Fourth-Generation Nuclear: An Interview with Chris Levesque from TerraPower
This week, our guest is Chris Levesque, President and CEO of TerraPower. Founded by Bill Gates, TerraPower is advancing fourth-generation nuclear reactor technology in the United States, using a Natrium reactor and molten salt. The company recently made the 2024 Fortune “Change the World” list.
Here are some of the questions Jackie and Peter asked Chris Levesque: What is a fourth-generation nuclear reactor, and how does it differ from the operating reactors in North America regarding safety, cost, and waste? Is the United States ahead of other countries in developing these fourth-generation nuclear reactors? What are the strategic benefits for the United States in developing this technology? How is this technology compatible with wind and solar electricity generation? What is the timeline for the regulatory and permitting process for the first facility? When do you expect to start up your first power plant in Wyoming? Does the uranium need to be enriched, and how will the waste be stored?
Please review our disclaimer at: https://www.arcenergyinstitute.com/disclaimer/
Check us out on social media:
X (Twitter): @arcenergyinst
LinkedIn: @ARC Energy Research Institute
Subscribe to ARC Energy Ideas Podcast
Apple Podcasts
Amazon Music
Spotify
Episode 258 transcript
Disclosure:
The information and opinions presented in this ARC Energy Ideas podcast are provided for informational purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer link in the show notes.
Announcer:
This is the ARC Energy Ideas podcast, with Peter Tertzakian and Jackie Forrest, exploring trends that influence the energy business.
Jackie Forrest:
Welcome to the ARC Energy Ideas podcast. I’m Jackie Forrest.
Peter Tertzakian:
And I’m Peter Tertzakian. Welcome back. Well, Jackie, there’s more and more talk about nuclear these days, and this is a subject that we’ve talked about in the past, but not nearly as much as say, wind, solar, batteries, electric vehicles, oil, gas, you name it. So I think it’s time we talk about nuclear again.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. And people are calling it the Renaissance of nuclear, and it certainly feels that way. It’s in the news more than it has ever been, especially over the last few months. We talked about Microsoft and the Three Mile Island announcement, but now Amazon has partnered to develop these small modular reactors. We found out Google is also doing that. So we’ve had this debate, Peter, about is AI good or bad for the energy transition. I’ve argued that maybe AI is going to bring some benefits. It’s certainly going to create more energy demand, which is not helpful, but maybe it’s going to advance these technologies. And I think this is a sign that that’s the case where you’ve got… Capital’s not easy to find right now for clean energy, but we’ve got these big IT companies advancing this technology, which maybe will mean that it’s ready to scale up and be more economic sooner than it would be.
Peter Tertzakian:
Right. Well, and there is a tie with the IT companies and you mentioned Microsoft backing Three Mile Island and restart. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of nuclear, he’s written a book about it I think. And anyway, he’s also the founder of a company called TerraPower LLC out of the United States, and we’re very fortunate today to have with us the President and CEO of TerraPower, Chris Levesque. So Chris, we’re delighted to have you. Welcome.
Chris Levesque:
Thanks for having me, Jackie and Peter.
Jackie Forrest:
Okay, well first of all, tell us a bit about TerraPower. And you’re advancing a fourth-generation nuclear reactor, so maybe our guests have never even heard that term, so describe what that is.
Chris Levesque:
Sure. Well, fourth generation is a class of reactors that are the latest generation. Different countries are advancing these generation four technologies. Turns out China and Russia are even in the lead, and we’re going to do something about that here in the US at Terra Power with our natrium technology. Generation four technology, it’s still fission. We’re still splitting uranium atoms like you do in Canada at the CANDU reactors or like we do in the US with our 94 light water reactors today. And there’s about 400 reactors around the world that are what we call generation two reactors, which are fission, they’re water-cooled reactors. And the whole difference with generation four and our plant Natrium is a generation four reactor, is we’re using advanced technologies like the advanced computer modeling that’s available today that really wasn’t around when these water-cooled reactors were developed. And we’re using advanced materials that are available today.
And we’ve been going back to some historic government development projects where different governments like the US and Japan and the UK actually did operate reactors that were cooled with liquid sodium, a liquid metal instead of water. And we’re kind of looking back to some of these projects that were done by governments in the ’60s and ’70s and we’re bringing the digital technology, the advanced materials. And instead of developing a government-purposed reactor where we’re developing what will be a very economical advanced commercial nuclear reactor. And it turns out that we are scheduled to be the next reactor to come online in the US.
Our Kemmerer Unit 1 plant which will be built at Kemmerer, Wyoming at the site of a retiring coal plant is the only commercial power reactor in front of the NRC right now for a construction license application. So Bill Gates is our founder and lead investor. He has over a billion dollars into TerraPower over the last 18 years. So we’re this youngest company in nuclear energy who’s also finds ourselves as the next driver of a new reactor in the US and that’s because we’re bringing on a new technology that has a lot of interest.
Jackie Forrest:
How big is the new plant? Is it like it’s bigger than these small modular reactors people talk about, I imagine?
Chris Levesque:
Yeah, there’s wide definitions for small modular reactors now and they vary country to country. So most places when people talk SMRs, they’re talking about the water, smaller versions of today’s reactors, and then they’re also talking about advanced reactors like Natrium, which are cooled by other things besides water. Our plant output is 345 megawatts, so that’s enough nominally to power something like 400,000 homes. But there’s a few things that make it really different than today’s reactor technologies and it begins with having sodium as a coolant because sodium has a super high boiling point. And don’t worry, I won’t get too technical with all of this.
We’re still using fission as a heat source. We’re breaking uranium atoms to release heat, but then we transfer the heat out of the reactor core instead of with water like the older reactors, we use a liquid metal, liquid sodium, which has a very high boiling point. And we operate our reactor far below that boiling point, which means that the reactor operates at atmospheric pressure. What that really means is the whole plant can be lighter instead of having these super thick pressure vessels that are a foot or more thick, having the super reinforced containment buildings that today’s reactors are known for because they operate at such high pressure because we’re at low pressure, we’re going to have a lighter reactor vessel. A lighter containment building, less piping, less concrete, less labor to make the plant and that’s what’s going to make it cheaper
And it’s also going to be safer than today’s technologies. And I want to be clear that the 400 reactors around the world that are operating today are including in the US and Canada are super safe, but the generation four reactors for a few reasons are going to be even safer probabilistically. If you think of measures like one we use in the industry is called core damage frequency, our reactor will be even safer. And I think that’s important to point out as we think about deploying nuclear to nations who don’t even have it today, we’re going to want to have the very safest technology. We’re going to want to have technology that doesn’t require offsite electricity or offsite water supplies to keep it safe.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah. So can you just expand also on the more efficient… You talked about using modern computer simulation tools in this generation versus prior generations to engineer a much more streamlined reactor. Does that also mean that you will use less uranium per unit of output electricity in this design?
Chris Levesque:
Yeah, our fuel efficiency and our thermal efficiency are both going to be higher, Peter, as you say, largely enabled by the computer modeling. It won’t surprise you that when TerraPower began founded by people like Bill Gates and his CTO at Microsoft Nathan Myhrvold, these two guys are still our chairman and vice chairman. From the beginning, the thought was that the older reactors, the light water reactors were developed, many of them in the slide rule era. And now we have the highly coupled advanced computing codes, which when I say highly coupled, it means we can model the neutronics, how the physics are happening at an atomic level, we can model that together in the same programs we’re remodeling the cooling flow, the structural loads.
We call those multi physics codes, and they’ve allowed us to develop a reactor that has excellent fuel efficiency and what we call a deep burn up means we can utilize the nuclear fuel much more completely. And at the end of the day, we still have used fuel which needs to be managed in nuclear reactors, and we’ve been managing that in the US and Canada for decades, but we’ll have two thirds less used fuel at the end of the day. And then on the thermal efficiency side, because Natrium operates around 500 centigrade and today’s reactors are closer to 300, you just get a higher thermal efficiency at those higher temperatures.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah. Two-thirds less uranium used per unit of electricity is huge because we know that spent uranium waste is a huge issue. So cutting it by that much is hugely significant.
Chris Levesque:
Yeah. And I think used fuel needs to be managed. I think it’s important to talk about that whenever we’re talking to folks like in Wyoming about building the first plant, used fuel is always a question. Because in nuclear energy we do produce used fuel, which is highly radioactive. But I think you have to look at that in balance with the fact that nuclear power plants don’t have smokestacks. In the US and Canada nuclear power plants, even the older technologies have been generating massive amounts of emission-free energy for decades and there’s been no waste stream into the air. The entire waste stream is the used fuel, which is hazardous, but it’s very dense. So if you looked at the whole US program of what is now 94 plants over 50 years, you could fit all of that used fuel waste on a football field. Is it hazardous and requires management? Yes, but it’s almost a miraculously small volume for a power source that’s powered 20% of United States electricity for something like 50 years.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, maybe we’ll come back to some of the things around Wyoming and the plant you’re doing, but I wanted to take a step back to the geopolitics of nuclear. Tell us, are these fourth-generation reactors, is the US ahead here or are other countries already building them and operating them?
Chris Levesque:
Unfortunately, the US is falling a bit behind in the advanced nuclear area because nuclear is really an international business. I’ve had the chance to work around the world on nuclear energy, including in China and Russia. China and Russia are both building many new nuclear power plants today. They’re outpacing the US and Canada. They’re building some of the older technologies which actually originated in North America, but they’re also moving on to these generation four technologies. China in fact has three generation four technologies they’re working on. A high-temperature gas reactor, a molten salt reactor, and a sodium-cooled reactor like Natrium. Ours is better of course, but it’s important to think about that technology leadership because one, we need to move to the new technology to have those economic benefits and safety benefits I told you about. But the other thing to think about geopolitically is there’s many nations who do not have nuclear energy today who will need to turn to nuclear energy to raise their economies.
We’re talking about places like Indonesia and we’re talking about countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, Bill Gates when he created the company 18 years ago, was really thinking ahead to this. So now imagine, you’re in these nations who will be choosing their new nuclear technology for the first time. They won’t want our older technologies from North America. They’re going to want the most advanced technologies. The same way in telecom where some nations when they entered telecom and didn’t have copper infrastructure, they went straight to wireless. So you’re going to see the same thing with nuclear energy. We’re going to triple nuclear energy generation around the world between now and 2050. That was widely announced at COP in Dubai last year. And you’re going to see intense competition between the world’s most powerful nations like the US, China and Russia. There will really be a competition to see who can bring their nuclear technology to those nations.
So we have to have the advanced technology ready because it’s not just about a commercial advantage, it’s about nuclear energy being a very geopolitically strategic business as well. It is not just the commercial business. Nuclear energy like AI is geopolitically strategic. And when nations buy their first nuclear power plant, they’re kind of setting up a hundred-year relationship with the designers of those plants. Because nuclear plants can last 60, 80, a hundred years via initiatives like China’s One Belt One Road Initiative. They’re trying to have their own Marshall plan for getting these nations dependent on their technology. And I think US companies, Canadian companies, we really need to make sure we’re moving forward with advanced technology if we’re going to be leaders globally in nuclear energy.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, and if we don’t, I mean from what you’re telling me, if you’re using two-thirds less fuel and you have less concrete and steel like the levelized cost of this technology, like our old water-cooled reactors are not going to be able to compete. I would imagine your costs are lower.
Chris Levesque:
We totally believe gen four is going to be a winner in this way. We are a disruptor. The existing nuclear industries in Canada and the US are based on light water technology. TerraPower from its inception has been a disruptor bringing on a new technology. Some customers don’t have the expertise for the new technology. Regulators might not have that expertise. So we’ve been doing a lot of communication in parallel with developing the new technology. On the economics, I did want to point out another benefit of Natrium beyond the lower… The lower cost comes about because of less steel, less concrete, less labor to build the plant. But also we had an innovation about five years ago on Natrium where we realized we could build energy storage into the reactor. So today’s reactors like the CANDUs in Canada and the light water reactors in the US, they pretty much operate a hundred percent power all the time.
We call that base load. And then throughout the day there’s a need for load following of different peaking generation. And as we’ve added a lot of renewables or intermittent sources to the grid, the need for peaking and load following has become even greater. And nuclear has never really been good at doing that load following. So we had customers who kept asking us, “How can you make Natrium load follow?” And we figured that out five years ago by incorporating molten salt storage into our reactor plant. Now, molten salt storage is already proven out on concentrated solar plants in the Southeastern US and in Australia. And what molten salt storage is all about, it’s just having a large tank of molten salt. And the way it’s used on solar plants today is they have to plan on things like clouds going by where they lose the heating from the sun.
Yet during those same times, they have to keep pumping steam into their turbines to make electricity for their customers. So they use molten salt storage for when the sun isn’t there so they can keep their generation output. But what we did on Natrium five years ago is we realized the temperature of our reactor was really compatible with these molten salt systems. Now we’ve even incorporated molten salt storage into our reactor. You can think of it like a thermal battery that makes our electricity very valuable because for example, in the mountain west where we’ll build our first plants, there’s very high wind generation output there. And when the wind subsides throughout the day, we can boost the Natrium reactor output because we have this molten salt storage.
Peter Tertzakian:
That sounds like, as you talk, it’s even possible that you’ll be competing with wind and sun if you have too much storage. Is that possible?
Chris Levesque:
So when we think about all the different sources of electricity generation, we don’t think about a competition. We really agree with the many nations and provinces and states who have all of the above approaches because we think you need a portfolio. And so we don’t think of it as a competition. We think of it as what mix gives you the lowest system cost. Our evaluation in region after region is that if you’re going to go to an emission-free grid, if we’re going to keep retiring coal and get more and more focused on carbon-free technologies, the best way to complete a hundred percent carbon-free grid is with 20 to 30% nuclear. And then a reactor like Natrium is even more valuable and even more compatible with the wind and the solar. So we are actually big supporters of expanding wind and solar. Our main investor and founder, Bill Gates is a big supporter and investor in renewables technology. So we don’t think of them as competition. We think of being part of a carbon-free portfolio with them.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, and we’re going to need it all.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah, we’re going to need it all. And there’s a time imperative, as you well know, with the whole electricity demand growth forecasts that are out there, whether it’s for electric vehicles or whether it’s for AI data centers and so on. You’ve mentioned the efficiency which relates to op costs. You talk about less concrete and steel, which relates to cap costs, but what about the time dimension, is the time to permit and build one of these?
Chris Levesque:
That’s been a problem in North America, really. And that’s another reason we really believe we need to move to the advanced technologies. What’s made for the long projects, it’s a few things. One, it’s inexperienced, the US and Canada having been building new nuclear reactors. So we’ve become rusty and it’s good to see new projects starting now because our experience will build over time. But again, you have to look at China and Russia who never stopped, right? So they’re more experienced at doing these projects quickly. We’ll get there. When I was younger working on nuclear submarine construction in Newport News, Virginia, we were very good at delivering three Los Angeles class submarines a year. We’ll catch up there. Regulation has been too slow. But there too, I’m seeing a lot of improvements. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review of our construction permit application is going quite well.
They committed to review our application in just a two-year cycle, which means… We’re starting our non-nuclear construction in Wyoming now. But we can’t start the construction of the reactor building, for example, till we get that. But all indications are the NRC will have our construction permit ready to start the nuclear island construction in ’26. That’s going to support us making electricity in 2030. So the regulatory reforms I think are helping us speed up nuclear. But then just another reason to move to the new technology is again, Natrium is a much lighter plant, less steel, less concrete means less steel you need to erect every day, less concrete you need to pour. And that allows you to have a construction schedule that’s more comparable to a combined cycle gas plant than to what we’re used to on nuclear plants. So just another reason we need to go to the new technologies.
Jackie Forrest:
So Chris, you had originally planned one of your first projects to be in China, and now you’re back in the US. So talk to us about why the pivot and why you chose Wyoming and just talk a little bit about that process.
Chris Levesque:
Sure. We did have a joint venture in China at one time, and we thought our technology would first be deployed there as part of a joint venture with a Chinese company. It’s important to realize that if you look back 10, 15 years, the relationship and the level of cooperation between the US government and China on advanced technology was unfortunately better, 10, 15 years ago. There was a strong feeling that China, because of the giant market, because they were really leaning forward in nuclear, would be the best place to do this. But about six years ago, the US government decided that they would no longer support cooperation between the US and China on advanced nuclear technology. So if you think back maybe 10 years, the Obama administration was encouraging this type of cooperation. It was strongly supported by the US government in the context of advancing worldwide nuclear security.
But I would say unfortunately under Xi Jinping, the trust level on technology cooperation between the US and China degraded, and it really doesn’t matter if you’re talking advanced nuclear, 5G, you can see AI, you can see that lack of trust that developed. So yeah, it was six years ago, the US government said no more cooperation on advanced nuclear. Fortunately at that time, we hadn’t shared our nature of technology yet. We’re a US company, we abide by US loss. So we quickly pivoted. And that was really the start of a discussion with the White House, both parties in Congress about, Hey, what would it take to develop gen four rapidly in the US? And it was a sort of a program called the Advanced Reactor Demonstration program that we subsequently had to compete for and won a $2 billion grant. So we are building this first reactor in Wyoming with a lot of private shareholder money from people like Bill Gates and our largest other private investor, SK, a Korean company.
But we’re also funding many of the first time costs in the learning curve with a huge government grant that we’re very grateful for. And I think this kind of public private partnership that we have with the US Department of Energy is really the best way to compete with Russia and China globally. Because those nuclear programs that I mentioned in Russia and China, they’re totally funded by their state owned nuclear companies. And we kind of feel in the US that the best way to compete with the state owned companies is with innovative technology companies like TerraPower, who are kind of partnering with the US National Labs and the DOE. So we think that combination, that public-private partnership can really run circles around the Russian and Chinese competition. As Americans, we are more innovative and we need to use that strength of ours.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah. Well, it is no secret that state owned or state directed industrial policies in countries like China and Russia and elsewhere, even Saudi Arabia with [inaudible 00:25:15] shift… I mean, it’s now basically the way business is done in these very strategic industries. So I think it’s almost a necessity that you get these sorts of government grants. Now, you mentioned right at the beginning your fourth gen technology, fourth gen engineering, but what about social attitudes? Are they fourth gen or social attitudes back in first and second gen?
Chris Levesque:
First, it was really interesting to be with you, Peter and Jackie in Banff recently. And we were comparing Canadian attitudes on nuclear to US attitudes. And I think in all of North America, there’s a positive trend on the acceptance of nuclear. I’ve only worked in nuclear my whole career, first on submarines and then for some nuclear companies. And I would say decades ago, even 10 years ago, nuclear was seen as more of a conservative political supported industry. That’s changed though. In the last five, 10 years.], I think the recognition that nuclear is emission-free has caused us to gain a lot more support from the liberal side. Conservatives still support nuclear.
Yeah, there’s conservatives of course, who are climate focused, but there’s different folks supporting nuclear for different reasons. And I think those reasons are climate, energy, security, grid security. And then more recently, we haven’t talked much about AI yet in this session, but the focus on the massive need for electricity generation growth due to AI is also really now a national security concern as well. Because not only do we need energy security for our homes, hospitals, and schools, but if we’re going to maintain data sovereignty and really leverage AI in North America, we need to rapidly grow our electricity generation.
Jackie Forrest:
All right. Well, and that also requires communities to support facilitating these projects in their neighborhood. So talk a little bit about Wyoming and how the local community has felt about a new project. And you talked about the safety being better, but I think one of the biggest concerns that people have even and maybe back to Three Mile Island, is that we have some runaway and the project, it gets so hot, right? And is there a risk of that or is that a concern that people have?
Chris Levesque:
Sure. Well, just to mention Three Mile Island briefly, since you brought it up, they’re really embracing the restart of the Three Mile Island reactor in that community. So it gives you a little bit of an idea of attitudes there. But in Wyoming, I have to say, we’re so pleased with the reception there. I mean, we feel like we did our part in communication there with Pacific Corp, who’s our utility partner. I’ve attended multiple town hall style meetings around the state over four years now, where we’ve explained our technology, explained who we are. Bill Gates has come to the state a few times. Recently in June, he came for our groundbreaking, and right after groundbreaking, he went and played Texas Hold’em with some folks in Kemmerer at the local card club. But what I found really interesting about Wyoming, and it’s a reason why I’m so glad we started this in Wyoming, is they are a very energy literate state.
And I think when we were together in Banff, I pointed out I had similar feelings about that region of Canada. Regions that are energy producing regions that understand how electrons are made. That’s really a great place to develop these new technologies because folks there have a very high energy IQ. So what I’ve found in Wyoming is they have questions about how will you handle waste, how is this safe, and they’re just a very energy literate community. So they move through those discussions rather quickly, and then they move on to economic development topics like, “Well, you’re going to bring this growth to our community. How do we fund the wastewater treatment plant that’s 30 years old?” It’s very interesting in some of these town halls, we’ve ended up talking more about the need for civil infrastructure growth to host this then we ended up talking about any concerns with nuclear.
I do also want to mention, as I know it’s so important in Canada, tribal relations. We take those really seriously, especially in the mountain west. For a lot of us, when we say the holy land, we think of the Middle East, but in the mountain west, that’s their holy land. So we have outreach to all the tribes. They’re part of our regulatory approval process. We’re also looking to bring them into an apprentice program and have tribal youth work on our construction project and work in the future Natrium power plant.
Peter Tertzakian:
Let’s talk a little bit more about the waste, go into a little more detail. I know that that’s been a huge issue. And if we think about the, what’s that mountain in Nevada, Yucca Mountain?
Chris Levesque:
Yucca Mountain, right.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yucca Mountain, which is supposed to be… I mean, the approval to dispose of the waste was that over 20 years ago, I still don’t think they’ve done anything. What is the status of handling nuclear waste and the cost of handling that nuclear waste?
Chris Levesque:
Yes. So we talked about it as being very safe. That’s undisputed. It’s being stored in containers at nuclear power plants today. With the government’s plan in the US that this will eventually go to a geologic disposal site and that’s being funded. Every megawatt hour that’s produced at a nuclear power plant, there’s a waste surcharge that is funding the final disposal. So it’s already paid for, and the US government has a legal responsibility to the utilities to eventually take that waste. So unfortunately, for political reasons, the Yucca Mountain Project was stopped. But I think now when you look at these new needs, the need for carbon free electricity, the energy security needs, the needs to support AI and data sovereignty, you’re seeing increased urgency from the US federal government to site this final geologic disposal site.
And I think you need to look to Scandinavia to see the leadership there. I worked several years in Finland. They have their final geologic disposal site open now, and it will be receiving used fuel soon. I think Sweden will be pretty close behind them. So you’re seeing some real leadership there. And I think this will open things up for the US. There’s different states now in the US coming forward saying they’re interested in that economic opportunity to be the home of that first site.
Jackie Forrest:
Chris, maybe tell us a bit about preparing your fuel. Is it similar to enriching uranium? I think one of the concerns is that that can also be used for military purposes. We don’t want every country to have the ability to do that. Does your technology offer any solutions that way?
Chris Levesque:
It’s really important in nuclear energy to always be thinking about non-proliferation, which is anything we’re working on around the world on civil nuclear technology needs to be in a totally different development path than any military use of nuclear science. And there’s great protocols around the world that originate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. So everything we’re doing on Natrium follows those protocols. We do enrich uranium, so the natural uranium, which has very low uranium-235 that comes out of the ground in places like Cigar Lake in Canada that needs to be enriched. We’ll enrich that uranium for Natrium, won’t be done by TerraPower, but enrichment companies will to around 19% U-235. That’s still far, far lower than what could be used for any military application. So we’re really just following IAEA standards there. We do have export plans for Natrium, and whenever we work with a foreign nation on our technology, we do so under oversight from the US Department of Energy who’s keeping an eye on non-proliferation.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, Chris, it’s been a really interesting discussion. Actually interesting is not the right word. I think it’s exciting to hear that this new fourth-generation technology is going to be deployed here in North America and Wyoming. We look forward to the opening and we look forward to having you back. I’m actually interested now in what you’re thinking about for the fifth generation, which I’m sure is on the minds of many in the industry already. So thanks for joining us and telling us about your exciting project. And if you’re agreeable, we’ll check in with you and see how things are going.
Chris Levesque:
Well, thanks, Peter and Jackie. That would be great. And I mentioned that large government grant we have, US government is really encouraging us to partner with the US’s close allies like Canada, UK, Japan, Korea, so really look forward to being more present in Canada as well.
Jackie Forrest:
Great. Well, thank you.
Peter Tertzakian:
Wonderful.
Jackie Forrest:
And we hope that we’ll have a fourth generation. We have a bit of a nuclear renaissance going on here too, Chris, which you heard about. We’re going to double Bruce Power. We’re talking about Pickering being refurbished, and we have these SMRs, and why not have a fourth generation? It sounds like it has a lot of advantages. So thank you so much for your time today.
Peter Tertzakian:
Thank you.
Jackie Forrest:
And thanks to our listeners. If you enjoyed this podcast, please write us on the app that you listen to and tell someone else about us.
Announcer:
For more ideas and insights, visit arcenergyinstitute.com.
