
Launch HN: Atomic Alchemy (YC W19) – Manufacturing Nuclear Medicine - atomicalchemy
Hello, HN.<p>I’m Thomas Eiden, founder of Atomic Alchemy.<p>Atomic Alchemy will manufacture nuclear medicine and the radioactive materials used to make it, using several compact  nuclear reactors.<p>These will be the first privately-owned nuclear reactors for nuclear medicine production. They are merely higher-powered versions of previously-licensed reactor designs that currently reside at universities. These reactor designs are passively safe and cannot melt down. With improvements in modeling and simulation that have occurred in the last few years, it is quicker and cheaper than ever to license and construct such a facility. But to be clear—we won’t be manufacturing reactors—we’ll be a chemical&#x2F;drug manufacturer in the same way that Delta Airlines doesn’t manufacture planes or airports, but is a transportation company.<p>Before starting Atomic Alchemy, I was the lead reactor core designer at the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. My main job each operating cycle was to arrange the reactor core in such a way to allow the United States Nuclear Navy to run successful material experiments for their next generation submarines and aircraft carriers. I’ve always been interested in production and efficiency, and the issues currently plaguing nuclear medicine production have been of great interest to me all the way back to when I operated a reactor in college.<p>Nuclear medicine is used in a wide variety of diagnostic imaging procedures and cancer treatments. The most common procedure is the radiocardiogram to diagnose cardiological issues, and brachytherapy for cancer treatment.<p>Unbeknownst to many, there is a critical shortage of nuclear medicine worldwide--right now. The main failure in the supply chain is the fact that the entire world’s feedstock for nuclear medicine primarily comes from six government-run reactors, most of which are over 45 years old and will be retired in the next 10 years. Additionally, these government-run reactors are scientific research reactors and are not set up to efficiently produce these materials.<p>I have a design for a manufacturing facility that combines the entire supply chain, from irradiation, to chemical purification, to medicine production. This will allow Atomic Alchemy to fill the void as more aging reactors are shut down and allow those that remain to focus on their true purpose—science.<p>Currently, the reactors, chemical purification, and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities are all in separate facilities, sometimes oceans apart. By shrinking the entire supply chain into a single facility, manufacturing costs can be slashed by up to 50%, as regulatory, shipping, and myriad other costs associated with the radioactive material decaying in transit, is reduced.<p>The market for radioactive feedstock alone is well over a one billion dollar market worldwide, and is constrained by the current supply. As the standard of living abroad continues to improve, developing markets will demand even more nuclear medicine.<p>Looking forward to your feedback and questions.
======
philipkglass
The reactor power sounds like it is in the range of TRIGA and you have a video
of a TRIGA reactor on your FAQ page. It looks like you are planning to use a
TRIGA design. Is that right?

NorthStar has started producing Mo-99 in accelerators without fissioning
targets. Other producers may start soon:

 _Competitors abound to produce key medical isotope_

 _After decades with no US producer, a plethora of hopefuls vie for a share of
the molybdenum-99 market._

[https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.2019022...](https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20190221a/full/)

Your FAQ says "As a private, production-oriented company, we intend to
vertically integrate much of the radioisotope process to reduce inefficiencies
and build a modular facility that can be expanded as a stable supply of
radioisotopes encourages their use and increases demand." How much demand
elasticity do you foresee, if Atomic Alchemy and competitors can easily
produce more Mo-99 than was historically consumed?

~~~
atomicalchemy
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.

~~~
philipkglass
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.

~~~
atomicalchemy
My pleasure. Great questions.

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.

------
arciini
This is pretty cool! I worked for a summer at Chalk River in Canada, and it
was crazy that a few suppliers could produce so much of the world's medical
isotopes. I remember reading about fears of a Technetium-99 shortage when it
does shut down [1].

People are very hesitant about nuclear power, but medical isotope
manufacturing requires little enough nuclear fuel that it should be very safe.
You sound like the right person to tackle this, and the market is definitely
there. Good luck!

1\. [https://www.nature.com/news/reactor-shutdown-threatens-
world...](https://www.nature.com/news/reactor-shutdown-threatens-world-s-
medical-isotope-supply-1.20577)

~~~
atomicalchemy
Thank you for the comment and well wishes.

Chalk River shutting down was a huge blow to production capacity, as it alone
supplied about 20% of the world's demand for radioisotopes. In fact, Chalk
River shut down in 2016, but the license was extended for two years to keep it
on hot standby solely because of its importance to nuclear medicine supply.
When they finally permanently shut it down in March of 2018, I believe the
reactor was over 61 years old!

You can find articles like this at least once a year, warning of the next
shortage:
[https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/cardiovascular...](https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/cardiovascular-
imaging/nuclear-imaging-labs-brace-tc-99m-shortage)

------
Lanthanide
This is fascinating, and a niche where I can definitely see a smaller player
causing a splash and driving down prices for nuclear medicine.

My question is, how equipped are you to handle regulatory hurdles for
international customers? It's one thing for a small firm to deal with US civil
nuclear regulations, but how are you going to deal with the regulators of each
foreign market you intend to export to? I imagine that this is something that
the larger providers in the field use economies of scale to deal with, but
could be a hurdle for a startup.

~~~
atomicalchemy
Great question. The way I'm currently looking at that issue is that the market
for the US alone is huge (50% of the world market). By the time I satiate the
US market, I will have been able to hire that expertise in. Another
possibility is that if I sell directly to a distributor/radiopharmacy, I won't
have to deal with any of that anyways.

Regardless, that is an important issue, but one I don't have to have a solid
answer to for several years.

Great username, btw. ;)

------
anon4lol
Just curious. It looks like you formed Atomic Alchemy in 2018 and from the "YC
W19" in the title I can assume you've been accepted in YC in 2019. Is this
correct?

If this is correct, can you bring an already formed startup to YC? I have
always assumed YC was targeted towards very young "I have a million dollar
idea" type entrepreneurs, given that they require you to move to SA for three
months for $150k in seed money.

In any event, best of luck.

~~~
atomicalchemy
I formed Atomic Alchemy in 2018 because I thought that one had to have the
credibility of a formed company in order to ever receive investment.

With YC, you only need the idea, and you can form the company after you are
accepted. And in my case, you can certainly bring an already-formed company to
YC. In fact, a small number of companies accepted into YC are already
profitable.

~~~
anon4lol
That is awesome and fascinating at the same time. I genuinely hope you make a
dent in the universe and succeed. I hope you post an update with your success
dealing something out the door and dealing with the NRC.

~~~
atomicalchemy
Thank you; that means a lot to me. I will definitely have to follow up
sometime in the future.

------
atemerev
As a software engineer and nuclear enthusiast, I want to work with you. Do you
have any openings?

~~~
atomicalchemy
Not at this exact moment, as the first steps require reactor engineers and
chemists.

However, if my seed raise goes as well, I will have some margin to get a
software person to help couple together some of the various modeling and
simulation codes we use for reactor design.

Further down the line, I will definitely need some software engineers though.
I have some novel improvements I want to make upon how material is inserted
and removed from the core to be processed, and I will definitely need a custom
software control system that talks to hardware to do that.

I make a note to check back with you when I make a posting that requires your
expertise, and I will preferentially hire people like you who are passionate
and enthusiastic. It's definitely easier to learn how nuclear tech works than
it is to shed decades of crappy nuclear industry corporate culture.

~~~
atemerev
Thank you!

Regarding the simulation codes, I worked (as a hobbyist) with OpenMC; but you
are probably using something else, as OpenMC is more a teaching aid than a
production code.

~~~
atomicalchemy
That's a huge boon. If you've already become familiar with nuclear codes by
playing with OpenMC _for fun_ , we may be talking sooner rather than later!

------
FiatLuxDave
Hi Thomas! Congrats on the launch! You are meeting a real need, so I hope you
make lots of money doing it.

I mainly just wanted to say "Hello", since it's a small industry, and if you
have quality issues at some point we will probably end up talking anyways (one
of my jobs is maintaining calibration traceability for a major dose calibrator
manufacturer).

I sent you a LinkedIn contact; it appears we have a mutual friend.

Do you have any interesting innovations you are considering, other than
consolidating production facilities? I presume you are planning on sticking
with the normal "cows and pigs" methods of delivery to pharmacies, for
compatibility.

~~~
atomicalchemy
By consolidating production facilities and positioning the facility as a
factory, I can add some unique capabilities for moving things in and out of
the reactor core.

As an example, most research reactors have a facility called a "rabbit tube"
which is similar to the pneumatic tubes at a bank. You can basically shoot
little capsules in and out of the core at will this way. But most of these
reactors only have one of these tubes, or none, and every experiment they move
in or out of the core is done by hand with 20 foot poles.

I want to automate the entire process by making every irradiation facility in
the core accessible via a pneumatic tube system, and have a software system
automatically eject material that had "cooked" long enough and send it
straight to the chemical processing rooms via this shuttle system. This would
drastically reduce human performance errors, reduce personnel requirements,
reduce radiation exposure, reduce the capex required to move highly
radioactive material around the facility, and allow me to move things in and
out of the core without first needing to shut down the reactor.

In the short term, I'll most likely be sticking to the "cow" method, but as I
learn more about that end of the supply chain, I'm sure I'll find more places
to push for innovation.

------
hairytrog
What is preventing larger players who already operate reactors from doing
exactly what you propose (ie close packed supply chain)? I'm curious what kind
of protection you can have for an idea that is essentially - let me put all
the tools in the same room.

~~~
atomicalchemy
That is an interesting question that comes up a lot.

There really are no larger players who already operate reactors other than the
power industry (power reactors generally cannot be used for radioisotope
production) or government-run research laboratories. Realistically there is
nothing preventing a government entity from joining the fun, but they will
never be competitive. South Korea has spent several billion dollars designing
a new reactor model and developing fuel for it (which I tested in ATR a few
years ago, oh the irony!). It will be dedicated to doing the exact same thing
I am. They've been at it since 2012 and they haven't broken ground on their
facility yet. Last I checked the project caught a bad case of NIMBY.

The second part of the answer is that most of the processes are trade secret.
If you dig deep enough, you can find a journal article or two from several
decades ago, and even some newer ones where a different approach is studied.
However, most of the existing players have an optimized process protected by
trade secret. It takes a lot of domain expertise spread over several hard
science fields to effectively get into the business.

------
justfor3274
Do you already have NRC clearance? Are the reactors designed and approved? Are
you aware of the duration of the regulatory process? These are important
questions which should be answered and properly disclosed to potential
investors. Regulatory approval for anything of this scale by the NRC could
take cumulatively up to a decade if not more.

~~~
atomicalchemy
Another thought--one of my biggest challenges with speaking to investors is
the fixation on the regulatory process because it can be onerous.
Interestingly enough, because this project is much smaller and simpler than a
power plant, it is actually a much more straightforward process than it is
perceived to be.

The NRC has two guides for licensing non-power reactors: NUREG-1537 Parts 1
and 2. Part one lays out the format and information required in a license
application, and part two is the review guide that the NRC uses to evaluate
the application. So really, all of the questions AND answers are published. A
prospective applicant just needs to say what they're doing, show how it meets
safety criteria, and prove they're doing what they said they'd do when they
build the thing.

It's obviously much more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.

~~~
justfor3274
Thanks for your reply. I apologize if I provide seemingly vague details but
it's a rather small industry and I'd like to protect my identity. That being
said, I only ask because I have witnessed firsthand how a project with:

* existing facilities

* already funded 50m+

* existing staff

* ironed out ideas

Were unable to get NRC clearance for a variety of things for an extended
amount of time. Granted, this was an accelerator based method, not reactor-
based. However, this leads me to my second point.

What kind of fuel are you planning on using for these reactors? From my
understanding, the NRC has expressed interest in removing reactor-based
methods for mediso generation and instead aiming for domestic accelerator-
based production. Companies like North Star, Nordion, and the Mallinckrodt
nuclear spinoff are aiming for similar goals and seem to have expectations
aligned with mine. If it were truly as easy as getting a reactor designed, a
couple million dollars, and six years, don't you think these massive DoE/DoD
contractors would have done it by now? As you said yourself, the market is
limited but the potential for growth is massive if we can get a stable supply.

Again, sorry for all the questions, take the time you need. I don't mean to
come off as arrogant or inflammatory, just curious.

~~~
atomicalchemy
No need to apologize for asking questions!

I'm using commercially available fuel that is available from fuel vendors. UO2
with zircaloy cladding.

As far as I'm aware, the NRC has no stated mandate for removing reactor-based
methods. Or, if you have a source for that, I'd love to see it because that's
a big deal. What you may be thinking of is the DOE/NNSA grants that are being
given out for encouraging a domestic Mo-99 supply, which have strings attached
which mandate it be for developing an "alternative" technology. I've found
that the correlation is very strong between nuclear startups which have failed
and which ones rely on government money.

I'd be curious why you think those projects have failed. I've had many
discussions with other nuclear startups and friends at INL on this topic, and
it's pretty nuanced.

Having been a DOE contractor, I have some... strong opinions about how nearly
everyone in the industry operates or their approach to regulation. To refrain
from ranting, I'll just say that it is my strong opinion that pretty much
everyone does things "they way we've always have done them" and that
everything is over-engineered and costs way more than it needs to. Most people
I've spoken to seem to think it costs $100M to build hot cells. I _know_ it
doesn't cost that much to build a glorified box of concrete, even if that's
what cost-plus entities have historically paid for them.

We could take this discussion offline as well, if you'd prefer. Then we can
both be more specific and protect anonymity. Feel free to shoot me an email at
info@atomicalchemy.us if you wish.

~~~
justfor3274
Sounds good. I'll contact you over email. Thanks!

------
simonebrunozzi
Very cool. Any idea on the market size you are addressing? Are you currently
raising, and at what conditions?

~~~
atomicalchemy
The world market is somewhere around $2Bn, even though current supply is not
meeting demand. I think it can be much larger. If China and India were to use
nuclear medicine at the same per capita basis as the US, those countries alone
would be a market of $2Bn each, at a bare minimum.

I have proof of the desperate need of of these materials with two LOIs valued
at up to $100M.

For the first phase of this project, which is mostly regulatory, I'm raising
1.5 on 12.

------
deanalevitt
This is absolutely brilliantly cool!

~~~
atomicalchemy
Thank you. Much appreciated.

------
justfor3274
Unsure why my previous comment was deleted, but I'll ask again. Have you
received NRC regulatory approval? Do you have an estimate on how long that
will take? This is important to know for potential investors.

~~~
dang
Your original comment got hit by a software filter. A moderator saw it and
unkilled the comment, and marked your account legit so this won't happen
again.

~~~
t0t4lnoo3
Sorry if this is the wrong place to comment, but is there any reason why I'm
shadow banned?

