Welcome to the new Energy Central — same great community, now with a smoother experience. To login, use your Energy Central email and reset your password.

Home
Energy Central Podcasts
Energy Central Podcasts
 · Posted in Home

Episode #139: Guiding Utilities of the Future via Energy Market Analysis with Todd Allen, University of Michigan, and Steven Aumeier, Idaho National Laboratory [an Energy Central Power Perspectives™ Podcast]

Be sure to sign into your Energy Central account (register for free here) to access this full post with the podcast recording.

Bringing the energy industry into the future cannot be done in a siloed approach, but rather requires a complex, systematic coordination with stakeholders across the sector. And doing so also requires a more forward-looking lens than ever before, rather than tackling problems simply as they arise. As such, in this illuminating episode of the Energy Central Power Perspectives Podcast, we dive deep into the future of energy markets with two eminent guests from different corners of the energy landscape: Steven Aumeier, Senior Advisor of Strategic Programs at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Todd Allen, Chair of University of Michigan’s Nuclear Engineering Department. The crux of their conversation? The ground-breaking Emerging Energy Markets Analysis (EMA) initiative, an envelope-pushing innovation they've collaborated on.

EMA uniquely merges insights from diverse disciplines—engineering, economics, cultural studies, and more—to provide a comprehensive look at the energy markets of the future. In this conversation with podcast host Jason Price and producer Matt Chester, Todd and Steven don't just explore the technicalities but delve into the economic, social, and even cultural ramifications of the rapidly evolving energy landscape. From the role of nuclear plants in the modern energy matrix to the significance of the Korean energy model, this discussion promises a wealth of knowledge. Tune in for a rich dialogue that promises a blend of innovation, introspection, and foresight into the future of energy.

Prefer to Read vs. Listening? Scroll Down to Read Transcript.

Thanks to the sponsor of this episode of the Energy Central Power Perspectives Podcast: West Monroe.  

 

Key Links:

Todd Allen's Energy Central Profile: https://energycentral.com/member/profile/todd-allen-1 

Steven Aumeier's Energy Central Profile: https://energycentral.com/member/profile/steve-aumeier 

Idaho National Laboratory on Energy Central: https://energycentral.com/o/idaho-national-labs

Did you know? The Energy Central Power Perspectives Podcast has been identified as one of the industry's 'Top Energy Podcasts': blog.feedspot.com/energy_podcasts/

 

TRANSCRIPT

Jason Price: 

Welcome to the Energy Central Power Perspectives Podcast, the show that brings leading minds from the energy industry to discuss the challenges and trends that are transforming and modernizing our energy system. And a quick thank you to West Monroe, our sponsor of today's show. Now let's talk energy. I'm Jason Price, energy Central podcast host and director with West Monroe. Coming to you from New York City, and with me as always from Orlando, Florida is Energy Central producer and community manager, Matt Chester.

In the US there are 18 national labs each committed to pioneering work in their respective fields. Many of these labs were established after World War II to continue research and further our understanding of our complex world. Much of what is commercialized today and exists in the background of our everyday lives finds its roots from the men and women who work at, or once served in the national labs.

The question of energy security is top of mind on today's episode, we're going to meet the people who are looking at trying to forecast and plan for the energy future. What will supply and demand look like? Where will supply come from? How will it function in the society of tomorrow? Many of the top minds trying to answer these questions come from Idaho National Lab.

It's the lab's specific questions to address. Sorry. It's the lab's specific quest to address nuclear energy, national security, energy, and the environment. And as the work is done, we're aiming on this podcast to bring on leading experts who can provide insight for our listeners on these difficult questions. So Matt, today we actually have the good fortune to have another conversation with leaders from INL. But before we dig in, can you give us a rundown of previous guest who have been on our show from Idaho National Lab?

 

Matt Chester: 

Sure, Jason. We learned about how nuclear power and micro grid technology can make an ideal pairing with Jhansi Kandasamy and Kurt Myers back in episode 108. And then on episode 118, Timothy Pennington joined us to discuss the ways in which INL is working towards the EV charging infrastructure future. Now we get to add today's episode to this list.

 

Jason Price: 

Yes. Idaho National Lab has indeed been a welcome presence on this podcast, and today's actually a two for one, as we also have a guest joining us from the nation's leading academic department focused on nuclear energy found at the University of Michigan. These two guests are here today to discuss some envelope pushing innovation they've been collaborating on known as the emerging energy markets analysis.

First we have Steve Aumeier, senior advisor on strategic programs at Idaho National Laboratory. Steve, welcome to today's episode.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, thanks. Thanks, man, I appreciate it.

 

Jason Price:

And we also have Todd Allen, the professor and department chair at the University of Michigan's, department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, and founding director of their Fastest Path to Zero initiative. Thanks for joining us today, Todd.

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah, thanks for providing me. Glad to be part of the conversation.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, thanks Jason. Appreciate the invitation.

 

Jason Price:

Absolutely, and we're thrilled to have you on. Before we get into it, I'd love if we could have more context on the Emerging Energy Markets analysis initiative at Idaho National Lab. Steve, can you please provide the context? How did this program start and what are the initiative's main goals?

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, it's interesting, the initiative's been around for a few years now. The idea really came about around Christmas time in 2019. We were having a conversation with John Wagner, who is now the lab director of Idaho National Lab. And we were talking a little bit about how the lab could, and probably should develop a deeper capability to help both lab and also stakeholders get ahead of all the various issues surrounding energy transitions. And especially the transitions being driven by more interest and more demand for low and zero emission energy. And really trying to understand how that would impact technologies, technologies that we're developing, but also how it might impact communities, especially our surrounding communities.

Talked a lot about what has worked in that area, in that realm, what hasn't worked. Importantly, really talked a lot about what is key to really making impact in understanding energy transitions. And came to the conclusion that building that sort of deep competency really depended principally on being able to take a multifaceted, multidisciplinary look at the problems, at the challenge. Not just about technology, but being able to understand the social dimensions of energy transitions, being able to better understand the finance. And really very importantly, how business innovation has to intersect technology innovation, and also how regulatory innovation is going to come into that.

Really what we're talking about is the need to understand value, holistic value propositions around energy choices, and especially community centric value propositions. And really what we came to is a realization that what better way to do that is to build partnerships with some of the best minds from a number of different fields. So by late 2020, right in the heart of the dreaded COVID Lockdowns, EMA was born.

And it was born really to provide insight and analysis, thought leadership to help both laboratory but mostly help communities, companies and other stakeholders make value-based decisions about energy and really very interesting and important energy-based economic development. So that's how EMA came about. Been around now for, going on three years, and making a lot of difference, I think.

 

Jason Price:

Fantastic. Very helpful. Thank you. And speaking of top minds, we have with you, one of your colleagues is Todd Allen. So Todd, with your role being centered on nuclear energy at the University of Michigan, how did you get involved with EMA?

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah, thanks. So as background, it's important to know, Steve and I have known each other since grad school. So we've been working on things together on and off for the past 30 years. So we had a good working relationship to start with. I came to the University of Michigan in January of 2019, and I had a very specific goal in starting the Fastest Path initiative, which was to get academic nuclear engineering departments in the country to think beyond technology. You're going to deploy nuclear technology, developing the engineering part, the technical part's important, but though academic departments in the US typically did not address things like social economics, other things.

So I started this initiative to really help push our department in that direction. Just before EMA got started, Steve and I co-wrote a paper in issues in science and technology that was aimed at what's the future of nuclear energy, what's necessary to make it successful? And so when Steve posed the idea of EMA, it made a lot of sense for us to join. We had a very top nuclear engineering department. He was able to bring in our partners at University of Alaska and University of Wyoming that are in states that are pushing the boundaries of how we might deploy nuclear technology.

And I think just a lot of things made a lot of sense for me to join the partnership because it aligned with things we wanted to do, and it allowed us to help the lab who in many cases have a bigger voice than the universities.

 

Jason Price:

And if I understand the secret sauce or special sauce of EMA is bringing together global leaders in various fields, including engineering and technology, social science, law, economics, natural resource policy, cultural studies, public and regulatory policy and stakeholder engagements to provide more of a holistic view of the energy markets of the future with an innovative perspective. So maybe Steve, we'll start with you. Why is this approach so unique, and why hasn't this already been done before?

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, so backing up a little bit, building a bit on what Todd mentioned about the nature, the complexity in energy transitions, and especially with the states that he mentioned, with Alaska and Wyoming. So by its very nature, energy touches everything we do. So by its nature, it's highly multidisciplinary. It should be something that's looked at through a highly multidisciplinary lens. It isn't always approached like that.

Now, the lab is really good at technology. We're all about technology. We do that really well. But energy markets and especially changes in those markets, like Todd was saying, is more than about technology. We need to consider what's really acceptable, what's practical, not just at a national level, not just at a state level, but a local level. And then how do all those local considerations really, really get put together? And I think some people do that well on small scales, but we really want to do that, develop a team that can be tapped in to do that on a much bigger scale.

What's really important isn't just the disciplines that our team brings to the table. It's really deep understanding that they bring. So what do I mean by that? The states, the participants that we brought together with EMA really are experts that are within communities that, like Todd mentioned, are right in the middle of energy transitions that are touching the fundamentals of their communities, the fundamentals of their economics, the fundamentals of their state budgets, which touches everything.

So having experts that aren't only experts in their field that are living the various aspects of energy transitions was really important. I think that's fairly unique with EMA as an ongoing enterprise. So it's not just about the skill that's brought to the table, it's a lot about the perspective that these folks bring. There's an old saying that goes that, innovators change the lens through which they see the world. And I'd like to think of EMA as an innovator's lens.

 

Jason Price:

Yeah, I would agree. I would even describe it as almost like an exercise in scenario writing of what the future would look like. And it's something that, I mean even like Hollywood, the industry of Hollywood looks at, what does the world's future look like? And then creating a whole storyline or movie line behind that. There's also scenario writing presents opportunities to really think in multidimensional ways to portray what the future would look like.

So I want to pull on that thread a little bit, if I may? We focus on things like the grid mix and the ability of the power sector to meet rising demand, but you're also exploring the unique economic and social conditions that may not be getting enough attention. Can you share with us some of the example outcomes that have come from this initiative? What new perspectives have you been able to bring to those focused on energy markets? Maybe Steve, again, we can start with you and then certainly Todd, chime in.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, Jason, I think what you said about scenario writing, being able to... It's really about being able to help people see beyond, maybe what they see today. And there's a couple of really great examples of how we've gone about that, the process for going about that, but also when different communities and folks have reached out to us to actually ask us to do this. So let's talk about some specifics on how we've been able to do that.

A couple of studies come to mind. First of all, studies that our team members have done. One study I think has had been very helpful for people in Alaska and people wanting to do business in Alaska to take a look at micro nuclear reactor applications in different types of markets, both grid markets, remote industrial markets and community markets. And that study was led by colleagues at the MIT Sloan School.

It looked at, essentially would micro reacts be competitive with existing ways of providing heat and power in those various markets? Long story short there, they're very competitive. What was interesting with that MIT study is they asked the question, at what capital cost would they be competitive? So they didn't make a lot of assumptions about what new technologies were going to cost. They simply said, what is the cost ceiling?

And what we found is, in all three of those deployment cases, you had a very competitive technology with micro reactors. Now, let's look at another study that one of Todd's colleagues at the University of Michigan did. It got a lot of attention, and it focused on whether micro reactors and small nuclear reactors might be a competitive advantage as we look at fuel switching in heavy transportation. What do I mean by that? As we begin to shift heavy trucking from diesel fuel to either electric or hydrogen, how might small reactors fit into that?

So Michael Craig, at the University of Michigan and his students did a really interesting study on what the financial dimensions that would be. And bottom line, it showed that in certain circumstances, micro reacts would be quite competitive. We've done a couple of different studies on community, I don't want to say community acceptance, but community views on both nuclear energy in general. But, also this unique question of do those views shift if that nuclear generator is not a grid service device, but rather it's a nuclear reactor embedded within an industrial facility, powering say either a mine or a chemical plant?

So our colleagues at University of Wyoming led some work that's still underway, taking a look at the community acceptance, especially in that Wyoming market. We're just getting focused right now on what I think is going to be some really very interesting studies on nuclear applications in mining, and especially how that can impact the economic competitiveness in arctic mining markets.

In fact, our EMA team, along with some others, have a panel session accepted at the Arctic Circle assembly. It's going to be in Reykjavík Iceland here in about a month and a half, two months. So that's really exciting. I think we're going to see quite a lot out of that. And we've done a lot, Jason, in simply having conversations with community groups that have been interested in learning more, and specifically about nuclear energy in context of these energy transitions. One of those, actually Todd and I participated in in the town of Gillette, Wyoming. The mayor and some of the local industrial companies invited us to have a conversation with the community about energy transitions, and how nuclear energy of tomorrow might fit and how they might view applications. So in a short two, two and a half years, we've actually done quite a lot. I think we've made an impact so far.

 

Jason Price:

That's great. So Todd, your background is, and you're specifically focused on the nuclear energy sector. So let's hear from you. What are your thoughts on what Steve shared? And also just nuclear, as we all know, has been around for quite some time. It's an old new technology, I guess you could say. What changes do you anticipate coming from the sector, and what sort of new fresh perspective should we all have with nuclear energy?

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah, thanks Jason. That's a great question. So if you look at the first commercial generation of nuclear power plants, essentially one product, it was very large electricity producing machines. We incentivized utilities to build those in the sixties, seventies, eighties when we were building a lot of plants. But my view is the energy system is changing a lot, and it's easy to see this in electricity.

Think about when I was a kid, it was pretty simple. We had these large central station power plants, they made electricity, they sent it over the transmission and distribution wires to people's homes. Now we've got variable sources like solar and wind, taking advantage of the fact that the costs have come down a lot, they're coming on and off the grid. You need to balance that somehow with storage or base load or demand response. And so you end up with a lot of different types of products that are new and needed to make this system work.

And so at the moment, I think a combination of climate change, a need to go to lower carbon, zero carbon production options. Energy security issues that have really been exacerbated by the Russian invasion in Ukraine, combined with the fact that there's a lot of different types of energy products that we need. You see a large number of nuclear companies or innovators in the space that are looking at different deployment scenarios instead of one commercial product, you see multiple, large electricity, small electricity, individual user electricity, dedicated heat, combined heat and power, go through the list.

And Steve talked about this in some of the examples, this idea of how are you going to provide charging infrastructure for heavy duty trucking? That's a very different scenario that we never had to do before. And so you have all these types of new products and nuclear engineers are trying to figure out how to fit into that. But in order to fit in, they have to develop the technology that makes sense that the market wants. It's got to be affordable, it's got to be socially acceptable. And how much of the technology gets deployed can be influenced by public policy levers?

And so if you look at the EMA approach, it says, we need to look at all those things. We need to look at technology, we need to look at economics, we need to look at social acceptance, we need to look at public policy levers. And I think it's sort of of the moment in the sense that that's what nuclear engineering needs to do to be relevant in the future. And so I think EMA fits right in a very nice way.

 

Jason Price:

Todd, when we were doing the research leading up to this podcast, on your website you have a video and a narrative around, I guess you could call it the Korean model. So switching gears for a moment, what both of you and what EMA is trying to achieve seems to, if I'm understanding correctly, does exist outside of the United States and perhaps Korea's maybe personifying some of that. Can you talk about that, share with us the Korean model with our audience a little bit? 

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah. So I think for me what's really fascinating about Korea is when they decided to make their initial investment in nuclear energy, this would've been post World War two. You go visit Korea now and it's a modern industrialized country, and it is not what it was like in World War two. They were not as wealthy a country, but they made this national decision, this national commitment to nuclear energy.

And while that helped provide them energy over the years, also, they developed skills in things like heavy manufacturing, and that allowed them to move into international commerce and things that are bigger and beyond nuclear energy. So there was a long-term commitment from the country to the technology that paid off in ways that might have been bigger than originally envisioned. And I think some of the studies that Steve talked about before, it's not exactly a direct parallel, but this idea that in the US we could build new types of nuclear energy plants really only makes sense if you think about, what are the deployment scenarios? What are the partnerships between the energy you produce and a manufacturing or another business opportunity for a community?

And I think what Steve has tried to get the EMA team to look at are those combinations, those deployment scenarios. And so I think the starting point of this discussion is different in that the US now has a fairly well and robust set of national labs, industry regulator, academic institutions. So we're starting at a very different point than the Koreans might have in World War two, but we have this opportunity to really pivot how we think about the technology and how it influences how we move forward in manufacturing and all of the jobs and things that go along with that. And so I think there's a lot of things we can be inspired by in what they did in Korea. I don't think it necessarily is as big a shift or as big a build for us, because of the foundations that we already have.

 

Jason Price:

Great. And before we go to the next question, I don't know Steve, if you want to add to that?

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, I think Todd's spot on, and I would just amplify what he mentioned about the importance of really digging into these deployment scenarios. So what I'd like to remind people when we talk about energy is, I really don't care that much about what technology we're talking about in the first order, what I want to talk about is what do you want to do with the energy? What do you want to achieve? How's it going to give you a better way of life? How's it going to give you a competitive advantage? What does a group of people, what does a stakeholder, what does a community want to achieve in economic terms? And then let's talk about all of this multidimensional richness of understanding what value a given energy source or technology brings to that. So yeah, we like to think first about what do you want to achieve, and then let's talk about the technology.

 

Jason Price:

I want to ask you about the sense of urgency that seems to underline EMA, but if we look at throughout history, energy has always been a top issue. It helps define our self-determination as a country, and remember as a kid in the 1970s with the long lines of gas at the gas station. So energy is always an issue, whether now with climate change and other, but it's always been top of mind. However, there is a sense of urgency that EMA conveys. So my question to both of you, and Todd, let's start with you. Why now? Why is there this sense of urgency that is really pushing EMA into the forefront or more into the national conversation?

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah, I think you sort of pointed us in the right direction in the way you framed the question. I mean, over the history of people, we always want energy. Energy makes our lives better. And we always want it to be cleaner, more affordable. We want it to be resilient/reliable. We want it on when we want it. If it goes away accidentally, we want it to come back right away. I think in the last few years we've started to talk more about equity, and how we distribute the benefits and the costs of using energy.

I think part of the reason why it seems very important right now are climate, and the need to move to zero carbon systems. If you look at the history of using energy, we always have moved towards lower carbon systems. If you're transitioning from like whale blubber to wood, to coal to gas, to renewables, to nuclear, that's our general trend trajectory.

But I think at the moment the science is making it clear that we need to figure out how to make that happen faster. So I think that's one, and in a lot of cases I think that's brought people back into the conversation around nuclear energy that may have dismissed it 40 years ago. I think energy security is the other. I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made this very visible for people, especially in Europe. But I think being able to control your own destiny is very important.

And so I think the combination of those two things is really pushing on the need for an energy transition. Then you have the federal government do things like pass the inflation reduction act, as an example. They're putting a lot of money into helping industry kickstart this transition, build better products. So in the end, if we're going to use more clean energy, we have to build products that people really want. And so the government is pushing on this. I think a lot of things have come together.

In addition to that, you have a lot of companies that are willing to invest the private funds in these new products. For a lot of my career, the nuclear energy enterprise was more of a research enterprise. It was a lot of work with the national labs and things. And I think these companies see there is this opportunity in new types of nuclear products, and they're pushing the system in that direction. So I think all these things have come together to make this, for me at least a very unique time compared to the previous 30 years of my career.

 

Jason Price:

That's very interesting and very compelling. Steve, if you could chime in on that, but give us a non-nuclear perspective. What else? I mean it's broader than just nuclear. So give us a perspective of EMA's goals in all this, if you don't mind.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, yeah. It is broader than just nuclear energy, but that's really why what Todd just put his finger on is so important. Todd's absolutely right, what gives us a sense of urgency, not just on the nuclear energy side, asking the question, how can nuclear energy be a bigger part of our security and our response to climate change? Those are the two big drivers.

And the energy security question is really being driven, I believe in the future by what I would consider great powers competition. So why does that paint such an urgency for us right now? Well, I think markets are speaking, relative to the types of energy that we want to embed within industries, within the power grid and other applications. The markets are telling us, finance folks are telling us, equity folks are telling us, "Hey, we're going to begin to monetize emission content of everything we do with energy, that includes the products that we buy." So that creates a circumstance along with the security questions Todd mentioned, where a number of different markets globally are going to be disrupted.

There's an opportunity for new entrants to come in with more efficient means of production, whether it be chemicals, whether it be manufactured goods or whatnot. The United States needs to establish a leadership position in those changing markets, because the decisions that are made that are based on energy use and manufacturing and such, and the position, the competitive position that that's going to provide around the globe, those decisions are going to be made now and they're going to have a very long tail.

They're going to have a generations, multi-generation long tail. So it's incredibly important that the United States do what we can to step up and lead in, what I consider this new frontier of economic competition. That economic competition is this intersection of low emission economic activity overlaid on great power competition. So in the end, if we can help, especially our regional first movers in, say nuclear energy, develop a position in global markets based on a value proposition that increases our security and lowers our emission footprint, that's going to put the US in a better position.

And that in the end is not just a regional economic development value. That's a value for national security. So you ask the question, why do we feel a sense of urgency? There should be a sense of urgency because we are right, we as a country are right at the forefront of this new frontier of competition.

 

Todd Allen:

Yes, sorry to interrupt, but I think if I could add on what Steve said, and it goes back to your Korea question. The other thing that's happening is there's a lot of countries that are showing an interest in nuclear technology that may have never used it before. If you go back to the way that Japan and Korea built out their nuclear power programs, it was very much in strong partnership with the United States.

So we were very happy with the safety protocols that they use and the security protocols. And to Steve's point, if we're moving into new markets internationally, another advantage of being engaged is that we can help those countries develop safety processes, security processes around using the technology that are consistent with the US that we're comfortable with. And in order to make that engagement, we have to figure out what's their economic drivers, what is their vision of the future use of energy? So it gets very much back to the type of approaches that EMA's trying to use. And it goes beyond what we have talked about nationally into how we deploy nuclear internationally.

 

Steven Aumeier:

And Jason, just one addition to what Todd said as well, and maybe it gets back to part of your prior question. Those questions aren't just about nuclear energy either. So like Todd said, as we go about working with stakeholders and such, and understanding deployment needs and how we address that dual challenge of competitiveness based on emission content and security, sometimes the answer is not nuclear energy. Sometimes it's a combination of nuclear energy combined with other energy sources.

And sometimes we need to think about, what are better ways of powering different processes altogether, or going about a different industrial manufacturing activity differently. So by definition, we're looking beyond nuclear energy, but we do have a sense that advanced nuclear energy, especially in these different applications that Todd talked about, might just be, in many cases a key that unlocks this door to much greater competitiveness in this new landscape that we're moving into. So it really is an exciting time.

 

Jason Price:

All right, I want to thank you for both answering the question, but I want to ask you both to play a little bit more, or continue the thought a little bit further. So the thinking here that I think you're getting at is that it's not just aspirational, it's this new role of nuclear in our new frontier, but there may be an active role, not just aspirational. So maybe Todd start with you. From a near term perspective, what are some signs of EMA's impact that we all should be, say looking for? And Steve, any thoughts to add to that above and beyond what Todd covers would be great?

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah, I think the thing I would point out is if you go back roughly three years when we started this and just look at what's happening in the US states. So Steve mentioned previously, initial focus through our partnerships in EMA, strong look at Alaska and Wyoming. If I look at what's going on in state legislatures around the country, there is more and more an interest in the possibility of using nuclear energy.

So you will see states overturning moratoria that they used to have on using nuclear energy. You have seen states that have transitioned from renewable portfolio standards to zero carbon standards. They're saying it's important to just decarbonize. And in that viewpoint you can look at nuclear energy. So clearly, that's a signal, to me, that a lot of states as they look forward, how are they going to decarbonize? What is the optimal path or my group's language, what's the fastest path to zero carbon?

You see nuclear as an option. And I think in each one of those cases you're going to need an EMA-like approach to think about what's important to the state, what are the values, what are their current systems? And there will be opportunities to help them think through this future. So I think it's actually growing and the need for EMA-like conversations is just going to get more and more important as time goes on, we see the signals.

 

Steven Aumeier:

And just to add onto that, maybe keeping with the nuclear energy theme as well, we are seeing much more demand for that. And to your question, Jason, what else might we see? One example, one area that you're going to see us more involved in is a set of conversations and a framework for having those conversations that Todd mentioned that's being led by NARUC, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. So they have a partnership with the Department of Energy to execute, what they call the Advanced Nuclear State Collaborative.

And they've reached out to us in helping design that process, and hopefully more in executing that advanced nuclear state cooperative group. That group is focused on a set of states that, really regulators and energy authorities in a group of states that have said, "Hey, our stakeholders within the state are seeing these energy transitions are seeing the economic potential of advanced nuclear energy in that context. And we'd like to band together to help each other with lessons learned, with capacity development, with best practices in developing nuclear driven industries and also supply chains."

That's kind of a big deal when you have 20 different states come together and say, "Hey, we want some help in putting together a construct for that sort of thing." The other area I think you're going to see, I know you're going to see quite a lot of activity with our EMA group, is part of this broader Frontiers Initiative, if you will. We just talked about a moment ago, this notion that our country is at a new frontier of economic competition.

We believe very strongly that's a great opportunity, it's an opportunity for US leadership and there's a lot of threats embedded in that. So the sort of framework and the sort of thought process that our EMA team can bring to those conversations is being tapped into more and more. And you'll see us actually publish more on those topics and hopefully make a big impact on not just a regional level, but a national and then international level in the coming months and years.

 

Jason Price:

Absolutely, and certainly the questions you gentlemen are trying to answer are really stretching our brains in many directions that really could only be addressed and driven out of the leadership at a national lab. So certainly appreciate the tough work you're trying to solve for our country and our society.

On that note, I'd like to pivot now to what we call our lightning round, which is, give us an opportunity to learn a little bit more about you, the person, rather than you the professional. So we have a set of questions, five questions. It's a lightning round, so we ask that you keep your response to one word or phrase. We'll start with you Todd first, and then Steve you can follow up. So question number one, past or present, name the one scientist you most identify with, and would invite for lunch? And of course give us a little skinny on the scientists as well. Todd, go ahead.

 

Todd Allen:

So after thinking about this, I'm going with Alvin Weinberg who was a 1950s cold war scientist, Oakridge international lab director. And I think he had this very interesting career where he moved from technology to national leadership and programs. And I give him credit for recognizing that that nuclear industry focused very heavily on technology for a long time and didn't pay enough attention to the social issues. So I think he inspired them 70 years ahead of time.

 

Steven Aumeier:

For me, Jason, that's easy. Maybe a little different choice. It's Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, we think of Teddy as a politician, as a president, but I think of him first as an adventurer. I think of him as a scientist from the time he was a little boy, bedbound and doing his science experiments, all the way to exploring the river of doubt in South America. So I think actually Teddy exemplifies what we're looking at right now, but on a much different frontier.

 

Jason Price:

Back to you Todd. If you could bring one book or movie with you on a deserted island, what would it be?

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah, I decided to cheat on this question. So I'm going to go with the Neapolitan novels by Atlanta Ferrante, by claiming that the four novels are actually one. And she's a great author, very engaging. And then I would get four times as much stuff to read while I'm stuck on the island.

 

 

Jason Price:

Over to you, Steve.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Easy for me. I'd take the encyclopedia. If that counts as one book? I could sit and just read that forever.

 

Todd Allen:

And you could used extra volumes to kill fish and stuff, you just throw those.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Todd knows me too well.

 

Jason Price:

100 years from now, what will our energy mix look like?

 

Todd Allen:

So I think it's a mix of the zero carbon technology have. So some wind, some solar, some hydro, some nuclear, some gas with carbon capture. We will keep getting cleaner, we'll keep getting more affordable, but I don't think there's any specific one technology that does everything perfectly.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, I agree with Todd. I just used two words, diverse and efficient, maybe with emphasis on efficient.

 

Jason Price:

What would an alternative career path be if you hadn't found yourself in the energy industry?

 

Todd Allen:

I am going with disc jockey. I vaguely recall that before I got the ROTC scholarship to go to Northwestern, I was thinking about becoming a disc jockey. It sounds fun.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, and if you do that, Todd, I would hire you any day. Me, I'm going with medicine or environmental science.

 

Jason Price:

Fantastic. And the last question. All right, so we've landed on the moon, we've turned gas cars into electric, we've lived through pandemics. What do you predict will be the next transformative event to happen in mankind?

 

Todd Allen:

Yeah, and I'm not sure if this is transformative as much as still just part of the process, but I think I'm going to go with localization of energy production and control. I see people wanting more control. This is EMA-like right? People look at their values and they figure out how can they control their own destiny. And I just see lots of things that are driving towards a more local control model than this sort of central station model.

 

Steven Aumeier:

And I think what's going to drive that is where my mind immediately goes. It's really not so much as an intersection, but a collision of great power competition and climate change.

 

Jason Price:

Well, you both have done very well, and you kept the provocative thoughts going. So we want to give you the final word and message to give to our audience from today's discussion. What would you like them to take away? Todd, let's start with you.

 

Todd Allen:

I would say it's that energy is very important because it makes people's lives better. What energy we choose is a combination of technology, cost, social acceptance, and public policy levers. And we should approach the world thinking about it that way.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, I agree with Todd 100%. I would just say think first, what door, what lock do you want that energy system to unlock for you? What do you want to do with the energy and what context? What are you willing to pay for what attribute? Therefore, think about what's the value of different choices?

 

Jason Price:

Fantastic. We want to thank you both for joining us today, and you can be sure that our listeners are buzzing with ideas and questions. So I hope we can count on you to check back in the Energy Central community to follow up on any questions or comments that are left from today's episode. Until then though, thanks again for sharing your insight with us in today's episode of the podcast. Thank you, Todd. Thank you Steve.

 

Todd Allen:

Thanks Jason.

 

Steven Aumeier:

Yeah, thanks Jason. Enjoyed it.

 

Jason Price:

As did we. So you can always reach Todd and Steve through the Energy Central platform where they welcome your questions and comments. And we also want to give a shout out of thanks to today's sponsor. And we also want to give a shout out of thanks to the podcast sponsor that made today's episode possible. Thanks to West Monroe. West Monroe works for the nation's largest electric gas and water utilities in their telecommunication grid modernization and digital workforce transformations. Westmore brings a multidisciplinary team that blends utility operations and technology expertise to address modernizing aging infrastructure, advisory on transportation electrification, ADMS deployments, data analytics and cybersecurity. And once again, I'm your host Jason Price. So plug in and stay fully charged in the discussion by hopping into the community at energycentral.com. And we'll see you next time at the Energy Central Power Perspectives Podcast.

 

About Energy Central Podcasts

The ‘Energy Central Power Perspectives™ Podcast’ features conversations with thought leaders in the utility sector. At least twice monthly, we connect with an Energy Central Power Industry Network community member to discuss compelling topics that impact professionals who work in the power industry. Some podcasts may be a continuation of thought-provoking posts or discussions started in the community or with an industry leader that is interested in sharing their expertise and doing a deeper dive into hot topics or issues relevant to the industry.

The ‘Energy Central Power Perspectives™ Podcast’ is the premiere podcast series from Energy Central, a Power Industry Network of Communities built specifically for professionals in the electric power industry and a place where professionals can share, learn, and connect in a collaborative environment. Supported by leading industry organizations, our mission is to help global power industry professionals work better. Since 1995, we’ve been a trusted news and information source for professionals working in the power industry, and today our managed communities are a place for lively discussions, debates, and analysis to take place. If you’re not yet a member, visit www.EnergyCentral.com to register for free and join over 200,000 of your peers working in the power industry.

The Energy Central Power Perspectives™ Podcast is hosted by Jason Price, Community Ambassador of Energy Central. Jason is a Business Development Executive at West Monroe, working in the East Coast Energy and Utilities Group. Jason is joined in the podcast booth by the producer of the podcast, Matt Chester, who is also the Community Manager of Energy Central and energy analyst/independent consultant in energy policy, markets, and technology.  

If you want to be a guest on a future episode of the Energy Central Power Perspectives™ Podcast, let us know! We’ll be pulling guests from our community members who submit engaging content that gets our community talking, and perhaps that next guest will be you! Likewise, if you see an article submitted by a fellow Energy Central community member that you’d like to see broken down in more detail in a conversation, feel free to send us a note to nominate them.  For more information, contact us at [email protected]. Podcast interviews are free for Expert Members and professionals who work for a utility.  We have package offers available for solution providers and vendors. 

Happy listening and stay tuned for our next episode! Like what you hear, have a suggestion for future episodes, or a question for our guest? Leave a note in the comments below.

All new episodes of the Energy Central Power Perspectives™ Podcast will be posted to the relevant Energy Central community group, but you can also subscribe to the podcast at all the major podcast outlets, including: