Speaker 1: A. Kelly. Do you guys have solar panels out on
Speaker 1: the science farm yet? Yes, we do, but they don't
Speaker 1: always help when you need them the most. What do
Speaker 1: you mean what happened? Well, there was that snowstorm that
Speaker 1: slammed the East Coast a few weeks back, and that
Speaker 1: knocked out the whole electrical grid. It would have been
Speaker 1: nice to have solar, but solar panels don't work super
Speaker 1: great when it's snowing, and I guess they also don't
Speaker 1: work that well when they're covered in snow. Right. I
Speaker 1: never thought about that. Do people who live in snowy
Speaker 1: places need to get like solar panel wipers like windshield
Speaker 1: wipers for your car? Not quite? Uh? And ours are
Speaker 1: up on a roof, so we can't just sort of, like,
Speaker 1: you know, wipe it off with our hands or something.
Speaker 1: And I think most people just wait for the snow
Speaker 1: to milk. I don't know. Didn't you create like some
Speaker 1: mini humans out there you could send up on your
Speaker 1: roof to wipe them off? I assume you're talking about
Speaker 1: my children were not so desperate for power that we're
Speaker 1: willing to risk their lives for it. I don't know
Speaker 1: when my kids iPads run out of charge. I am
Speaker 1: very desperate for power. I can't parent without them anymore,
Speaker 1: so I might even climb up there myself. I see
Speaker 1: where you're coming from. We were. Fortunately we're able to
Speaker 1: charge our iPads in the car, so we were okay. Hi,
Speaker 1: I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and a professor at
Speaker 1: U C Irvine, and I find myself needing more and
Speaker 1: more energy every day. And I'm Kelly waen Or Smith.
Speaker 1: I'm a parasitologist who's adjunct with Rice University, And I
Speaker 1: also like power. Do you ever wish that you could
Speaker 1: just plug yourself into solar power? Like? Why do we
Speaker 1: still need to sleep? Why can't we just recharge the
Speaker 1: way all of our devices do. Yeah? Right, that would
Speaker 1: be like an upgrade of coffee. I like it electrified
Speaker 1: coffee exactly. It just seems so much more reliable, you know,
Speaker 1: those days you have, like insomnia or whatever you like.
Speaker 1: I wish I could just plug in and charge up.
Speaker 1: Today we did the coffee, and I'm feeling kind of jittery.
Speaker 1: So if I could just plug into a solar panel
Speaker 1: and get nice, steady power without overdoing it, that would
Speaker 1: be pretty solid. Well maybe someday in the future. Well,
Speaker 1: welcome to the podcast Daniel and Jorge explain the Universe,
Speaker 1: in which we try to plug your brain into all
Speaker 1: the crazy ideas of the universe. We like to explore
Speaker 1: the deepest, darkest questions about black holes, the biggest, hottest
Speaker 1: questions about neutron stars and what's going on inside the sun,
Speaker 1: all the way down to the tiniest little particles that
Speaker 1: make up me and you and your coffee. We explore
Speaker 1: all of it. We don't shy away from any of it,
Speaker 1: and we break it all down for you. My friend
Speaker 1: and co host Orgy can't be with us today, so
Speaker 1: we're very happy to be joined by one of our
Speaker 1: regular co hosts Kelly. Thanks again for joining us today. Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me here. I love being on the
Speaker 1: show and I am particularly excited about this topic. It's
Speaker 1: a super fascinating interface between human behavior and technology, which
Speaker 1: I just love. You wish that humans sometimes were easier
Speaker 1: to predict and control like technology, Well, yeah, that would
Speaker 1: be boring, but but but yes, it would be nice.
Speaker 1: But one thing that we can rely on humans for
Speaker 1: is that we seem to always need more and more
Speaker 1: energy our lives. Have more and more devices in them.
Speaker 1: We rely on expensive devices to do things for us.
Speaker 1: It seems like the future of our civilization is one
Speaker 1: that consumes more and more power. Yes, and people in
Speaker 1: other countries would like to approach Western levels of energy usage,
Speaker 1: and if that happens, we're going to be in a
Speaker 1: bit of trouble. We're already in a good bit of trouble.
Speaker 1: As we look around on this planet, we notice that
Speaker 1: it can't really sustain our lifestyle at this level for
Speaker 1: much longer. I was reading the UN Climate Change Report,
Speaker 1: and it's pretty alarming stuff. That's not light reading. It's
Speaker 1: not light reading exactly. According to that report, a lot
Speaker 1: of the changes we've already seen in the climate are
Speaker 1: unprecedented in the last thousands or a few hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of years. So the Earth is heating up, the
Speaker 1: sea levels are rising, things are going bonkers. We just
Speaker 1: can't continue in this direct. Yeah. The more you watch
Speaker 1: the news or pay attention to the weather channel, the
Speaker 1: more depressing this stuff gets as time goes on. And
Speaker 1: if we're going to slow it down, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to make some pretty big changes to our behavior. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think one goal is to keep the Earth from overheating.
Speaker 1: You know, as we pump more c O two into
Speaker 1: the atmosphere, it acts as this global blanket, keeping the
Speaker 1: Sun's energy inside rather than letting the Earth radiated out
Speaker 1: into space. So the more CEO two that we pump
Speaker 1: into our atmosphere, the warmer the Earth gets. It's already
Speaker 1: risen by almost a degree relative to historical levels as
Speaker 1: of twenty twelve, and there was this prediction that if
Speaker 1: we wanted to keep it from rising another degree up
Speaker 1: to two degrees above typical levels, and there was a
Speaker 1: certain amount of CEO two that we could afford to
Speaker 1: pump into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we've already pumped more than
Speaker 1: half of that into the atmosphere. So we have this
Speaker 1: like shrinking window to avoid basically total disaster. And I
Speaker 1: wonder sometimes if we're going to be able to pull
Speaker 1: it off, if we sort of as a species, are
Speaker 1: going to be able to stand together and say like, hey,
Speaker 1: let's solve this problem. Let's do something about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna have to do something drastic. And
Speaker 1: the longer we wait, the more drastic that thing is
Speaker 1: going to have to be. And so we got to
Speaker 1: get moving on that. We definitely do have to get
Speaker 1: moving on that. And of course science and technology seems
Speaker 1: like an excellent direction, like we're developing new technologies, we're
Speaker 1: pushing this kind of stuff. It's the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that humans only seem to respond to when it's like
Speaker 1: really in crisis. You know, I wish that we could
Speaker 1: like look at these things further in advance and prioritize
Speaker 1: these things before we're in crisis mode. But it's sort
Speaker 1: of like the professor with a thousand things going off
Speaker 1: at once. We only seem to have the attention span
Speaker 1: for the most urgent crisis. Foresight seems to be a
Speaker 1: pretty massive weak point for humanity as a whole, exactly.
Speaker 1: And one crucial area, of course, is production of that energy.
Speaker 1: We want to keep consuming this much energy to power
Speaker 1: our iPads and our phones and to watch our screens,
Speaker 1: and we need to figure out a way to generate
Speaker 1: that energy that doesn't further heat up our planet, that
Speaker 1: doesn't cause like wildfires and see ocean rises and all
Speaker 1: this sort of stuff. And one of the great things
Speaker 1: about the you know, possible solutions to this problem is
Speaker 1: that there's technologies we already have that we could use,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't even necessarily require some like world changing
Speaker 1: fundamental new technology. We have some of the tools now,
Speaker 1: we just need to commit to implementing them. Does that
Speaker 1: make you more optimistic that we're going to solve this problem,
Speaker 1: like because you can see the solutions ahead of us,
Speaker 1: or less optimistic because now it's like a political question.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of whether humans will stand together
Speaker 1: and do this. I always find it hard to be
Speaker 1: optimistic in the face of politics, but but I think
Speaker 1: if you give up hope, then you really don't get anywhere.
Speaker 1: So yes, I'm optimistic. We need to make better use
Speaker 1: of these technologies. And a lot of the technologies you're
Speaker 1: talking about have been ramping up quickly, things like wind
Speaker 1: and solar, which are clean and renewable and excellent sources
Speaker 1: of power. But there's another technology which has been around
Speaker 1: for or decades, which produces reliable electricity and doesn't emit
Speaker 1: any carbon, and for which there's huge amounts of fuel
Speaker 1: readily available. But it's not one that people typically think
Speaker 1: of when they think of like clean energy or green energy.
Speaker 1: And of course I'm talking about nuclear power. And so
Speaker 1: today on the podcast, we'll be tackling the question is
Speaker 1: nuclear power worth the risks? Yeah, and it's a particularly
Speaker 1: complicated form of energy. There are definitely environmental groups who,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that it produces zero carbon, are still
Speaker 1: completely against it because of some of the other side
Speaker 1: effects like what do you do with the waste and
Speaker 1: how is that going to contaminate the environment. So it's
Speaker 1: a particularly complicated but promising technology. Yeah. I think it's
Speaker 1: really fascinating how it's sort of splits the politics, like
Speaker 1: if you are a pro environment are you against nuclear
Speaker 1: because of the potential waste and risks or are you
Speaker 1: pro nuclear because it is zero carbon. It's really fascinatingly
Speaker 1: skewers all of these questions. And what's interesting is most people,
Speaker 1: when you ask them, don't sort of kind of feel
Speaker 1: one way or another. They feel very strongly pro or
Speaker 1: very strongly against. It's a technology that doesn't have a
Speaker 1: lot of people in the middle. Yeah, and I think
Speaker 1: that the general sense out there is that nuclear power
Speaker 1: is risky, that it's dangerous. People have seen Home or
Speaker 1: Simpson operating that nuclear power plant on The Simpsons. It
Speaker 1: seemed blinky the Three Eyed Fish. They just get the
Speaker 1: sense that nuclear power is like out of our control.
Speaker 1: It's something maybe humans shouldn't dabble with, and of course
Speaker 1: it's connected with nuclear weapons, which you know, might end
Speaker 1: humanity and ruin the planet. So in general, I guess
Speaker 1: that people are uneasy with the idea of nuclear power.
Speaker 1: And I've also concluded that The Simpsons are partly to
Speaker 1: blame for our current climate change issues because so many
Speaker 1: people are watching it on their screens. Well I did
Speaker 1: when I was a kid. I guess I haven't recently,
Speaker 1: But anyway, maybe we should talk to Matt Groening about
Speaker 1: a PR overhaul, although maybe he's not in charge anymore. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: it's true that Monty Burns is not the most sympathetic
Speaker 1: figure when it comes to running a power plant. But
Speaker 1: I was wondering what our listeners thought about this question
Speaker 1: about whether nuclear power is an excellent source of fuel
Speaker 1: for the future because of its zero carbon output, or
Speaker 1: whether it's something risky and dangerous that humans should shy
Speaker 1: away from to avoid polluting our planet with radioactive waste
Speaker 1: that would last for tens of thousands of years. So,
Speaker 1: as usual, I ask people to volunteer to answer difficult
Speaker 1: questions without any preparation. So thanks to everybody who volunteered,
Speaker 1: and if you would like to participate for a future
Speaker 1: episode of the podcast, please don't be shy. All you
Speaker 1: have to do is write to us two questions at
Speaker 1: Daniel and Jorge dot com. So think about it for
Speaker 1: a moment before you hear these answers. Do you think
Speaker 1: nuclear power is worth the risks? Here's what people had
Speaker 1: to say, Well, we certainly are aware of several high
Speaker 1: profile incidents that have happened with nuclear power stations, including
Speaker 1: journal Bill, which caused the public to give pause in
Speaker 1: supporting nuclear power. But I believe we can't rule it
Speaker 1: out as a source of energy given the rising demand
Speaker 1: for energy of humans and the increasing need for us
Speaker 1: to stop using fossil fuel. It's too about climate change disaster.
Speaker 1: Nuclear power is definitely worth the risk, especially fusion reactors
Speaker 1: as they produce only neutrons in some gamma radiation. Nuclear
Speaker 1: power has benefits of producing large amount of electricity, and
Speaker 1: the risks are the safety hazards, which I think can
Speaker 1: be taken care of as long as the party is
Speaker 1: involved take the precautions, and the waste, the radioactive waste
Speaker 1: is the reason why we need to be moving towards
Speaker 1: more sustainable powers, but are the current limitations of resources
Speaker 1: we cannot so I think it's what there is gonna
Speaker 1: But if you're talking about nukes, no, I think nuclear
Speaker 1: power is for sure worth the risk. I haven't it
Speaker 1: into this much, but from what I've seen, I think
Speaker 1: nuclear power is definitely worth the risk. It's clean as
Speaker 1: far as I really just have to worry about waste. Definitely, Yes,
Speaker 1: I am a big deliver in nuclear power because it's
Speaker 1: a clean source of energy, and history shows that we
Speaker 1: haven't figured out yet how to don't have accidents with that.
Speaker 1: But we did that in aviation, for example. We have
Speaker 1: a very safe commercial aviation and market. So I'm very
Speaker 1: confident that we'll get there on the nuclear as well.
Speaker 1: I think so because it's better than getting the planet
Speaker 1: with fossil fuels. And I don't say there's a lot
Speaker 1: of option to generate constant power without nuclear until fusion
Speaker 1: takes hole. Anyway, I'd imagine that it certainly is worth
Speaker 1: the risks. I mean if by risks you mean like
Speaker 1: natural desa masters like earthquakes and tsunamis, then I don't
Speaker 1: see those happening too frequently. Um, I think they could
Speaker 1: be you know, I have some preventative measures put in
Speaker 1: place for those, and I think it's definitely worth the risks.
Speaker 1: So I actually found these responses to be pretty uplifting.
Speaker 1: A lot of people seem like they were generally in
Speaker 1: support of nuclear power, although maybe your audience is a
Speaker 1: particular subset of the world, so maybe it's not the
Speaker 1: representative of the general public. There was one in there.
Speaker 1: There were a fair number of optimistic responses. There was
Speaker 1: one person who said, especially fusion reactors, and so we
Speaker 1: had meant vision, but let's go ahead and talk about
Speaker 1: what is the difference between the two of those. What
Speaker 1: kind of nuclear power is running a lot of the
Speaker 1: power plants that are going today. Yeah, I was also
Speaker 1: a little surprised that our listeners are so pro nuclear,
Speaker 1: but maybe that comes from their faith in science and
Speaker 1: their fascination with technology. But you're right, there's a huge
Speaker 1: difference between fusion and vision. Specifically, fission is something we
Speaker 1: can do today. It powers the world partly we're able
Speaker 1: to harness this nuclear process and use it to pull
Speaker 1: electricity out of the hearts of atoms. But fusion is
Speaker 1: something in the future. Fusion is something we have not
Speaker 1: yet tackled, and speaking of the core physics of it,
Speaker 1: remember that fission is when you take a big, heavy,
Speaker 1: unstable nucleus like a uranium, atom or plutonium, and you
Speaker 1: split it apart into two smaller nuclei, and when you
Speaker 1: do that, you release energy. Conversely, fusion is the opposite.
Speaker 1: You take light nuclei like hydrogen or helium and you
Speaker 1: push them together, and when they fuse together to make
Speaker 1: something heavier, they also release energy. And that seems kind
Speaker 1: of confusing because you might think, well, what releases energy?
Speaker 1: Is it breaking things up or is it pushing things together?
Speaker 1: The answer for complicated nuclear physics reasons is that it
Speaker 1: depends on what you're pushing or what you're splitting. If
Speaker 1: you're taking really light elements like hydrogen or helium, then
Speaker 1: pushing them together fusing them releases energy. You're taking really
Speaker 1: heavy elements anything heavier than iron, than splitting them up
Speaker 1: releases energy. Funny story, I memorized those definitions in reverse
Speaker 1: once and it took a lot of work to get
Speaker 1: them straight in my head afterwards, which was really important
Speaker 1: because soon Ish included chapters originally on both of these topics,
Speaker 1: so I had to get it right before the interviews started.
Speaker 1: So I'd walk around the house and Zach would be like,
Speaker 1: fusion go, and I would define it, and then later
Speaker 1: in the day he'd be like, fission go. And eventually
Speaker 1: we got it right. But actually, to this day, I
Speaker 1: try to avoid using those terms because I'm worried I'm
Speaker 1: going to blow it again. But we all have our things. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I actually worked on fusion research myself back in the
Speaker 1: nineties when I was a young future scientist and I
Speaker 1: was trying to figure out what kind of physics I
Speaker 1: wanted to do with my life. I thought, fusion seems promising.
Speaker 1: It's around the corner. It's going to save the world
Speaker 1: by providing abundant energy so cheap you wouldn't even have
Speaker 1: to charge for it. That was back in the nineties,
Speaker 1: and you know, thirty year years later, so fusion is
Speaker 1: sort of still around the corner. It's something that's been
Speaker 1: promising and maybe been thirty years away for fifty years now.
Speaker 1: So it's a little bit frustrating that we don't yet
Speaker 1: have an ability to harness this incredible source of power,
Speaker 1: the thing that fuels our sun and all the stars
Speaker 1: out there. It would provide cheap energy. The fuel for
Speaker 1: it is just water, produces almost no dangerous radioactive elements.
Speaker 1: It would be wonderful, but unfortunately it's not something we
Speaker 1: know yet how to get to work. And if you
Speaker 1: want to hear more about it, we have a couple
Speaker 1: of episodes about that, including ones about the huge reactor
Speaker 1: in France eater I t e R that they are
Speaker 1: currently building and they are hoping will provide energy. That
Speaker 1: the thing costs about ten bajillion dollars. I think there
Speaker 1: are some private companies that have recently made some pretty
Speaker 1: exciting strides, also in far more compact and therefore more
Speaker 1: affordable models. But but yeah, as as you suggested, it's
Speaker 1: the technology of the future and may always be thus exactly,
Speaker 1: And there's some companies here in southern California, some of
Speaker 1: them who have spinoffs from U s I faculty who
Speaker 1: has some really clever ideas that might make fusion work.
Speaker 1: The problem we're facing with the environment, though, is that
Speaker 1: we don't need a solution that's twenty years from now.
Speaker 1: The crisis is so imminent that we really need something
Speaker 1: very very soon to help us draw down our use
Speaker 1: of energy sources which produce more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: So really we need to focus on things that we
Speaker 1: can turn on almost immediately, and fission, of course, is
Speaker 1: something we know how to do. We've been doing it
Speaker 1: for something like fifty years. The typical process, and most
Speaker 1: of the reactors in the United States comes from fission
Speaker 1: of uranium. Uranium is something which is like exists all
Speaker 1: over the world. We had an episode recently about uranium.
Speaker 1: Is it on Urineus? And we talked about how uranium
Speaker 1: is actually all over the Solar System. It's one of
Speaker 1: the more prevalent elements in our Solar system. It's in
Speaker 1: the ground, it's in the water, it's in the moon,
Speaker 1: it's in asteroids, and it's also on Urinus. And we
Speaker 1: only giggled a little episode. We were so good. We
Speaker 1: were very much like adults. But of course there are
Speaker 1: challenges with fission. The uranium that we find in our planet,
Speaker 1: the stuff that we dig up and purify is mostly uranium.
Speaker 1: Two thirty eight. Two thirty eight there tells you how
Speaker 1: many protons and neutrons together are in the nucleus, and
Speaker 1: you two thirty eight is fine, but it's not really
Speaker 1: great for fission. It doesn't really like to split apart
Speaker 1: and release energy the way other versions of uranium do,
Speaker 1: specifically uranium two thirty five, which has three fewer neutrons,
Speaker 1: but of course the same number of protons, so it's
Speaker 1: still uranium. You two thirty five is great for fission,
Speaker 1: It splits apart nicely, produces more neutrons. It's excellent, but
Speaker 1: it's like, less than one percent of the uranium you
Speaker 1: find naturally is you two thirty five. And here in
Speaker 1: lies in my mind, the biggest concern with this technology
Speaker 1: is that enriching the uranium to get more of that
Speaker 1: two thirty five. A little bit of a process gives
Speaker 1: you great fuel for reactions. A lot of that process
Speaker 1: gives you the stuff that you need for nuclear bomb
Speaker 1: and it's hard to know if a country is doing
Speaker 1: just a little bit of enrichment or a whole lot
Speaker 1: of the enrichment. And that's one of the big problems
Speaker 1: with nuclear power in my opinion, because you're not in
Speaker 1: favor of every country out there getting nuclear bombs and
Speaker 1: tossing them at each other. You know, it makes me
Speaker 1: a little uncomfortable me as well. And you bring up
Speaker 1: a really interesting point which I think we should dig into,
Speaker 1: which is the difference between a nuclear reactor and a
Speaker 1: nuclear bomb, or a nuclear reactor or a nuclear chain
Speaker 1: reaction is when you have a uranium atom which splits,
Speaker 1: sends off more neutrons, which then triggers other uranium atoms
Speaker 1: nearby to split and produce more neutrons. And the crucial
Speaker 1: thing there is nearby you need enough uranium in a
Speaker 1: sort of a dense enough package, and when these neutrons
Speaker 1: fly out, they hit more uranium and they can trigger
Speaker 1: more reactions. So if you have enriched your fuel to
Speaker 1: like five per cent uranium two thirty five, then you
Speaker 1: could have this sort of self sustain Any nuclear reaction
Speaker 1: that produces energy and keeps going is sort of like ignition,
Speaker 1: you know, like when you start a fire and then
Speaker 1: it's hot enough that it burns the wood next to it,
Speaker 1: which is then hot enough to burn the wood next
Speaker 1: to it. You don't have to keep starting the fire.
Speaker 1: So that's the nice thing about a self sustaining nuclear reaction.
Speaker 1: A nuclear bomb, however, is something much more dramatic. Yes,
Speaker 1: so I think, with the way I understand it, if
Speaker 1: everything goes wrong in your nuclear reaction at a power plant,
Speaker 1: it might blow apart. And you'd get an explosion, but
Speaker 1: very quickly that would end the reaction. But in a
Speaker 1: nuclear bomb, you've got so much of the right kind
Speaker 1: of fuel in such a compact area that it has
Speaker 1: time to undergo a lot more reactions before it blows
Speaker 1: far enough apart that it can't react anymore. And so
Speaker 1: you can get like an explosion at a nuclear power plant,
Speaker 1: but never anything like a nuclear bomb explosion. Is that
Speaker 1: would that be fair to say, Yeah, exactly, you can't
Speaker 1: really make a nuclear power plant blow up with like
Speaker 1: a mushroom cloud. You can do a lot of damage,
Speaker 1: and you can get a lot of people, and you
Speaker 1: can spread radiation everywhere, but you're not going to get
Speaker 1: an actual nuclear explosion the way we get them in
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. And you're right. In order to do that,
Speaker 1: you have to enrich your fuel much much further, so
Speaker 1: you get much more fission going on much more rapidly,
Speaker 1: because that's really what an explosion is. It's a very
Speaker 1: rapid release of energy, so rapid that the energy release
Speaker 1: sort of takes over and you get these like supersonic
Speaker 1: shock waves through the material. So that's how fission work.
Speaker 1: We're harnessing the power of the atom. We're breaking it
Speaker 1: apart and releasing some of the energy that's stored inside
Speaker 1: of it. If you like, you can think of the
Speaker 1: atom is sort of like held together by springs, and
Speaker 1: what you're doing is like unhooking those springs, so then
Speaker 1: the bits like fly off and have a lot of
Speaker 1: energy when they come out. One of the problems with
Speaker 1: uranium two thirty five, though, is that when the neutrons
Speaker 1: fly out, they're going a little bit too fast. Like
Speaker 1: uranium two thirty five likes to get split at half
Speaker 1: by a neutron, but it likes to get split in
Speaker 1: half by neutrons that are not going too fast. So
Speaker 1: you need something to sort of slow down those neutrons
Speaker 1: so they're going just the right speed that they trigger
Speaker 1: more you two thirty five in order to split. So
Speaker 1: that's called a moderator, something to slow down those neutrons.
Speaker 1: And most of the reactors we have here in the
Speaker 1: United States and most of the ones produced around the
Speaker 1: world are things called light water thermal reactors because they
Speaker 1: use water as a way to moderate these neutrons because
Speaker 1: water is great like just taking a little bit of
Speaker 1: energy out of those neutrons and letting them continue on
Speaker 1: to trigger another U two thirty five. Fun fact, my
Speaker 1: understanding is that the light water thermal reactors are common
Speaker 1: because we got a lot of experience with them with
Speaker 1: naval submarines, because it was just sort of a convenient
Speaker 1: design to put on submarines when we were starting to
Speaker 1: try to use nuclear power to run those, and there
Speaker 1: were other designs that were being tested at the time,
Speaker 1: but because we've got the most experience with that one
Speaker 1: while making it compact for submarines, that historically is sort
Speaker 1: of why we've explored this design more than some of
Speaker 1: the other designs. Well, there's other designs that might work
Speaker 1: well too. It turns out there's a really large variety
Speaker 1: of ways that you could build a nuclear reactor, and
Speaker 1: the ones that we have comfort sort of weird policy
Speaker 1: decisions that date back to like the early ages of
Speaker 1: the atomic era. As you say, one reason is that
Speaker 1: people wanted to put them on submarine, so you wanted
Speaker 1: to have a plentiful source of water and you could
Speaker 1: use water as your moderator. Another reason we have these
Speaker 1: reactors is something I would actually put in these sort
Speaker 1: of negative column for these reactors, which is that the
Speaker 1: you two thirty eight which is most of the fuel. Right,
Speaker 1: even if you enrich your fuel so it's five percent
Speaker 1: you two thirty five, you've got a lot of you
Speaker 1: two thirty eight in your fuel rods. What happens to that, well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't fish in. What happens is that it gets
Speaker 1: transmuted into really dangerous radioactive elements that last for like
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of years, so they don't produce anything useful,
Speaker 1: but that you too thirty eight does get turned into
Speaker 1: other really nasty stuff. And some of that nasty stuff,
Speaker 1: like plutonium, is great for weapons. And so early on
Speaker 1: the Department of Energy really liked this particular technology using
Speaker 1: this very inefficient source of fuel because the other part
Speaker 1: of the fuel could be turned into weapons grade fuel.
Speaker 1: And so now we're sort of like up with this technology,
Speaker 1: as you say, we do it because it's the one
Speaker 1: we're most familiar with, even though the reason we chose
Speaker 1: it is not really the reason we would choose today.
Speaker 1: Stuff gets complicated, exactly. So, while nuclear power has great
Speaker 1: benefits because they can produce this electricity from the heart
Speaker 1: of the atom, and uranium is everywhere, we're unlikely to
Speaker 1: run out of it very soon. There are of course
Speaker 1: serious risks of nuclear power, and we've talked about weapons
Speaker 1: as a potential risk, But of course another risk is
Speaker 1: if something goes wrong with the power plant, you get
Speaker 1: radioactive waste in that area. And this water design that
Speaker 1: we've talked about has some benefits, it's got some negatives.
Speaker 1: But a lot of the problems that we've had with
Speaker 1: nuclear reactors have been about the water. Is that right?
Speaker 1: Can you explain why water causes problem? Sometimes? Yeah, water
Speaker 1: seems great, but the problem is that to keep water
Speaker 1: a liquid, which is what you need to do in
Speaker 1: order for it to moderate your reactions, you have to
Speaker 1: have it at very very high pressures because the stuff
Speaker 1: gets really hot and you don't want it to turn
Speaker 1: into steam while it's still inside your reactor. Now you
Speaker 1: have this very dangerous fuel and it's being moderated by
Speaker 1: this very high pressure water. You have to build your
Speaker 1: reactor with like very thick steel pipes to avoid this
Speaker 1: thing exploding, and you have to actively pump the water through.
Speaker 1: Like if your water pumps fail or the water jams
Speaker 1: or the water leaks out or something, then you're not
Speaker 1: moderating the reactor anymore. So it's a real critical safety
Speaker 1: flaw if you're reactor requires active pumping, because then if
Speaker 1: you lose power or something goes wrong, then things just
Speaker 1: get worse rapidly, and that's the source of most of
Speaker 1: the sort of more famous disasters in the nuclear power sector.
Speaker 1: Three Mile Island was caused by jams in one of
Speaker 1: the hatches that let the water flow. In Fukushima, of course,
Speaker 1: there was a tsunami and it knocked out the water
Speaker 1: pumps and so it couldn't cool down the reactor core.
Speaker 1: In Chernobyl, of course, this water boiled and exploded, and
Speaker 1: so all of these problems really are traced to having
Speaker 1: water at very high pressures, which is very difficult to
Speaker 1: maintain long term. But some of these problems have technological fixes.
Speaker 1: Some of them don't, Like you could avoid a Fukushima
Speaker 1: type accident by having a way to cool the reaction
Speaker 1: down even if the power goes out, because those water
Speaker 1: pumps that got knocked out depended on the electricity. And
Speaker 1: now there's designs to cool the reaction down that don't
Speaker 1: require electricity and would work passively. But something like Chernobyl,
Speaker 1: like you had a technical problem, but the real problem
Speaker 1: was the you know, autocratic government which didn't tell the
Speaker 1: people that there was a major problem until Sweden detected
Speaker 1: nuclear material in the air, at which point the USSR
Speaker 1: had to say, oh, my bad. And so some of
Speaker 1: these things technology can solve, and some of them are
Speaker 1: just problems with humans, and those those problems are harder
Speaker 1: to solve. I'd say they are harder to solve. And
Speaker 1: if you imagine a future where we have like a
Speaker 1: lot more nuclear power than those risks are multiplied. Because
Speaker 1: humans make mistakes, they inevitably will. Yeah, and so we've
Speaker 1: got these complicated cost benefit analyses that we need to do,
Speaker 1: and so let's take a break and afterwards, let's talk
Speaker 1: about whether or not we really need nuclear power. Do
Speaker 1: we need to take these risks? Okay, so nuclear power
Speaker 1: has this great ability to help us deal with the
Speaker 1: climate change issue, but it has all of these problems
Speaker 1: that we talked about, like risks of the creation of
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. Help us understand this cost benefit analysis better?
Speaker 1: Do we really need this technology? We definitely need something, right,
Speaker 1: We are currently burning a lot of coal and a
Speaker 1: lot of natural gas to produce the energy that we use,
Speaker 1: and that just can't go on much longer unless we
Speaker 1: want to totally fry the planet. So there's a pretty
Speaker 1: broad consensus that we need to move to a carbon
Speaker 1: neutral production of energy and also our transportation sector. Those
Speaker 1: are two things that are really driving climate change right now,
Speaker 1: and so decarbonizing the world energy grid and the transportation
Speaker 1: system is a huge priority. And the first question to
Speaker 1: ask is like, well, do we need nuclear at all?
Speaker 1: Can we just do it without nuclear? Can't we just
Speaker 1: do it with like solar panels and with water power
Speaker 1: and with wind power, And that's really attractive. It would
Speaker 1: be awesome if we could write solar panels are getting
Speaker 1: cheap and wind power is getting very efficient, and so
Speaker 1: it's nice to imagine that you might just be able
Speaker 1: to like put nuclear power on the shelf and say
Speaker 1: we don't really need it. We can just rely on renewables,
Speaker 1: on these things which are green, which don't produce any carbon,
Speaker 1: which don't require any sort of external fuel source. That
Speaker 1: would be a fantasy. And they're definitely picking up a
Speaker 1: lot of the slack. You know, my husband and I
Speaker 1: have wanted to get solar panels for a long time,
Speaker 1: and for almost a decade because we've been together for
Speaker 1: thirteen years, so for about thirteen years, every year we
Speaker 1: checked the cost of solar panels and of course are
Speaker 1: you know, income increased over those thirteen years as we
Speaker 1: got out of grad school, But like recently we decided,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, it's dropped enough that we can afford it.
Speaker 1: And solar and about the last decade has dropped by
Speaker 1: like so it's becoming much more feasible, and wind has
Speaker 1: dropped by like seven d percent. But you know, is
Speaker 1: that going to be enough to pick up all of
Speaker 1: the slack and to make up for all of these
Speaker 1: nuclear power plants that are going offline and are being
Speaker 1: replaced by coal. What do you think? So people are
Speaker 1: doing a lot of studies about exactly that question, how
Speaker 1: cheap can this get and can it really provide all
Speaker 1: of the energy that we need? And what's clear is
Speaker 1: that renewables will be the major chunk of it, Like
Speaker 1: eight percent of our energy should come from wind and
Speaker 1: solar and water power in the future. The problem, of
Speaker 1: course with these technologies is that they're pretty variable. I mean,
Speaker 1: they depend a little bit on the weather. You've got
Speaker 1: a cloudy day, you're not getting solar power. The wind
Speaker 1: just doesn't blow, you're not getting your wind power. So
Speaker 1: they're not as steady as things like burning coal. Where
Speaker 1: you've got a pile of it, you need some energy,
Speaker 1: you just burn some coal. And that variability is important,
Speaker 1: right because if you've got a snowstorm, that's exactly when
Speaker 1: you need the energy, right when your solar panels aren't
Speaker 1: producing it. Absolutely. But now I'm hearing the space advocates
Speaker 1: in my ear yelling, well, what about if you put
Speaker 1: the solar panels in space where there's safe from weather. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we had a really fun episode about space based solar power,
Speaker 1: which on one hand sounds ridiculous, like putting solar panels
Speaker 1: in space and then beaming them down to the Earth,
Speaker 1: And it's actually a lot less ridiculous than you might imagine.
Speaker 1: Though people still disagree about whether it will ever be
Speaker 1: economically feasible to have these satellites out in space. But
Speaker 1: we heard from somebody who claims that within ten years
Speaker 1: they would have a facility up in space providing all
Speaker 1: the power that Australia needs we sail see. But there's
Speaker 1: a lot of skepticism for those sort of very elaborate strategies,
Speaker 1: and the issue is, of course economics, Like if you
Speaker 1: had infinite money, then none of this would be a question.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could provide all of the energy you
Speaker 1: need using wind and solar if you just like massively overbuilt,
Speaker 1: if you said, we're just gonna build ten times as
Speaker 1: many solar panels as we need and ten times as
Speaker 1: many wind farms as we need, so that even if
Speaker 1: there's just a little bit of a gust of electricity
Speaker 1: or just a few photons are creeping through, then we're
Speaker 1: gonna be able to provide the energy. The issue, of course,
Speaker 1: is the economics. If you really over build, then you're
Speaker 1: paying a lot of money to produce electricity, and you're
Speaker 1: also generating a lot more than you need. So this
Speaker 1: problem of variability is a serious one, and we'll probably
Speaker 1: limit these renewables from ever providing more than maybe eighty
Speaker 1: percent of our needs. It's still pretty good though, but
Speaker 1: but yeah, that's not getting us all the way. Is
Speaker 1: not getting us all the way, and so the question
Speaker 1: really is what do we do for that extra twenty
Speaker 1: Actually this an interesting story here. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: arguments about this kind of thing in literature, and I
Speaker 1: was reading a paper from a professor at Stanford who
Speaker 1: was claiming that you could get to a renewable power,
Speaker 1: even with just like pretty simple battery technology that we
Speaker 1: have today. And then I found another paper that like
Speaker 1: totally demolished that paper. I was reading the paper and
Speaker 1: I was cringing. I was like, ouch, I would never
Speaker 1: want to read a paper like this taking apart one
Speaker 1: of my own scientific results. It was painful. And then
Speaker 1: I discovered that this whole thing ended up in court.
Speaker 1: You know, often people in science just like disagree with
Speaker 1: each other. But the Stanford guy who had his paper
Speaker 1: like totally dismantled in public by another paper, he sued
Speaker 1: the authors of that paper, claiming that they had defamed
Speaker 1: him and ruined his reputation. WHOA, I feel like, if
Speaker 1: you're gonna sue someone, you better be a hundred sure
Speaker 1: that you were right. Did he win or did he lose? No?
Speaker 1: He lost. It turns out he was just suing them
Speaker 1: as it would like intimidate them, to try to shove
Speaker 1: them up, and he ended up suing them and also
Speaker 1: the National Academy of Science. It was totally crazy, and
Speaker 1: he ended up having to pay like more than half
Speaker 1: million dollars in their legal fees. So this stuff gets heated.
Speaker 1: You know, people are talking about this stuff and they
Speaker 1: get up in arms. But the question that he raises
Speaker 1: is an interesting one, which is like, why can't we
Speaker 1: just use batteries. Why can't we build enough wind and
Speaker 1: solar so that we on average get the right amount
Speaker 1: of energy, and then we just have a bunch of
Speaker 1: batteries so that we bank it when we produce a
Speaker 1: little bit too much because it's an extra sunny day,
Speaker 1: we store it for those days when it's cold and dark.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Well, and you know, if we could make
Speaker 1: this technology really dependable and get batteries to have incredibly
Speaker 1: long lives, and we could also move to the moon,
Speaker 1: and you find during those two week long nights where
Speaker 1: it would be really nice to be able to store
Speaker 1: up the solar power that you got near the equator. Anyway,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not the one who's currently waiting for
Speaker 1: the technology let me move to the moon. It's not
Speaker 1: the way I listened to technology news. But that's good
Speaker 1: to hear that that's an aspiration of yours counting. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, the moon doesn't have any interesting parasites, so
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be moving there either. But you know,
Speaker 1: I know there are people who are excited about it,
Speaker 1: So I'm rooting for good battery power for them. There
Speaker 1: are tarte Grades on the moon though that that kind
Speaker 1: of a parasite one no, and to they're probably dead,
Speaker 1: I would guess I'm rooting for the Tartar Grade empire
Speaker 1: living on the moon. But back to the question of batteries.
Speaker 1: You know, it would be great if we had batteries
Speaker 1: that could do that, and currently we have the kind
Speaker 1: of battery technology that would let you store energy for
Speaker 1: like one day or two days, but you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: it goes dark or still for weeks, and so what
Speaker 1: you really need if you're gonna like reliably produce use
Speaker 1: energy using just renewables, is battery technology that can hold
Speaker 1: week's worth of energies, and it's just not something that
Speaker 1: we currently have. No. When when we got our solar panels,
Speaker 1: we asked if we could get batteries to hold us
Speaker 1: over through the storm rather than buying the generators, which
Speaker 1: were estimated at fifteen thou dollars, and the solar panel
Speaker 1: guy who would have been selling us the batteries was like, no,
Speaker 1: it's way too expensive and you guys lose power for
Speaker 1: six days at a time. There's no way your batteries
Speaker 1: are going to cover that. Uh, And I was surprised
Speaker 1: that the battery power wasn't even that good, which seems
Speaker 1: like a pretty low bar. But anyway, hopefully we make
Speaker 1: some progress there. Yeah, and again it's a question of economics,
Speaker 1: like you could if you poured a huge amount of
Speaker 1: money into it, but we just don't have the technology
Speaker 1: to make this feasible at that scale. And I think
Speaker 1: that's really fascinating because batteries are so important, not just
Speaker 1: for cars but also for phones. So there's a huge
Speaker 1: economic pressure to being able to produce longer lasting batteries
Speaker 1: and more efficient batteries. But batteries are a difficult technology.
Speaker 1: We record an episode last year about why we don't
Speaker 1: have electric powered airplanes yet, and the answer is because
Speaker 1: it's difficult to store all that energy in a lightweight form.
Speaker 1: And battery technology is moving kind of slowly, but there
Speaker 1: are promising directions people are exploring, you know, avoiding using
Speaker 1: things like rare earth metals, using just iron and air
Speaker 1: and water. A bunch of people trying to innovate in
Speaker 1: this space. But again, you know, what we need is
Speaker 1: something soon. It's possible that battery technology will be totally
Speaker 1: transformed in six months when somebody comes up with a
Speaker 1: great idea. But we can't really rely on somebody being
Speaker 1: a genius six months from now. We need something like
Speaker 1: tomorrow that we can use to reduce our CEO two emissions.
Speaker 1: So what are some other right now options that we
Speaker 1: could use. There are a few other carbon neutral, non
Speaker 1: nuclear options that we could explore. You know. One of
Speaker 1: them is producing hydrogen gas. Hyrogen doesn't have carbon in it, right.
Speaker 1: You can think of producing hydrogen as sort of like
Speaker 1: a chemical battery. You take the extra energy that you
Speaker 1: have and you use it to split water, so electrolysis,
Speaker 1: you split the hydrogen and the oxygen apart from each other,
Speaker 1: and then you store this hydrogen. Hygen, of course, is
Speaker 1: a great fuel. You can burn it, you can put
Speaker 1: it into a fuel cell to generate electricity, sort of
Speaker 1: like a longer lasting way to store your energy. Why
Speaker 1: aren't we doing that? We are doing that. We have
Speaker 1: some of that technology, but it's not ready to scale
Speaker 1: up to like twenty percent of our energy grid. You know,
Speaker 1: fuel cell technology is not really there, Like you don't
Speaker 1: see a whole lot of fuel cell cars out there
Speaker 1: on the road, and for a reason. Also, hydrogen very
Speaker 1: very dangerous, right, Like we all remember the Hindenburg. You know,
Speaker 1: hydrogen is extremely volatile, and ramping up our energy grid
Speaker 1: to use a huge amount of it would of course
Speaker 1: come with its own dangers. Yeah, okay, so what about
Speaker 1: things like bio Biofuels are a really fascinating idea because
Speaker 1: while they do emit CEO two, this this cool cycle.
Speaker 1: Like when you grow corn in order to turn it
Speaker 1: eventually into ethanol, your pull CEU two out of the atmosphere,
Speaker 1: which is then released again when you burn the ethanol.
Speaker 1: So while it's not reducing the CEO two in the atmosphere,
Speaker 1: it isn't adding to it either, right, So it's a hydrocarbon,
Speaker 1: but it's not a fossil fuel, right. You're not digging
Speaker 1: up carbon from underground which has been sequestered for millions
Speaker 1: of years and releasing it anew into the atmosphere, which
Speaker 1: is what happens when you burn coal. So bio fuels
Speaker 1: are cool because you're pulling CEU two out of the
Speaker 1: atmosphere before releasing it again. That's an improvement. Sometimes I
Speaker 1: feel like we've gone so far that nothing short of
Speaker 1: removing some of the carbon dioxide that we put up
Speaker 1: there already is going to do the trick. But it's
Speaker 1: funny as an ecologist, and I feel like when you
Speaker 1: suggest this, this is one of the suggestions that actually
Speaker 1: makes people the most angry, so that the suggestion is
Speaker 1: that we could capture that carbon that's already been put
Speaker 1: in the atmosphere and store it. And the reason it
Speaker 1: makes people angry is that it seems to remove the
Speaker 1: responsibility of changing your behavior to things that are more responsible,
Speaker 1: and so it makes people mad. But I sort of
Speaker 1: feel like, maybe we need to do this in concert
Speaker 1: with more responsible things like biofuels and maybe nuclear power.
Speaker 1: But I'm actually not super up to date on the
Speaker 1: different methods people are proposing for carbon capture and storage.
Speaker 1: Are you up to date on the methods? Yeah, So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of different technology in both of those
Speaker 1: areas biofuels and in carbon capture. For biofuels, you know,
Speaker 1: one thing is just like produce ethanol from corn, and
Speaker 1: that's all right, but it's not great because you're still
Speaker 1: feeding it into a gas power transportation system, right, and
Speaker 1: you can't run cars on a hundred percent biofuels, you know,
Speaker 1: it just doesn't work. You need like ten, which means
Speaker 1: the rest of it is still gasoline, so it sort
Speaker 1: of prevents the electrification of the transportation grid. And people
Speaker 1: also argue about whether biofuels really are carbon neutral. You know,
Speaker 1: for example, if you're going to turn corn into biofuels
Speaker 1: and you need to make more farmland to produce that corn,
Speaker 1: which means you're chopping down forests to make more farmland,
Speaker 1: which releases c O two. So there's a really complicated
Speaker 1: calculation there about whether these biofuels really are carbon neutral.
Speaker 1: And about ten years ago, there was a huge push
Speaker 1: to do microalgae based biofuels, like to take algae, these
Speaker 1: tiny little plants and genetically engineer them so they produced ethanol,
Speaker 1: like insert into them the proteins they needed, so on
Speaker 1: a biochemical level they could like fabricate fuel, which seemed
Speaker 1: really awesome, and so many people got involved in startups.
Speaker 1: People I knew in grad school like jumped onto this.
Speaker 1: They thought it was the energy of the future. But
Speaker 1: it hasn't really worked out because it's really difficult to
Speaker 1: scale that up and to make it efficient such a
Speaker 1: pain when you get them at high densities, they really
Speaker 1: released toxins to fight with each other, and they just
Speaker 1: don't cooperate the way you'd like them to. Carbon capture
Speaker 1: is the same. It's exciting the idea that you could
Speaker 1: like pull carbon out of the atmosphere, but it also
Speaker 1: is really expensive. You know. One strategy is to try
Speaker 1: to scrub emissions, Like you're at a coal plant and
Speaker 1: you have something on the smoke stack which like pulls
Speaker 1: the CEO two out of those emissions. The way it
Speaker 1: does it by running it through this vessel that has
Speaker 1: a liquid solvent that can absorb the CEO two, and
Speaker 1: then you take that solvent, you release the CEO two
Speaker 1: somewhere else in a safe way that you can capture,
Speaker 1: and then you can just store it underground. But again,
Speaker 1: that's like removing or reducing the CEO two from emissions.
Speaker 1: What you'd really like to do is just like suck
Speaker 1: the CEU two out of the atmosphere itself, right, sort
Speaker 1: of make up for the mistakes that we've made so far.
Speaker 1: That technology exists, but it's really expensive, and so until
Speaker 1: somebody improves that or we have no other cheap option,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be the option that we go
Speaker 1: to and you might almost rather just like over build
Speaker 1: your solar or wind farms than do a lot of
Speaker 1: carbon capture. Yeah, one carbon capture also seems a little
Speaker 1: scary because, like, do we understand what's happening well enough
Speaker 1: to be able to like know what rate we should
Speaker 1: be sucking it out of the atmosphere? Could things we
Speaker 1: didn't predict happen? And I don't know. Whenever you're doing
Speaker 1: large scale tinkering, things gets a little dicey. Maybe exactly
Speaker 1: do you trust engineers with the fate of our planet?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I really believe in their models. And
Speaker 1: then another not nuclear carbon neutral option is hydro power.
Speaker 1: And there's some countries like New Zealand and Norway that
Speaker 1: have like beautiful fiords and lots of waterfalls that have
Speaker 1: a significant fraction of their energy coming from hydro power.
Speaker 1: And that's great, but you know, Iowa doesn't have a
Speaker 1: whole lot of hydro power, and Kansas doesn't have a
Speaker 1: whole lot of hydro power, so it's not like a
Speaker 1: general solution for the whole grid. Well, and as an
Speaker 1: aquatic ecologist, there are environmental implications to damning things up
Speaker 1: as well, so it's not quite straightforward exactly, and then
Speaker 1: in another direction, like a sort of horse strategy, is
Speaker 1: just to say, hey, look, people, you just don't always
Speaker 1: get energy when you want it, like when you go
Speaker 1: at a hundred percent renewable, and it's going to be
Speaker 1: not always reliable. And maybe that's just the way we
Speaker 1: need to live. Maybe the issue is like us demanding
Speaker 1: that we always have power whenever we need it. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's just too much to ask. Well, you know, if
Speaker 1: you lived in a place like Siberia, you'd probably be
Speaker 1: pretty happy about having reliable energy. But I suppose people
Speaker 1: can plan. You know, we know our power goes out
Speaker 1: here pretty often, so we have a wood burning stove
Speaker 1: for heat during those periods. So I suppose people could
Speaker 1: plan for their power to get cut when renewables can't
Speaker 1: keep up. But that's an inconvenience that I think many
Speaker 1: countries would not be willing to absorb. Yeah, and you
Speaker 1: need power not just your kids can play fruit ninja,
Speaker 1: but also to do things like emergency surgeries. Right, it's important,
Speaker 1: and so it's not something that modern societies are sort
Speaker 1: of willing to stomach. We need like stable power when
Speaker 1: we need it. Okay, so we've just talked about options
Speaker 1: other than nuclear that might be helpful at some point
Speaker 1: in the future. Let's return to nuclear after this break. Okay,
Speaker 1: So one of the nice things about nuclear is it's
Speaker 1: a no carbon emissions options that is reliable. How me
Speaker 1: a bit about how many reactors we've got running and
Speaker 1: how much power they're providing right now. Yeah, nuclear is
Speaker 1: something that exists right now, you know, and it's a
Speaker 1: significant fraction of our energy budget already around the world.
Speaker 1: Is something between five and ten percent of worldwide energy
Speaker 1: and it varies a lot country to country. In France,
Speaker 1: for example, in Sweden, it's a huge fraction of their
Speaker 1: energy output. Here in the US, it's about twenty percent
Speaker 1: of the energy grid is provided by nuclear reactors and
Speaker 1: that's from you know, something like fifty six reactors in
Speaker 1: the US are producing a huge amount of power, and
Speaker 1: it's very constant. You know, it runs rain or shine,
Speaker 1: wind or not. It's a very stable source of energy
Speaker 1: in the US, to be honest, that's more than I
Speaker 1: would have guessed. Uh, And I saw recently France just
Speaker 1: announced that they're going to be doing a lot more
Speaker 1: nuclear reactors, are going to be building more as part
Speaker 1: of their climate change mitigation strategy. What sort of like
Speaker 1: predictions or projections are people working with, Like how much
Speaker 1: do we need to increase nuclear power to be able
Speaker 1: to make a dent in this problem? Well, when the
Speaker 1: u WHEN makes its predictions for like how we can
Speaker 1: avoid overheating the planet by more than one point five degrees,
Speaker 1: that's the current target. They have a variety of different
Speaker 1: strategies here, but every single strategy they describe includes increasing
Speaker 1: nuclear power. The most conservative one increases nuclear power by
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty percent, and there are other scenarios
Speaker 1: where it goes up to like fo increase. So the
Speaker 1: u N is basically counting on us increasing our nuclear
Speaker 1: production as a critical element to go into carbon neutral energy. So,
Speaker 1: in my mind, if we're going to hit that goal,
Speaker 1: it's going to be critical to get people to think
Speaker 1: differently about nuclear power. And maybe part of getting them
Speaker 1: to think differently is by convincing them we've figured out
Speaker 1: some of the safety problems. I know there are some
Speaker 1: advances in nuclear reactor safety. Can you tell us about
Speaker 1: some of those. Yeah, A lot of the issues people
Speaker 1: are familiar with about nuclear power, these explosions, having high
Speaker 1: pressure water and producing these very dangerous elements which will
Speaker 1: take tens of thousands of years to decay. Those are
Speaker 1: not features of more modern designs of nuclear power plants.
Speaker 1: So Johan I had an episode a few weeks ago
Speaker 1: about molten salt reactors that can operate a much lower pressure,
Speaker 1: like atmospheric pressures, so that they don't have this danger
Speaker 1: of possibly exploding, and also they have a passive safety system.
Speaker 1: You actually mix the fuel in with the molten salt,
Speaker 1: and then if the thing overheats, it melts a frozen
Speaker 1: salt plug and the whole thing just sort of drains
Speaker 1: out and the reaction stops. So instead of needing active
Speaker 1: power to cool your thing, you need power to keep
Speaker 1: the thing going. And so if something fails, it's much
Speaker 1: safer because the whole reaction just sort of screeches to
Speaker 1: a halt. And you can also use different fuels than uranium.
Speaker 1: If you start with thorium instead of uranium two thirty eight,
Speaker 1: thorium decays and uranium two thirty three, which is excellent
Speaker 1: for fission and much more efficient because you can like
Speaker 1: use all of the fuel rather than having part of
Speaker 1: it hang out and turn into these really terrible, long
Speaker 1: lasting isotopes that will poison the earth for tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of years. It's still not pretty. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: producing things like c c M one thirty seven, which
Speaker 1: is super deadly, but it's half life is like decades
Speaker 1: instead of tens of thousands of years, so you don't
Speaker 1: have to build facilities which will you know, survive any
Speaker 1: earthquake in the next fifty years. Yeah, and you're reading
Speaker 1: about some of these new technologies for making the reactors safer. Like,
Speaker 1: to be honest, it's all pretty dry reading, but I
Speaker 1: think it's some of the some of the most clever
Speaker 1: engineering solutions I think I've ever heard about are being
Speaker 1: employed in some of the are at least plans being
Speaker 1: employed in some of these reactors, like the plug that
Speaker 1: just melts away and drains even if there isn't power
Speaker 1: to stop the reaction. Like, there's some really clever designs.
Speaker 1: Hopefully we get a chance to try some of these out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's incredible variety in your book with Zach Soonish,
Speaker 1: I know you guys had to cut this chapter of
Speaker 1: nuclear power, but I encourage all of our listeners to
Speaker 1: go and follow the link. Will include in the show
Speaker 1: notes that has really fun and detailed dive into the
Speaker 1: future of nuclear technologies and all these different varieties. So
Speaker 1: the short version is that the kind of technology we're
Speaker 1: using today, these light water reactors, has particular disadvantages, but
Speaker 1: those advantages don't exist in every form of nuclear power.
Speaker 1: So there are safer, more stable varieties of nuclear power.
Speaker 1: And among nuclear engineers, they're pretty confident that we could
Speaker 1: build nuclear reactors which are safe. Yeah, and you know,
Speaker 1: some of the designs that that you just mentioned have
Speaker 1: their own safety risks that have to be mitigated which
Speaker 1: are a little bit different, But in general we are
Speaker 1: moving towards designs that are safer and it's it's an
Speaker 1: exciting time. But as we talked about, an issue is
Speaker 1: that we need this stuff today, Like we can't just
Speaker 1: wait fifteen twenty years for these new reactors to get
Speaker 1: figured out and for the government to figure out how
Speaker 1: to make them safe and to regulate them, etcetera. We
Speaker 1: need this stuff very soon. And one problem with nuclear
Speaker 1: power is that it's not quick. You can't be like
Speaker 1: I'm gonna build a nuclear power plant and then have
Speaker 1: one running a year later. It takes ten years, sometimes
Speaker 1: fifteen years because of all the regulations. Yeah, and I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody wants to say we shouldn't be relating
Speaker 1: nuclear power, but it does seem like getting nuclear power
Speaker 1: plants online requires a lot more licensing that's a lot
Speaker 1: more expensive than you know, what comfortable people would have
Speaker 1: to do, or you know, like what what you'd have
Speaker 1: to go through to set up a new coal powered
Speaker 1: power plant. And that really does seem to be stopping
Speaker 1: the implementation of a lot of these new technologies which
Speaker 1: could make a big difference for climate change. They really could.
Speaker 1: And something I didn't appreciate it until recently is that
Speaker 1: there's a big variation from country to country. Like this
Speaker 1: kind of regulatory overload is a feature of the United
Speaker 1: States where basically every power plant is a one off
Speaker 1: design specific to that location, and there hasn't been a
Speaker 1: lot of like streamlining and modularization of these nuclear plans
Speaker 1: in other countries, like in France, they basically build the
Speaker 1: same power plant over and over again, and so they
Speaker 1: get really good at it and it becomes cheaper. I
Speaker 1: read this hilarious description where somebody said France has two
Speaker 1: types of reactors and hundreds of types of cheese. In
Speaker 1: the United States, it's the other way around, Like we
Speaker 1: sort of lost out on the deal there, didn't we Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: I'm definitely wishing I was French right now. But the
Speaker 1: United States is trying to address that. There's companies, i
Speaker 1: think it's called New Scale is working on these tiny
Speaker 1: modular reactors that need to be less sort of made
Speaker 1: specifically to the location that they're going to, and they
Speaker 1: can just be sort of like plugged in and they're
Speaker 1: small and cheaper, and as your town grows, you can
Speaker 1: plug more of them in sort of like plugging in
Speaker 1: new batteries, and so like recognized that this is a
Speaker 1: problem and people are trying to deal with it. It's
Speaker 1: just sort of slow getting there. Yeah, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: take a while. It's not like something we can overhaul overnight,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately we don't have a lot of time left. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: other countries like China and India and Korea are building
Speaker 1: new plants, and they're also developing new styles of plants.
Speaker 1: Like thorium is going to be a big deal in
Speaker 1: China and in India. India has a huge fraction of
Speaker 1: the world's thorium reserves and so it's investing in that
Speaker 1: and a question is like can the US do that? Also,
Speaker 1: can we pivot and build new plants, because in the
Speaker 1: last ten years or so, we've just been retiring reactors
Speaker 1: and when that happens, we end up replacing that with
Speaker 1: fossil fuels. And I think part of why we do
Speaker 1: that is because nuclear power has a horrible pr problem,
Speaker 1: and that's because when something goes wrong, it goes wrong
Speaker 1: in like a big way that all of us are
Speaker 1: scared about because we watched Captain Planet as a kid,
Speaker 1: and like, the accidents have names that we remember, like
Speaker 1: Three Mile Island and Fukushima and Chernobyl, But actually, you know,
Speaker 1: no deaths is ever the appropriate number of deaths for
Speaker 1: any technology is zero ideally, but like the number for
Speaker 1: nuclear reactor accidents, the number of deaths is actually way
Speaker 1: lower than the global picture for coal. So like three
Speaker 1: Mile Island, I think that was like zero deaths. Fukushima
Speaker 1: had a serious impact on the community, but I don't
Speaker 1: think it had a lot of deaths. Chernobyl had a
Speaker 1: few thousand, again, way too many. But if you would
Speaker 1: warnant people, they could have gotten out of there and
Speaker 1: it you could have saved a lot of lives just
Speaker 1: with advanced warning which was available but was just withheld
Speaker 1: by the government. But cold deaths, you know, you get
Speaker 1: all of these chemicals into the environment, you get arsenic, mercury, lead,
Speaker 1: And whereas nuclear waste can easily get contained in buckets
Speaker 1: and then stored far away from people with cold power plants,
Speaker 1: we just spew the stuff into the atmosphere where we
Speaker 1: can't really capture it easily. And oh, man, I can't
Speaker 1: remember the figures for how many people have died or
Speaker 1: estimated to have died from cold deaths. Do you happen
Speaker 1: to know those numbers? It's something like the number of
Speaker 1: people who have been killed in sixty years of nuclear
Speaker 1: power are killed every month by the coal industry and
Speaker 1: by natural gas. And you're right, like, every time there's
Speaker 1: nuclear disaster, it's like an airplane crash, it's on the news,
Speaker 1: people talk about it, whereas you know, they're like natural
Speaker 1: gas explosions all the time. They killed dozens of people.
Speaker 1: It just happened so often that we don't even talk
Speaker 1: about it. It's like car crashes versus airplane travel. Cars
Speaker 1: are much more dangerous than airplanes, but people are more
Speaker 1: scared of traveling on the airplanes and so it's something
Speaker 1: of an emotional question. And I think we were joking
Speaker 1: about the Simpsons earlier. But that's really part of it,
Speaker 1: is how it's been portrayed in the media. And I
Speaker 1: think partly it's just been unlucky. Like the Three Mile
Speaker 1: Island accident that happened in the US. It actually happened
Speaker 1: twelve days after the release of a movie, The China Syndrome,
Speaker 1: that portrays the meltdown at a fictional plant. And I
Speaker 1: think because that movie introduced the idea in people's minds
Speaker 1: and then made them scared, and then there was an
Speaker 1: actual accident like two weeks later, it gave people the
Speaker 1: impression like, wow, this dangerous thing I just heard about
Speaker 1: can actually happen in poison the planet. And it sort
Speaker 1: of sparked the anti nuclear movement. And that makes sense,
Speaker 1: you know, in the depths that happened in response to
Speaker 1: a problem with the nuclear power plant, like happened at
Speaker 1: that plant at that moment, whereas cold deaths are like
Speaker 1: way more disperse and harder to like, you know, get
Speaker 1: wrap your mind around. But you know, if if you
Speaker 1: think about coal powered power plants as contributing to global
Speaker 1: climate change and you know, increasing the frequency of things
Speaker 1: like tornados and wildfires and you know, all these other
Speaker 1: things that also kill people. The number is hard to estimate,
Speaker 1: but it but it's a pretty big number. And so
Speaker 1: I feel like we need to have a big pr
Speaker 1: push for nuclear power plans to sort of explain these
Speaker 1: numbers and still let people make decisions, because there's still
Speaker 1: complicated decisions that need to be made regarding you know,
Speaker 1: weapons and stuff like that. But I do feel like
Speaker 1: people don't recognize that that nuclear power has a much
Speaker 1: better record in terms of you know, death toll than
Speaker 1: things like cold power power plants. We've been talking about
Speaker 1: the risks of nuclear versus other sources, but really it's
Speaker 1: a question of like nuclear power versus climate change. Like
Speaker 1: climate change is definitely going to kill thousands or millions
Speaker 1: of people, and so in comparison, you know, how do
Speaker 1: we balance the certain death of nuclear power versus certain
Speaker 1: deaths from climate change. It's a difficult topic. It's really
Speaker 1: difficult because you know, especially if if you factor in
Speaker 1: governments that you don't trust getting accident or access to
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons, that could up the death toll quite a bit.
Speaker 1: You're going up against climate change, these are difficult decisions
Speaker 1: that need to be so I reached out to an
Speaker 1: expert in nuclear engineering and also in science communication to
Speaker 1: ask her her opinion about how she thought we should
Speaker 1: talk to people in communities about nuclear power. Here's what
Speaker 1: she had to say. All right, well, then it's my
Speaker 1: pleasure to introduce to the podcast Katie Muma, who is
Speaker 1: a graduate student in nuclear engineering. Katie, thanks very much
Speaker 1: for talking to us. Yeah, thanks for having me. So
Speaker 1: my first question for you is about the future of
Speaker 1: nuclear technology. In your opinion, what is the most promising
Speaker 1: technology for safe, clean nuclear power. I get asked this
Speaker 1: question a lot, and I think people aren't expecting me
Speaker 1: to say that I don't have a favorite or most
Speaker 1: likely to succeed. I think that there's a lot of
Speaker 1: possibility for the future of nuclear energy, and really it
Speaker 1: comes down to finding a good team of people who
Speaker 1: can build a company or an organization, and how well
Speaker 1: they can fit into the landscape of exist staying energy
Speaker 1: production and in the US, how well they can fit
Speaker 1: into the regulatory hurdles of getting a nuclear reactor licensed.
Speaker 1: And honestly, I think a lot of different technologies could succeed,
Speaker 1: and it's not going to be the technology alone that
Speaker 1: determines whether or not they succeed. So then what are
Speaker 1: the biggest hurdles to getting more nuclear plants up? Is
Speaker 1: it the regulatory landscape. There's definitely challenges there, at least
Speaker 1: in the United States, are regulatory system is not really
Speaker 1: built for advanced nuclear technologies. It's really been spun up
Speaker 1: to meet the existing reactors, which are one kind of
Speaker 1: reactor that use um light water what we think of
Speaker 1: is regular water as as a cooling technology. But that's
Speaker 1: not the only thing there's There's lots of other challenges.
Speaker 1: Cost is a big one too. It does take a
Speaker 1: lot of money to design a nuclear reactor, to construct
Speaker 1: a nuclear react actor, and the cost of capital can
Speaker 1: be something that really holds reactors back. If you need
Speaker 1: to spend billions of dollars up front and only start
Speaker 1: generating money or return on your investment ten or fifteen
Speaker 1: years later. You know, that's the kind of thing that
Speaker 1: a small startup company can't necessarily do, so that's been
Speaker 1: a big challenge. And also just whether or not these
Speaker 1: technologies are valued by the countries or the states or
Speaker 1: the localities that they're being proposed. In nuclear energy is
Speaker 1: a low carbon technology, but sometimes it's not recognized as
Speaker 1: having low carbon values. Sometimes it's not recognized for being
Speaker 1: a baseload or or a high reliability source of electricity,
Speaker 1: And so countries can sort of support it by by
Speaker 1: giving you know, financial incentives, tax breaks. They're multiple ways
Speaker 1: of going about it, um if they support those values
Speaker 1: those attributes, or they can choose not to do that.
Speaker 1: And in today's world, we see that it can be
Speaker 1: tough for our existing reactors to compete, especially with low
Speaker 1: cost natural gas. But that's a fossil fuel, So there's
Speaker 1: a couple of different challenges, but cost regulation those are
Speaker 1: some big ones, as well as community support. So given
Speaker 1: the pressing issues of climate change, can we bring nuclear
Speaker 1: power online fast enough to provide the complement we need
Speaker 1: to renewables? Is there still time to build new nuclear
Speaker 1: plans to fill in that gap? Yeah, So I think
Speaker 1: there's some disagreements. Some people believe if we just dropped
Speaker 1: everything and went full speed ahead on nuclear technology today,
Speaker 1: then nuclear could be the bulk of our electricity um
Speaker 1: going forward. I'm a little bit more of a pragmatist
Speaker 1: and I like to say that nuclear energy is not
Speaker 1: going to be spun up realistically in a significant amount
Speaker 1: in the next five ten years, but it can have
Speaker 1: a crucial role in that last third of decarbonization with electricity,
Speaker 1: but also with energy. There's so much industrial need for energy,
Speaker 1: transportation need for energy, you know, cargo shipping, where those
Speaker 1: are going to be some of the biggest challenges to decarbonizing.
Speaker 1: Getting all the way from low carbon to to a
Speaker 1: hundred is a lot easier than going from zero to
Speaker 1: five to fifty even And I think that's where nuclear
Speaker 1: technology can really play a valuable role, But only if
Speaker 1: we continue to support it and work on it now,
Speaker 1: because this is a long runway, and if we don't
Speaker 1: support it now, then it won't be ready in time
Speaker 1: to help us with these long term challenges. I see
Speaker 1: other countries China and India bringing nuclear plans up to
Speaker 1: speed much more quickly, and seems like we can do
Speaker 1: in the US. Is that a good role model for
Speaker 1: the U S. Should we be streamlining our regulations to
Speaker 1: follow China? Or is that like a potential hazard, something
Speaker 1: that might lead to like another chernobyl things aren't managed actorately.
Speaker 1: What's the better model? Well, I do think there are
Speaker 1: just some differences that we're never going to square. We
Speaker 1: don't have a state owned electricity system in the US,
Speaker 1: and I don't think we're moving towards that. So I
Speaker 1: don't think we could ever even be a reflection, a
Speaker 1: one to one reflection of those kind of systems. But
Speaker 1: certainly there are a lot of criticisms in the way
Speaker 1: that the existing regulatory structure in the US really sort
Speaker 1: of hampers innovation and makes it tough for these future
Speaker 1: technologies to even see a pathway to getting licensed. Obviously,
Speaker 1: regulations are super important, very pro regulation. You know, these
Speaker 1: are technologies that have the potential to be dangerous, but
Speaker 1: there needs to be a pathway for them to succeed,
Speaker 1: and this is something that the US is working on.
Speaker 1: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in the process of developing
Speaker 1: a new set of regulations for these advanced reactors, but
Speaker 1: that won't be ready until four at the absolute earliest.
Speaker 1: So certainly a lot of us wish that there was
Speaker 1: a way to speed this process up to give these
Speaker 1: technologies a fair chance to succeed, because, like you said,
Speaker 1: there is a chance that the US is too slow
Speaker 1: in doing this, and maybe we'll build some of these
Speaker 1: in the US, but maybe Russian China is going to
Speaker 1: run ahead of US, and I don't think that's a
Speaker 1: safety concern, you know, I don't want people to be afraid.
Speaker 1: Oh no, a Russian reactor is going to be built
Speaker 1: in ex country, or a Chinese reactor is going to
Speaker 1: be built in Y country. I'm not considering that a
Speaker 1: safety risk. But the US does like to see itself
Speaker 1: as a leader in nuclear technology and a leader in
Speaker 1: the you know, diplomatic benefits that come with sharing our
Speaker 1: domestically produced technology. So certainly I would like to see
Speaker 1: the US um continue to be a global player, but
Speaker 1: I'm also excited to see that other countries are running
Speaker 1: full steam ahead and exporting their own technology. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about the risk. Then, you're an expert in nuclear engineering,
Speaker 1: but you also have a lot of experience in science communication.
Speaker 1: How do we talk about the risk with the general
Speaker 1: public and policymakers who are not experts in a way
Speaker 1: that's fair and balanced and lets people address it without
Speaker 1: necessarily making them overreact to the scary side of it.
Speaker 1: So one thing that I'm a huge advocate of is
Speaker 1: the process of consent and even true participation from a community.
Speaker 1: So historically in the us. There's been a lot of
Speaker 1: decide announced defend type of building nuclear reactors, Like companies said,
Speaker 1: we're going to build it here, and we're just going
Speaker 1: to fight anyone who disagrees with us. We're going to
Speaker 1: fight any activists and sometimes the nuclear company want and
Speaker 1: sometimes the activists want. But pitting against each other like
Speaker 1: that is not how you make people feel like they're heard,
Speaker 1: like their concerns are valued, And it's a lot tougher,
Speaker 1: it's a lot slower to actually try to work with
Speaker 1: a community from the start. But we know from studying
Speaker 1: how humans perceive risk that when people feel like there's
Speaker 1: an outlet for their voice to be heard, when they
Speaker 1: feel like they have the ability to ask their questions
Speaker 1: and even provide feedback that may be taken into account
Speaker 1: that they have some control over the process, that they
Speaker 1: then turn around and feel more trust they feel more secure,
Speaker 1: And so I think it's super important that anyone deciding
Speaker 1: to build a nuclear technology really think their strategy of
Speaker 1: working with the community and even incorporating their feedback as
Speaker 1: a way to change the risk perception, which can be
Speaker 1: so hard for scientists because I'm not making any you know,
Speaker 1: the reactors are already safe. Nuclear engineers often say, well,
Speaker 1: we just need to convince people it's safe, But really
Speaker 1: working with the community and keeping them as partners is
Speaker 1: going to be more effective in changing people's minds about
Speaker 1: the risk than trying to teach them principles of risk
Speaker 1: analysis or throwing a bunch of numbers at them and saying,
Speaker 1: why won't you believe me? So you're saying it's more
Speaker 1: of including them in the process and making them feel
Speaker 1: comfortable than like an educational process where you want them
Speaker 1: to come to the same decision on their own. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean there is some education there, but one of
Speaker 1: the real challenges is that oftentimes we view education as
Speaker 1: a one way street. We have the answers. We understand
Speaker 1: the science and you don't. We're gonna tell you what
Speaker 1: you need to know, and that is not a way
Speaker 1: that people's minds are changed. I think many of us
Speaker 1: can think of a time where we felt that we
Speaker 1: understood something better than our friend or family member, and
Speaker 1: if we just told them what we knew that they
Speaker 1: would change their minds. And it doesn't work like that
Speaker 1: very often. And so if we rethink how we can
Speaker 1: go from a one way flow of information to a
Speaker 1: dialogue and actually recognize that people who have been living
Speaker 1: in a community for years and perhaps their whole life
Speaker 1: may actually have something to teach the nuclear company. They
Speaker 1: may actually be able to provide useful input if we
Speaker 1: open that flow back up and don't just collect public
Speaker 1: comments and then throw them in a box, but actually
Speaker 1: respond to them. That's that's what I'm saying. So there
Speaker 1: is still education, but it's two way. I think it's
Speaker 1: it's a real dialogue. That's a very cool way to
Speaker 1: think about it. So then last question, let me ask
Speaker 1: you to peer into your nuclear crystal ball. If you
Speaker 1: had to predict what the energy mix would be in
Speaker 1: the US in what do you think is the future.
Speaker 1: We're going to have more nuclear, We're gonna have less nuclear.
Speaker 1: The range of possibilities so large. I would really like
Speaker 1: to see thirty two of our electricity mix being nuclear.
Speaker 1: I think it's harder to predict with energy, and honestly,
Speaker 1: I think the bounds are very large. I think that
Speaker 1: the reality is we may stumble flat on our face
Speaker 1: and that number could be close to zero. I also
Speaker 1: think that if we hit the magic spark with some
Speaker 1: of these technologies working right now, that we could see
Speaker 1: that number closer to to France and see fifties sixty, seventy,
Speaker 1: but I think both of those are less likely. And
Speaker 1: I'm going to put myself in the middle of this
Speaker 1: sort of thirty with the ball made up by by
Speaker 1: renewable sources. I don't think we're on the pathway right
Speaker 1: now to to fully decarbonize, even in that timeline. All right, great,
Speaker 1: thanks very much for sharing your ideas and your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me. All right,
Speaker 1: what did you think about her comments, Kelly? I think
Speaker 1: she made a lot of really great points. I think
Speaker 1: nuclear power is something that you can't just sort of
Speaker 1: push on people, or you can, but getting community buy
Speaker 1: in is an important part of getting nuclear power in
Speaker 1: a lot more cities. Maybe you can push it on
Speaker 1: one city, but the pushback is probably going to make
Speaker 1: you less likely to be able to put a nuclear
Speaker 1: power plant, you know, in some other town. So I
Speaker 1: think she had some really good points about the way
Speaker 1: we need to move forward, and I think her prediction
Speaker 1: for how many nuclear power plants we might end up
Speaker 1: with we're super reasonable, which is a pretty rare thing
Speaker 1: for a prediction these days. And so yeah, I think
Speaker 1: she made some great points. Yeah, I agree, it's something
Speaker 1: that seems like it has to be part of the mix.
Speaker 1: It definitely has its disadvantages, but there are improvements in technology,
Speaker 1: and a question is whether we can bring on a
Speaker 1: new generation of new clear power plants fast enough to
Speaker 1: solve these problems which are happening already today. It's already
Speaker 1: sort of too late to be attacking these questions, and
Speaker 1: so we need today's solutions to yesterday's problems rather than
Speaker 1: tomorrow's ideas. So I think to wrap up, what we
Speaker 1: know is that the future of energy production will be
Speaker 1: mostly renewables. We're gonnaed like twenty percent to come from
Speaker 1: something else, and so rather than burning coal, it seems
Speaker 1: like nuclear power would be a better option, unless, of course,
Speaker 1: there's dramatic innovation in battery technology or in carbon capture
Speaker 1: or in one of these industries. So probably be a
Speaker 1: big mix of all of these things, but I think
Speaker 1: without some dramatic change in the landscape, nuclear power is
Speaker 1: going to be part of it. I agree, it's at
Speaker 1: least something we should be talking about a lot more
Speaker 1: than we're talking about right now. Thanks everybody for joining
Speaker 1: us in that deep dive into the risks and potential
Speaker 1: benefits of nuclear power. And thanks Kelly for joining us today.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. I had a lot of fun,
Speaker 1: or as much fun as you can have when you're
Speaker 1: talking about global catastrophes. Hey, we got some Simpsons references
Speaker 1: in there, all right. Thanks everyone, tune in next time.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain
Speaker 1: the Universe is a production of I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more podcast for my heart Radio, visit the I heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows. Yeah,