Connect with us

Published

on

The Vogtle nuclear power plant is located in Burke County, near Waynesboro, Georgia in USA. Each of the two existing units have a Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR), with a General Electric turbine and electric generator, producing approximately 2,400 MW of electricity. Two Westinghouse made AP 1000 reactors are under construction here.

Pallava Bagla | Corbis News | Getty Images

Venture capitalists in Silicon Valley and other tech hubs are investing money in nuclear energy for the first time in history. That’s changing its trajectory and pace of innovation.

“There’s not been a resurgence of nuclear power, ever, since its heyday in the late 1970s,” Ray Rothrock, a longtime venture capitalist who has personal investments in 10 nuclear startups, told CNBC.

Now, that’s changing. “I have never seen this kind of investment before. Ever.”  

How nuclear power is changing

Jacob DeWitte, CEO of micro-reactor startup Oklo, says the landscape has changed dramatically since he started raising money in 2014, when he was a part of the Y Combinator startup incubator.

“More investors are interested, more investors are excited by the space, and they’re getting smarter to do the diligence and know what to do here — which is good,” DeWitte told CNBC.

This surge of private investment will be a positive for the industry, agrees John Parsons, an economist and lecturer at MIT.

“I think having fresh perspectives is really good,” Parsons told CNBC. Nuclear energy is “a very complex science, and it’s been supported by the federal government and at these national labs. And so that’s a very small circle of people. And when you broaden that circle, you get a lot of new minds, different thinking, a variety of experiments.”

In any industry, there can be a “groupthink” or “narrowness” in the way things are done over time, Parsons said. With private investment in the space, “there will be out-of-the-box thinking,” he said. “Maybe that out-of-the-box thinking doesn’t produce anything useful. Maybe it turns out that the old designs are the best. But I think it’s really wonderful to have the variety of takes.”

Not everyone is so optimistic that the recent influx of venture dollars will lead to progress.

“Investors have often invested in stupid things that didn’t work,” Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University, told CNBC. “Because the reality is that in a 75-year history of this technology, it has never been profitable in a market-based system.” If investors are putting money into nuclear now, that’s because they think they can make money, and “I can only think they believe they will make money because they think that there’s a big opportunity to have the federal government pick up a big part of the tab,” Oreskes said.

Pitchbook’s private investment data for nuclear technology data includes both fusion and fission.

Chart courtesy Pitchbook.

Nuclear investment by the numbers

From 2015 to 2021, total venture capital deal flow in the United States increased 54% in terms of deals closed and 294% by dollar value, according to data compiled by private capital market research firm Pitchbook for CNBC. In that same time, climate investing deal flow in the United States jumped by 214% in terms of volume and 1,348% by dollar value.

In the nuclear space, investment rose even faster — 325% by volume and 3,642% by dollar value, according to Pitchbook.

Some of the rapid pace of increase in investment in the nuclear sector is explained by its starting point — virtually zero.

“This is still pretty small compared to the private investments in renewables,” like wind and solar, for example, said David Schlissel, director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a market research firm.

The venture market slowed overall in 2022, and nuclear investment is no exception. Concerns about the war in Ukraine, inflation, a wave of layoffs and murmurs of a recession have made investors nervous in the public markets and private alike.

Pitchbook includes companies developing technologies to mitigate or adapt to climate change in this category. Examples include renewable energy generation, long duration energy storage, the electrification of transportation, agricultural innovations, industrial process improvements, and mining technologies.

Chart courtesy Pitchbook

“At the beginning of the year, we were looking at a much different financial paradigm for nuclear startups seeking funding. Now, following a war, and inflationary related forces, the fundraising market is just not what it was earlier and that is challenging for everyone seeking funding and support, nuclear or otherwise,” Brett Rampal, a nuclear energy expert who evaluates investment opportunities and consults for nuclear startups, told CNBC.

More than $300 billion poured into the venture capital industry in 2021. Rothrock expects to see more like $160 billion in 2022.

“I’m sure that some funds that pull back may never come back,” Rothrock said. But most investors who are putting money into a nuclear company understands that it will not be a quick investment, Rothrock told CNBC. “Entrepreneurs and investors at the level we are talking for nuclear are playing the long game, they have to. These projects will take time to mature and to generate real cash flows.”

Also, the Inflation Reduction Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in August, which includes $369 billion in funding to help combat climate change, has given nuclear investors a very significant positive signal, Rampal told CNBC.

“The IRA investment and production tax credits are not nuclear specific credits, they’re clean energy credits that nuclear is now considered a part of, and that sends a real important message to people and investors that would consider this space,” Rampal said. Similarly important, the European Union voted in July to keep some specific uses of nuclear energy (and natural gas) in its taxonomy of sustainable sources of energy in some circumstances, according to Rampal.

Total venture capital deal activity, according to Pitchbook data, for the last five years.

Chart courtesy Pitchbook.

The VC approach to nuclear

The nuclear power industry in the United States launched as a government project after the U.S. built the first atomic bombs during World War II. In 1951, a nuclear reactor produced electricity for the first time in Idaho at the National Reactor Testing Station, which would become the Idaho National Laboratory.

In the 1960s and 1970s, large conglomerates constructed big nuclear power plants, and those projects often ran over budget. “As a consequence, most of the utilities that undertook nuclear projects suffered ratings downgrades—sometimes several downgrades—during the construction phase,” according to a 2011 report from the Congressional Budget Office. Also, the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 raised public fears about safety and put a damper on construction.

Nuclear power generation in the United States peaked in 2012 with 104 operating reactors, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

However, in recent years, private investors and venture capitalists have been putting money into nuclear startups, driven by a newfound sense of urgency to respond to climate change, as nuclear energy releases no greenhouse gases. There’s also the allure of funding underdog companies with huge upside.

The venture capital model is based on big bets — venture capitalists spread their money across many companies. Most are expected to fail or maybe break even, but if one or two companies get enormous, they more than cover the cost of all those losses. This is the investing model that built Silicon Valley stalwarts like Apple, Google and Tesla.

Some venture capitalists are especially excited about fusion. It’s the type of nuclear energy that powers stars, and it generates no long-lasting radioactive waste — but so far, it’s proven fiendishly difficult to create a lasting fusion reaction on Earth and impossible to generate enough energy for commercial generation.

“It’s far better than nuclear fission,” investor Vinod Khosla told CNBC in October. “It’s far better than coal and fossil fuels for sure. But it’s not ready. And we need to get it ready and build it.”

Khosla isn’t the only one. The private fusion industry has seen almost $5 billion in investment, according to the Fusion Industry Association, and more than half of that has been since since the second quarter of 2021, Andrew Holland, CEO of the association, told CNBC.

Installation of one of the giant 300-tonne magnets that will be used to confine the fusion reaction during the construction of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) on the Cadarache site on September 15, 2021.

Jean-marie Hosatte | Gamma-rapho | Getty Images

Others are excited about new advances in nuclear fission, the more traditional type of nuclear power based on breaking atomic nuclei apart, like DCVC founder Zachary Bogue, who invested in micro-nuclear reactor company Oklo.

“Advanced nuclear fission is a quintessential deep-tech venture capital problem,” Bogue told CNBC in September. There is technical and regulatory risk, but if those problems are solved, “there are just massive-scale returns … all of those elements are a perfect recipe for venture capital.”

While these bets seem expensive and risky compared with venture capital’s recent focus on software and consumer tech, they’ll still bring a faster and more agile approach than the old-line nuclear industry.

Take micro-reactors.

“These are going to be very expensive at first. But the goal is to find something that is a product that’s much more flexible, can go on to the grid in many more different places and serve different functions, and go off grid also,” explained MIT’s Parsons.

Similarly, fusion startups say they will generate energy much faster than government research projects like ITER, which has already been in progress since 2007.

This quick-turn approach to investment is spurring experimentation. New generations of nuclear reactors will have different sizes, different coolants and different fuels, explained Matt Crozat, senior director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Some reactors are being designed for companies or communities in isolated areas, for example. Others are being made to operate at high temperatures for industrial processes, Crozat told CNBC.

“It really is expanding the range of what nuclear can mean,” Crozat said. Many won’t succeed, but time and the market will figure out what’s needed and what’s possible, he said.

Because venture investors are hungry for returns, this also spurs nuclear startups to chase interim revenue streams as they’re getting their big-bet technology up and running.

For example, Bill Gates‘ nuclear innovation company TerraPower is working on a demonstration of its advanced reactor in Wyoming in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy, but in the meantime is using its capacity to produce isotopes that are also used in medical research and treatments. Advanced nuclear company Kairos Power is developing the capacity to produce salt for molten salt reactors, both for itself and to sell to other companies.

‘A long history of broken promises’

But critics say venture capitalists are ignoring the troubled history of nuclear power as a business.

“Investors have forgotten or are ignoring the lessons from earlier generations of nuclear plants which cost 2 to 3 times as much to build and took years longer than was promised by the vendors,” Schlissel told CNBC. For instance, a project to put two new reactors on the Vogtle power plant in Georgia was originally estimated to be $14 billion and ended up costing more than $34 billion and taking six years longer to complete than expected, he said.

15 November 2022, Egypt, Scharm El Scheich: A nuclear symbol is displayed at a pavilion of the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA at the UN Climate Summit COP27. Photo: Christophe Gateau/dpa

Picture Alliance | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

Harvard’s Oreskes says the nuclear industry is a “technology with a long history of broken promises,” and she is skeptical of the sudden investor interest.

“If you were my daughter, and you had a boyfriend that had made repeated promises to you over months, years, decades, constantly breaking them, I would say, ‘Do you really want to be with this guy?'”

She’s not categorically anti-nuclear, and supports the continued operation of nuclear power plants that already exist. But she’s particularly skeptical of fusion, which has been promised to be “just around the corner” for decades, and says this new round of investments in fusion “doesn’t pass the laugh test.”

Ultimately, the new crop of nuclear startups has to figure out how to create nuclear energy in a cost-competitive way, or nothing else matters, says Rothrock.

“More money means more startups and to me that means more shots on goal (improving odds of success),” he told CNBC.

“The issue in nuclear is economics. Plants are complicated and take a while to build. Some of these new startups are tackling those issues making them more simple and thus cheaper. No one will buy an expensive power plant, especially a nuclear plant. Economics drives it all.”

Continue Reading

Environment

E-quipment highlight: Haulotte E MAX rough terrain electric scissor lifts [video]

Published

on

By

E-quipment highlight: Haulotte E MAX rough terrain electric scissor lifts [video]

The new HS18 E MAX (called “HS5390” E MAX in the US, because we don’t know what meters are) rough terrain electric scissor lift from Haulotte can drive around your job site at full height, and with a full load.

Last week, Haulotte added the new HS5390 E MAX to its line of electric rough-terrain scissor lifts, completing the company’s existing HSE (HS electric) range of scissor lifts. The HS18, though, is unique – and not just because of its 18 meter fully extended height. The HS18 E MAX can be driven both fully extended, and fully loaded.

Two configurations of its material handling racks are available for the HSE scissors. The racks are built to suit the materials being transported, generally expected to be “panels” (think drywall, windows, etc.) or pipes.

Haulotte material handling rack

With a load capacity of 400 kg (over 880 lbs.), Haulotte says its new HS5390 E MAX is ideal for jobs that require the transport of heavy loads across unfinished surfaces, using a series of optional attachments to offer a productive and safe solution to keeps materials organized and off the ground, minimizes the risk of trip and fall accidents.

Haulotte says its PULSEO-powered scissor lifts (“PULSEO” is Haulotte’s electric drive brand name) revolutionize the aerial industry by offering the performance of an internal combustion diesel machine in a more environmentally friendly package that can be used across the job site and in indoor or urban settings where loud, polluting diesels aren’t an option.

Electrek’s Take

HS5390 E PRO; via Haulotte.

This is a great example of a second-generation product doubling down on electrification and delivering significant improvements on its products without focusing on things like increased runtime (that’s the equivalent of “range anxiety” in the automotive world).

By stepping back and saying, “these things are already getting the job done time-wise, how can we make them do more in the time they already have?” Companies like Haulotte and JCB have made it infinitely easier for construction crews to put the HSE scissor lifts to work.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Haulotte, via Heavy Equipment Guide.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Mazda EZ-6 EV goes on sale with a starting price under $25,000

Published

on

By

Mazda EZ-6 EV goes on sale with a starting price under ,000

Mazda officially opened the order books on its new Mazda EZ-6 EV and EREV versions of the car in China yesterday. And the starting price? It’s under $25,000.

Co-developed by Mazda and Chinese state-owned Changan Auto, the EZ-6 was one of two new electric offerings that debuted back in April. The other was a CX-5/0-sized crossover called the Arata, but the EZ-6 seemed closer to production, with a promised on-sale date later this year.

Well, Mazda lived up to its promise. The all-new Mazda EZ-6 is officially available for pre-order in China. And, while our sources (Chinese car blogs Autohome and CarNewsChina) are a bit fuzzy on the actual price, the translation seems to indicate a starting price of just 160,000 yuan (a tick over $22,800, as I type this).

One thing that’s less fuzzy, however, is that there are four extended range EV, or “EREV” versions of the car (read: hybrid) along with three fully electric BEV versions available for order at the pre-sales launch.

Value for money

Despite the low price, the base version of the newest Mazda get leather seating surfaces, and higher trim versions splice leather and suede (Alcantara?) together. There’s a 14-speaker Sony audio system available, too, along with 64-color ambient lighting, “zero-gravity” front seats, which means that the seats can recline to a near-flat position, and a panoramic glass roof.

The BEV model is reported to be equipped with a single electric drive motor putting out 190 kW of power (approx. 254 hp), and can be had with either a 56.1 or 68.8 kWh battery pack, good for a CLTC range of 480 km or 600 km (about 370 miles), respectively. Top speed of either model is an electronically-limited 170 km/h (105 mph).

The “EREV” model (man, do I hate that acronym) is equipped with a 93 hp 1.5L range extending ICE generator paired to a 160 kW (215 hp) electric motor and feeding electrons to a lithium iron phosphate battery. Battery range is about 80 miles, with a “maximum comprehensive range” quoted as 1301 km (approx. 808 miles).

Electrek’s Take

Mazda-first-EV-sedan
Mazda EZ-6 electric sedan; via Mazda.

Mazda’s CEO, Masahiro Moro is working with Changan to, “turn Mazda’s China business around.” The EZ-6 is part of that plan, and is being called Mazda’s first “global” sedan. Despite that, it seems unlikely that the EZ-6 will ever make it to the US.

And that’s too bad. Our roads could use a little electrified Zoom-zoom.

SOURCES | IMAGES: Mazda, via Autohome and CarNewsChina.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Bidirectional charging may be required on EVs soon due to new CA law

Published

on

By

Bidirectional charging may be required on EVs soon due to new CA law

It’s an exciting week for grid resiliency-lovers in California, as Governor Gavin Newsom followed up his earlier smart grid law and signed another law this week which may require bidirectional charging on EVs in the future – though the law has no hard timeline attached, so it may be a while before we see this happen.

Bidirectional charging refers to the capability of electric vehicles to not just take electricity from the grid to charge, but to output electricity in various forms, whether this be vehicle-to-load (plugging in devices, like the 1.8kW capability on the Kia Niro EV), vehicle-to-home (like Ford’s “Intelligent Backup Power” system), or vehicle-to-grid (like the Nissan Leaf is capable of).

While these applications may seem like a party trick, widespread use of bidirectional charging could lead to huge benefits for efficiency, grid resiliency, and enable much greater penetration of renewable electricity generation.

Most electric grids don’t really have trouble meeting the regular everyday needs of electricity consumers, it’s when big spikes happen that things get difficult. Either on a hot day when everyone is using air conditioning, or a day when electricity generation is curtailed for some reason or another, that’s when things get difficult.

And as climate change makes temperatures hotter, California’s grid is often overtaxed on the hottest summer days, which are becoming more numerous. Even worse, methane-burning fossil gas peaker plants are the highest-polluting form of electricity California consumes, and these are currently used at peak times in order to deal with high demand.

One solution to this problem is adding energy storage to the grid which can be dispatched when needed, and which can fill up when the grid is oversupplying electricity. This helps to balance out supply and demand of electricity and make everything a little more predictable.

This is why there has been a push for grid-based storage like Tesla megapacks, which represent a large source of rapidly-dispatchable energy storage.

But there’s another source of grid-connected batteries out there which was right under our nose the whole time: electric cars.

EVs, which are mostly connected to the internet anyway, could be used as a distributed energy storage device, and even called upon to help provide electricity when the grid needs it. We already see this happening with Virtual Power Plants based on stationary storage, but if cars had V2G, theoretically cars could contribute in a similar way – both saving the grid, and perhaps making their owners some money along the way via arbitrage (buying electricity when its cheap and selling it when its expensive).

The problem is, not many automakers have included V2G capabilities in their cars, and in the cars that do have it, not many manufacturers have made V2G-capable equipment, and the ones who have built it haven’t seen that many customers who are interested in spending the extra money to upgrade their electrical systems with V2G-capable equipment.

So there needs to be something to jumpstart all of that, and California thinks it might just have the thing.

New CA law might require bidirectional charging… eventually.

The idea started in 2023 when state Senator Nancy Skinner introduced a bill which would require EVs to have bidirectional charging by 2027.

As this bill made its way through the legislative process, it got watered down from that ambitious timeline. So the current form of the bill, which is now called SB 59, took away that timeline and instead gave the California Energy Commission (CEC) the go-ahead to issue a requirement whenever they see it fit.

The bill directs the CEC, the California Air Resources Board, and the California Public Utilities Commission to examine the use cases of bidirectional charging and give them the power to require specific weight classes of EVs to be bidirectional-capable if a compelling use case exists.

The state already estimates that integrating EVs into the grid could save $1 billion in costs annually, so there’s definitely a use case there, but the question is the cost and immediacy of building those vehicles into the grid.

The reason this can’t be done immediately is that cars take time to design, and while adding bidirectional charging to an EV isn’t the most difficult process, it also only really becomes useful with a whole ecosystem of services around the vehicle.

A recent chat Electrek had with DCBEL, making bidirectional chargers simpler for consumers

Even Tesla, which for years has touted itself a tech/energy company and sold powerwalls, inverters, solar panels and so on, is still only gradually trickling its bidirectional Powershare feature out onto its vehicles.

And that ecosystem has been a bit of a hard sell so far. It’s all well and good to tell someone they can make $500/year by selling energy to the grid, but then you have to convince them to buy a more expensive charging unit and keep their car plugged in all the time, with someone else managing its energy storage. Some consumers might push back against that, so part of CEC’s job is to wait to pull the trigger until it becomes apparent that people are actually interested in the end-user use case for V2G – otherwise, no sense in requiring a feature that nobody is going to use.

Electrek’s Take

Given all of these influences, we wouldn’t expect CA to require bidirectional charging any time soon. But it still gives the state a powerful trigger to pull if other efforts, like the recently-signed smart grid law, turn out not to be enough as California works to, grow, clean up, and make its grid more affordable all at the same time.

But having the force of law behind it could turn V2G into less of a parlor trick and more into something that actually makes a difference the way us EV nerds have been dreaming of for decades now (true story: Electrek once turned down Margot Robbie for an interview and instead talked to some engineers about V2G for an hour).

So, telling manufacturers that California may start mandating bidirectional charging soon means that those manufacturers will perhaps start taking V2G more seriously, particularly given the size and influence of CA’s car market. Even if the CEC doesn’t make it a requirement, the threat of it eventually becoming one means that EV-makers will probably start getting ready for it regardless.

There’s no real point to a single person discharging their car into the grid, but when millions of cars are involved, you could work to flatten out the famous “duck curve,” which describes the imbalance between electricity supply and demand. We hear a lot about “intermittency” as the problem with wind and solar, and grid storage as the solution to that, so being able to immediately switch on gigawatt-hours worth of installed storage capacity would certainly help to solve that problem. And we hope this law helps us get just a little closer to that potential future.


And if you want to sell power back to the grid today, you can already do that with home solar panels! In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending