Thank you. I am balls deep in ASPI. My concern is that it seems like a lab experiment and while it works in the lab, will they really be able to scale up to industrial level production. It will be a great relief when the first product goes commercial be that U235, Si 28, C 14 or Ytterbium
If they pull this off it will be a 100 bagger and as Bart Simpson would say, Fuzzy Panda could then eat my shorts
Great write up and I appreciate the detail you put into the piece. Did you by chance bring your Truvaga with you on the trip? Looks like all these hard working folks would be open to all of its benefits. :) #synergyfingers
Thanks for the report. Is there any possibility that ASPI opens up a lab in US for enrichment as it’s link with OKLA and TerraPower. Which is the Major company took part from US?
Thanks for the article! Did you learn anything about how protected their IP is? I know they can't patent things related to uranium enrichment, but can they patent the technology for other isotopes? Or is it really the same technology?
More broadly, in principle one of the ASPI people who understand the IP could go off and start a competing company...does anything protect against that?
Yes so many of the items they utilize is off the shelf. They are beginning to introduce new instruments for the ASP tech that can be patented but none for QE as of the moment.
This exact question was asked especially with the relative simplicity of AVLIS for some of their medical isotopes. Due to the beam shaping and vessels which can’t be patented but is a lot of know how, they are confident in keeping the 9 individuals who currently understand the tech via stock/NDA/non-compete, etc. Also should be noted that they plan on bringing lasers in house which might be patented. You also have a lot of IAEA protections stopping proliferation risk across borders.
Coming from the medical device industry sometimes it’s better to have trade secrets that are not divulged than filing patents which will be in the public domain. Countries that don’t respect IP protection can very easily copy with very little consequences.
Jacob, above you say you were told the second MOU is with OKLO, yet in this video released yesterday Paul says it's with NESCA... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPo4otIF2gI ...what gives?
This video was actually from a redchip event from month/s ago. They have an MOU with NECSA but they had two MOUs with unannounced SMR companies (NECSA is not an SMR company). One was TerraPower and the other one he told us at the event was Oklo.
Ok, thanks for explaining. On a side note, I really think these Redchip videos are not doing ASPI any favours. They're clearly scripted. The host is told what questions to ask. It doesn't inspire confidence in me.
I’ve heard talks from ASPI about “vaporizing the U alloy”, the “use of dye lasers” to “ionize U-235”, sounds very much like AVLIS. So how is QE any different?
All good, but at the end of the day, the type of lasers and beam shaping were never an issue with AVLIS. The low vapor pressure of the U-metal alloy is simply not scalable. If this can be resolved, they would beat LLNL and USEC at their own game, who spent billions trying to commercialize AVLIS.
That’s not true at all. Beam shaping and laser technology allows for a sharper and more accurate laser allowing for you to target quantum transitions so you can selectively target U-235 v U-238 in excited states. This allows for a much higher selectivity and allows for batch processing which can just be increased by adding more vessels. Essentially just adding more lab scale vessels. Also AVLIS from USEC was attempting a 300 meter vessel to create a 9mm SWU facility for LEU, the projects are much different. AVLIS selectivity at Lawrence Livermore was 7-14.
You only need 2 stages at a selectivity of 5.3 each to get you HALEU. So 7-14 is plenty. As for “beam shaping”, “solid state lasers vs copper pump” - sorry, but that’s old news.
Who is cascading stages at a commercial scale? Selectivity matters significantly, specially when it takes a 30+ selectivity to go from natural to HALEU. This isn't even considering going from tails to HALEU.
Beam Shaping had just been ramping up in the 1990s (discovered in the 60s but not really started being explored until the late 80s), since then there has been 30 years of exploration into utilizing beam shaping and pulse shaping specifically with MLIS and that experience gained has transferred over to AVLIS. Historically only 40% of atoms were targeted with AVLIS. For an example this is from 2013 paper with Andrew Forbes for how far it changed in only 15 years: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254267988_A_digital_laser_for_on-demand_laser_modes
Also when it comes to beam shaping nobody was try to target forbidden quantum transitions while the atom was in an excited state. *If* ASPI can do this, then it explains the extremely high selectivity for uranium. This is also aided by Atomic Beam Collimation which helps them overcome the doppler broadening effect that happens when you are trying to target the valence bands of excited atoms. This selectivity is obviously a bit of over kill for uranium (but a high selectivity still matters) but matters for other isotopes.
Again you're missing the biggest point...AVLIS from USEC was attempting a 300 meter vessel to create a 9mm SWU facility for LEU. We are talking a way smaller vessel (60cm), batch processing, and much less feedstock being processed for HALEU. They (lawrence livermore) were using molten uranium which was being hit with a constant flow electron beam and causing a continuous flow of vapor (this is where they experienced corrosive issues). By doing this at lab scale (via batch processing) instead of industrial scale (continuous processing), ASPI is able to utilize electron beam ablation I believe which allows for less molten build up. Hence avoiding your low pressure issue.
Great write up. Did this trip crystalize any of your thoughts about how to manage the future spin out and the portfolio weighting between ASPI vs. QLE?
Thanks! Almost went there myself but a meeting with Uzo (who had done a similar visit months before) in London assuaged my concerns and I decided not to go.
Thank you. I am balls deep in ASPI. My concern is that it seems like a lab experiment and while it works in the lab, will they really be able to scale up to industrial level production. It will be a great relief when the first product goes commercial be that U235, Si 28, C 14 or Ytterbium
If they pull this off it will be a 100 bagger and as Bart Simpson would say, Fuzzy Panda could then eat my shorts
Packed linen wrinkles so easy lol. Thanks for the update. Really appreciate you sharing your work on ASPI 🙏
It does 😂😂😂 it’s the worst about wrinkles. Easier to just fold the sleeves
A monkey peed on your sandwiches?
That is correct 😂
Great write up and I appreciate the detail you put into the piece. Did you by chance bring your Truvaga with you on the trip? Looks like all these hard working folks would be open to all of its benefits. :) #synergyfingers
Hahaha I did bring it! But I kept it in my hotel room so I didn’t have to carry it everywhere. Next time I’ll get Paul one 😂
For sure, Always Be Closing. :)
Thank you for sharing your insights!
Of course!
Sounds like a great trip!
It was! Next time I'll have to go on a Safari!
Thanks for a great write-up mister!
Thanks for the report. Is there any possibility that ASPI opens up a lab in US for enrichment as it’s link with OKLA and TerraPower. Which is the Major company took part from US?
The US would have to significantly fix the regulatory process.
Lawrence livermore is the US national lab
Thank you for such a detailed report
Of course!
Thanks for the article! Did you learn anything about how protected their IP is? I know they can't patent things related to uranium enrichment, but can they patent the technology for other isotopes? Or is it really the same technology?
More broadly, in principle one of the ASPI people who understand the IP could go off and start a competing company...does anything protect against that?
Yes so many of the items they utilize is off the shelf. They are beginning to introduce new instruments for the ASP tech that can be patented but none for QE as of the moment.
This exact question was asked especially with the relative simplicity of AVLIS for some of their medical isotopes. Due to the beam shaping and vessels which can’t be patented but is a lot of know how, they are confident in keeping the 9 individuals who currently understand the tech via stock/NDA/non-compete, etc. Also should be noted that they plan on bringing lasers in house which might be patented. You also have a lot of IAEA protections stopping proliferation risk across borders.
Coming from the medical device industry sometimes it’s better to have trade secrets that are not divulged than filing patents which will be in the public domain. Countries that don’t respect IP protection can very easily copy with very little consequences.
An uncomfortable truth by the sounds of it.
Jacob, above you say you were told the second MOU is with OKLO, yet in this video released yesterday Paul says it's with NESCA... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPo4otIF2gI ...what gives?
This video was actually from a redchip event from month/s ago. They have an MOU with NECSA but they had two MOUs with unannounced SMR companies (NECSA is not an SMR company). One was TerraPower and the other one he told us at the event was Oklo.
Ok, thanks for explaining. On a side note, I really think these Redchip videos are not doing ASPI any favours. They're clearly scripted. The host is told what questions to ask. It doesn't inspire confidence in me.
I’ve heard talks from ASPI about “vaporizing the U alloy”, the “use of dye lasers” to “ionize U-235”, sounds very much like AVLIS. So how is QE any different?
Beam shaping/quantum spectroscopy/more lasers/solid state vs copper pumps/batch processing
This is in reference to U
All good, but at the end of the day, the type of lasers and beam shaping were never an issue with AVLIS. The low vapor pressure of the U-metal alloy is simply not scalable. If this can be resolved, they would beat LLNL and USEC at their own game, who spent billions trying to commercialize AVLIS.
That’s not true at all. Beam shaping and laser technology allows for a sharper and more accurate laser allowing for you to target quantum transitions so you can selectively target U-235 v U-238 in excited states. This allows for a much higher selectivity and allows for batch processing which can just be increased by adding more vessels. Essentially just adding more lab scale vessels. Also AVLIS from USEC was attempting a 300 meter vessel to create a 9mm SWU facility for LEU, the projects are much different. AVLIS selectivity at Lawrence Livermore was 7-14.
You only need 2 stages at a selectivity of 5.3 each to get you HALEU. So 7-14 is plenty. As for “beam shaping”, “solid state lasers vs copper pump” - sorry, but that’s old news.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1017/ML101790145.pdf
Who is cascading stages at a commercial scale? Selectivity matters significantly, specially when it takes a 30+ selectivity to go from natural to HALEU. This isn't even considering going from tails to HALEU.
Beam Shaping had just been ramping up in the 1990s (discovered in the 60s but not really started being explored until the late 80s), since then there has been 30 years of exploration into utilizing beam shaping and pulse shaping specifically with MLIS and that experience gained has transferred over to AVLIS. Historically only 40% of atoms were targeted with AVLIS. For an example this is from 2013 paper with Andrew Forbes for how far it changed in only 15 years: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254267988_A_digital_laser_for_on-demand_laser_modes
2022: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365285121_Experimentally_simulating_the_beam_shaping_capabilities_of_deformable_mirrors_using_a_liquid_crystal_spatial_light_modulator
Also when it comes to beam shaping nobody was try to target forbidden quantum transitions while the atom was in an excited state. *If* ASPI can do this, then it explains the extremely high selectivity for uranium. This is also aided by Atomic Beam Collimation which helps them overcome the doppler broadening effect that happens when you are trying to target the valence bands of excited atoms. This selectivity is obviously a bit of over kill for uranium (but a high selectivity still matters) but matters for other isotopes.
Again you're missing the biggest point...AVLIS from USEC was attempting a 300 meter vessel to create a 9mm SWU facility for LEU. We are talking a way smaller vessel (60cm), batch processing, and much less feedstock being processed for HALEU. They (lawrence livermore) were using molten uranium which was being hit with a constant flow electron beam and causing a continuous flow of vapor (this is where they experienced corrosive issues). By doing this at lab scale (via batch processing) instead of industrial scale (continuous processing), ASPI is able to utilize electron beam ablation I believe which allows for less molten build up. Hence avoiding your low pressure issue.
Great write up. Did this trip crystalize any of your thoughts about how to manage the future spin out and the portfolio weighting between ASPI vs. QLE?
Thanks! Almost went there myself but a meeting with Uzo (who had done a similar visit months before) in London assuaged my concerns and I decided not to go.
Yeah Uzo is fantastic