Rod Martin & Frank Gaffney discuss the burgeoning nuclear renaissance: new technology that makes nuclear safe and cheap, laser-based missile and air defense, plus an energy export boom.
HALEU is used in TRISO fuel pellets, particularly for advanced reactor designs. TRISO fuel particles are typically composed of a fissile kernel (usually uranium oxycarbide or uranium dioxide) surrounded by multiple coating layers that provide containment of fission products.
For TRISO fuel particles used in advanced reactor designs, HALEU enrichment levels typically range from 15-20% U-235. This is significantly higher than the 3-5% enrichment used in conventional light water reactors but still below the 20% threshold that would classify it as highly enriched uranium (HEU).
The exact enrichment percentage depends on the specific reactor design and application:
For gas-cooled reactors (which commonly use TRISO fuel): Enrichment levels of approximately 15-19.75% U-235 are typical.
NASA's KRUSTY (Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology) project for space applications used TRISO fuel with enrichment levels around 93% U-235 (which technically qualifies as HEU rather than HALEU).
For terrestrial microreactors using TRISO fuel: Enrichment levels generally range from 15-17.5% U-235.
The higher enrichment in TRISO fuel allows for:
— Longer fuel life
— Higher power density
— Smaller reactor core designs
— Enhanced safety margins due to the robust nature of the TRISO particle design
TRISO fuel's unique encapsulation design allows it to safely contain fission products at much higher temperatures and with higher enrichment levels than traditional fuel forms, making it suitable for these advanced reactor applications.
So, I must beg to differ, on one point of what you said, Dr. Rod Martin. The enrichment level is significantly higher than the up to 5% you specified. The cost of SMRs will also be higher, because the maintenance overhead per MWh is only slightly improved from today's LWRs, but the Energy Production is much lower for SMR, which means that the relative maintenance cost will in fact increase the price on electric power. And with a wide range of 10-17.5% enrichment, the Safety and thus the Proliferation Risk of a Fuel that is considerably easier to smuggle out of a facility compared to large, cumbersome, 3-5% U-235 Fuel Rods for LWRs will need a hard look.
I do agree that the Trump Administration has done a fantastic job in getting rid of much of the — quite frankly — idiotic regulation. We should welcome these SMRs and Microreactors as an important Component in Hardening the Grid, both in term of WHEN the next Carrington Event Sized CME hits Earth and in terms of Enemy EMP Attacks.
That being said — let us not pretend that there isn't a significantly increased Risk of Theft of HALEU TRISO and Proliferation Risk, nor that the Cost of this Energy will be higher than it is today. If we want to bypass these Negatives — the Thorium Fuel Cycle is the only way to go. And unfortunately, the U.S. is only about 20% the way there to a Commercial Product, while the Communist Chinese are — with their TMSR-2 about to switch from a Uranium to a Thorium Fuel Cycle, which means they are creeping towards the 90% mark for a Commercial Product. They have also widely started using Thorium Technology in their LWRs to stretch their U-235 Fuel Reserves.
In my Opinion, for Strategic Reasons, the U.S. ought to drop TRISO Microreactors and SMRs and go all in on LFTRs. After all, there is enough Fuel within the Borders of the U.S. for the next approximately 250 Years, if America switched to Thorium today — including Power for the 4th Industrial Revolution — AI. It would cost the average American $80-100 of Thorium for a Lifetime of Electricity Use. And as you touched on in this talk with Frank, you can use LFTRs to burn waste. But before that particular Nuclear Chemistry Problem is solved, there is an abundance of Thorium sitting above ground today, as costly Waste Products from America's Rare Earth Mines. In my Opinion, LFTRs are the Winners. Fusion is, best case scenario 10 years away from a Commercial Products. AI may be able to shave off some time in new Containment Technology Design, but there are still manifold, unsolved, massive challenges. And LFTR Technology will still be relevant many years after a Commercial Breakthrough in Fusion.
Thank you kindly! And I believe you would enjoy mine. Go to NorwayForTRUMP[.]com and search for Thorium. I have also delivered one White Paper to President Trump. And I’m working on the second, because I believe U-235 TRISO/HALEU SMRs are the wrong path to take. It would mean a somewhat hardening of the Grid, yes — but most of the Reactor Designs now proposed will increase Proliferation Risk immensely, and they would also drive up Electricity Costs. My recommendation is to keep the LWRs in operation for still a few decades and incentivize LFTRs through Tax Exemptions and Easier Approval Paths of new designs. As they come online, they will phase out LWRs naturally. With LFTRs High Thermal Range of Operation, and ability to burn Spent Fuel for a 10x Energy Return, they solve several problems immediately, and will be the go-to solution for production of Electrcity for the 4th Industrial Revolution and Fuel Production for the Space Revolution (call it the 5th Industrial Revolution if you will). Thank you kindly, Mr. Martin! It was a most enjoyable read! And please enjoy the attached.
Interesting and long overdue reforms for this energy sector. But the commentary feels very much “Deja vu”; we’ve been celebrating “the drill baby drill” mantra for some time now, and indeed U.S. petroleum production is leading the world. Yet 53 years after the 1973 oil embargo, we seemingly will be entering into a long term, dubiously enforceable, agreement to curtain Iran nuclear bomb production, for the short term benefit of more Iranian oil flowing.
I don't know why we wouldn't be celebrating "drill baby drill", given that we were dropping under 5 million bpd in 2008 and are now outproducing Russia and Saudi Arabia combined (which we were assured was impossible, because "Peak Oil" and such). We're a top three exporter and growing fast, which meaningfully diminishes the power of any Middle Eastern country to affect markets, we've split the UAE from OPEC and they're not only about to double production but to ship it all overland around the strait, and that's before we even start with the LNG revolution (another of those things that were being talked about in the 1970s but just...never...happpened...until it did).
Iran is about more than the Strait. A crisis in the Strait greatly benefited the U.S. in multiple ways, as I've detailed for months, and those benefits are long-term regardless of any deal the Iranians can make.
my point was not to negate the overall benefits of our increased petroleum production, but rather to point out the irony, that notwitsanding the former, 53 year after the oil embargo and Kissinger negotiating for Arab appeasement, resulting in Israel’s pullout from the Sinai; were back again needing the oil to flow and asking fairly bluntly for Israel to restrict its defense. As Yogi said “Déjà Vu all over again”
This is about your exciting reports on new Nuclear Power. I went to the websites of each company and found that I can only invest as an accredited investor. Boo-hoo. I would love to use my Schwab account to buy $1,000 a month in a nuclear power company, like I used to do with Apple and Microsoft. Now that I have digested your information what am I supposed to do with it?
HALEU is used in TRISO fuel pellets, particularly for advanced reactor designs. TRISO fuel particles are typically composed of a fissile kernel (usually uranium oxycarbide or uranium dioxide) surrounded by multiple coating layers that provide containment of fission products.
For TRISO fuel particles used in advanced reactor designs, HALEU enrichment levels typically range from 15-20% U-235. This is significantly higher than the 3-5% enrichment used in conventional light water reactors but still below the 20% threshold that would classify it as highly enriched uranium (HEU).
The exact enrichment percentage depends on the specific reactor design and application:
For gas-cooled reactors (which commonly use TRISO fuel): Enrichment levels of approximately 15-19.75% U-235 are typical.
NASA's KRUSTY (Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology) project for space applications used TRISO fuel with enrichment levels around 93% U-235 (which technically qualifies as HEU rather than HALEU).
For terrestrial microreactors using TRISO fuel: Enrichment levels generally range from 15-17.5% U-235.
The higher enrichment in TRISO fuel allows for:
— Longer fuel life
— Higher power density
— Smaller reactor core designs
— Enhanced safety margins due to the robust nature of the TRISO particle design
TRISO fuel's unique encapsulation design allows it to safely contain fission products at much higher temperatures and with higher enrichment levels than traditional fuel forms, making it suitable for these advanced reactor applications.
So, I must beg to differ, on one point of what you said, Dr. Rod Martin. The enrichment level is significantly higher than the up to 5% you specified. The cost of SMRs will also be higher, because the maintenance overhead per MWh is only slightly improved from today's LWRs, but the Energy Production is much lower for SMR, which means that the relative maintenance cost will in fact increase the price on electric power. And with a wide range of 10-17.5% enrichment, the Safety and thus the Proliferation Risk of a Fuel that is considerably easier to smuggle out of a facility compared to large, cumbersome, 3-5% U-235 Fuel Rods for LWRs will need a hard look.
I do agree that the Trump Administration has done a fantastic job in getting rid of much of the — quite frankly — idiotic regulation. We should welcome these SMRs and Microreactors as an important Component in Hardening the Grid, both in term of WHEN the next Carrington Event Sized CME hits Earth and in terms of Enemy EMP Attacks.
That being said — let us not pretend that there isn't a significantly increased Risk of Theft of HALEU TRISO and Proliferation Risk, nor that the Cost of this Energy will be higher than it is today. If we want to bypass these Negatives — the Thorium Fuel Cycle is the only way to go. And unfortunately, the U.S. is only about 20% the way there to a Commercial Product, while the Communist Chinese are — with their TMSR-2 about to switch from a Uranium to a Thorium Fuel Cycle, which means they are creeping towards the 90% mark for a Commercial Product. They have also widely started using Thorium Technology in their LWRs to stretch their U-235 Fuel Reserves.
In my Opinion, for Strategic Reasons, the U.S. ought to drop TRISO Microreactors and SMRs and go all in on LFTRs. After all, there is enough Fuel within the Borders of the U.S. for the next approximately 250 Years, if America switched to Thorium today — including Power for the 4th Industrial Revolution — AI. It would cost the average American $80-100 of Thorium for a Lifetime of Electricity Use. And as you touched on in this talk with Frank, you can use LFTRs to burn waste. But before that particular Nuclear Chemistry Problem is solved, there is an abundance of Thorium sitting above ground today, as costly Waste Products from America's Rare Earth Mines. In my Opinion, LFTRs are the Winners. Fusion is, best case scenario 10 years away from a Commercial Products. AI may be able to shave off some time in new Containment Technology Design, but there are still manifold, unsolved, massive challenges. And LFTR Technology will still be relevant many years after a Commercial Breakthrough in Fusion.
You would enjoy my recent article on Thorium.
https://www.rodmartin.org/p/thorium-energys-once-and-future-marvel
Thank you kindly! And I believe you would enjoy mine. Go to NorwayForTRUMP[.]com and search for Thorium. I have also delivered one White Paper to President Trump. And I’m working on the second, because I believe U-235 TRISO/HALEU SMRs are the wrong path to take. It would mean a somewhat hardening of the Grid, yes — but most of the Reactor Designs now proposed will increase Proliferation Risk immensely, and they would also drive up Electricity Costs. My recommendation is to keep the LWRs in operation for still a few decades and incentivize LFTRs through Tax Exemptions and Easier Approval Paths of new designs. As they come online, they will phase out LWRs naturally. With LFTRs High Thermal Range of Operation, and ability to burn Spent Fuel for a 10x Energy Return, they solve several problems immediately, and will be the go-to solution for production of Electrcity for the 4th Industrial Revolution and Fuel Production for the Space Revolution (call it the 5th Industrial Revolution if you will). Thank you kindly, Mr. Martin! It was a most enjoyable read! And please enjoy the attached.
Interesting and long overdue reforms for this energy sector. But the commentary feels very much “Deja vu”; we’ve been celebrating “the drill baby drill” mantra for some time now, and indeed U.S. petroleum production is leading the world. Yet 53 years after the 1973 oil embargo, we seemingly will be entering into a long term, dubiously enforceable, agreement to curtain Iran nuclear bomb production, for the short term benefit of more Iranian oil flowing.
I don't know why we wouldn't be celebrating "drill baby drill", given that we were dropping under 5 million bpd in 2008 and are now outproducing Russia and Saudi Arabia combined (which we were assured was impossible, because "Peak Oil" and such). We're a top three exporter and growing fast, which meaningfully diminishes the power of any Middle Eastern country to affect markets, we've split the UAE from OPEC and they're not only about to double production but to ship it all overland around the strait, and that's before we even start with the LNG revolution (another of those things that were being talked about in the 1970s but just...never...happpened...until it did).
Iran is about more than the Strait. A crisis in the Strait greatly benefited the U.S. in multiple ways, as I've detailed for months, and those benefits are long-term regardless of any deal the Iranians can make.
my point was not to negate the overall benefits of our increased petroleum production, but rather to point out the irony, that notwitsanding the former, 53 year after the oil embargo and Kissinger negotiating for Arab appeasement, resulting in Israel’s pullout from the Sinai; were back again needing the oil to flow and asking fairly bluntly for Israel to restrict its defense. As Yogi said “Déjà Vu all over again”
This is about your exciting reports on new Nuclear Power. I went to the websites of each company and found that I can only invest as an accredited investor. Boo-hoo. I would love to use my Schwab account to buy $1,000 a month in a nuclear power company, like I used to do with Apple and Microsoft. Now that I have digested your information what am I supposed to do with it?
Watch for the IPOs. Lots coming.