “gamifying” techniques to enhance advocacy, released its Atomic Action app in early April. The app transforms potentially difficult advocacy conversations into interactive, digitally enhanced conversations. Users accumulate points through various actions: for example, 5 points for checking into the app daily, 50 points for watching a video on nuclear power, 500 points for knocking on doors, and 2,500 points for posting a selfie with a legislator. True to its gaming origins, the app includes a leaderboard tracking user progress.

“In a 2014 global poll on peoples’ views of different energy sources, only 28% of respondents had a favorable opinion of nuclear,” said Generation Atomic co-founder and organizing director Tay Stevenson. “In our early modeling, we were hoping we could get positive responses during 35-40% of our conversations. After three months of piloting with student volunteers knocking on hundreds of doors in State College and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, we are seeing 50-55% of people sign up as supporters.”

According to Google Analytics, the app had more than 335 users in the first two weeks after its release, but Generation Atomic expects that to grow quickly. “Currently, our only campus chapters are at University of Pittsburgh and Penn State,” said company founder and executive director Eric Meyer. “However, earlier this month we were holding advocacy trainings at the American Nuclear Society Student Conference and there was a lot of interest in starting chapters in Indiana, Florida, and other states in the fall. This summer we’ll remain focused on building the pro-nuclear constituency in Pennsylvania and Ohio, two states where nuclear is at great risk of early abandonment right now.”

For both of these items, what stands out to me is the enthusiasm for nuclear demonstrated by these young professionals…and soon-to-be professionals. So keep knocking on those doors, Pitt Panthers and Penn State Nittany Lions! And on behalf of the nuclear community, Ms. Dewan, we forgive you. Don’t lose your fervor and love for nuclear – just remember to check in with the graybeards along the way.