Skip to main content

Transatomic Snags $2 Million Investment from FF Science for New Reactor Design

By Eric McErlain
Transatomic Power Logo
We generally don't pay much attention to news from the venture capital community here at NEI Nuclear Notes, but for one day we're happy to make an exception for this announcement from Transatomic Power:
Transatomic Power, developers of a breakthrough in nuclear reactor design, announced today that FF Science, an investment vehicle of Founders Fund, has invested $2 million to assist the company with its seed stage development. The funds will be used for bench-top laboratory testing and refinement of the company’s designs and computer models.

"We believe there are massive opportunities for innovation across all parts of the energy sector, ranging from technologies to improve production and transmission to new methods of baseload generation, like the Transatomic Power reactor. Transatomic has the potential to make nuclear energy clean, safe, and affordable, providing a low-cost source of carbon-free power and consuming the waste of older reactors currently in operation,” said Scott Nolan, Partner at Founders Fund.
Congratulations to the team at Transatomic, and in particular to Chief Science Officer, Leslie Dewan. Most of the world got their first chance to know Dewan thanks to this 2011 Ted Talk where she first posited her idea about how she could tackle the question of used nuclear fuel by burning it in a new type of reactor. It wasn't long after that Dewan caught the attention of Forbes, being named to the magazine's "30 Under 30" feature in 2012.

Of course, here at NEI, we know Dewan all too well as she's one of the four faces of our Future of Energy campaign that we kicked off earlier this year.



To get to know Dewan a little better, watch this video interview she did after shooting the NEI ad. And when you get a chance, please check out the website for Founders Fund, where it looks like the Founders are having more fun investing in the future than they might want to let on. What other startups have they invested in? How about Facebook, SpaceX and Spotify? Have to like that track record.

UPDATE: Check out additional coverage from the Wall Street Journal,  Xconomy and Reuters. Apparently, it's tough out there on energy companies looking for VC support.
Labels:

Comments

dennisearlbaker said…
guess you'll block this one !

http://sfy.co/gb3A
August 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Engineer-Poet said…
I wish he had blocked that one.  I wouldn't have wasted my time determining that it was nonsense.
August 5, 2014 at 10:44 PM
trag said…
Nuclear energy is already "clean, safe and affordable". We don't need Transatomic to make it so. It's great that they're developing an innovative new reactor, but denigrating the rest of the industry in order to build themselves up is factually wrong, and will not benefit them or the industry in the long run.
August 6, 2014 at 12:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more