Oppenheimer Energy was founded on the premise that the main problems that stop the deployment of nuclear are financial and project problems – not lack of technology. Most nuclear startups these days have the thesis that we need new technology – new reactors, new fuel types. Solve those, say the 100+ nuclear startups, and we’ll have a widespread, abundant nuclear energy.
History / safety
But we believe that nuclear energy has already proved itself incredibly safe. Contrary to popular perception, it is the safest form of energy produced, not the most dangerous. That isn’t a guess – its backed by over 60 years of cmmerical operations, with meticulous record keeping. Could it be unsafe? Sure. But it isn’t, as engineers and scientists predicted the dangers, controlled them, and have proven, inthe real. world, over and over, that nuclear is safe enough. Hard to get below 0 deaths and injuries from commerial operations. Ok. So we aren’t focusing on making safer nuclear reactors – even if thats good marketing. What are we focusing on?
The finance and project managment problems in nuclear. Due to decreasing construction productivity across all industrial projects in western economies, but espeically so in heavily regulated ones like nuclear – there has abeen a cycle of cost increases in nucelar projects – actually happening far before the iconic issues such as Three Mile Island industial problem that terrified people (but caused no measurable health effects). With construction prices escelating due to inflation, lower elecriticy costs, there was huge wave of cancellation of nuclear projects from the buyers in the 1970s, after the boom and before Three Mile Island.
Real Problem
Today – the buyers of nuclear energy – which to-date have always been utilities – aren’t willing to take the financial risk. They don’t know what a project will cost, and requires one of the most risk adverse businesses that exist to take on some of the biggest risk projects.
In many businesses there are developer models – those who put in the first capital, dersisk a project, and capture value from their value creation and risk reduction. Real estate is the perfect example. A develper may only do the land and permitting and sell a commerical property, or they may build a full paroject and continue to own it – so there is a wide range. In energy projects, developers are as common, with many models across renewables, fossil fuels. But not nuclear. Nuclear projects have been only started, commissioned, and funed by large risk adverse utilities.
So thats the problem that is stoping nuclear deployment: there are plenty of tax incentives, ways to get costs down. But there isn’t an entity that will take the first risk, to start the project, to catalyze it.
There is growing consesus that this should exist for nuclear projects. There is lots of capital for nuclear projects that have reached FID (Final Investment Decision) – even with known risks. But there is little capital or risk appetite to start nuclear projects.
But we have that appetite. We have the expertise, assembling the team that can plan and manage projects expertly
Leave a Reply