Published

9 months ago

June 4, 2025

Alice Rush

President Ford signing the Energy Reorganization Act, which created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Forgetting History While Ignoring Cost and Safety

This past week we saw a flurry of rushed decisions around nuclear power, first with TVA submitting a construction permit for their GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor design near Oak Ridge, Tennessee followed late Friday afternoon, May 23, 2025 with four Trump Executive Orders apparently attempting to restructure the regulatory framework of nuclear power oversight and accelerating deployment of more unproven nuclear power designs. We have known that TVA was exploring the SMR technology, but had understood it was not cost-effective and that a decision to move forward had not been made; this action would indicate otherwise.

The Executive Orders raise more questions than they answer, but appear to push the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to short-circuit their safety and review process and even allow the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) to rush forward with nuclear power plants outside of the regulatory process. Congress separated the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1974 with the Energy Reorganization Act, signed into law by President Ford, which created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to handle nuclear safety regulation. The Department of Energy (DOE) was created later in 1977 through the Department of Energy Organization Act, which took over the AEC’s nuclear weapons and energy development functions along with energy programs from other agencies.

The separation was designed to address conflicts of interest that had developed within the AEC, which had been both promoting nuclear technology and regulating its safety since 1946. The 1974 reorganization split these functions, giving the NRC independent regulatory authority over civilian nuclear power while transferring the promotional and weapons-related activities to what would become the DOE.

Executive Order Concerns

According to Peter Behr’s Politico Energy Wire story, former nuclear regulators and industry experts are raising serious alarms about Trump’s executive orders potentially undermining decades of independent nuclear safety oversight. Former NRC chairs Allison Macfarlane and Stephen Burns warn that political interference in the historically independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission will “crater” essential public confidence in nuclear power and damage public trust. The orders mandate staff reductions at the NRC while simultaneously requiring the agency to complete a “wholesale revision” of safety regulations within months, leading Senator Ed Markey to warn that “it will be impossible for NRC to maintain a commitment to safety and oversight with staffing levels slashed and expertise gone.”

Technical Challenges Remain Complex

The advanced reactor technologies that Trump is counting on for his nuclear “renaissance” present unprecedented safety review challenges that cannot be rushed without significant risk. According to a 2023 National Academies study, most advanced reactors use unfamiliar cooling systems like liquid sodium, helium gas, or molten salt instead of traditional water cooling, requiring extensive testing and safety analysis. Former NRC Chair Richard Meserve emphasized that “there is no way to cut corners on ensuring that these new features are carefully analyzed,” while industry veteran Amir Afzali noted that sodium-cooled reactors face “significant fire risk, as sodium ignites explosively on contact with air,” requiring rigorous testing and monitoring that increases costs.

Will We Ever Learn

Critics point to recent nuclear project failures as evidence that regulatory shortcuts won’t solve the industry’s fundamental cost problems. The Georgia Power Vogtle expansion, which used NRC-approved reactor designs, still ended up costing $35 billion and running seven years late — problems that stemmed from construction and financing issues rather than regulatory delays. As Afzali observed, “the NRC can’t be blamed for the issues Vogtle faced,” and history across industries shows that “weakening oversight and blurring the lines between promotion and regulation” leads to “serious consequences.” The orders risk repeating past mistakes by prioritizing speed over safety in an industry where public trust and technical precision are paramount. Proponents of nuclear power have concerns that the Executive Orders may be illegal and increase uncertainty and delays.

Small Modular Reactors: Big Promises, Bigger Price Tags

TVA Dreaming

TVA has been dreaming about having an SMR for years. Submitting a request for an Early Site Permit at the Clinch River Nuclear Site in 2016 and receiving the permit in 2019. Recruiting partners and submitting an application for $800 million in taxpayer funds to be a “first mover” in SMR technology.

This dream has been hyped by many Tennessee politicians and the Oak Ridge community who have never met a nuclear project they did not like. As with many dreams they can take a turn for the worse when not grounded in reality. The missing reality in this dream, as with so many nuclear proponents’ dreams, is price and schedule. TVA’s C-suite executives dreams can easily become Tennessee Valley ratepayers’ worst nightmare when fuzzy math and hype prevail over facts and prudence. Below are the facts that beg for more prudence.

A Small Modular Reactor along the Clinch River. Source: TVA

BWRX-300 and other SMRs pose significant financial risks to ratepayers

In the race to decarbonize our electricity system, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been touted as the nuclear industry’s silver bullet – smaller, faster to build, and more affordable than their larger predecessors. Among the leading designs is GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, which has attracted interest from utilities across North America. But recent expert testimony before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by energy analyst David Schlissel raises serious questions about whether these reactors can deliver on their promises or will instead burden ratepayers with massive costs.

The rising price tag of the BWRX-300

While GE Hitachi has kept many of the BWRX-300’s financial details under wraps, what we do know is concerning. According to Schlissel’s testimony, TVA’s recent filings reveal an estimated overnight cost for the BWRX-300 of $17,949 per kilowatt in 2024 dollars. This figure only covers the base construction costs – it doesn’t include financing costs or inflation during the years of construction.

When all costs are factored in, the final price per kilowatt will be substantially higher. For comparison, that base cost is already nearly twice as high as what GE Hitachi initially suggested the reactor might cost.

“The estimated all-in cost of the project must be much higher than shown,” Schlissel testified, noting that overnight costs exclude escalation and financing costs that typically add substantial amounts to nuclear projects.

The pattern of ballooning costs

The BWRX-300 isn’t unique in facing cost increases. Every SMR design on the market has seen dramatic cost escalation before a single reactor has been built in the United States:

NuScale’s SMR project saw costs nearly triple from $6,833/kW in 2015 to $20,130/kW by 2023 before being canceled
X-Energy’s reactor cost estimates jumped 72% in just three years (2021-2024)
TerraPower’s Natrium reactor, initially touted as potentially costing $11,594/kW, is now estimated at $28,986/kW according to recent admissions by Bill Gates, the company’s founder

“It is extremely likely that any future SMRs or large reactors will cost far more and take far longer to build than the nuclear industry and its supporters now claim,” Schlissel concluded. “That has been the long history of nuclear power in the United States, and I see no evidence that leads me to believe it will change anytime in the foreseeable future.”

The international experience is no better

Supporters of the BWRX-300 and other SMR designs often suggest we should ignore the U.S. nuclear industry’s troubled history of cost overruns. But the international experience with SMRs tells the same story:

China’s Shidao Bay SMR cost tripled from its original estimate
Russia’s floating SMRs saw costs quadruple
Argentina’s CAREM 25 SMR has had cost increases of over 600% and is still under construction

Just as troubling, these projects all faced years-long schedule delays. China’s SMR took 11 years instead of 4 to complete, while Russia’s took 13 years instead of 3. Argentina’s is still under construction after 10 years, with at least 3 more years to go.

For the BWRX-300, which has yet to begin construction anywhere, these patterns suggest ratepayers should be extremely skeptical of current cost and schedule projections.

Factory fabrication: An empty promise?

A central claim made about the BWRX-300 and other SMRs is that they will be less expensive because modules will be manufactured in factories and assembled on site. However, as Schlissel points out, none of the SMR vendors marketing designs in the U.S. currently have factories where their reactor modules are being built.

“One of the key claims by supporters of SMRs is that the reactors will be less expensive to build because key reactor modules will be manufactured in factories and assembled on site. Yet, to my knowledge, no SMR vendor has yet opened a single factory,” Schlissel testified.

This same promise was made for the AP1000 reactors built at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, which were supposed to utilize modular construction techniques to reduce costs and construction time. Instead, the project experienced a 157% cost overrun and a 6 to 7 year schedule delay – hardly a promising precedent for the BWRX-300.

No evidence of a learning curve

GE Hitachi and other SMR vendors claim that building multiple copies of the same design will lead to cost declines over time. But Schlissel’s analysis found no evidence of such a “positive learning curve” in nuclear construction:

“Even the French nuclear program, which relied on a high degree of standardization in the design of its 58 reactors built between 1974 and 1990, failed to achieve a positive learning curve. Instead, costs continued to increase over time despite the program’s design standardization.”

His analysis of construction schedules for recent reactor designs shows no meaningful reduction in construction time for subsequent builds of the same design.

Still too expensive, even with subsidies

Even with the Inflation Reduction Act’s generous 50% Investment Tax Credit for new nuclear plants built in communities that have had now-retired fossil plants, Schlissel’s analysis found that the cost of electricity from SMRs like the BWRX-300 would still be far higher than renewable alternatives.

Using NREL’s Annual Technical Baseline data, Schlissel demonstrated that SMR power would cost $115-251/MWh in 2035, compared to much lower costs for wind, solar PV, and storage. It’s worth noting that while tax credits reduce costs to ratepayers, they simply shift the burden to taxpayers – who are the very same people.

Too slow to address climate change

The climate crisis demands rapid action. Yet even by optimistic projections, the first BWRX-300 won’t be operational until the 2030s. Given the patterns of delay seen in every nuclear project to date, the timeline could easily stretch into the 2040s.

Meanwhile, renewable energy and storage systems can be deployed in months or a few years, making them far more effective tools for near-term carbon reduction.

The flexibility factor

Perhaps most concerning for ratepayers is that investing in expensive nuclear projects like the BWRX-300 locks utilities into very long-term financial commitments when future electricity demand is uncertain. If the dramatic increases in demand currently forecast don’t materialize, or if they materialize differently than expected, ratepayers could be stuck paying for expensive overcapacity.

As Schlissel notes: “A renewable energy park would give the Company valuable flexibility in its resource planning… New resources could be added in a relatively shorter number of years if demand grows at a higher rate than now expected. This flexibility is vital in today’s dynamic energy transition.”

Conclusion: A risky bet for ratepayers

The BWRX-300 and other SMRs represent a massive financial gamble for utilities and their ratepayers. While the technology sounds promising, the evidence suggests these reactors will follow the same pattern of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued nuclear projects for decades.

Before committing billions of ratepayer dollars to these unproven technologies, utilities and regulators should carefully consider the overwhelming evidence that SMRs like the BWRX-300 are unlikely to deliver on their promises of affordable, timely carbon-free power.

As expert David Schlissel recommends, a more prudent approach would be to invest in proven renewable energy and battery storage technologies that can be deployed quickly, scaled flexibly, and have consistently demonstrated falling costs over time.

This blog post is based on expert testimony by David A. Schlissel before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in April 2025, as part of Proceeding No. 24A-0442E concerning Public Service Company of Colorado’s application for approval of its 2024 Just Transition Solicitation.

The post Rush to Build New Nuclear Power: TVA and Administration Ignore Cost and Safety appeared first on SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Rush to Build New Nuclear Power: TVA and Administration Ignore Cost and Safety

Renewable Energy

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind’s Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

Published

13 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Alice Rush

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind’s Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

This exclusive article originally appeared in PES Wind 4 – 2025 with the title, Operations take center stage in wind’s next chapter. It was written by Allen Hall and other members of the WeatherGuard Lightning Tech team.

As aging fleets, shrinking margins, and new policies reshape the wind sector, wind energy operations are in the spotlight. The industry’s next chapter will be defined not by capacity growth, but by operational excellence, where integrated, predictive maintenance turns data into decisions and reliability into profit.

Wind farm operations are undergoing a fundamental transformation. After hosting hundreds of conversations on the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast, I’ve witnessed a clear pattern: the most successful operators are abandoning reactive maintenance in favor of integrated, predictive strategies. This shift isn’t just about adopting new technologies; it’s about fundamentally rethinking how we manage aging assets in an era of tightening margins and expanding responsibilities.

The evidence was overwhelming at this year’s SkySpecs Customer Forum, where representatives from over 75% of US installed wind capacity gathered to share experiences and strategies. The consensus was clear: those who integrate monitoring, inspection, and repair into a cohesive operational strategy are achieving dramatic improvements in reliability and profitability.

Takeaway: These options have been available to wind energy operations for years; now, adoption is critical.

Why traditional approaches to wind farm operations are failing

Today’s wind operators face an unprecedented convergence of challenges. Fleets installed during the 2010-2015 boom are aging in unexpected ways, revealing design vulnerabilities no one anticipated. Meanwhile, the support infrastructure is crumbling; spare parts have become scarce, OEM support is limited, and insurance companies are tightening coverage just when operators need them most.

The situation is particularly acute following recent policy changes. The One Big Beautiful Bill in the United States has fundamentally altered the economic landscape. PTC farming is no longer viable; turbines must run longer and more reliably than ever before. Engineering teams, already stretched thin, are being asked to manage not just wind assets but solar and battery storage as well. The old playbook simply doesn’t work anymore.

Consider the scope of just one challenge: polyester blade failures. During our podcast conversation with Edo Kuipers of We4Ce, we learned that an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 blades worldwide are experiencing root bushing issues. ‘After a while, blades are simply flying off,’ Kuipers explained. The financial impact of a single blade failure can exceed €300,000 when you factor in replacement costs, lost production, and crane mobilization. Yet innovative repair solutions, like the one developed by We4Ce and CNC Onsite, can address the same problem for €40,000 if caught early. This pattern repeats across every major component. Gearbox failures that once required complete replacement can now be predicted months in advance. Lightning damage that previously caused catastrophic failures can be prevented with inexpensive upgrades and real-time monitoring. All these solutions are based on the principle that predicted maintenance is better than an expensive surprise.

Seeing problems before they happeny, and potential risks

The transformation begins with visibility. Modern monitoring systems reveal problems that traditional methods miss entirely. Eric van Genuchten of Sensing360 shared an eye-opening statistic on our podcast: ‘In planetary gearbox failures, they get 90%, so there’s still 10% of failures they cannot detect.’ That missing 10% represents the catastrophic failures that destroy budgets and production targets. Advanced monitoring technologies are filling these gaps. Sensing360’s fiber optic sensors, for example, detect minute deformations in steel components, revealing load imbalances and fatigue progression invisible to traditional monitoring. ‘We integrate our sensors in steel and make rotating equipment smarter,’ van Genuchten explained.

Other companies are deploying acoustic systems to identify blade delamination, oil analysis for gearbox health, and electrical signature analysis for generator issues. Each technology adds a piece to the puzzle, but the real value comes from integration. The impact of load monitoring alone can be transformative.

As van Genuchten explained, ‘Twenty percent more loading on a gearbox or on a bearing is half of your life. The other way around, twenty percent less loading is double your life.’ With proper monitoring, operators can optimize load distribution across their fleet, extending component life while maximizing production.

But monitoring without action is just expensive data collection. The most successful operators are those who’ve learned to translate sensor data into operational decisions. This requires not just technology but organizational change, breaking down silos between monitoring, maintenance, and management teams.

In Wind Energy Operations, Early intervention makes the million-dollar difference

The economics of early intervention are compelling across every component type. The blade root bushing example from We4Ce illustrates this perfectly. With their solution, early detection means replacing just 24-30 bushings in about 24 hours of drilling work. Wait, and you’re looking at 60+ bushings and 60 hours of work. Early detection doesn’t just prevent catastrophic failure; it makes repairs faster, cheaper, and more reliable.

This principle extends throughout the turbine. Early-stage bearing damage can be addressed through targeted lubrication or minor adjustments. Incipient electrical issues can be resolved with cleaning or connection tightening. Small blade surface cracks can be repaired in a few hours before they propagate into structural damage requiring weeks of work.

Leading operators are implementing tiered response protocols based on monitoring data. Critical issues trigger immediate intervention. Developing problems are scheduled for the next maintenance window. Minor issues are monitored and addressed during routine service. This systematic approach reduces both emergency repairs and unnecessary maintenance, optimizing resource allocation across the fleet.

Turning information into action

While monitoring generates data, platforms like SkySpecs’ Horizon transform that data into operational intelligence. Josh Goryl, SkySpecs’ Chief Revenue Officer, explained their evolution at the recent Customer Forum: ‘I think where we can help our customers is getting all that data into one place.

The game-changer is integration across data types. The company is working to combine performance data with CMS data to provide valuable insights into turbine health. This approach has been informed by operators across the world, who’ve discovered that integrated platforms deliver insights that siloed data can’t.

The platform approach also addresses the reality of shrinking engineering teams managing expanding portfolios. As Goryl noted, many wind engineers are now responsible for solar and battery storage assets as well. One platform managing multiple technologies through a unified interface becomes essential for operational efficiency.

The Integration Imperative for Wind Farm Operations

The most successful operators aren’t just adopting individual technologies; they’re integrating monitoring, inspection, and repair into a seamless operational system. This integration operates at multiple levels.

At the technical level, data from various monitoring systems feeds into unified platforms that provide comprehensive asset visibility. These platforms don’t just display data; they analyze patterns, predict failures, and generate work orders.

At the organizational level, integration means breaking down barriers between departments. This cross-functional collaboration transforms O&M from a cost center into a value driver. Building your improvement roadmap For operators ready to enhance their O&M approach, the path forward involves several key steps:

Assessing the Current State of your Wind Energy Operations

Document your maintenance costs, failure rates, and downtime patterns. Identify which problems consume the most resources and which assets are most critical to your wind farm operations.

Start with targeted pilots Rather than attempting wholesale transformation, begin with focused initiatives targeting your biggest pain points. Whether it’s blade monitoring, gearbox sensors, or repair innovations, starting with your largest issue will help you see the biggest benefit.

• Invest in integration, not just technology: the most sophisticated monitoring system is worthless if its data isn’t acted upon. Ensure your organization has the processes and culture to transform data into decisions – this is the first step to profitability in your wind farm operations.

Build partnerships, not just contracts: look for technology providers and service companies willing to share knowledge, not just deliver services. The goal is building capability, not dependency.

• Measure and iterate: track the impact of each initiative on your key performance indicators. Use lessons learned to refine your approach and guide future investments.

The competitive advantage

The wind industry has reached an inflection point. With increasingly large and complex turbines, monitoring needs to adapt with it. The era of flying blind is over.

In an industry where margins continue to compress and competition intensifies, operational excellence has become a key differentiator. Those who master the integration of monitoring, inspection, and repair will thrive. Those who cling to reactive maintenance face escalating costs and declining competitiveness.

The technology exists. The business case is proven. The early adopters are already reaping the benefits. The question isn’t whether to transform your O&M approach, but how quickly you can adapt to this new reality. In the race to operational excellence, the winners will be those who act decisively to embrace the efficiency revolution reshaping wind operations.

Unless otherwise noted, images here are from We4C Rotorblade Specialist.

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind's Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

Contact us for help understanding your lightning damage, future risks, and how to get more uptime from your equipment.

Download the full article from PES Wind here

Find a practical guide to solving lightning problems and filing better insurance claims here

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind’s Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

Renewable Energy

BladeBUG Tackles Serial Blade Defects with Robotics

Published

16 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Alice Rush

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

BladeBUG Tackles Serial Blade Defects with Robotics

Chris Cieslak, CEO of BladeBug, joins the show to discuss how their walking robot is making ultrasonic blade inspections faster and more accessible. They cover new horizontal scanning capabilities for lay down yards, blade root inspections for bushing defects, and plans to expand into North America in 2026.

Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly newsletter on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on YouTube, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary’s “Engineering with Rosie” YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!

Welcome to Uptime Spotlight, shining Light on Wind. Energy’s brightest innovators. This is the Progress Powering Tomorrow.

Allen Hall: Chris, welcome back to the show.

Chris Cieslak: It’s great to be back. Thank you very much for having me on again.

Allen Hall: It’s great to see you in person, and a lot has been happening at Blade Bugs since the last time I saw Blade Bug in person. Yeah, the robot. It looks a lot different and it has really new capabilities.

Chris Cieslak: So we’ve continued to develop our ultrasonic, non-destructive testing capabilities of the blade bug robot.

Um, but what we’ve now added to its capabilities is to do horizontal blade scans as well. So we’re able to do blades that are in lay down yards or blades that have come down for inspections as well as up tower. So we can do up tower, down tower inspections. We’re trying to capture. I guess the opportunity to inspect blades after transportation when they get delivered to site, to look [00:01:00] for any transport damage or anything that might have been missed in the factory inspections.

And then we can do subsequent installation inspections as well to make sure there’s no mishandling damage on those blades. So yeah, we’ve been just refining what we can do with the NDT side of things and improving its capabilities

Joel Saxum: was that need driven from like market response and people say, Hey, we need, we need.

We like the blade blood product. We like what you’re doing, but we need it here. Or do you guys just say like, Hey, this is the next, this is the next thing we can do. Why not?

Chris Cieslak: It was very much market response. We had a lot of inquiries this year from, um, OEMs, blade manufacturers across the board with issues within their blades that need to be inspected on the ground, up the tap, any which way they can.

There there was no, um, rhyme or reason, which was better, but the fact that he wanted to improve the ability of it horizontally has led the. Sort of modifications that you’ve seen and now we’re doing like down tower, right? Blade scans. Yeah. A really fast breed. So

Joel Saxum: I think the, the important thing there is too is that because of the way the robot is built [00:02:00] now, when you see NDT in a factory, it’s this robot rolls along this perfectly flat concrete floor and it does this and it does that.

But the way the robot is built, if a blade is sitting in a chair trailing edge up, or if it’s flap wise, any which way the robot can adapt to, right? And the idea is. We, we looked at it today and kind of the new cage and the new things you have around it with all the different encoders and for the heads and everything is you can collect data however is needed.

If it’s rasterized, if there’s a vector, if there’s a line, if we go down a bond line, if we need to scan a two foot wide path down the middle of the top of the spa cap, we can do all those different things and all kinds of orientations. That’s a fantastic capability.

Chris Cieslak: Yeah, absolutely. And it, that’s again for the market needs.

So we are able to scan maybe a meter wide in one sort of cord wise. Pass of that probe whilst walking in the span-wise direction. So we’re able to do that raster scan at various spacing. So if you’ve got a defect that you wanna find that maximum 20 mil, we’ll just have a 20 mil step [00:03:00] size between each scan.

If you’ve got a bigger tolerance, we can have 50 mil, a hundred mil it, it’s so tuneable and it removes any of the variability that you get from a human to human operator doing that scanning. And this is all about. Repeatable, consistent high quality data that you can then use to make real informed decisions about the state of those blades and act upon it.

So this is not about, um, an alternative to humans. It’s just a better, it’s just an evolution of how humans do it. We can just do it really quick and it’s probably, we, we say it’s like six times faster than a human, but actually we’re 10 times faster. We don’t need to do any of the mapping out of the blade, but it’s all encoded all that data.

We know where the robot is as we walk. That’s all captured. And then you end up with really. Consistent data. It doesn’t matter who’s operating a robot, the robot will have those settings preset and you just walk down the blade, get that data, and then our subject matter experts, they’re offline, you know, they are in their offices, warm, cozy offices, reviewing data from multiple sources of robots.

And it’s about, you know, improving that [00:04:00] efficiency of getting that report out to the customer and letting ’em know what’s wrong with their blades, actually,

Allen Hall: because that’s always been the drawback of, with NDT. Is that I think the engineers have always wanted to go do it. There’s been crush core transportation damage, which is sometimes hard to see.

You can maybe see a little bit of a wobble on the blade service, but you’re not sure what’s underneath. Bond line’s always an issue for engineering, but the cost to take a person, fly them out to look at a spot on a blade is really expensive, especially someone who is qualified. Yeah, so the, the difference now with play bug is you can have the technology to do the scan.

Much faster and do a lot of blades, which is what the de market demand is right now to do a lot of blades simultaneously and get the same level of data by the review, by the same expert just sitting somewhere else.

Chris Cieslak: Absolutely.

Joel Saxum: I think that the quality of data is a, it’s something to touch on here because when you send someone out to the field, it’s like if, if, if I go, if I go to the wall here and you go to the wall here and we both take a paintbrush, we paint a little bit [00:05:00] different, you’re probably gonna be better.

You’re gonna be able to reach higher spots than I can.

Allen Hall: This is true.

Joel Saxum: That’s true. It’s the same thing with like an NDT process. Now you’re taking the variability of the technician out of it as well. So the data quality collection at the source, that’s what played bug ducts.

Allen Hall: Yeah,

Joel Saxum: that’s the robotic processes.

That is making sure that if I scan this, whatever it may be, LM 48.7 and I do another one and another one and another one, I’m gonna get a consistent set of quality data and then it’s goes to analysis. We can make real decisions off.

Allen Hall: Well, I, I think in today’s world now, especially with transportation damage and warranties, that they’re trying to pick up a lot of things at two years in that they could have picked up free installation.

Yeah. Or lifting of the blades. That world is changing very rapidly. I think a lot of operators are getting smarter about this, but they haven’t thought about where do we go find the tool.

Speaker: Yeah.

Allen Hall: And, and I know Joel knows that, Hey, it, it’s Chris at Blade Bug. You need to call him and get to the technology.

But I think for a lot of [00:06:00] operators around the world, they haven’t thought about the cost They’re paying the warranty costs, they’re paying the insurance costs they’re paying because they don’t have the set of data. And it’s not tremendously expensive to go do. But now the capability is here. What is the market saying?

Is it, is it coming back to you now and saying, okay, let’s go. We gotta, we gotta mobilize. We need 10 of these blade bugs out here to go, go take a scan. Where, where, where are we at today?

Chris Cieslak: We’ve hads. Validation this year that this is needed. And it’s a case of we just need to be around for when they come back round for that because the, the issues that we’re looking for, you know, it solves the problem of these new big 80 a hundred meter plus blades that have issues, which shouldn’t.

Frankly exist like process manufacturer issues, but they are there. They need to be investigated. If you’re an asset only, you wanna know that. Do I have a blade that’s likely to fail compared to one which is, which is okay? And sort of focus on that and not essentially remove any uncertainty or worry that you have about your assets.

’cause you can see other [00:07:00] turbine blades falling. Um, so we are trying to solve that problem. But at the same time, end of warranty claims, if you’re gonna be taken over these blades and doing the maintenance yourself, you wanna know that what you are being given. It hasn’t gotten any nasties lurking inside that’s gonna bite you.

Joel Saxum: Yeah.

Chris Cieslak: Very expensively in a few years down the line. And so you wanna be able to, you know, tick a box, go, actually these are fine. Well actually these are problems. I, you need to give me some money so I can perform remedial work on these blades. And then you end of life, you know, how hard have they lived?

Can you do an assessment to go, actually you can sweat these assets for longer. So we, we kind of see ourselves being, you know, useful right now for the new blades, but actually throughout the value chain of a life of a blade. People need to start seeing that NDT ultrasonic being one of them. We are working on other forms of NDT as well, but there are ways of using it to just really remove a lot of uncertainty and potential risk for that.

You’re gonna end up paying through the, you know, through the, the roof wall because you’ve underestimated something or you’ve missed something, which you could have captured with a, with a quick inspection.

Joel Saxum: To [00:08:00] me, NDT has been floating around there, but it just hasn’t been as accessible or easy. The knowledge hasn’t been there about it, but the what it can do for an operator.

In de-risking their fleet is amazing. They just need to understand it and know it. But you guys with the robotic technology to me, are bringing NDT to the masses

Chris Cieslak: Yeah.

Joel Saxum: In a way that hasn’t been able to be done, done before

Chris Cieslak: that. And that that’s, we, we are trying to really just be able to roll it out at a way that you’re not limited to those limited experts in the composite NDT world.

So we wanna work with them, with the C-N-C-C-I-C NDTs of this world because they are the expertise in composite. So being able to interpret those, those scams. Is not a quick thing to become proficient at. So we are like, okay, let’s work with these people, but let’s give them the best quality data, consistent data that we possibly can and let’s remove those barriers of those limited people so we can roll it out to the masses.

Yeah, and we are that sort of next level of information where it isn’t just seen as like a nice to have, it’s like an essential to have, but just how [00:09:00] we see it now. It’s not NDT is no longer like, it’s the last thing that we would look at. It should be just part of the drones. It should inspection, be part of the internal crawlers regimes.

Yeah, it’s just part of it. ’cause there isn’t one type of inspection that ticks all the boxes. There isn’t silver bullet of NDT. And so it’s just making sure that you use the right system for the right inspection type. And so it’s complementary to drones, it’s complimentary to the internal drones, uh, crawlers.

It’s just the next level to give you certainty. Remove any, you know, if you see something indicated on a a on a photograph. That doesn’t tell you the true picture of what’s going on with the structure. So this is really about, okay, I’ve got an indication of something there. Let’s find out what that really is.

And then with that information you can go, right, I know a repair schedule is gonna take this long. The downtime of that turbine’s gonna be this long and you can plan it in. ’cause everyone’s already got limited budgets, which I think why NDT hasn’t taken off as it should have done because nobody’s got money for more inspections.

Right. Even though there is a money saving to be had long term, everyone is fighting [00:10:00] fires and you know, they’ve really got a limited inspection budget. Drone prices or drone inspections have come down. It’s sort, sort of rise to the bottom. But with that next value add to really add certainty to what you’re trying to inspect without, you know, you go to do a day repair and it ends up being three months or something like, well

Allen Hall: that’s the lightning,

Joel Saxum: right?

Allen Hall: Yeah. Lightning is the, the one case where every time you start to scarf. The exterior of the blade, you’re not sure how deep that’s going and how expensive it is. Yeah, and it always amazes me when we talk to a customer and they’re started like, well, you know, it’s gonna be a foot wide scarf, and now we’re into 10 meters and now we’re on the inside.

Yeah. And the outside. Why did you not do an NDT? It seems like money well spent Yeah. To do, especially if you have a, a quantity of them. And I think the quantity is a key now because in the US there’s 75,000 turbines worldwide, several hundred thousand turbines. The number of turbines is there. The number of problems is there.

It makes more financial sense today than ever because drone [00:11:00]information has come down on cost. And the internal rovers though expensive has also come down on cost. NDT has also come down where it’s now available to the masses. Yeah. But it has been such a mental barrier. That barrier has to go away. If we’re going going to keep blades in operation for 25, 30 years, I

Joel Saxum: mean, we’re seeing no

Allen Hall: way you can do it

Joel Saxum: otherwise.

We’re seeing serial defects. But the only way that you can inspect and or control them is with NDT now.

Allen Hall: Sure.

Joel Saxum: And if we would’ve been on this years ago, we wouldn’t have so many, what is our term? Blade liberations liberating

Chris Cieslak: blades.

Joel Saxum: Right, right.

Allen Hall: What about blade route? Can the robot get around the blade route and see for the bushings and the insert issues?

Chris Cieslak: Yeah, so the robot can, we can walk circumferentially around that blade route and we can look for issues which are affecting thousands of blades. Especially in North America. Yeah.

Allen Hall: Oh yeah.

Chris Cieslak: So that is an area that is. You know, we are lucky that we’ve got, um, a warehouse full of blade samples or route down to tip, and we were able to sort of calibrate, verify, prove everything in our facility to [00:12:00] then take out to the field because that is just, you know, NDT of bushings is great, whether it’s ultrasonic or whether we’re using like CMS, uh, type systems as well.

But we can really just say, okay, this is the area where the problem is. This needs to be resolved. And then, you know, we go to some of the companies that can resolve those issues with it. And this is really about played by being part of a group of technologies working together to give overall solutions

Allen Hall: because the robot’s not that big.

It could be taken up tower relatively easily, put on the root of the blade, told to walk around it. You gotta scan now, you know. It’s a lot easier than trying to put a technician on ropes out there for sure.

Chris Cieslak: Yeah.

Allen Hall: And the speed up it.

Joel Saxum: So let’s talk about execution then for a second. When that goes to the field from you, someone says, Chris needs some help, what does it look like?

How does it work?

Chris Cieslak: Once we get a call out, um, we’ll do a site assessment. We’ve got all our rams, everything in place. You know, we’ve been on turbines. We know the process of getting out there. We’re all GWO qualified and go to site and do their work. Um, for us, we can [00:13:00] turn up on site, unload the van, the robot is on a blade in less than an hour.

Ready to inspect? Yep. Typically half an hour. You know, if we’ve been on that same turbine a number of times, it’s somewhere just like clockwork. You know, muscle memory comes in, you’ve got all those processes down, um, and then it’s just scanning. Our robot operator just presses a button and we just watch it perform scans.

And as I said, you know, we are not necessarily the NDT experts. We obviously are very mindful of NDT and know what scans look like. But if there’s any issues, we have a styling, we dial in remote to our supplement expert, they can actually remotely take control, change the settings, parameters.

Allen Hall: Wow.

Chris Cieslak: And so they’re virtually present and that’s one of the beauties, you know, you don’t need to have people on site.

You can have our general, um, robot techs to do the work, but you still have that comfort of knowing that the data is being overlooked if need be by those experts.

Joel Saxum: The next level, um, commercial evolution would be being able to lease the kit to someone and or have ISPs do it for [00:14:00] you guys kinda globally, or what is the thought

Chris Cieslak: there?

Absolutely. So. Yeah, so we to, to really roll this out, we just wanna have people operate in the robots as if it’s like a drone. So drone inspection companies are a classic company that we see perfectly aligned with. You’ve got the sky specs of this world, you know, you’ve got drone operator, they do a scan, they can find something, put the robot up there and get that next level of information always straight away and feed that into their systems to give that insight into that customer.

Um, you know, be it an OEM who’s got a small service team, they can all be trained up. You’ve got general turbine technicians. They’ve all got G We working at height. That’s all you need to operate the bay by road, but you don’t need to have the RAA level qualified people, which are in short supply anyway.

Let them do the jobs that we are not gonna solve. They can do the big repairs we are taking away, you know, another problem for them, but giving them insights that make their job easier and more successful by removing any of those surprises when they’re gonna do that work.

Allen Hall: So what’s the plans for 2026 then?

Chris Cieslak: 2026 for us is to pick up where 2025 should have ended. [00:15:00] So we were, we were meant to be in the States. Yeah. On some projects that got postponed until 26. So it’s really, for us North America is, um, what we’re really, as you said, there’s seven, 5,000 turbines there, but there’s also a lot of, um, turbines with known issues that we can help determine which blades are affected.

And that involves blades on the ground, that involves blades, uh, that are flying. So. For us, we wanna get out to the states as soon as possible, so we’re working with some of the OEMs and, and essentially some of the asset owners.

Allen Hall: Chris, it’s so great to meet you in person and talk about the latest that’s happening.

Thank you. With Blade Bug, if people need to get ahold of you or Blade Bug, how do they do that?

Chris Cieslak: I, I would say LinkedIn is probably the best place to find myself and also Blade Bug and contact us, um, through that.

Allen Hall: Alright, great. Thanks Chris for joining us and we will see you at the next. So hopefully in America, come to America sometime.

We’d love to see you there.

Chris Cieslak: Thank you very [00:16:00] much.