The Nuclear Power Thread

[russ_watters]

I remember many years ago reading this forums and some of the members that participate now had bit better feelings towards fusion power if judged by rhetoric alone, now it seems even that has changed, sometimes you can simply judge something by the attitude of those that are knowledgeable about the issue...

Oh and when I said many years ago I meant about 10 years or "just around the corner" ago.

When I joined PF around 20 years ago I was in my 20s and hadn't yet had the opportunity to watch decades of spectacular, record-breaking breakthroughs. Seeing so much success over the past few decades has left me jaded. At the time I thought "maybe this next 30 years will be the one?" Seems unlikely now.

 

[artis]

When I joined PF around 20 years ago I was in my 20s and hadn't yet had the opportunity to watch decades of spectacular, record-breaking breakthroughs.

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?
The only major one I can recall was the accidental discovery that Li7 also undergoes fission with fast neutrons producing an "alpha", Tritium and a additional neutron greatly boosting a thermonuclear bomb's yield and this was with "Castle Bravo" back in 1954,

Oh yes almost forgot...

1997 JET set the record for the closest approach to scientific breakeven, reaching Q = 0.67 in 1997, producing 16 MW of fusion power while injecting 24 MW of thermal power to heat the fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

As far as I know that's about it , no other breakthroughs,
Well NIF has done some good stuff with implosion but I fail to see how that approach can ever lead to a viable commercial energy plant instead of being just a good tool for weapons research, the same could be said about Z pinch with metallic liners (Sandia labs et.al.) because there again the repetition rate is slower than a snail, unless of course we find a way to create implosion net gain fusion with a implosion technique that has a fast repetition rate and is capable of more than "breakeven" during each shot.

 

[anorlunda]

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?

The better question would be the number of headlines claiming breakthroughs. Unfortunately, the search engines aren't good at finding things that old. Especially pre-1994.

 

[artis]

The better question would be the number of headlines claiming breakthroughs.

Exactly, but then again that was my point, the headlines have been quite few, but the actual physics that would bring us to a working device , I can't recall anything spectacular at all well there has been slow seemingly steady progress but then again there had to be since we started from nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?
The only major one I can recall was...

As far as I know that's about it , no other breakthroughs...

Exactly, but then again that was my point, the headlines have been quite few, but the actual physics that would bring us to a working device , I can't recall anything spectacular at all well there has been slow seemingly steady progress but then again there had to be since we started from nothing.

It isn't clear to me if you understood my snark. My point was that the recent spate of breakthroughs is hyperbolic and not as big of a deal as the newspapers or even many researchers are claiming. Obviously such "breakthroughs" lose their luster over time. And as said it's harder to research news articles before the modern internet. However, here's a list of several dozen advancements in fusion research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion

If you'd like, I can write a few sample headlines for them. I do remember one breakthrough specifically though, from 1989 that was probably the first thing I'd ever heard about fusion when I read about it in Time Magazine...though their coverage was less than favorable.

 

[valenumr]

Not sure what exact breakthroughs in commercial fusion were there before 2000's?
The only major one I can recall was the accidental discovery that Li7 also undergoes fission with fast neutrons producing an "alpha", Tritium and a additional neutron greatly boosting a thermonuclear bomb's yield and this was with "Castle Bravo" back in 1954,

Oh yes almost forgot...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

As far as I know that's about it , no other breakthroughs,
Well NIF has done some good stuff with implosion but I fail to see how that approach can ever lead to a viable commercial energy plant instead of being just a good tool for weapons research, the same could be said about Z pinch with metallic liners (Sandia labs et.al.) because there again the repetition rate is slower than a snail, unless of course we find a way to create implosion net gain fusion with a implosion technique that has a fast repetition rate and is capable of more than "breakeven" during each shot.

If I understand correctly, NIF has at least demonstrated that a fusion reaction can produce more energy than the energy delivered, even in small scales. That's kind of a big deal in my mind. I think the media misrepresents the results though, because the overall system efficiency is much less than one. ITER will be more interesting, as it is expected to have a 10x energy gain, but again, it depends on what one is measuring.

 

[artis]

NIF has at least demonstrated that a fusion reaction can produce more energy than the energy delivered, even in small scales.

For that we did not need NIF, we know from theoretical physics and past research that certain elements can undergo fusion reactions that are exothermic (Ones below, lighter than Iron), other fusion reactions are endothermic, the difference is that exothermic reactions release energy, aka the fusion process end products yield more energy than the energy needed to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

The whole problem is in maintaining the conditions for the reaction for long enough or maintaining the plasma from touching any physical barrier. Or having the plasma pressure and temp high enough for long enough so that the fusion reaction rate would be meaningful.

I think the media misrepresents the results though, because the overall system efficiency is much less than one.

This is the problem, not that fusion can be exothermic, we know it is, the problem of confining the "hot potato" and keeping it hot , all systems have losses , the plasma heating and confinements systems take up a lot of energy, so far our tiny fusion result has not been able to overcome that huge input required.

Now that I think of it, fusion is basically the only power production method known to us that requires so much input power, all other methods whether wind or solar or hydro or fission or fossil fuels require very little to no input power. This makes me wonder whether fusion can ever be economic at all because what good is a power plant that produces say 1000 MWe on the grid side but then pulls in some 500 or more MWe from that same grid at the same time. All that extra power used requires extra switchgear/transformers, wires, not to mention the reactor vessel itself which would be very expensive (thinking a tokamak for example), if the estimates of the Tokamak builders are correct we would need a very large tokamak in order for the power produced VS power consumed ratio to be usable practically. But a very large tokamak is a huge investment and I bet for the same money one can have double the generating capacity if not triple from an ordinary fission plant with a decades proven design and plans that have been approved by regulators. Who knows how this will play out...

 

[Astronuc]

Tokamak Energy of the UK announced it has demonstrated a world-first with its privately-funded ST40 spherical tokamak, achieving a plasma temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius, the threshold required for commercial fusion energy.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Tokamak-Energy-achieves-crucial-plasma-temperature

https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/what-is-fusion-and-why-is-it-so-difficult-to-achieve

 

[Astronuc]

The United States has just 93 operating power reactors at this writing. The fleet last numbered 93 in 1985, when nuclear generation topped out at 383.69 TWh, less than half of the 778.2 TWh produced in 2021.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-38...ctors-a-smaller-fleet-invested-in-the-future/

Many early vintage, smaller units were shutdown between 1976 and 2000, while larger capacity units were brought online; one large unit (Trojan) and two moderate size units (Shoreham and Rancho Seco) shutdown prematurely.

[CODE title="Shutdown of US NPPs (1976-2000)"] Unit Net Elec Year
Humboldt Bay 65 MWe 1976

Indian Point 1 265 MWe 1980
Lacrosse 50 MWe 1987
Shoreham 849 MWe 1987
Rancho Seco 918 MWe 1989
San Onofre 1 436 MWe 1992
Trojan 1130 MWe 1992 largest unit
Yankee Rowe 175 MWe 1992
Haddam Neck 560 MWe 1996

Maine Yankee 870 MWe 1999
Big Rock Point 67 MWe 2000[/CODE]

 

[bhobba]

Many early vintage, smaller units were shutdown between 1976 and 2000, while larger capacity units were brought online; one large unit (Trojan) and two moderate size units (Shoreham and Rancho Seco) shutdown prematurely.

Out here in Aus slowly, but surely, people are starting to realize baseload power can't be supplied by wind, solar, hydro etc., i.e. so-called renewables alone. They are part of a future power mix, 100% sure, but future energy sources must include at least a serious discussion of nuclear. We are now getting atomic subs from the US and UK, indicating a more realistic public attitude may eventually emerge. There is no way IMHO Australia, or nearly any other country, can meet their stated emissions targets without nuclear. This is becoming more critical in Aus as coal power plants are being shut down instead of nuclear power plants being shut down. It was thought gas would take up the slack, but that is now proving problematic due to rising costs.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

This is becoming more critical in Aus as coal power plants are being shut down instead of nuclear power plants being shut down. It was thought gas would take up the slack, but that is now proving problematic due to rising costs.

One of the most obscure professions in the world is power systems reliability engineer. In the US, they work at regional councils. Their job is to examine in detail the topology and the properties of the grid and all power sources, and to consider all credible things that may or may not happen in the future. It's hard to imagine any professional work more boring and less recognized.

My point is that reliability engineers, not executives, not politicians, not activists need to make those critical decisions. It sounds like in Aus, politicians took over.

 

[Astronuc]

I listened to a presentation at work on Advanced Reactors, and part of the presentation was a page from IAEA's Advanced Reactor Information System (ARIS). It's a decent resource for identifying current designs.

https://aris.iaea.org/

The database includes:
Water-cooled Systems (PWRs, BWRs, SCWRs (supercritical water-cooled reactors), HWRs, and iPWRs (integrated PWR, e.g., IMR (Mitsubishi), Nuscale, SMART (KAERI))
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/PWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/BWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/SCWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/HWR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/IPWR.html

GCR (Gas-cooled (graphite-moderated, epithermal) reactors), GFR (gas-cooled fast reactors)
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/GCR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/GFR.html

LMRs (liquid (molten) metal-cooled, e.g., SFR (sodium-cooled fast reactors) and LFR (lead-cooled fast reactors)
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/SFR.html
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/LFR.html

MSRs (molten salt reactors), which could be fluoride-based (e.g., FLiBe, FLiNaK, NaFBeF, NaFZirF, . . .) graphite-moderated (thermal/epithermal), or chloride-based (e.g., LiCl-KCl, LiCl-RbCl, (NaCl,KCl)-MgCl₂, . . . ) fast reactors. SMRs maybe homogeneous, in which fuel salts are in solution of non-fuel salts, e.g., LiF-Be (FLiBe), NaF-BeF, or LiCl-KCl (e.g., ThorCon), or heterogeneous, in which the fuel is encapsulated and physically separated from the non-fuel salt coolant (e.g., Kairos).
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/MSR.html

SMRs (small modular reactors) with a variety of coolants and fuels
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/SMR.html

https://www.ornl.gov/content/fluoride-salt-cooled-high-temperature-reactors
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306454917301391

Topical Report Submittal for Reactor Coolant for the Kairos Power Fluoride Salt-Cooled High Temperature Reactor - https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1907/ML19079A325.pdf

Assessment of Candidate Molten Salt Coolants for the NGNP/NHI Heat-Transfer Loop (ORNL/TM-2006/69)
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1360677

Each has their technical challenges related to fuel chemistry and performance, fuel cycle management, reactivity control, fuel-coolant interactions, radiation effects (degradation and transmutation) of structural alloys, structural alloy-coolant interactions (chemical dissolution, corrosion, erosion, 'crud' deposition), . . . . , and ultimately, spent fuel, special nuclear material (SNM) and waste disposition, in which disposition means handling, potential reprocessing and storage, and ultimately deposition in an as-yet undefined/undetermined repository.

 

[anorlunda]

Interesting. I notice that even the Russians have small modular reactor SMR ideas.
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/VVER-640(V-407).pdf

I don't expect much success in marketing those globally.

Normally, in commerce competition is the proven method to get quality and affordability. But in winning public confidence for SMRs, I don't think having 30 or more competing designs is best. At best, the public might have the patience to listen to a presentation about one design, but never dozens.

That suggests that a highly publicized international design competition plus a really big prize would be the best way for governments to promote the general concept.

 

[bhobba]

My point is that reliability engineers, not executives, not politicians, not activists need to make those critical decisions. It sounds like in Aus, politicians took over.

I was listening to a discussion from political commentators about the issue. Not one engineer on the panel. It makes you wonder. It does. Noticed similar things with Covid as well.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

I was listening to a discussion from political commentators about the issue. Not one engineer on the panel. It makes you wonder. It does. Noticed similar things with Covid as well.

Thanks
Bill

The famous US news anchor, Ted Koppel wrote an apocalyptic book about the power grid causing civilization to collapse. It reminded me of Mad Max.

Lights Out: A Cyberattack, A Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath​

He interviewed, CEOs, physicists, clergy, Government Ministers, scientists, ... but ne never spoke once to an engineer.

 

[Astronuc]

Contemporary nuclear supply chain issues.

Matt Bowen and Paul Dabbar - What’s at risk due to Russia’s nuclear power dominance?
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-...-risk-due-to-russias-nuclear-power-dominance/

Russia has a significant market share in many of those pieces of the nuclear supply chain through its state-owned nuclear company Rosatom. For that reason, various countries around the world are caught in a challenging situation, including the U.S. They may want to extricate themselves from buying nuclear energy supplies from Rosatom to reduce supply chain risk and to stop sending money to Russia, but at the same time, they currently rely on Russian services and materials to run their reactors.

As we [authors] laid out in a paper last month from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, various U.S. allied countries have Russian reactors in operation or under construction, including Finland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Ukraine. Those countries are at risk of their Russian-built reactors having operational difficulties or even outages without materials, equipment and services to maintain them. However, various Western manufacturing companies can over time start producing replacements to overcome that supply challenge.

The more critical issue is the uranium fuel supply chain. Since Russia only mines 6 percent of the world’s uranium, it is relatively easy for countries and nuclear power plant owners to secure other global sources of uranium ore. However, Russia controls 40 percent of the global uranium conversion market, where uranium oxide “yellow cake” is converted into uranium hexafluoride — a gaseous form needed for the enrichment process. Natural uranium has a Uranium-235 isotope content of 0.7 percent, and the enrichment process increases the U-235 content to the 3-5 percent needed to run nuclear reactors. And Russia holds 46 percent of uranium enrichment capacity. The vast majority of the 439 reactors around the world require enriched uranium fuel, . . . .

 

[Vanadium 50]

Dabbar used to be Undersecreatry of Science.

But the world has already decided - nuclear power is more evil than funding Putin's murdering women and children. Because, um, because...er...I'm sure we have a good reason.

 

[bhobba]

Things are getting bad here in Brisbane. From today's paper (precis):

'Queenslanders are being warned of possible blackouts tonight as surging power costs force the national market operator to step in and impose a rare price cap. Journalist Chris Kenny says Australia's energy crisis is a situation of our "deliberate creation". "So, the nation is in an energy crisis," Mr Kenny said. "We are short of gas for domestic use, and with global demand rising, it's too expensive, pushing up costs for industry and electricity generation. And we don't have enough electricity from other sources. We've closed down large coal-fired generators in most states, and renewables are intermittent. So prices skyrocket, supply is stretched, and our political and business leaders are in a flap."

Queenslanders are being urged to brace for potential blackouts tonight as the energy crisis on the east coast hits home. The national energy market regulator has warned there is the risk of blackouts between 5.30 pm and 8 pm on Monday after electricity generators pulled supply from the market. Skyrocketing wholesale prices forced the regulator to put a price cap in place after reaching a threshold. The price cap saw generators lower their bids into the energy market, leading to what the Australian Energy Market Operator called a "deficit in the supply/demand balance" – a risk of blackouts. The regulator is currently working to ensure this does not happen, issuing solid warnings to generators, called "Lack of Reserve notices", and has the power to direct them to generate enough supply to meet consumer demand if they fail to act. Further updates are expected as the situation develops.

Global Roam analyst Paul McArdle, who runs the Watt Clarity website, warned not meeting the supply would be "catastrophic." It is the first time in three years AEMO has had to trigger the price cap on wholesale electricity high prices, with the last instance taking place in South Australia and Victoria in 2019. It is amid the growing energy crisis in Australia, and coal and gas generators come under increasing pressure. There had been a 140 per cent increase in prices in the first quarter of the year compared to the same period last year, driven by a range of factors, both global and domestic, and they have continued to rise since then. The "high price threshold" of $1.359 million over seven days, or an average of $674.16/MWh, was reached just before 7 pm on Sunday and remained there on Monday. The cap forces the high wholesale price to drop to $300/MWh, stopping price rises from getting out of control but seeing less generation put into the market, while a separate cumulative spot price is near to being reached. Power generation prices in Queensland have been surging, forcing the market operator to enforce a rarely used price cap overnight. The regulator will review the situation at 4 am on Tuesday and extend the price cap if needed.'

This is in Australia, which has an abundance of energy sources. Coal, Gas, Uranium, Sun and Wind are plentiful. We will even be building a massive solar array in the Simpson Desert and, via undersea cable, transmit the electricity to Singapore.

This is a crisis purely bought about by mismanagement. For example, we have vast amounts of untapped gas reserves, which could power gas generators that can quickly be bought online when the sun doesn't shine, and the wind doesn't blow that power the renewables we currently have and/or are building. That is purely an interim measure until some rational long-term solution such as nuclear or whatever the future brings is worked out. WE NEED ENGINEERS, NOT POLITICIANS RUNNING THIS. Instead, we are left with economists to fill the gap:
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/energy-crisis-why-are-electricity-prices-set-rise

With all due respect to economists, they are not the profession to solve this problem.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

Did you intend the Nuclear Power thread?

I sympathize. The energy supply in Queensland has been seriously bungled.

WE NEED ENGINEERS, NOT POLITICIANS RUNNING THIS. Instead, we are left with economists to fill the gap:

You and I are singing the same song. For example, in that article you linked, the economist professor confounded energy supply with electric supply. They are related but not identical, especially regarding the real time property of the electric grid, and the forest of legislation and regulations.

But the engineers must also understand economics. A critical part of any competitive market auction is that a significant (25-35%) portion of the bidders fail to win any auction that day. Spiking and volatility occur when the number of successful bidders approaches 100%.

We assure an adequate quantity of bidders through the mechanism of ICAP, that you and I recently discussed.

Does AU have a formal ICAP market? How is the quantity of ICAP regulated?

 

[bhobba]

Did you intend the Nuclear Power thread?

Considering the prior posts, it seemed reasonable at the time. I will be happy to put it wherever the consensus thinks it should go.

But the engineers must also understand economics. A critical part of any competitive market auction is that a significant (25-35%) portion of the bidders fail to win any auction that day. Spiking and volatility occur when the number of successful bidders approaches 100%.

Of course. I should have made that clear. Several professions should collaboratively work together to solve the issue. Power engineers, like my father, must be an important part of the mix.

Does AU have a formal ICAP market? How is the quantity of ICAP regulated?

I am not an expert on this, but my understanding is that it comes under the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) umbrella. Just letting people know no blackouts happened tonight, and last-minute deals have been put in place to ensure it will not happen in the near future. Medium-term seems to be the issue. I think the AER has learned a tough lesson for the long term. Even low probability events must be catered for. We have long-term contracts for our natural gas, but they must have an emergency clause if Australia gets into real trouble. Other similar measures are likely to be needed - I just hope that people unshackled by political considerations that know what they are doing get involved.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

I tried to a bit of research to answer the ICAP question in AU. It was inconclusive. I did find this.

• https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/energy-policy-wa
  The market design is done by the government, not industry. The markets I know best, are governed by "participants". That includes generator owners, transmission owners, retail utilities, consumer advocates, environmental advocates, industrial consumers, government regulators, blah blah. They design the markets and make all the rules, but they need approval from government. They mandate that the system operator maintain a market design department staffed by engineers. Engineers design, then submit the designs for approval of the stakeholders, who submit them for approval by government. Disputes wind up in court. I worked for the system operator in NY. $16B of other people's money passed through our hands every year, so as you might expect we had a lot of scrutiny.
• I found that there is a natural gas capacity market at aemo, but no mention of an equivalent market for electricity.
• It could be semantics. The AU energy operator, https://www.aemo.com.au/, talks about electric reserves, but not capacity. Reserves and capacity are closely related but not identical. Other markets have separate auctions for capacity and for reserves.

 

[bhobba]

Just to let people know the longer-term outcome of the crisis we had. It was to bring ageing and just about at the end of their life coal power stations back on line for one last 'gasp'. Let's hope some better 'risk' managed longer-term solutions are put in place. And considering this is the nuclear power thread it must include nuclear in the mix. Not doing so would limit solutions to supplying power, which has been amply demonstrated to have dire consequences if not done correctly. This just should NOT happen in a country like Australia. I suspect factors other than the reliability of the power grid have been at work. Hopefully, those involved have learned a valuable lesson.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

Australia's experience is not totally unique.From an earlier thread. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/when-renewable-energy-meets-power-grid-operations.970843/

It was just few years ago that (in Germany) the coal/gas power plants tried to leave the market en masse, mostly on the south, due the falling prices. The problem was, that wind is most concentrated on the north, so the building of the north-south power line could not be delayed any longer: also, this amount of closure was a clean stab into the amount of reserves necessary at winter. The first reaction - the permission for most closure requests was denied.

The follow-up was even more interesting. To grant a still acceptable profit to plant owners and to prevent them leaving the business a new mechanisms were implemented, but the weight of the so called 'strategic reserve' was a bit of an eyesore to many countries around, as an example for protectionism // unwillingness to take responsibility and further pushing weird ideas onto neighbors.
...
The main problem (still not too frequently admitted) is that the additional infrastructure required by intermittent sources will has intermittent usage statistics. The perfect example - I think - is the already mentioned new north-south power line in Germany. It is necessary to deliver the wind energy from north to south, but the circumstances when it is really needed at full capacity happens only a few weeks in a year.

 

[anorlunda]

Uh Oh, Germany's experience it not just in the past. It is current.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/green-germany-prepares-to-fire-up-the-coal-furnaces/
"A bill providing the legal basis to burn more coal for power generation is now making its way through parliament, aiming to boost the output of so-called reserve power plants that are irregularly used for grid stabilization and were scheduled to go offline over the next few years," Deutsche Welle noted this week.

 

[Dale]

That grid stabilization issue is a big one, and unfortunately nuclear, as it currently stands, is not well suited to address it. Nuclear capacity is so expensive that it is usually run at or near peak capacity all the time.

A reliable and “green” grid will get most of its power from nuclear, wind, and solar. But will need something that can be throttled as well. Fossil fuels and biofuels seem suitable for that, and most fossil fuel generators can easily be adapted for biofuels. And depending on local geography geothermal and hydroelectric power can play that role.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think there's any technical reason one cannot throttle nuclear plants. There is a financial reason - capital costs are high and fuel costs low, so once you own one, you want it running all the time. This is opposite what you have with gas peaker plants.

 

[bhobba]

As luck would have it there was a discussion on this very point during one of our talk shows tonight. It seems the technology for what Dale called 'A reliable and "green" grid' including nuclear etc., is not quite there yet, but will likely be there in the foreseeable future. The issue is planning the transition well and avoiding disaster scenarios like what nearly happened in Brisbane. It is a bit like electric vehicles. Most who own one say they are a dream to drive, but mass uptake will need careful planning and an understanding of what government can and can't do. Governments can't (well, they can try) make pronouncements that all cars sold by, say, 2030 will be electric. Technological change does not work like that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dale]

I don't think there's any technical reason one cannot throttle nuclear plants. There is a financial reason - capital costs are high and fuel costs low, so once you own one, you want it running all the time.

Absolutely. The capital and startup costs are currently very high. Maybe the small modular nuclear reactors will change that, but licensing costs will need to be resolved too.

 

[Astronuc]

This somehow escaped my attention last year.

April 20, 2021 - SHINE, Phoenix Merger Focused on Advancing Fusion Technology​

https://phoenixwi.com/press-releases/shine-phoenix-merger-advancing-fusion-technology/

The combined company represents the first two phases of the long-term vision of Greg Piefer, the founder of both companies, for producing clean energy from fusion (see “SHINE’s Four-Phase Progression to Clean Energy Production” below). The goal of each phase of SHINE’s approach is to build additional capacity and capability, and deepen scientific understanding of fusion technology as it progresses to clean fusion energy production. Each step through the four phases is expected to provide further proof of the technology’s robustness, a foundation for ongoing innovation in the next phase and the creation of value for the company, its customers, and shareholders.

“SHINE and Phoenix have shared a common long-term vision and operated in close collaboration during the past 11 years, but it’s always been inefficient to operate as separate companies,” said Greg Piefer, CEO of SHINE. “Coming together will enable us to advance fusion technology more quickly by aligning interests and combining complementary core competencies. Through the four phases, we are taking a deliberate approach to building a company that can ultimately deliver cost-effective, clean fusion energy to billions, while serving important near-term market needs like advanced industrial imaging and medical isotopes, along the way.” For a video of additional comments from Greg Piefer, please click here (:46 broadcast-quality available for the media).

They have good people there. I've interacted with some over the past decade or so.

 

[BWV]

Seems like China has accelerated its Nuclear energy program, planning 150 new reactors

https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/china-goes-big-uk-goes-small-on-nuclear-power/