← Risk in Context Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Risk in Context, which features conversation with Maersk risk colleagues, risk professionals and others intended to help you better understand key risks, build more effective insurance programs and think creatively about risk. I'm Amy Barnes. I'm the global leader of our energy and power business. Organizations are increasingly looking to small modular reactors as a means to advance energy security and meet decarbonization and net zero objectives. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency estimates the global SMR market could reach roughly 21 gigawatts by 2035, with materially higher annual build rates afterwards. This highlights the speed and scale of expected deployment. In this episode of Risk in Context, I'm joined by a number of Marsh Risk colleagues, Jim Pillaia, U.S. and Canada nuclear energy leader, Everett Hansen, U.S. nuclear leader and Ailish Foster, a senior vice president within our energy and power practices in London. We'll discuss what SMRs are, why they match to a broader audience beyond the traditional nuclear community, and the opportunities as well as the risk that risk managers should be watching for. Welcome, everyone. So, to start, may I ask you to do a better introduction than I've just done for you? Everett?
- [01:12]
B
Thank you, Amy. My name is Everett Hanson and I lead Marsh's nuclear energy practice in the United States. In my early career I operated what I like to say are the original SMRs, which are those onboard naval nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. It's good to be with you today.
- [01:28]
A
I've never thought of nuclear submarines that way. I like it. Eilish.
- [01:32]
C
Hi, I'm Ailish Foster. I work in Marsh UK as a client executive and I've been focusing on our nuclear client base for operational risks, mainly for the past 10 years. With current developments in the nuclear market, this is a space where I see far more activity than we ever have before.
- [01:51]
A
Fantastic, Jim, finally.
- [01:53]
D
Hi, my name is Jim Pillaia. I'm the North American nuclear energy leader here at Marsh and I've been involved in nuclear space for approximately 15 years. I've seen a transformation from the nuclear industry to the point now where there's more investment than I've ever seen.
- [02:08]
A
So first of all, can we just level set for everyone, Everett, and can you just give us some background about Nuclear energy and SMRs?
- [02:16]
B
Sure, Amy. I think at a basic level, you know, nuclear reactors are actually pretty simple. They're a lot. They're a lot simpler than many people might believe them to be. If you're not too familiar. They utilize a sustained reaction at the level of the atomic nucleus. That process is called fission, to ultimately heat water and produce steam that steam spins a turbine and it creates electricity. The fuel that drives that process is an enriched form of the element uranium. And the present day nuclear operating fleet overwhelmingly consists of large scale reactors, typically 500 megawatt plus which are cooled by water. The most recent units to have been constructed globally are of gigawatt scale. And nuclear fission is really an incredibly energy dense process. I think there's why there's so much resurgent interest in it. As a quick example, uranium as a fuel is approximately 30,000 times more energy dense by volume than oil. The global nuclear industry was responsible for approximately 400 gigawatts of generation in 2024, or about 10% of the global energy mix. And when people think about the risk associated with, with nuclear energy, I think they think to tend, they tend to think about, excuse me, nuclear accidents. And while it's certainly true that these events have occurred, nuclear power plants are actually, or arguably, I should say, the highest quality risks in power generation and statistically are one of the safest ways to generate electricity, which makes them an incredible asset.
- [03:48]
A
You're a very good salesman, Everett. I'm sold. But if I can ask you just to help with a couple of bits. So what we've just said is there's a reaction that's happening at the atomic level, generates heat, generates water and steam, and that's how we then get our power. So what's the difference then between these large scale conventional reactors that we're familiar with and what we're talking about now, the SMRs, how do they differ?
- [04:11]
B
Small Modular Reactors or SMRs are a class of new nuclear technology that's coming to market. Some of them reflect legacy design concepts like I just mentioned, such as water based coolants, but are simply smaller in size. But many incorporate new technologies such as non water based coolants, modular componentry, smaller footprints and generally span a wide array of deployment models.
- [04:35]
A
Thank you. I think we're going to get into that in more detail. So Jim, can you also help with this level setting about what are the issues that are driving increased interest in nuclear generally, but SMRs specifically, and I'm thinking about energy security and net zero from the generation side, but also the increased demand for power around data center and digital infrastructure. Jim?
- [05:00]
D
So I see three factors that are essential for the interest in the development of SMRs. Government investment in small modular reactors significantly enhances energy security by addressing multiple critical dimensions through support for their development, deployment and integration. Some hours are compact factory fabricated nuclear reactors with power outputs that are typically under 300 megawatt electric and they're designed for modular construction and flexible siting options. Second factor I see is SMRs have lower upfront deployment costs due to a combination of factors. They're smaller and modular, allowing most components to be factory fabricated. The smaller size means lower absolute capital investment per unit. There's tailored regulatory framework for SMRs such as pre licensing, design certification, standard designs and repeatable manufacturing contracts. Foster a stable localized supply chain and skilled workforce, which is very important. Last, SMR's compact footprint requires less extensive site preparation. Together, to me, these factors create a more predictable, scalable and cost effective deployment pathway, resulting in significant lower upfront capital costs compared to that of the traditional large nuclear reactors that we've seen that are part of the legacy fleet that exists today. The third factor that I see, small modular reactors present a significant opportunity to provide clean, reliable and flexible energy beyond electricity generation. They're very diverse, from industrial heat and hydrogen production to desalinization to data centers. They offer remote power where electricity is hard to find. They also support isotope production, which is important for the medical industry. So realizing the potential for SMRs requires coordinated efforts in technology development, regulatory adaptation and infrastructure investment.
- [07:05]
A
I think we often forget the medical industry and how nuclear is used in far more context than just the power generation that we're talking about today. Everett, can I come back to you? You alluded to it in your answer to the earlier question about the different types of technology. From my understanding, there are, and I'm making the number up, but there are probably 100 different type of technologies that could be used for SMRs. Can you just help us understand the diversity and if it's healthy to have that many different types of technology, or if you think ultimately we'll coalesce around a single technology.
- [07:38]
B
Yeah, absolutely. Amy. There are certainly dozens and there very well may be a hundred plus different SMR technologies that are currently coming to market or available in the commercial market. And I think it's the technical diversity of SMRs that makes them so interesting. To start, we have the concept of small. It's difficult in my opinion to get any two people to agree on this definition in the context of small modular reactors. But from a technical perspective, the category is generally accepted to cap at approximately 300 megawatts per unit. Right. Sort of the upper end of what it means to be small. With that being said, we see concepts ranging from about 1 megawatt, typically we call those micro reactors, all the way up to these 300 megawatt units that are really pushing the boundary of what it Means to be small. In the context of nuclear energy and nuclear power generation, you know, one of the benefits of reduced plant size is the potential to increase modularity in design. We've already covered down on the small piece, but it's this modular aspect that in many ways is equally appealing to those that want to look to nuclear generation to increase their total generating capacity. The ability to manufacture large portions of plant componentry off site and additively integrate them at a project is thought to contribute to cost reduction, which has generally been a challenge for the nuclear industry over the past several decades and notably for some recent projects which have, which have occurred globally ever.
- [09:16]
A
I love the fact you say that. You say that cost reduction has been a challenge. I'd say it's containing cost escalations. I think for many of the conventional nuclear plants we've seen huge cost inflation. And so I'm guessing that with the SMRs there's an expectation that. Not that they'll lower cost. Do we also think it'll be lower cost per unit of energy?
- [09:36]
B
There's certainly that thought, Amy, and the cost models are well proven over time. The levelized cost of energy associated with small modular reactors is well established and incredibly competitive. The challenge being, can we contain the potential for overrunning? Right, because the models, they go out the door once projects start to run over on both time and budget. We also see a wide number of technical innovations that ultimately make small module reactors even safer than their legacy nuclear counterparts. Some of those features include advanced and passive safety, such as natural circulation or the ability to move water through the reactor without the use of pumps, that in many cases can allow the plant to function or even safely shut down without operator interaction or the need for off site power. Smarts also generally maintain smaller emergency planning zones. Those are the, the areas around nuclear power plants where evacuations may be required in the event of nuclear incidents, some of which do not extend beyond the site boundary itself. Right. So the emergency planning zone for the, for the site is within the fence line, so to speak. Reduced core damage frequencies, accident tolerant fuels and smaller footprints, and likewise fuel inventories, which ultimately reduce the potential severity of accidents. All very, very attractive from the perspective of small modular nuclear innovation.
- [11:08]
A
Thank you. There's a huge amount there and rather than try and unpack it. Ailish, if I may come to you. Everett talked about size in terms of the power output, but can you also give us a sense of size in terms of the amount of space that SMRs take up and then talk a little bit about the construction type and I love the fact that some of these things turn up as modular units and the risks that comes with handoffs between factory construction, on site assembly. So would you mind talking us through some of those issues, please?
- [11:41]
C
Yes, absolutely. Amy. In terms of size, obviously this can vary greatly depending on their megawatt output. But for instance, if we're looking at something that might be considered a micro reactor, say 20 megawatts, the size of that could be small enough to fit into the back of a transport container on the back of a lorry, which gives it additional uses. It could be deployed to areas where there are remote communities that may have to run off diesel at the present moment, through to the sort of larger, more modular reactors, which could be, for instance, maybe the size of a football pitch or something around that kind of size. So much smaller than your traditional gigawatt power station, but not small, small but not piney.
- [12:36]
A
And so then understanding as well the issues moving between with very different construction techniques, where we may see some elements of the construction happening off site and then assembly on site. How are you thinking about those handovers and some of the other risks with multiple parties involved?
- [12:54]
C
Yeah, the mix of factory construction with on site assembly that's introduced as SMRs to a much greater extent than in the traditional construction of nuclear power plants can introduce huge complexity with these multiple handover points. So you've got a lot of parties involved. So the factory based fabricator of the modules, the principal contractor on the site and the ultimate owner, as well as the fuel supplier. So this adds a new dimension to contractual positions. So fully understanding those is not just critical to the project success itself on the ground, but also for managing insurable risk and liability transfer. It's really important for insurance professionals to become involved in this really early in the construction process, as well as all the other stakeholders and to have the opportunity to review these contracts at the pre contract tech stage to enable us to help reduce the risk of the gaps in coverage that could occur.
- [14:00]
A
Thank you. Yeah, there's a lot to go into. I think we're going to come talk some more about that in a moment. But before we do, just finally, Everett, can you just talk about some of the project specific challenges during handovers and factories and factory acceptance tests, what some of the issues that you see and the things you're worried about.
- [14:16]
B
Sure, Amy. I think, you know, I'd like to take this from two different perspectives. The first is sort of agnostic to risk and really more involved in the potential for new owner operator deployment models associated with small modular Reactors Historically, the, the owners of nuclear power plants, those under construction, right, will, will also be the same party that intends to operate them. That simplifies a lot of these, these processes you're describing. Testing, commissioning and handover to operations. Those deployment models are being challenged when we talk about small modular reactors. Many, many who are interested in this space only want to own them. They want to own them for, for their own use and in, in power generation that they'll either consume wholly or that they'll push to the grid as an independent power producer for others to utilize. And they need somebody else to operate those, those assets because they don't have an interest in doing so. Two parties be engaged in, in, in that transfer process is new and it'll bring some risks that have to be explored from the perspective of construction insurances. Right. Or the formal management of those risks with the insurance program during the course of construction. We've historically seen two markets or two different classes of markets, I should say required to participate during the point at which nuclear fuel arrives on site and some of the hot testing and commissioning processes start to commence.
- [15:47]
A
I'm going to pause you there because you're using hot testing as if everybody knows what hot testing is. So can you just explain the difference between the civils and then when the hot zone is created and how that typically happens on site, off site. So a bit more level setting, please.
- [16:05]
D
Sure.
- [16:05]
B
Amy. When a nuclear reactor is being constructed, it's really just a construction project. It's a construction project like any other construction project or power generation project up until the point that fuel arrives on site. At such points, we would expect certain portions of the project risk to be excluded by commercial markets who customarily carry those risks during the course of construction. And the portions of the excluded plant are typically those associated with nuclear systems when it comes to the commissioning of, of the facility. The first time that systems are being heated up and pressurized for the first time, machinery is, is spinning for the first time. And coming up to its, to its, its design capacity, there's a lot of risk. And traditionally there have been two sort of marketplaces that have participated in the sharing of that risk for the construction of a nuclear power plant, for SMRs and for nuclear technologies. Really going forward, the participation of both the commercial and a nuclear market during the course of testing, commissioning and handover might not be necessary. And indeed we're seeing a lot of exploration in that space and interest in shaking up what has been a firm paradigm for many, many decades.
- [17:29]
A
So just that the paradigm you're talking about is that the commercial market is very happy with the civils risk, but we need the specialized nuclear liability market for the hot zone. Is that correct? And I think with the surge in construction, absolutely. I mean that's an area that we're driving the market as well to think about. Are there new ways to ensure the assets? But Everett, before I move on, I just do want to come back because I know when we were having the prep call for this, you also talked about labor and the risk of a lack of skilled labor. And this is something we see in many parts of the energy and power value chain that we have a workforce that is aging. We've had a lot of retirements and we haven't had as many new joiners and that can be for any of the power with large rotating equipment. If we think about LNG and the huge LNG boom in the southeast of the United States and the talent demand there, what is the available supply of talented, experienced nuclear personnel globally?
- [18:32]
B
Amy it's low. And this is a massive challenge for the nuclear industry. It's one they're keenly aware of and that they're improving upon. The global nuclear construction right now isn't sitting at zero. There are certainly units being constructed around the world, in some regions more so than others, but we're not seeing the same level of construction of nuclear power plants that we did in the 1970s and 80s. During that time there was a skilled labor force, an experienced labor force, not only to construct these facilities but also to operate them once they were completed. And as as nuclear construction really started to dwindle in the mid-1980s and onward, that that labor force atrophied. The atrophy of that force is is what's contributed to the material costs of new nuclear construction in recent memory and is challenging how we think about operating these types of facilities. Not only do we do we need to have welders who can physically put the plants together and are qualified trained to do so, but we also need the operators who can run them and they're in short supply. The motivation of increased interest in the nuclear industry I think is a first step to get at that challenge. We are seeing that which is positive.
- [19:58]
A
And then just last question if I may for you, Everett. What do you think at a headline are the key risks that SMRS owners and developers should keep in mind?
- [20:08]
B
I think that one of the most important considerations when we talk about risk associated with SMR is being able to effectively distinguish them from the risks associated with their legacy gigawatt scale counterparts. There are many risks that both classes of nuclear generation have in common. The good news is that we know how to treat the former, because there's quite a bit of experience in doing so. But the latter, the nascency of risks associated with small modular reactors, most importantly need to be evaluated based on their own individual technical merits. That's something that we advocate for certainly when we're talking about contractual risk transfer and ultimately the placement of insurance programs for these assets on a construction and operational basis. What, what are those technical merits of a small modular reactor and how can they be positively distinguished from the risks associated with legacy nuclear generation, such that ultimately we can arrive at programs right at treatment for those risks which are risk appropriate to a new class of technology, which in most cases is arguably much safer than the technology which preceded it, which already has world class reputation for safety.
- [21:34]
A
Thank you. I'm just going to pivot for a moment and think about the fuel. And as we sit here recording this, we are in the midst of a very unsettled time with the crisis in the Middle east and we know that the proximate cause for that was concerns over fuel enrichment. Now, Jim, would you mind talking to us a bit about the diversity of global fuel supply, where it's coming from and some of the geopolitical implications of those supply chains?
- [22:07]
D
There's growing global investment to diversify nuclear fuel supply. It's a strategic response to complex energy, geopolitical, environmental and market challenges. By broadening and strengthening the entire nuclear fuel cycle. From uranium mining to advanced fuel fabrication and strategic reserves, countries and industry stakeholders enhance energy security, support decarbonization and enable the deployment of next generation nuclear technologies such as smrs. Policymakers and industry must prioritize infrastructure development, technological innovation, international collaboration and regulatory modernization to realize the full benefits of diversified, resilient nuclear fuel supply chain. New nuclear fuel types are transforming the nuclear energy landscape by offering significant opportunities to improve safety, efficiency and sustainability, while also introducing challenges that require careful management by industry, regulators and policymakers. Some of those opportunities are enhanced safety and accident tolerant, high fuel efficiency and longer fuel cycles and support for advanced reactor designs. And some of those challenges are complex and costly. Research, development, qualification, manufacturing and supply chain complexity, and regulatory and licensing adaptations. So coordinated efforts among industry, regulators and policymakers are essential to successfully integrate advanced fuels into the nuclear energy ecosystem. A balanced approach will enable the nuclear industry to harness innovation while at the same time maintaining safety and public trust, which is very important.
- [23:47]
A
Thanks, Jim. Yeah, very, very timely comments. So we know that the security of fuel are very familiar questions to insurers. There are some other concerns as well, such as different cooling types on site storage of non irradiated fuel. Conventional insurers often only provide limited reinsurance back cover. And so there's real need for the nuclear insurance pools. Can you talk to us a bit about the history of the industry and where the nuclear pool fit in with
- [24:17]
C
the development of civil nuclear dating back to the 1950s very early it was established that the conventional market would look to exclude radioactive contamination across their portfolios. This risk was just considered too big and unpredictable for, for them and generally this still remains the case today. However, there was a requirement for this coverage, particularly in regards to providing a route for indemnification to the public in the event of a nuclear incident because this preserved the public perception of the industry. So this led to the development of the nuclear pools to ensure nuclearists and more latterly the creation of specific nuclear mutuals which provided potentially a more cost effective solution. So for operational risk, nuclear risk. Today, these pools and mutuals are the main insurers of the property damage and the nuclear liability risks. And their capacity is supported by company insurers and lloyd syndicates.
- [25:17]
A
Really helpful, thank you. So Everett, recognizing that there's space in the marketplace for the commercial insurers and the pools and we're going to see a huge boom, what is the commercial market doing in response to the increased interest in SMRs?
- [25:31]
B
Amy, the commercial market is really starting to investigate, I think with a level of seriousness with respect to their interests, the nuclear space, both from a construction, but also from an operational perspective that we haven't historically seen. The commercial market are ultimately the providers of, of risk capital, have utilized the distribution channels that Alish detailed for decades. They've had, they had avenues for their capacity ultimately to reach the level of the project. But now there's interest in taking a look at deployment of that capacity outside of those distribution channels and on a direct basis where many have the ability to do so, both from a technical underwriting and engineering perspective, ultimately to effectively underwrite those risks for the markets that maybe feel like they don't have that expertise in house. Today we've seen them interested in acquiring it so they can evaluate and compete on these risks in a way that perhaps they haven't historically been able to because they weren't properly or effectively staffed to analyze the, the, the nuance associated with the nuclear risk. It's not complicated, but it does require some investment from a, from a knowledge management perspective.
- [27:03]
A
Everett, I love it. After Everything you two have just said to say it's not complicated. I think some people may disagree, but. But I will. I'll move to EILISH and think about. Can you talk to us a little bit about the insurance in those distinct phases around construction and operational, and especially in the context of the evolving SMR landscape where we've got more contract parties and potentially more handoffs?
- [27:25]
C
Yeah, definitely. So, as Ebert's already mentioned, that the construction phase of an SMR or any nuclear project is much like that of the construction phase of any large project. The insurers that we use for that, that phase don't need to be nuclear insurers or don't need to be able to provide radioactive contamination coverage, because in fact, this doesn't exist until the nuclear fuel is introduced to the site. But that said, I don't want to oversimplify it because whilst we refer to them as a small modular reactor, don't confuse that with a small project. These are in fact very large and very complicated projects. We've mentioned the multiple handovers, so it's imperative when arranging insurance to ensure that each of these handovers between the different parties is fully understood as to where that liability transfers, to make sure that the coverage is arranged appropriately so that there's no gaps. And insurers are going to be ultimately interested in being educated around these projects. They're going to need detailed technical submissions around the project plans, the timelines, the potential for loss on these sites, what those loss scenarios might look like, and all the protections, such as fire health and safety and the like. Further complexity is brought into this when we consider how many different designs of SMR there could be. So this is even more for those underwriters to become familiar with. Once they've written one SMR project, it doesn't mean they know about the next one. So it could be very different. As we've talked about before, the handover from construction to operations under the current model is where we would have to switch from one insurer, potentially the conventional market, to another insurer, which might be the specialist nuclear market under the current model. And again, this is an area where we really need to understand how those liabilities transfer what coverage is required, and just to make sure that this is a seamless continuation of insurance protection from the perspective of operational risks. Again, something Everett's already mentioned, we could at this point be introducing a totally different operator, a standalone entity, and it will be really important for the insurers to be able to understand the safety records and the procedures that that operator uses to enable them to fully underwrite and evaluate the risk.
- [30:21]
A
So that's a lot about the insurance. Everett, who pays the premium?
- [30:27]
D
Sure.
- [30:27]
B
For a project, Amy, we would typically expect the owner to pay the premium. That model's also potentially changing many of the owners who are investigating or interested in investing in the small modular nuclear space that don't have the resources to manage a complex project from a risk perspective. There is no risk manager, there's no risk management department at many of these organizations. And so they're looking to offload that responsibility to somebody else. It'll probably be the prime contractor. And so there's a new. It's not new to construction or the insurance of construction projects, but it's. It's new to the nuclear space. And there are some considerations there, particularly once we arrive at fuel and the manifestation of nuclear risk, where we'll need to take a look at the contractual landscape and make sure that everything's buttoned up.
- [31:27]
A
And Everett, you make a really good point. So, Jim, if may I come to you that a lot of these companies, such as fabric SMRs, may be smaller and I'm guessing that there could be quite a lot of debt finance involved. So how are lenders thinking about the insurance provisions required to fund SMR construction?
- [31:45]
D
So lenders and insurers view financing for SMR projects as complex but increasingly viable opportunity that requires careful risk management, structured financing approaches, and robust de risking measures. Their perspective is shaped by the unique technical, regulatory and market characteristics of SMRs as well as evolving investor interest in market trends. These have certainly increased over the last several years, but there's some challenges for financing these projects. So the technology and first of a kind risk SMRs have not been deployed domestically or globally in a robundant fashion yet, but that's to be determined. There's construction and schedule risk. You know, there's always delays that seem to accompany construction projects, which could lead to cost overruns and inflation. Those are certainly factors that lenders and insurers are looking to mitigate. There's also supply chain risks, so there's dependence on specialized components. A lot of these factors need to be overcome so that lenders and insurers can effectively mitigate the projects so that they run on time and on budget. And the key component, I think with this framework for a successful project with respect to SMRs is predictability. The more you're able to predict some of these challenges makes the project, in my view, much more sustainable and successful.
- [33:16]
A
So we're talking about a. I'm not going to say it's a completely new technology, but it's an innovative or a different application of existing technology. So we don't always have the data that underwriters would require to price and understand the risk. So how are we helping with the insurability challenge of something new and a lack of data associated with it?
- [33:39]
B
Amy I think I'll focus on construction, right, because SMR risks today are primarily construction risks and we'll certainly get to the operational piece. While it's true that maybe there isn't a lot of claims data for the construction of these assets because pieces of the technology are new, we can leverage what, and we do leverage what, what is known about, about aspects of the plants and the projects that, that are shared with their, their legacy predecessors. But where we don't have that information, we're able to quantify it, and we're able to quantify it very well in favor of the project owners that are ultimately taking these projects to market. You know, in, in construction insurances, we always want to structure the concept of limit around an estimated maximum loss or an eml. Insurers will arrive at those estimates if nobody provides one for them to consider during the marketing of the program. That's true for, for nuclear projects, as it is true for any other type of project. We've done that for new nuclear technologies. SMR projects that are coming to market worked proactively and in most cases directly alongside the project managers and engineers who have designed these new technologies to quantify risk of loss that's been packaged up, that's been provided to the market for their consideration. And ultimately that data is the basis for these types of programs. And we would expect similar work to be carried on in the future for operational concepts to really provide an appropriate categorization of the risk until there's sufficient data available, both from a construction and operational perspective, to evaluate in the absence of those types of studies.
- [35:28]
A
So what I take from that is that risk engineering is going to be key and especially the project risk engineering. So as we approach the end of our episode, I'm going to ask each of you for one final takeaway. So, Eilish, I'm going to give you the easy slot and ask you to go first.
- [35:43]
C
Okay, thank you. So I think my takeaway would be that it's important that contracts clearly set out liability transfers and insurance triggers and that they're fully understood by all key stakeholders. And just to kind of add to that, it's paramount to involve insurance professionals early whilst there's still room to Negotiate the contract and bring the insurance market. The Nikon market is your brokers along the journey with you throughout the lifecycle of the project.
- [36:14]
A
Well said, Everett. What would you add?
- [36:17]
B
Amy I would say start early. If there's one theme to the small modular reactor landscape, it's speed. Especially in the startup space, you have many, many new companies who are working very quickly to develop a product and bring it to market. Sometimes they're constructing those projects themselves, sometimes they're selling them to someone else to construct, but they're moving fast. And speed can, I think, be the enemy of best practices and risk management. We can of course, place an insurance program for a project once all of the key agreements have been executed, but it's very difficult to do so if we haven't had time to examine everything on its own merits and holistically, which you know you want to start early. And so that would be my key takeaway. Bring your risk advisor in as soon as you possibly can and manage risk before you ultimately have to place an insurance program.
- [37:22]
A
And Jim, you were very excited about the speed and scale of the SMR build out. What would be your takeaway?
- [37:29]
D
So the world is definitely pivoting towards nuclear. Nuclear energy's low carbon, reliable and efficient power generation offers critical benefits for climate goals, energy security and economic development. This is very important as we look to the future in the next five, 10, 20 years.
- [37:46]
A
Jim I build on that. I'm very excited about the technology. I'm excited about what it will be able to do to meet the growing energy demands that we have from the digital revolution that we're going through through as well as providing power to remote communities that don't currently have access. So there's a lot to do and to understand, but having heard you speak about the issues, it all feels very understandable. So thank you very much, that's all for this edition of Risk in Context. We hope that you enjoyed our discussion and thank you for listening. You can rate, review and subscribe to Risk in Context on Apple Podcasts or any app you're using. You can also follow Marsh risk on LinkedIn or X. In addition to your podcast feed. You can find more episodes of Risk and Context and more insight from Marsh Risk on our website, marsh.com until next time, thanks again for listening.