I was planning on using the TRIGA design when I first started this company, but due to a number of regulatory and supply issues around TRIGA fuel, I have decided to instead use a variation of the PULSTAR design currently used by NC State University. The PULSTAR uses the same type of fuel that commercial power reactors use, but is scaled down to fit the mold of a university research reactor. And because the margin of safety is ludicrously high, you can actually pulse the... PULSTAR in the same fashion that the TRIGAs can be pulsed. I've mostly kept the TRIGA video up because those are much easier to come by, is of similar scale, and get the point across.
Regarding potential competition such as NorthStar or SHINE Med: Basically, the non-reactor technologies have very poor unit economics. The product is less pure (which is fun to say in the context that we're talking about "molly"), and the electricity costs alone for operating accelerators is on par with just purchasing nuclear fuel. And, for the same "fuel" costs, eight of the SHINE accelerators will produce about 4% of a single Atomic Alchemy reactor.
NorthStar's approach of converting Mo-98 to Mo-99 works, but is very inefficient from a nuclear physics standpoint, and requires the same chemical processing, if not more, due to its low purity. It's a band-aid and won't really be able to compete once more players enter the market.
I guess another way to put it is this: the common thread between everyone in the article (except BWXT) is that they are relying on government $$$, and government money is never free. The govt. $$$ is given out on the condition it be used for developing "alternative technologies." And it just so happens that most of these alternative ways are either inferior from a unit economics standpoint, or are a costly regulatory nightmare because licensing new nuclear technology is simply a nightmare.
Regarding demand elasticity: Demand is actually dropping every year as the supply decreases. The weekly demand for the largest market share of radioisotopes is about 3/4 of what it was earlier this decade. As the population around the world grows and ages, the demand will continue to grow. If the myriad other radioisotopes used in nuclear medicine were more abundant and had a more stable supply, the demand for them, from what I can tell, would skyrocket. So there is a ton of room to grow JUST TO MEET CURRENT DEMAND. If China and India were to use nuclear medicine on the same per capita basis that the United States does, the world market would double and then triple, respectively.
Thanks for the answers. A higher-power PULSTAR derivative still needs NRC design approval, right? Or will the reactors be built somewhere that has a simpler approval process for new designs? I've seen people say that Canada is more favorable to novel reactors though I haven't looked into the details.
The NorthStar chemistry advantage looks (IMO) to be the absence of fission products, which are diverse in chemical behavior and radiotoxicity. I have no idea if that can sufficiently offset the complications that come from lower specific activity in the product.
Good luck with your endeavor! I love to see startups that deliver physical products and not just software, especially a product as important as this one.
Yes--the scaled-up PULSTAR would still need regulatory approval for siting and operation, but would not need a new design certification (which is the real dream killer). I've deliberately chosen to use only technology that is commercially available to get a product to market as quickly and cost-effectively as is achievable.
In my last paragraph I should clarify something that sounds confusing as I re-read it: "perceived demand" is dropping, but it is dropping as supply decreases. All of the literature out there suggests that the demand for radioisotopes in medicine is growing by 5-10% per year. I think it would be much higher with a more stable supply.
Regarding potential competition such as NorthStar or SHINE Med: Basically, the non-reactor technologies have very poor unit economics. The product is less pure (which is fun to say in the context that we're talking about "molly"), and the electricity costs alone for operating accelerators is on par with just purchasing nuclear fuel. And, for the same "fuel" costs, eight of the SHINE accelerators will produce about 4% of a single Atomic Alchemy reactor.
NorthStar's approach of converting Mo-98 to Mo-99 works, but is very inefficient from a nuclear physics standpoint, and requires the same chemical processing, if not more, due to its low purity. It's a band-aid and won't really be able to compete once more players enter the market.
I guess another way to put it is this: the common thread between everyone in the article (except BWXT) is that they are relying on government $$$, and government money is never free. The govt. $$$ is given out on the condition it be used for developing "alternative technologies." And it just so happens that most of these alternative ways are either inferior from a unit economics standpoint, or are a costly regulatory nightmare because licensing new nuclear technology is simply a nightmare.
Regarding demand elasticity: Demand is actually dropping every year as the supply decreases. The weekly demand for the largest market share of radioisotopes is about 3/4 of what it was earlier this decade. As the population around the world grows and ages, the demand will continue to grow. If the myriad other radioisotopes used in nuclear medicine were more abundant and had a more stable supply, the demand for them, from what I can tell, would skyrocket. So there is a ton of room to grow JUST TO MEET CURRENT DEMAND. If China and India were to use nuclear medicine on the same per capita basis that the United States does, the world market would double and then triple, respectively.