TITANS OF NUCLEAR
A podcast featuring interviews with experts across technology, industry, economics, policy and more.
Latest Episode
1) The beginning of Brian’s career and his time in the United States Navy as a diver, as well as what drew him to engineering and nuclear
2) Brian’s initial journey to Oregon State and all of the research projects he’s had a hand in since then
3) Fostering a passion for nuclear in the next generation of nuclear engineers and why the researchers as just as important as the research itself
4) What challenges and successes the nuclear industry will face in the coming years and how to form your individual opinion on nuclear energy
1) Senator Cramer’s background - How he originally sparked his interested in politics and public service
2) North Dakota’s diverse energy mix and how it informs Senator Cramer’s work in the U.S. Senate
3) Senator Cramer’s work in the Environment and Public Works Committee and its oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
4) How we can improve America's global leadership in nuclear energy, as well as how we could support energy security and geopolitical issues abroad
Phoebe Lind [00:00:59] Hi, I'm Phoebe Lind, and you're listening to another episode of the Titans of Nuclear Podcast. Today, I'm here with Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. You are a champion of nuclear and now you are a Titan of Nuclear. It's great to have you on the show, welcome.
Kevin Cramer [00:01:14] It's great to be on the show. Thank you for recognizing our unique role, I guess, as North Dakotans, and our leadership in all things nuclear. All things energy, really. But it's impossible to talk about energy without talking about nuclear, in my view.
Phoebe Lind [00:01:30] Absolutely. And also, before we dive in, we'd love to talk a little bit about this amazing photo that we have behind us right now. As our listeners are well aware, the Navy and nuclear energy have a very long, very interesting history. Would you mind sharing a little bit about this submarine?
Kevin Cramer [00:01:47] So, the submarine behind us, that's the USS North Dakota. It's a Virginia-class submarine. It's a spectacular ship with a great crew that ships out pretty regularly like all Navy ships do. But as I like to say, the name matters. North Dakota means "Northern friend" in the Lakota Sioux language. But to your point, and I think to the point of your mission of this podcast, the Navy and really military use of nuclear and nuclear energy cannot be separated because... And we can certainly elaborate a little bit on this, but because I feel so strongly that one of the things that the United States has lost in recent decades by acquiescing so much of our nuclear energy resources, and especially I'd say intellectual resources, is that we've weakened the supply chain to include the intellectual supply chain that we've invented.
Kevin Cramer [00:02:52] You know, we were first; we were the leaders. We live in, obviously, a global economy and global society where I think we've given away too much of that, and now we're in the mode to bring a lot of it back. And it's not unimportant that the Navy... They've been the intellectual source, really, of nuclear engineering and nuclear engineers really throughout this gap. And so, it's all interconnected.
Phoebe Lind [00:03:19] Absolutely. That's part of the reason we're here. It's a super exciting industry to be in as a young person, and it's very exciting to see this renaissance that we're having. But turning the conversation to you a little bit, we would love to hear a little bit more about your background and how you sparked your interest in politics, in public service, and how you came to be a U.S. senator.
Kevin Cramer [00:03:39] Yeah, well, there are a lot of people, teachers and professors scratching their head thinking, "Did we make a mistake here?" But here I am. Here I am. And so, my background, actually, from from birth really is directly related to energy in North Dakota. My dad was a rural electric lineman. So, he had an 11th grade education. He learned to climb poles at a young age and learned that you could make a decent living and make a difference in the distribution of electricity. He'd spent his whole life, really, his whole career as a rural electric lineman. And then when he retired, he did some other fun things around the town.
Kevin Cramer [00:04:23] But I grew up with a dad who went out in all kinds of weather to make sure that the lights stayed on. And that when the weather was good, he was in the maintenance world and he was in the building world, advancing communities and advancing farms and making sure that our communities had what they needed to grow food for a hungry world. So, I grew up in that. In fact, in high school for three summers, I worked at the rural electric cooperative warehouse.
Phoebe Lind [00:04:57] What did you do there?
Kevin Cramer [00:04:58] I loaded the trucks, I kept the inventory, I swept the floors. I painted the numbers on the transformers. And it was a real construction time. It was a time when there was a lot of development going on, so it was exciting. And each year, I learned more and I advanced a little bit until I was eventually putting together the meter boxes and putting them on the poles and delivering them to the crews that would then apply them. So, this is how I grew up.
Kevin Cramer [00:05:24] In terms of politics, my dad was the union shop steward. My mom was on the city commission in our little town of about 500 people. And active... They were both active in lots of things and just had that sort of servant's heart. I was the nerd in high school... I was in all the sports like everybody was and was the quarterback of the football team and all those things, but I also had this other weird thing about me where I was the guy that always gave the pep talks at the pep rallies after they asked every other athlete if they'd do it and they all said, "No." I was the guy who would always say, "Yes.".
Phoebe Lind [00:05:59] That was a funny thing to do?
Kevin Cramer [00:05:59] Yeah, wasn't that weird? Anyway, because it's the number one fear most people have. But early on, I realized I liked to talk to people. I liked to give speeches.
Phoebe Lind [00:06:11] We do, too.
Kevin Cramer [00:06:12] You do, too. Yes, you're in the right business. And so, anyway, that led me to my desire to go into the ministry, actually. But while in college, using the same skill sets, I realized that the ability to persuade, the ability to listen, even the ability to counsel, really, was conducive also to politics, and I was always interested in public policy. My interest in politics was always more about public policy, and still is, than it is about elephants and donkeys or red and blue. I'm not naive about it, but I prefer my politics in the context of policy.
Kevin Cramer [00:06:48] So anyway, I became, actually, a state party chairman. We elected a governor; I was on his cabinet. I served as a tourism director, the most fun you can have at work, and then became the Economic Development Finance Director for our state of North Dakota. And in that role, I was able to see the role of low-cost, reliable energy of all sorts, and what that meant from a competitive advantage in building an economy. I also understood the role of a regulatory regime and the tax policy and the importance of all of those things in development of these incredible resources we had.
Kevin Cramer [00:07:30] And then eventually, I did some other things in academia and still missed out a lot as an adjunct professor and whatnot. But Governor Hoeven, at the time, was now the senior senator from North Dakota. He appointed me to the North Dakota Public Service Commission during a vacancy. And then, it's a position I ran for twice and won, where we regulated the energy sector. And in North Dakota, the Public Service Commission... It's usually called the Utility Commission, in most states... Not only does it set rates for electricity, retail electricity and business and whatnot, as well as natural gas, but we had a lot of siting authority, permitting authority over things like transmission lines and pipelines and even power plants and wind farms. And I carried the coal portfolio, for example. I carried the pipeline portfolio. Sited the first Keystone Pipeline through North Dakota.
Kevin Cramer [00:08:26] And all of that just was sort of a constant building on my understanding of the importance of energy as a reliable source, its importance to the economy as well as to the quality of our life. It helped me to better understand the various fuel sources and types, particularly for electricity, and helped me understand that policy matters, that it really makes a difference what you incentivize. Not just what markets incentivize, but in the utility world where there are largely monopolies that are governed and regulated as monopolies, that you've got to send the right price signals to the marketplace to get the right mix that makes you a competitive community, state, and country.
Phoebe Lind [00:09:16] And North Dakota, in particular, has a very diverse, very interesting energy mix. Would you mind sharing a little bit about that? How does that inform your work here in the Senate?
Kevin Cramer [00:09:27] It's a great question, because it informs everything. I mean, my time on the Commission was during the Bakken boom. And so, we went from... I don't know what we were, to second, the second leading producer of oil in the country, largely because of our soft touch regulatory regime. Now, when I was on the Public Service Commission for 10 years... And that's what I did until I ran for and became a member of the United States House of Representatives... We had, I mean, hundreds of hearings throughout the state, because whenever there was a pipeline, a transmission line, a wind farm, a refinery, any type of energy conversion facility, or for that matter, a rate increase, we were required by law to have hearings in the communities affected.
Kevin Cramer [00:10:09] No one ever showed up at those hearings to tell me what a great regulator I am. They all wanted to know if they were going to have a wind turbine on their land or, "How can we prevent this transmission line from going through our land?" Or, "How do we ensure that this pipeline is safe under our farms?" So, it informed me a lot on not just what the law says, but what the people say. And I learned that the collective wisdom of the people was far greater than the wisdom of an engineer or a scientist.
Kevin Cramer [00:10:43] One example I love to share is... When we sited the original Keystone Pipeline, it went through 600 landowners' land. Not one inch of it had to be condemned. There was never a taking or a use of eminent domain on the Keystone Pipeline through North Dakota. But there was a lot of debate about where it should go and why it should go certain places. And I was at a small town at a community meeting... Not a hearing; it was prior to the hearing. The company was doing these community meetings. And this farmer came up and asked me, he said, "Commissioner, could you come over here? I want to show you a map.".
Kevin Cramer [00:11:18] So I go over, and they had these big maps laid out. And he said, "This pipeline will go right through a rock quarry. I mean, I don't know much about pipelines, but it seems that's not a great idea. If they just go around it like a little ways this direction, they could avoid this gravel pit and this rock quarry." So, I called some guys over from the company and they go, "Yeah, that's not a great idea." And I kept thinking, "Somebody got paid a lot of money to site this here."
Phoebe Lind [00:11:46] And site a pipeline through a rock quarry.
Kevin Cramer [00:11:47] That right, through a rock quarry. And this farmer who knew better. And that's just one of many, many lessons I learned from the collective wisdom of people living their lives every day. So, it really informed my work in the House when I became a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and certainly now in the Senate, as well. It's just been an additional learning process for me.
Phoebe Lind [00:12:13] And were you aware of what was happening with nuclear energy at that time?
Kevin Cramer [00:12:17] So, interesting point, because North Dakota does have uranium and they've done some, although not great big mining of uranium, but discovery of uranium, looking for it, finding it. But getting back to my utility regulatory days, as you know, most utilities are interstate utilities. Now, there are rural electric cooperatives and whatnot that are oftentimes within a smaller vicinity that are distribution co-ops, and there are distribution utilities, but we are a pretty vertically integrated state in the energy sector. So, we have some big companies, too. And the biggest company in North Dakota in the regulatory side or on the electricity side is Xcel Energy. And everybody's heard of Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy has three nuclear plants in Minnesota. And so, their resource plan includes, obviously, their entire footprint. And when you regulate utilities, rates and whatnot, your consumers, your constituents pay for the entire footprints of certain investments.
Kevin Cramer [00:13:25] So, the nuclear plants in Minnesota are part of the resource plan of Xcel Energy. And in the eastern part of North Dakota where Xcel is really quite big, places like Fargo and Grand Forks, they do benefit from nuclear power coming up from the Monticello plant in Minnesota. So, I had to learn about it. I also had to learn about the costs of storing the waste, nuclear waste, which is a big deal, and how that gets socialized, those costs get socialized across the footprint. So, yeah. I toured the plant in Monticello. I had quite a good understanding, I think, about nuclear waste and how it's paid for. But we didn't have plants in the state. Never sited a plant, of course, which is... Talk about big things to talk about.
Phoebe Lind [00:14:13] Do you think if people are aware that their electricity is coming from nuclear, that influences the way they might think about it? Like, how do North Dakotans feel about it?
Kevin Cramer [00:14:21] Yeah, it's a great question because North Dakota produces a lot of electricity burning coal. We also have a lot of gas in North Dakota, and so there are some gas plants, peaking plants, in particular. We have several thousand megawatts of nameplate megawatts of wind energy in North Dakota. North Dakotans are like most people in that what they really care about is when they flip the switch, the lights come on. And so, they're very energy savvy. They understand baseload versus intermittent. They get that, just intuitively.
Kevin Cramer [00:14:55] To your question about whether they care if it's nuclear or not, I don't think they do. North Dakotans are pioneers. We're in the middle of the North American continent. We're largely reliant on ourselves. We grow food for a hungry world. We're very savvy to what exports mean. We're global in our business minds, but we're also fearless. Now, North Dakotans rejected the opportunity, once, to take nuclear waste, and that's a longer story. So, we're also important stewards of our land. We're environmentalist by nature.
Phoebe Lind [00:15:36] In that case, do you think people would be more interested in clean energy in their state?
Kevin Cramer [00:15:40] So, now you're touching on the real motivation and why nuclear, this nuclear renaissance you speak of, is happening. Because nuclear represents, in my view... I always say this, and again, reminding people that we don't have nuclear in North Dakota... It's the perfect fuel. If emissions are your main concern, nuclear is the answer. If baseload's your main concern, nuclear is the answer. If reliability is your main concern, nuclear is the answer. It's the answer to so many of the things that are our goals as a more carbon constrained future are carried out. Nuclear just plays such a critical role in it.
Phoebe Lind [00:16:22] So, turning to some of your current work in trying to increase our access to nuclear energy in the US, especially. So, you sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee here in the Senate, which has oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So, our audience usually doesn't get this kind of access to government leaders. I was wondering if you could explain a little bit about your role on that committee and how that might influence how we approach nuclear energy in the US?
Kevin Cramer [00:16:49] Yeah, so a couple of things. Obviously, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is exactly that. It's a regulatory commission, and it is nuclear. On the Environment and Public Works Committee, it's interesting, because a lot of energy policy falls under our jurisdiction, while there's also an Energy and Natural Resource Committee that oversees the Department of Energy, which also has nuclear. But I'm also on the Armed Services Committee, which also, of course, sees nuclear. So, it's really a pretty interesting, I think, portfolio.
Kevin Cramer [00:17:17] At EPW, one of our biggest areas of jurisdiction deals with, again, nuclear waste. Again, environmental issues, but also the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I think for me, what I look at is how can we advance good, modern, clean nuclear energy opportunities and investments? How do you assure that capital will follow this old but emerging technology? Because we know that most nuclear plants in America, I think it's all nuclear plants in America, use light-water. And of course, that's old technology. While it's been modernized since the 1950s, the new technologies of modular, or...
Kevin Cramer [00:18:06] In fact, I just saw a story today on E&E that the Tennessee Valley Authority wants to build four modular nuclear reactors, but the first one won't be online for about 10 years. And so, when you start to think about how it takes decades to build and site things, I think the first one becomes the second, third, fourth and fifth one rather quickly. So, on the NRC and on EPW, what I want to do is send the signals, the regulatory signals and the legislative signals to the marketplace that this is a good technology, that this is clean technology, but that we also have appropriate oversight to make sure that it remains such. So, what I like to do is send the right incentives that accelerate nuclear development, while at the same time assuring people that it's safe, that it has the appropriate oversight. And striking that balance is what I try to work hard on. And the nice thing is that it's a bipartisan effort.
Phoebe Lind [00:19:10] Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I was interested in politics from a young age, as well, and I love working in nuclear energy because we really can bring people with a lot of different interests together to advance nuclear and solve a lot of these problems that we're dealing with on a national and global stage. Also, which is a perfect transition to my next question.
Phoebe Lind [00:19:29] You've spoken in the past about America's global leadership in nuclear energy, how we need to improve that. A lot of our adversaries, including China, including Russia, are investing a lot of money into nuclear energy, especially small modular reactors, which is, as you mentioned, a very exciting up-and-coming technology. But what do you think the US can do to compete on a global stage?
Kevin Cramer [00:19:54] So, I think the first thing we have to do is reclaim it. And because again, I talked earlier about acquiescing not just to other countries, but to our adversaries, to your point. And you've named them, perfectly. And that's sort of scary stuff. And realizing that our adversaries in this realm, as well as several others, aren't as good at it as we are, nor are they as conscientious to the safety and the environmental and the workplace issues. They don't have our values. And so, we ought to reclaim that while we still can. And I think we can, and I think we have. But I think we can do more to accelerate that.
Kevin Cramer [00:20:33] It gets back to this Navy of ours, right? We've had this stable source of smart, academic and intellectual resources. Even though we've given up a lot of our uranium mining and plutonium creation, the enrichment processes, we can claim that back. We have utilities that do it. We have utilities that like it. We have utilities that want it, which means we have customers that want it. So, I think the first thing to do is to claim it. But then, to find the right incentives, whether it's tax incentives, which is something that we have done. Senator Ben Cardin and I, as you know, co-sponsored legislation that became law to provide some tax credits, much like the production tax credits and other investment credits for utilities that use nuclear.
Phoebe Lind [00:21:25] Would you mind explaining that a little bit more? I think that would be super interesting.
Kevin Cramer [00:21:29] Sure. So, in the emerging technologies like wind and solar, for example, they're not emerging anymore, and it is time for them to be done with their credits. But I was a strong advocate for it in the beginning because but for the generosity of the American taxpayer, certain early technologies would never advance. There's not enough of a natural market incentive. But with a little help from the federal government, they do advance and then they become sustainable on their own. Well, I've always believed that these types of incentives should be, basically, fuel neutral. If it meets certain goals, whether they're environmental goals, emission goals, reliability goals, then we ought to provide equal incentives.
Kevin Cramer [00:22:16] So, why not then, nuclear? Particularly when we're making this transition from sort of old nuclear to modular to advanced nuclear technologies. And so so by offering up an incentive in investment credit that applies to one industry, why not apply it to nuclear? And that's basically what we did. But it was confined to the utility side of it. In other words, not the big production side, but the utility side, so that you had a market dealing with on the demand side. There are other things as well that have been done. But again, really, you're talking about such large capital investment with such high risk, but with such incredibly rich rewards, not just on the return on the investment for the investor, but on the communities and on America's excellence.
Kevin Cramer [00:23:10] Then, to your global point, once we reestablish... Our edge in the United States has always been technological advancement, innovation. This is where we've always excelled. Our adversaries can take that oftentimes, and then they'll apply it quickly or they'll even steal it and apply it quickly, but not with the same care and values that the United States has. Once we've established that, I'd much rather... I often say, "Please don't impose your mediocrity on our excellence." I'd much rather to export American ingenuity, intellectual property, and excellence than to sort of import somebody else's mediocrity.
Phoebe Lind [00:23:54] I couldn't agree more. But going back to your point about reclaiming it, what do you mean by that?
Kevin Cramer [00:23:59] Yeah, I mean reestablishing the United States' role as the leader in nuclear innovation, in nuclear advancement, in nuclear investment, going all the way to the mining of the fuel, to the enrichment process, to the fission and fusion process and the other science that we should excel in and that we really can intellectually excel in, and establishing to the world that we're the leader in this. And then, sharing that on the global stage, remembering that if climate change is your number one concern, realizing it's a global issue. And the United States' excellence over the years, whether it's carbon capture, utilization storage, whether it's natural gas, whether it's cleaning up... I mean, I've seen it all in the coal world. SOx, NOx, particulate matter, mercury. Our ability to clean up our energy sources is remarkable. And we ought to be advancing that by selling it, marketing it to the world, so that both very advanced countries and developed countries, as well as developing countries, have access to our ingenuity. That way we are contributing in a much larger sense to not just energy, cleaner energy around the world, but energy security, which is of course, national security.
Phoebe Lind [00:25:26] Absolutely. I think energy access around the world, it's a human right and it's exciting to see. Hopefully, the US can scale up quickly and deliver that around the world. Do you think the business case for nuclear might be changing as we have these emerging new technologies, as we have, maybe, more support from the federal government? Like with small modular reactors, a lot of people are going smaller to try and reduce that risk and get something out the door a little bit faster than with these gigawatt scale technologies.
Kevin Cramer [00:25:55] No question about it. I think that's sort of the magic, if you will, of the modular reactor. I mean, the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, the TVA is talking about building four of them. You could probably end up doing 40 modulars in the time frame it would take to permit one gigawatt, as you put it, plant. There is a safety component to that. There's also just a production scale up, to your point, again.
Kevin Cramer [00:26:26] And not only that, but it recognizes the diversity of our country. This is a big country. I come from the center of the North American continent where there's a lot of distance between people and there are fewer than 10 people per square mile. You have a technology that has smaller units that are reliable, inexpensive, and in many cases, even mobile, and you can change the world pretty quickly. And then, you reduce the need for large transmission and other kinds of intrusive things, imposing things that become barriers to the distribution of this clean power that a modular unit can create. So, I can get over my head pretty fast on all this, but I understand it well enough to see the opportunities that you're expressing.
Kevin Cramer [00:27:16] And then, like I said, then our companies are creating something that the world needs and we sell to them, creating jobs in our own country as well as with our allies. You know, I don't believe in an America-only future, but I do believe in an America-first future. We've shifted. One of the things that scares me a little bit is that... America's exceptionalism used to mean that America leads. Then, we kind of became an America-first. And I'm not opposed to America-first; I think you lead from the front. But I worry about is that we've become America-only. And then, we are acquiescing our leadership in the global economy, and I think nuclear presents a grand opportunity to be the leader, but bring a lot of people along.
Phoebe Lind [00:28:02] It's a very interesting time to be saying that, right now, as well, because our allies in Europe, especially, have really needed our help on the energy front. Energy security has been a major concern, and nuclear power is also something that we've started to discuss a little bit as something that could help solve those problems in the future and reduce our reliance on Russian gas in Europe. What do you think about how that could support energy security and geopolitical issues abroad?
Kevin Cramer [00:28:28] I don't know, I kind of like just listening to you. That was really good. That was really great, actually.
Phoebe Lind [00:28:34] That's what's so exciting about nuclear, you know? You're at this intersection of geopolitics, climate change, energy access. Every single problem, we can elevate people all around the world with nuclear energy. That's why I love it. That's why I'm excited to be here.
Kevin Cramer [00:28:49] That's very cool. No, I agree with you, one hundred percent, on everything you've said. Absolutely. And the geopolitics of it are exciting because... You're exactly right. Our European allies are a great example of people looking for what we have. They want it. I would say, in my office, in this room... I mean, just last week, the CEO of Naftogaz was in here, from Ukraine, asking for our help. Over the course of the last year, maybe a little better than a year, several European energy leaders have been in my office asking for our help. And you know, trade, for example, with Europe has oftentimes been challenging for us because we're kind of on different sort of wavelengths, but the war in Ukraine has sort of put us on the same wavelength where our alliances are stronger than ever, our dependence on one another is stronger than ever, and our opportunities to identify our similar values have, I think, brought us closer together. And energy, I think, plays a really important role, because I'd much rather use the peaceful tools of energy development than the weapons of war to keep our adversaries at bay.
Phoebe Lind [00:30:10] We're starting to come up on time. So, I would love to hear your final thoughts on maybe how we can work together with your colleagues. Any final messages you might have for our audience, as well?
Kevin Cramer [00:30:20] I think the ways to work with our colleagues, as you put it, is first of all to find common ground. And a lot of us are working on that. And I think nuclear is one of those areas of some common ground. But then, to persuade and try to educate, to do things like what you and I are doing right now, to help people feel more comfortable with something they don't know a lot about. They maybe have preconceived notions, some of them good, some of them not good. But the United States... Again, there's no place in the world that will do this better than we do it. That will do it safer, that will do it cleaner than we will here in the United States.
Kevin Cramer [00:30:53] And I think we always have to talk to our constituents. I think the first thing is to talk to constituents, and then colleagues. And in some cases, you talk to the colleagues who will talk to their constituents, but to get people comfortable with the future of nuclear energy and nuclear development. I just think the case has never been better, and we just have to make the case.
Phoebe Lind [00:31:16] All right. With that, thank you so much, Senator. I hope you've enjoyed your experience on Titans of Nuclear.
Kevin Cramer [00:31:21] I've enjoyed it a lot. I've learned a lot just listening to both your questions and your commentary. And I love the opportunity any time that I can be helpful to add to the conversation.
Phoebe Lind [00:31:31] All right. Thank you so much.
Kevin Cramer [00:31:32] Thank you.
1) Nils’ incredibly interesting background in nuclear and his journey to becoming a prominent figure in the nuclear space
2) What Nils believes is the best model for nuclear regulation and the characteristics this entails
3) Nils’ time at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and some of the highlights and challenges of his career
4) The challenges Nils believes we need to overcome in order to have the nuclear energy industry live up to its full potential
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:00:59] Hi, I'm Maddie Hibbs-Magruder, and you're listening to another episode of Titans of Nuclear. Today, we're here with Dr. Nils Diaz, who's a former chairman of the US NRC, and a prominent figure in the nuclear space. Nils, welcome. Thank you so much for for joining me.
Nils Diaz [00:01:14] Thank you. Glad to be here.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:01:16] Terrific. And we can go ahead and get started. I'd love to hear a bit more about you as a person. Where did you grow up?
Nils Diaz [00:01:23] I grew up in Cuba a few years ago. The reality is I went to school at the University of Villanova in Havana. It was an American university in Havana and was the only one that kept working during the Revolution. And I finished in there; it just happened that my major professor and tutor was actually a nuclear physicist. He also eventually came to this country and became a very famous professor in several universities in this country. But he kind of took me under his tutelage and started to teach me the, let's just say, the basics.
Nils Diaz [00:02:08] And I went to work with them, actually, in the national bank. And his field included whatever was going to be done with electricity. And the first thing that happened after the Revolution was that, of course, there was not enough electricity. And General Electric came and proposed to build a 60 megawatt electrical reactor in Havana, just like the one in Vallecitos, California. And we kind of accepted that. And that's how I started my connection with nuclear energy. Of course, I didn't know anything, but I had taken like three courses in the basics of it, and that's how I got started on how do you actually design, place, set up all the things that are needed for operation from transmission line to everything else. And that was essentially my first year after I finished school. I was dedicated to that and then it changed.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:03:12] Interesting. So beyond some classes, you didn't have any kind of more formal training in nuclear engineering? It was mostly all on the job?
Nils Diaz [00:03:22] Yeah, mostly. I had three courses in the basics of nuclear engineering, and that was about it. Careers in there is different; there were five years and you have to do projects. And so, my project became taking a look at how to design a nuclear power plant or learn from people that have done it. What are the things that you have to do? And so, that's how I got started.
Nils Diaz [00:03:46] Eventually, my major professor left the country, just like everybody else was leaving Cuba, and I was left behind. And so, I inherited a bunch of major projects. And because of the main reason that my brother was coming in the Bay of Pigs invasion, I stayed in Cuba until the Bay of Pigs invasion came in. And so, I was able to, somehow a very young age, see how projects get developed and so forth.
Nils Diaz [00:04:20] And then I kind of escaped Cuba. Actually, I spent seven months in an embassy under political asylum and then eventually was released to the Mexican government. They took a military plane, picked me up and dropped me off, first in Mexico, but later on I went to Panama and then to Miami.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:04:46] Interesting. And in this phase of your life, as you're starting to get more experience with nuclear energy, did you have any hesitations about it or did you see it as a big necessity for getting baseload power?
Nils Diaz [00:05:01] I didn't know enough to have any hesitations about it. I just thought it was going to be great. And it has been or it should have been. I just took it as that. I came to this country and I started to work as what I really knew, which was design. I was a designer; plan design. But that brought me very close to the University of Florida, where my brother had actually graduated with an engineering degree. And being there, I met this incredibly good and talented nuclear engineer or physicist at the time. He proposed that I just drop what I was doing and start learning again. And that's what I did.
Nils Diaz [00:05:52] I went to school beginning in October of 1962, and then got my master's. And then, when I was going to leave the university because I had to feed my family, they offered me a job to stay there. In 1966, I became a faculty member four years before I got my Ph.D. So, I was kind of new, but obviously I made myself useful, which is not a bad idea for a student. And so, I was able to stay at the university, do my Ph.D. and then became an assistant professor at the time, 1969.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:06:39] So, you had a lot of exposure to real projects early on in your career, then going more academic. How would you compare the two? Do you see them as necessarily linked or are you more in favor of the project development side, like actually putting these plants online?
Nils Diaz [00:06:58] They are necessarily linked. You learn a lot of things that you wouldn't know if you'd just be doing projects. So when I finished, I really started a dual career. My dual career was being a professor and the other career was, very quickly, I became a consultant and my consulting was in finishing nuclear power plants, plants that were being built and they're having problems. And they were needing people with, in my case, knowledge of the nuclear components and regulations and law and, actually, the process of design. So, I was a very a strange professor. I practically spent only a third of my time at the university, and the rest of the time, I spent it in industry, working.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:07:48] That's a terrific balance. I'm sure you also brought a lot of real world experiences back to the classroom that would be really valuable.
Nils Diaz [00:07:56] Right. I really think so. In fact, one of the things that I did after five years of being out there is I transformed the curriculum to be more engineering. What I actually did is look at what do students need to know when they get out of here? They can afford two years of learning everything, so I created three courses. A nuclear design and technology course, a nuclear operations course, and an integral nuclear course that looked at all of those things together. And the students just loved it. The fact of 50 years afterwards, if I made one of them... In fact, not many of them are alive, I have outlived them all. The bottom line is they say, "Those were the only courses I ever used. I didn't use any other." But of course, that's not true. They actually have learned some of the basics of all of the things I needed to do.
Nils Diaz [00:08:58] But yes, I actually went into the industry before I did that and became a senior nuclear reactor operator. So, I spent months in all of the vendors. I trained with senior reactors operators, and I then I became a consultant for all of those vendors. And that link was so strong that it kept throughout my life. And it still does. I still keep those connections and things. It is just a matter of what do you do when you leave college? The kinds of things that people do, how can I make it easy and how can I learn more so I can teach better? And eventually, they complement each other. You start going deeper and deeper into things that are actually what people do outside.
Nils Diaz [00:09:56] And so, I became mostly a consultant. I spent several years of my professorship, actually an entire year or a year-and-a-half outside living in a plant under construction or going to where the problems were. I became kind of a problem fixer. There were problems and I got called and I got paid for it.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:10:19] That's terrific. Yeah, I'd love to hear more about that. Let's start with the most exciting problem that you got to solve.
Nils Diaz [00:10:28] Oh, gosh. Early in the career because...
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:10:35] Actually, let's take a look at the entirety of your time as a consultant. What was the most exciting problem or the one you still think back to as, "Oh man, I kind of wish I was back solving that. That was a really cool challenge."
Nils Diaz [00:10:49] Well, I got simple problem that we're as obvious as not having the right person in the right place. At the time, the nuclear industry was using a pool of people where some came from school, some came from the submarines, some came from industry. And many times, when I found people have problems it's because they had the wrong person at the wrong place. It was really an issue that came over and over again.
Nils Diaz [00:11:27] I found out that it required a better educated person, not only in the things of science, but in the things of how you make things work, how you make organizations work, how organizations get funded in doing things better so they can do things better. How to avoid the pitfalls of doing the wrong things. And so, we developed a team that I had that were like five people. We'd go into different places at different times and just try to get the right things going. And there were some people having problems with the NRC. So, I have been dealing with the NRC since 1969.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:12:17] Wow, that's so impressive. I'd just like to hear a bit more about this kind of wrong person, wrong place. Is it typically a wrong person because they don't have the right experience or the right temperament or the right leadership skills? What makes a wrong person?
Nils Diaz [00:12:36] It's all of those, but many times somebody does good in one type of a job and they think that they can do good in something as complicated as building a nuclear power plant, and in some cases, even operating a nuclear power plant. So, they needed to have the right training which some had bypassed because they already were managers themselves. They needed to have the right knowledge of the industry, by right knowledge of the industry, I mean, what is this industry doing? What is the NRC doing? Is the NRC doing its job or is doing more than that? How do you stand up to the NRC? How do you stand up to a committee in government?
Nils Diaz [00:13:29] So, I started to get involved in government as early as 1974. I started to write things for people in Washington, just little things if they had problems. And I just wrote a paragraph or a page. I eventually got involved with the Freedom Act. And I spent months writing that, and I think maybe 20% of what I wrote made it, which is good.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:14:01] That's impressive. That's incredibly impressive.
Nils Diaz [00:14:05] So, it is actually getting there to actually help, but not to help so then people will say, "We really need Nils." No; it's making leaders in the industry so that when the teachers leave, they say, "You know, I did it myself. I know how to do this. This is something that I can do. I understand it now. I should do it." And that was very, very, very good to hear and to do, yes.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:14:43] That's incredibly rewarding. But how did you go from going in as a consultant, seeing maybe some issues directly related to the NRC, how did you go from that to your chairmanship at the NRC?
Nils Diaz [00:14:57] Oh, that was a long road between me and going... But I have always been tied into the NRC. So for example, when TMI happened, I just happened to be licensed as a senior reactor operator by Babcock & Wilcox, so the NRC immediately reached out to me to look from an external body. So you know, those people were looking with a microscope. Sometimes before you get to the microscope, you need to take a look back and see the whole thing. And then you can start increasing the power of notification. And so, I was very much involved in trying to see what happened. I understood the systems; I was trained on it. In fact, I was a consultant for Babcock & Wilcox at the time, and I was teaching their teachers of reactor operators on what are the key safety issues and so forth. So, it was easy for me to get in there and out of there. I kept the connection and I did several things.
Nils Diaz [00:16:05] In the middle of all this, I went to Europe and spent... Actually, it was a year and a half as the Principal Advisor to the Nuclear Safety Council of Spain. They were starting the NRC, and they were starting the NRC, probably, the wrong way. The first thing that they did was try to endorse all the actions the NRC had done for TMI, which half of them were wrong. So, my job in Europe was to prevent not only Spain, but all the other countries, to use actions taken by the NRC, which the NRC didn't like very much, but it was the right thing to do. Many years later, everybody agreed we didn't need those; those were overreactions.
Nils Diaz [00:16:54] And that's one thing that is a problem with regulation or maybe with nuclear energy, is that people tend to overreact to issues that happened. And the majority of the time, it's because there are not enough people with sufficient, in depth knowledge of what is happening to say, "Hold the horses. Let me find out. Let me see what it is and take the right actions." It's a difficult thing to do when people want to get going and show that they're great at doing things.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:17:31] Yeah, so I guess diagnose that problem that you saw at the NRC early on both in their response to Three Mile Island... Because having that depth of knowledge, one would assume anybody at the NRC has the depth of knowledge to understand what is and isn't a risk to the public. So, kind of what are those major issues?
Nils Diaz [00:17:51] I don't think that's correct.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:17:53] You don't think so?
Nils Diaz [00:17:55] No, I don't think that everybody in the NRC understands what are the real risks to the public and how it meshes with what they need to do. There are a lot of good people in there, but there are people from all characters. Many of them don't have the background. Many of them have not been, ever, in a nuclear power plant, many. So, like all government agencies, there's a pool of people. Many of them are very good. Some of them are in there because they need a job. And I'm being very frank with you, and the reason is nobody can hurt me. I'm untouchable.
Nils Diaz [00:18:35] So, the bottom line is that there are misconceptions in the NRC. For example, I can read you one, if that interests you, that goes on to the other part of your thinking. You read the mission of the NRC, which has changed a little bit since the last time I wrote it. It says, "The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials..." Correct. A hundred percent, correct. But then it says, "...in order," So, all of that is in order, "to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment." Wrong word. It's not in order, it is consistent with. Because the main duty is not the safety. The main duty is to license and regulate the nation's byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials. So, safety is a necessity, but it's not sufficient. You can create all the safety in the world and get zero results, none. What can you apply absolute safety to?
Nils Diaz [00:20:03] We tried over and over, for years, to make this point. And I always start many of my speeches... I said, "If you don't know the Atomic Energy Act, you really should not be practicing nuclear engineering, or you should not be regulating." And the Nuclear Energy Act, Section 5, Paragraph 2 says, "The policy of the United States states that the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall..." It doesn't say shall be regulated. "...shall be directed as to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise." When was the last time you heard that?
Nils Diaz [00:21:03] But it is the fundamental cornerstone of atomic law. It is what created all of this. And clearly, you can read in this that, yes, we need to have things as safely as they can be, but that's not the reason it exists. The NRC exists to license and to regulate. They don't exist to create safety. Safety is a necessity and it's safety to a level that is acceptable to its primary principles, which are to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise. That's why it exists. It doesn't exist for creating safety issues. It exists for the welfare of the people of the United States and nothing else.
Nils Diaz [00:21:57] It's valid. Nothing else is valuable, and nothing else is good. Does it have to have safety? Yes. The question we always have is how much is too much? We answer that question 50 times, and a year later, somebody is trying to go around it and change it a little bit. A little more safety, a little more safety. All to what? All in detriment to the welfare of the people of the United States. It's not all to create more safety. The reality is we have too more learning. We did need much learning, but we are missing the point. We need nuclear power. And we need it in a good form, a safe form. But you make the automobile safe, you will never run another one again.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:22:50] Exactly. Yeah, I guess the safest nuclear power plant is the one you don't build, but then you don't get the the advantages that nuclear power has to offer. I couldn't agree more. So what is a better model, in your mind? Where in the world... You've traveled a lot, you helped Spain build up their nuclear regulator. Where is the best model for nuclear regulation that you've seen?
Nils Diaz [00:23:15] Oh, we keep saying the NRC is the best model. I am not so sure of that. Many of the Western countries... And I know them all. By the way, for three years I was the the Chairman of the worldwide nuclear regulators, of all the associations, so I know all the principal ones, or I knew all the principle ones. The bottom line is a kind of a smorgasbord, because everybody tries to protect their turf, a very natural human emotion,. You know, "Yeah, you yankees, you do good things, but I do it my way," you know? So, the lack of, let's call it... It's not homogenization. The the lack of a model that will serve everybody is really still missing.
Nils Diaz [00:24:14] Because we tried in 2003... I tried to implement a smaller step of that called the Multinational Effort which was trying to say, "Okay, you regulate the power plants when they're working, but building a nuclear power plant... Let's approve the design so once somebody approves it and the other approves it, it's approved by everybody." That was 2003, 20 years ago. They are still arguing about it. Because regulators, in general, are very concerned that they're going to lose some of their independence. And I think that's nonsense, in the present word. I think it might have been true 20 years or 40, 50 years ago, but with the visibility of everything and how everything is well-known and publicized, it just doesn't make any sense anymore.
Nils Diaz [00:25:17] There are many things that should be kind of a standard for nuclear regulation. The principal one is when you actually approve the construction of a reactor whose reactor was designed someplace else, 98% somebody else designed it, well, what's wrong with looking and analyzing and getting a group of nations to agree, "You know, this is a sufficient set of standards and norms to make this acceptable to whoever wants to build this reactor." Then, the country that's going to build it puts the people in that they need and additional things. But the bulk of it, and the bulk of the problem in nuclear, is construction.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:26:10] Oh, definitely. Definitely.
Nils Diaz [00:26:12] It's not operation. So, I think we still have a way to go. There are efforts ongoing and I am all for trying to provide a certain standardization in these area so people will not spend their lifetime trying to find another standard or another rule or a different thing to do.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:26:37] How do you have that degree of collaboration without... I see two main challenges. One, it's the turf. Like, "my regulations are better than yours." But also, it's going to the lowest common denominator. So, if we have a lot of regulators collaborating, how would you prevent them from putting the harshest standards that are not proportional to either economics or safety? And maybe you've already thought about this in your plan. How would you make sure that doesn't happen? Because if you put together a standardized set of regulations, but maybe they're just too high of a bar for anybody to actually meet, it won't be as effective. How have you thought through that problem?
Nils Diaz [00:27:22] Well, we already have, in many ways, tested the basic model, even between ourselves. The reality is that these are doable. And if anybody tries to do less than that, that is quickly caught up. The system is set up to prevent anything that is too low. It's not set up to prevent anything that is too high, because a lot of people think this is the right thing to do. That's where we need to really put most of the effort. To accept that regulatory structure is necessary. That an effective and efficient regulatory structure... Those are two different words. Effective is not in the time domain, which means it's about quality, and efficient means that something is done in the right time and the right place.
Nils Diaz [00:28:26] There is absolutely no reason today with the things that we know for, let's call it, the approval of a site for a nuclear power plant to take this much time; it's just wasting time. And whose time is being wasted? It's our people's. The citizens of the United States who are paying the price. And that's why this is such an incredibly difficult problem, because people claim I am the defender of the faith. And I'm saying, "No, you're not. The people need to eat. They need to eat well. They need to have the ability to be able spend their life to believe that they have a future."
Nils Diaz [00:29:15] And energy is now, at this time, the cornerstone of progress, and I think we don't have it. And we're seeing that there are constraints in our energy infrastructure. And in order to fix it, we need something that gives us baseload power at a reasonable price all the time. And that requires addressing what I will call the four cornerstones of the nuclear industry, which, sometimes, are not as well connected as they should be.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:29:55] Yes, I definitely see that. I would be so interested to hear... So, having your role at the NRC, you were there for 10 years?
Nils Diaz [00:30:04] Yes.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:30:07] Talk me through that period of your career. What were some of the main highlights? But also, I would be so interested to hear the lowlights. Like, where did you really feel like, "Oh, man. We may not push through this."
Nils Diaz [00:30:25] When I went to the NRC, I was already a well-prepared scientist and technician. I was one of the most technical people that the NRC has ever seen. And it was not one year, it was many years working on many reactors. Working in the repositories, working in the mines. I mean, I have worked the entire field all the way to the actual nuclear utility. When I was in California, I used to go every other day to San Onofre. So, it was a compound of experience, which I loved. I'd spend my time, and I loved it.
Nils Diaz [00:31:12] So when I got there, I pretty much had an idea of what we needed to do. Of course, I was shocked by the frequent, "Stop. This needs to be safer." I said, "Well, no, the law says you need to be safer." "Oh, yeah, but I don't agree," generally what they say. So you know, people will, let's call it, resurrect issues that I've dealt with 40 years before, like safety during loading or reloading. Or, safety while shuffling fuels, things like that which I thought we had resolved. All o a sudden, somebody thought about it. "Oh my gosh, we need to stop the power plant. You cannot load or reload. There is a major issue." I said, "There is no issue. There is no issue." "No, we need to hire The National Academy of Science." "Hire whoever you whatever you want. There is no issue."
Nils Diaz [00:32:19] And I sat with a lot of them and they brought me the problems, and I would say, "Okay, this is how you solve it." But it costs a lot of money. It costs people to slow down. And at the end, the conclusion was there really was no issue. But it's very hard when you have this flag that you wave around, "Safety! Safety! We don't want to kill people or irradiate or get things..." Well, where are the people that look at places like Chernobyl. Chernobyl, people think is like... Look at the distribution of radionucleides. Look at Fukushima. Nucleides are normally heavier than the earth, they tend to fall right away. This is why we can reduce the exclusion zones. We have the knowledge. What we need is the will and a proper framework that unites industry with government and maintains an independent regulator, but a regulator that is regulating the right things instead of creating issues to slow things down.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:33:40] Definitely. So yeah, maybe that was a bit of a low, just like maybe the bureaucracy or this overemphasis on safety. What was your largest accomplishment out of your time at the NRC?
Nils Diaz [00:33:54] I think to bring the NRC to confront their technical knowledge and background. It's having people stop bringing things that were pretty stupid, because I called them stupid. And they started to get a little sensitive about it. And somebody came and said, "We need to shut down the power plants because the spent fuel pools are very dangerous." "Okay, when was the last spent fuel pool that had an accident? "Well never, but any moment now." "But, why? "Well, it's the cooling." I say, "The cooling?" And he says, "We really have a problem with cooling." And I sat down with a piece of paper and said, "What is the thermal load?" And so I went on and I said, "A two inch hose will cool your spent fuel pool." He said, "That cannot be."
Nils Diaz [00:34:50] Two hours later, about 20 of them showed up and said, "Yeah, you can do that, but it's not available now." I said, "How much time before the system starts running out of water? You don't think you can get a two inch hose into the spent fuel pool?" They said, "Well, you could, but it might be that radiation..." I said, "What radiation?" And so, it is lack of depth in certain areas. There are a lot of very good, very deep, very intelligent, very knowledgeable people at the NRC, but sometimes they prefer to be quiet and see what happens. And I think that's wrong. I think those are the ones who need to be speaking and say, "No." This project with the spent fuel pool went to the National Academy of Sciences, and I won. There was no issue. It was dropped. No issue.
Nils Diaz [00:35:58] Then, 9/11. You asked me... One of the most interesting projects that I did was after 9/11. And it was the reality that there was a possibility, a remote assurance, but a possibility that somebody could actually destroy a reactor, break the barriers, and actually create something that would not have enough coolant. And so, we created what is called B5b. B5b was a response to the potential for a major sabotage, bombing, whatever you want to call it. And what we did was extremely good. It was not expensive to the point that it would bankrupt anybody, and it set up the basis of what the industry, actually, did better than what we did. After Fukushima, the entire industry realized we have to do this.
Nils Diaz [00:37:05] So, what do we have now? Nuclear power plants in this country that can laugh, really laugh at a loss of coolant accident, and proceed with actions and mechanisms that will keep the plant safe. And that was good. But when you add to all that, "This is going to destroy everything. This is a problem. You know, we'll just shut it down. Let's study this for five years and..." No. And that always come from those who have less depth. I mean, in every organization, there's some of them. Like I said, I have tremendous respect for people in the NRC, but in any other organization, there's always somebody who is looking for, "I need to get something done, and I create this." And that's not going to wash up for much longer. And the reason is the capability that we have of researching things in a day instead of a year. And that is in our favor.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:38:12] Okay, so you see the environment or everything improving, maybe due to access or due to a renewed interest in nuclear. You see this issue at the NRC, or maybe even more broadly, in the nuclear industry as improving this overreliance on safety?
Nils Diaz [00:38:30] I think we have reached the point that we understand safety issues. The important ones; not that we understand everything, but I think we understand it. I think we have the measures in place. And I think that nuclear is about ready for a rebound. We've been saying '22, '23, '24, and it's here. However, there are, I would say, the four things that need to come together for this to happen. I don't know if you want me to take a minute and go through them, but...
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:39:07] Sure, I definitely would.
Nils Diaz [00:39:09] But it's very old; it's nothing new. We always said there are four key parts of the forming the nuclear infrastructure. And the first part is, obviously, you need an industry that has construction has operation and that takes care of the expensive fuel. And there is something that is necessary and it's good to have it, what I already said, which is regulation. Regulation has to be there, but it cannot be super safe or it cannot be negligent. You have to leave the right balance and you have to connect with industry. It cannot be independent of industry.
Nils Diaz [00:39:49] I mean, when I got to the NRC, somebody said, "Well, we don't meet with the industry anymore." I said, "I'm sorry. I'm finishing with that today. I'm going to pick up the phone in front of you and I'm going to call this fellow and I'm going to ask him to come to my office. I want to hear what he has to say." "What? This is treason. You're talking to the industry." "No, these are the people I license. These are the people that I need to hear from. This are not somebody out there that I don't know or have any... I'm responsible for what they do and how they act. We need to talk to them." And that was also a major thing.
Nils Diaz [00:40:34] So you know, industry, regulation, and then governance, which is the upper level. Politics and government, as we know, they're always there. We like to be independent of it; we can't. They have to be in there. And to be able to create the right governance, industry and regulation need to be able to work together for the welfare of the people, dependent on the government, and get things done right.
Nils Diaz [00:41:06] And the fourth one is the most important. And the fourth one is economics and financing. The problems of the nuclear industry, then, 1970 and now, are still financing and economics. And we screwed it up time and time again. We did not do this end right. I mean, it is not possible to spend 10 or 15 years building a reactor and think you have the economics. And that's why small reactors are coming. It's not because they're prettier. It's not because they're safer. People say, "They're safe." We can make the big reactors as safe, or just about. The issue is that you can build them in a smaller period of time and deployed them. And because you can do that, you might be able to finance it much better.
Nils Diaz [00:42:06] So, it kind of goes together, the probability of building, of putting into operation, and the financing. And there might be no way around but have models in which things are shared. There is sharing between the vendor, the reactor vendor, and the architect, engineer, and the utility. Some sharing of financial risk and profit, something that allows people to see you're putting it in the right way. There is no doubt that this is too complex to have just a utility do it themselves.
Nils Diaz [00:42:49] The vendor made the decisions. It doesn't make any sense. "No, no, no. I am the vendor." "Big deal. You're the vendor. You cannot do it yourself." "Well, I'm there to protect..." But together, there will be three, four, five institutions. They could share in the pain and in the profits, and that might be the model of the future. Somebody smart and powerful would actually get these things done. It may be that the industry decides to do it, but it is not possible to do it... This is too complex and there are too many strings attached to everything to just get a couple of people to make the decisions and you go forth. You have to be a model of risk sharing and profit sharing that drives the industry forward.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:43:41] That's incredible. I definitely agree, and I see that. I would love to hear more about your current work at ND2. Is that something, specifically, you're focusing on with ND2, or is that just a side path that you're still looking forward into the future of the nuclear industry?
Nils Diaz [00:44:01] ND2 has... In fact, 75% of the work has been outside the last few years. I actually consult and have consulted, many times, directly for prime ministers, the president. So, I have the fortune of getting the entry point to somebody that can do something with what I say, and I love it. I love to be there, and I love somebody to hear. So, I have been doing a lot of... It's not politicking, but as a policy advisor.
Nils Diaz [00:44:39] So, for example, I was in Abu Dhabi. I wrote a lot of the things about what Abu Dhabi is doing. I was in Japan after Fukushima. Of course, I've been with the Prime Minister of Britain, France, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and a few other people who are just very selective. People that wanted somebody to tell them the truth and not pull them up. And when they were finished, they don't have more bills. They just pack up and go. And I love to do that. I love to finish, pack my bags and go.
Nils Diaz [00:45:27] And here, I've been doing a lot of work for the utilities regarding how they interact with the public service commissions. There are sometimes many issues between the utilities and vendors that need to be resolved in a very deep manner. We're talking about issues of hundreds of millions of dollars. And so, I have been doing that for more than 10 years. I actually go deep and I work for for Florida Power & Light, or work for Duke or for Minnesota Power, or work for Bechtel. So, I work for architects, engineers. And issues of complex policy issues is what I've been doing. When the policy and the work get mixed together and there are rules to be followed, somebody has to pull them apart and show them where they belong and how they fit. And that's what I do; I love it.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:46:36] That's exciting. And you're doing that policy work in the US and internationally?
Nils Diaz [00:46:43] Yes.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:46:43] Perfect. And this is, maybe, a bit specific, but I'm sure you're aware that Poland has actually rewritten a lot of their atomic law, recently. Do you have any thoughts on that recent news?
Nils Diaz [00:46:54] No, I really have not seen it. I knew some guys who were working in there, but they're all gone now. This is a new generation. So, I don't know anybody in there. I haven't looked at it, but I might.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:47:08] Yeah, I would highly recommend. Yeah, it's really interesting what they're doing over there. Exactly as you're talking about, being much more focused on how the industry and regulators need to come together so that the regulations are aligned to actually bringing plants online quickly. So yeah, I highly recommend taking a look at that.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:47:26] But I guess, what are kind of those critical issues? It looks like there's a lot of progress, there's a lot of interest, especially in the small reactors, but what critical issues do we need to resolve in order to have the nuclear power industry really be all that it could be?
Nils Diaz [00:47:42] Well, I think... And some people are not going to like this, but one of the issues is eventually we need to reduce the number of reactors that are in the marketplace. We cannot support 500 concepts. It'd be nice, but we can't. And so, what it does, seems to me, kind of slows down. So, I think that the knowledgeable industry needs to start reducing to those who are more economically viable, that offer more advantages in different parts of the power cycle, that are attracting the funding. We cannot do it all.
Nils Diaz [00:48:35] And we went through this... You were not even born, in 1962. In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission was being faced with the fact that there were some 50 concepts floating around and there was only so much money. And there was the Director of the Atomic... Not Commissioner, the Chairman, but he actually got enough power to say, "Enough. We can't do any more. We're only going to do light-water reactors and fast reactors. That's it."
Nils Diaz [00:49:14] If you have a limited amount of money, what would you rather do? Do a good one that will stand the test of time, or spread it around? And 20 years from now, we're still asking which is the best one? So, I think the industry needs to focus on selecting a number that are viable. We don't want to just say, "Oh, we're going to select one." No, that's not correct. But there will be those that have a definite advantage. And we practically know which ones they are. I'm not going to tell you. I'll charge you for it.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:49:58] I was going to say... Yeah, I have my own ideas about what the best reactor technology type is like, especially for a near-term deployment. But I'd be really interested to hear what you think both the ideal number or the ideal type of reactor is.
Nils Diaz [00:50:13] But to finish, the second thing is we need to... Besides just having a reactor or having the company behind it, we need to develop how do we put these things in place? How do we tie the issues of economics, of personnel, all of those things that need to happen and happen well. You know, I lived in a time where it was not strange to have a reactor being been built for 20 years. I lived them. It was not building the reactor, it was trying to get around all the other problems. They didn't have the money, they didn't have this. This happened, an accident happened. There was always something. There was always lack of foresight. A group in the industry needs to have the foresight to set the indispensable elements to go forth well set and have those reactors that are worth it to go forward under that set, because other sets will not work. We have proven it over and over again, that we can do it.
Nils Diaz [00:51:29] Right now, France spending from 13 years, 10 years building a reactor. That's just crazy. It's expensive. It's just crazy. I mean, we were not ready. We then decided not to do it. You know, Georgia Power, wonderful people, I love them all. But they were not ready to take over the reactor, and they shouldn't be ready. They're a utility. They're not the architect engineer. They're not a vendor. So, how do we not start a reactor unless we have all the pieces in place? Don't start it. Don't try it, because it won't work. We have proven it in this country, over and over again, that it will not work.
Nils Diaz [00:52:16] There was a time in 1971 when I was a principal consultant for Exxon Nuclear. People don't even know there was an Exxon Nuclear.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:52:29] Yeah, I was unaware.
Nils Diaz [00:52:30] The first question that came was, "What should a model to build nuclear power plants contain?" And I said, "Well, let me see. What are you following now?" They said, "We don't have one." I said, "What?" "We don't have one. We want you to build one." I said, "I'm nobody. I'm a kid. What are you asking me for? I mean, you get the right people, you get them together and you drill through it for a year, and then you build the model." And we might still need to do that now.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:53:07] Interesting. Yeah, I wonder who is best positioned? You kind of talked about three distinct groups. You have your industry, you have government officials, and then I would separate regulators out from the government. Which one of those stakeholders, or a fourth I don't know about, is best positioned to put forward a model, whether it's around financing, the technology, or the regulation? Who is best positioned to set that framework?
Nils Diaz [00:53:37] The industry, assuming they realize that they have to to do it properly. With a proper assessment and the proper things, they are the ones to do it. And then, they need to convince the politicians, or at least a majority of them, that this is the right place. And then, they need to convince the financing, because the last thing they need to do is convince the utilities. There will be utilities and governments to do it. But you have to be able to do that. And it has to be able to be done not as a private matter, "I'm going to do this and I'm going to keep it in here." No, do it in the open. Let people know that you're doing the right things. Let everybody see that there is transparency and there is knowledge and that things are being weighted. And that puts out a model that can be done and be taken forward.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:54:41] Wow, that's incredible. You've given me a lot of interesting ideas and a lot of hope for the future of the industry. I wanted to see if you had a final message to share with our with our listeners about the future.
Nils Diaz [00:54:54] I love the nuclear industry. I could have been something else, and I stuck with it. I still am.
Maddie Hibbs-Magruder [00:55:01] Terrific. Well, thank you so much for joining me for this episode of Titans of Nuclear, and I look forward to seeing you again.
Nils Diaz [00:55:08] Thank you. Take care.
1) Josh Mesner joins us for the Episode 400 special, as he and Bret discuss Josh’s background and beginning at Last Energy - From H.R. to Operations
2) How a young Last Energy first started hiring and onboarding new employees who were already thriving in their existing field
3) Josh’s work with the internal efficiencies of Last Energy and the various projects this work led him to take part in
4) Overcoming challenges in the interest of a mission you believe in and strive for
This transcript is pending
1) How Bhavya sparked her interests in science and nuclear engineering, as well as traveling around to see power plants in India as a child
2) A deep dive into the types of technologies Bhavya and NASA are using in addition to radioisotope power systems and other power systems
3) The challenges Bhavya foresees having to overcome in terms of relying more on nuclear technology to achieve NASA’s goals in space
4) The regulatory and international cooperation landscapes for nuclear technology in space
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:00:59] Welcome to Titans of Nuclear. Today, we have Bhavya Lal with us. She's the Associate Administrator for Technology, Policy, and Strategy at NASA. Bhavya, it is so exciting to have you on the podcast to talk about space nuclear. Welcome to the show.
Bhavya Lal [00:01:15] I'm so excited to be here, Michelle. Great talking to you. And again, we just found out that we know each other from way back when, so that's even better.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:01:22] We do. Yeah, lots of history. But I'm actually really keen to start even before you and I met, I guess, about eight years ago now. If you could tell me, where did you grow up? What's your educational background? How did you get into science?
Bhavya Lal [00:01:41] Great question, Michelle. I was born in a small town called Mathura, which is near the Taj Mahal in India. I grew up in a pretty STEM-heavy family. My father was an electrical engineer. My mom studied math in college, but she got married at 19 and didn't ever have a chance to have a career, so her dream got channeled into me. My father traveled a lot setting up power plants and manufacturing units all over India. Until I was in high school, my mom and I traveled with him, sometimes for weeks and months. My mom would get the curriculum from my teachers and we would study, so I got a lot of home schooling until I was in high school.
Bhavya Lal [00:02:20] I arrived in the US as an 18 year old. Two suitcases full of books... It didn't occur to me to pack any clothes, just to study nuclear physics and get a Nobel Prize, so you can imagine coming to MIT was a rude awakening. Just to round out the question, I was part of the MIT five-year Bachelor's-Master's program, in which I studied nuclear engineering. So, full circle.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:02:49] What sparked that interest in nuclear? I mean, you said that you traveled around to see power plants in India with your dad as a child. Was that the interest in energy? And why nuclear? How did you hear about it?
Bhavya Lal [00:03:02] I think at the time, climate change was something we had only started to hear about. You know, you read about it in textbooks. So, when I came to MIT, thinking about the different options, it seemed like nuclear power was a good way to think about the future. And then, that's where I started. Although over time, I think one thing I learned was the reason we weren't getting things done, building more nuclear power plants, for example, wasn't because technology was lacking, but because there was a lack of policy and policy is hard.
Bhavya Lal [00:03:41] You know, I have a friend, Adam Russell, who always says, "If you think physics is hard, imagine if electrons can think and can be irrational. Now that's policy." And again, I mean, climate change as a representative example, our challenges aren't engineering, but policy ones. And I think, over time I felt that doing things in space solves so many problems that we have on Earth, climate change, again sticking with that theme, being one. So, I decided to focus on space and that's where I am now, at NASA.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:04:14] Fantastic. I mean, you definitely took on the challenge of thinking not just about the science, but communicating that science and scientific understanding to the people who are trying to make those very tough decisions moving into policy. I know before you started at NASA, you worked really closely across multiple administrations at the Science and Technology Policy Institute, informing science policy with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where you really were quite a rock star in the space policy world. Helping bridge that gap between the technology, the cutting edge science, and then what do we actually do with that and how do we ensure that we have policies that enable new science, but also think about how we can actually use the existing technology that we have to meet large, governmental and American, country-wide goals and ambitions, but also planetary, which is really what your focus has been. So after STPI, you're now at NASA. Tell me about what it's been like to start out your career and to be at NASA for the past few years. What are you focusing on?
Bhavya Lal [00:05:28] My training is in policy analysis methods. I found that these methods that I applied so well in the realm of science policy, R&D policy, where we worked together... I found that the space sector hasn't really been as policy savvy because it was so strategic for geopolitical reasons. Analysis wasn't as core to space activities as it had been in other parts of the science community. So, one of the things that happened when I switched to the space sector was all these methods that I've learned both in school and in my career were highly applicable. So for example, I initially did an analysis of whether a private space station would be profitable. And how you set up the model, how you do that analysis is something I felt very comfortable with, but it was a new way of thinking in the space sector.
Bhavya Lal [00:06:23] So, since analysis was my jam, it was an easy switch to come from science policy to space policy. And today, I am the Associate Administrator for Technology, Policy, and Strategy at NASA. I report to a Deputy Administrator, and I kind of think about holistic things, big picture things, the direction in which NASA should move, areas where NASA should get involved where it may or may not have been in the past. Policy issues... When we get to the moon... There are 20 missions planned. There would be Chinese missions, commercial missions. How do we work together on the moon where there's no rules at all? So, those are some of the things we think about in this new office that I lead.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:07:09] Okay, great. It's a new office. I'd love to get to better understand that exact office function, but maybe... You are on Titans of Nuclear. The majority of our audience thinks about nuclear when it comes to big, commercial reactors, or SMRs, terrestrial applications. Can you talk to me about maybe a history of NASA and how nuclear has fit into NASA's remit throughout the past few years so we can really understand what you were just getting at?
Bhavya Lal [00:07:38] Absolutely. So, NASA actually has been part of nuclear efforts since its inception. And when we talk about nuclear, we are not just talking about fission reactors, which is something we see terrestrially, but also what are called radioisotopic systems, which is basically a battery, essentially, which is powered by plutonium-238. And it can also be powered by other isotopes, but mostly it has been plutonium-238. So, those are the two systems that NASA has been part of since its very creation. In fact, this month, nearly 60 years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission supervised the actual launch of a nuclear reactor, I think in 1965. It produced about 500 watts of power; it was called SNAP-10A. And after working for a few weeks, it was shut down. So, reactors have been part of our DNA from the beginning, although after that launch, we haven't had one again, and we should get into that a little bit.
Bhavya Lal [00:08:44] Mostly what NASA has done is flown these radioisotope systems. I think we've flown more than three or four dozen. Plutonium-238 has been used in nearly every NASA mission that required power. So, Apollo flights, Viking 1 and 2, the Mars landers, Voyager, the New Horizons Mission to Pluto, and most recently the Mars Perseverance Rover. Next up, we will launch a Dragonfly mission in 2027 to explore Saturn's largest moon, for which we arrive in 2034. So today, NASA's investing in all nuclear technologies across the board. We are looking at new ideas in radioisotope systems, systems that convert heat to power more efficiently. We are investing in power systems, basically, just like on Earth. We have reactors. We would like to have power reactors in space, and we can talk about why. And then, also nuclear power for what's called propulsion, to travel across space. So, it's been an exciting time.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:09:57] It's actually really fascinating, because you're getting at the main uses of nuclear on land. So, for electrification purposes and then the very small scale, the thought of kind of a nuclear battery makes a lot of sense. For larger-scale applications, you think about larger SMRs or gigawatt-scale plants that power cities, power communities, power factories. And then for propulsion, really just the equivalent of a car or any other form of transportation, except here, we're talking about traveling to Mars or to Saturn, which is on a completely different scale. So, that's really fascinating that all aspects have been not only part of NASA's history, but are also having such focus on these new innovations within your office.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:10:40] I'd love to dig in around the types of technologies that you're using. You mentioned plutonium-238 for traditional radioisotope battery packs, as you define them. What other types of radioisotope power systems or other power systems are you all looking at? And then, maybe you'd also like to explain a little bit more about how nuclear thermal propulsion technology works and what that really means.
Bhavya Lal [00:11:10] Right. So, plutonium-238 is the power source of radioisotope systems. This is basically a hot rock, right? Once it's there, there are alpha particles that are emitted. They are converted into electricity, easy peasy. Well, I'm obviously exaggerating. It's actually very complicated, and we take safety very, very seriously at NASA. But that's just one piece. The investments we are making now... And we have made them in the past as well, but there have been a lot of starts and stops.
Bhavya Lal [00:11:45] You mentioned nuclear thermal propulsion, NTP, or nuclear thermal rockets, NTR. What nuclear power propulsion systems do is they utilize the heat from fissioning nuclear reactor, basically the chain reaction, to heat and pressurize the liquid rocket propellant, of which an example is hydrogen, from a liquid to a gas phase. And then, the gaseous propellant is accelerated out a nozzle in the exact same way a conventional chemical rocket engine does. And basically, the main difference is that chemical rockets have a combustion chamber where heat is generated via chemical reactions, whereas in nuclear you just heat the propellant directly. So, it just in some ways simplifies things.
Bhavya Lal [00:12:30] There is another approach to nuclear propulsion in space, which is called nuclear electric propulsion, or NEP, which is actually very similar to a terrestrial reactor in that it basically converts thermal energy from that fission reactor chamber into electrical energy. And that electrical energy then powers electric thrusters that propel the spacecraft forward. So in all cases, it is Newton's Third Law, action and reaction, that's in action, but it's just slightly different approaches. And currently, NASA is investing mostly in NTP, nuclear thermal propulsion, but we are investing a little bit in NEP, as well.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:13:15] And so, for both NTP and NEP, what is the base radioisotope that you're using? Is it still plutonium, or are you using uranium or using something like strontium? What's the base?
Bhavya Lal [00:13:29] Great question. We actually use uranium. In the olden days... So as I said... Remember I said in 1965 we had launched a nuclear reactor. At the time, we had used highly-enriched, basically what might be considered weapons-grade enriched uranium-235. Today, what we are trying to do is we are using low-enriched uranium, or to be more precise, High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium, HALEU, it's called, which is about 19-ish percent enrichment. So, we have reduced enrichment levels. And the reason for that is we want to address the issue of proliferation in space. We don't want the nuclear fuel that would be in a reactor to, for example, get stolen and turned into a weapon. So, we are trying to make our reactors more secure. And again, I'm making a distinction here between safety and security. The low-enriched uranium isn't about safety and making it more safe, it's about making it more secure.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:14:36] Yeah, absolutely for nonproliferation reasons. So, that's for the propulsion ones. And then, in terms of fuel sources, are you also exploring alternative radioisotopes for the battery pack version or the terrestrial... I guess, maybe you might also be exploring HALEU for "moon terrestrial" applications. I don't really know what you call that, if there is a term for moon base applications.
Bhavya Lal [00:15:05] Again, great questions, Michelle. So far, our radioisotope systems... Government systems have always used or mostly used plutonium-238, at least for space applications, but there is this emerging private sector that is proposing the use of isotopes other than plutonium-238. One reason is plutonium-238 is susceptible to proliferation. It is also very expensive to produce; it is only produced in government labs. So, we really do have a limited supply of radioisotope systems. So, these commercial companies like USNC or Zeno Power are coming up with a variety of other isotopes that they believe can be useful. And of course, a lot of these things are emerging, right? We don't know if they will work, but we are super excited. And again, I'm a huge supporter of commercial activities in space, so I'm highly supportive of us very carefully looking at what these companies are doing and seeing how we can integrate them into our plans. So, that's RPS.
Bhavya Lal [00:16:08] On nuclear power on the moon, that's just a reactor on Earth. Again, we are looking at HALEU, High-Assay LEU systems, similar to the propulsion system. So, no difference between fission power and fission propulsion with respect to the fuel source.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:16:29] Fantastic. So, it sounds like there's a lot of innovation happening, obviously both within government and the policy space, but also even in the commercial space. So, how is all of that innovation around these new technologies changing how you guys are thinking about future travel and missions that NASA's conducting?
Bhavya Lal [00:16:49] So again, a really excellent question, Michelle. So, let's split up power and propulsion separately. What nuclear does is it helps when there's enough solar flux available. So for example, on Mars or in a lunar crater. Or when the environment is so chemically or, from a radiation perspective, corrosive that it may corrode solar panels. Or, when we need power for an extended length of time. Getting to Pluto with New Horizons took nine years. So, you can't have batteries running in that kind of time. So, that's kind of the sweet spot of nuclear power.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:17:32] That reliability, longevity.
Bhavya Lal [00:17:34] Right. So again, just giving the example of Mars. Mars is 1.6 times farther away from the sun than we are, which means there is 50 to 60% less solar flux on the surface of Mars then in Earth orbit. So just from that perspective, solar power is simply not a realistic option on Mars, especially if you need reliable sources of power to support humans who are there and that doesn't shut off because a dust storm covered the solar panels. I don't know if you saw that movie Good Night Oppy which talked about the Opportunity rover, which basically once it was covered with dust, it was unable to function. And as you know, Mars has these month-long dust storms and the day and night cycle also makes solar power less reliable.
Bhavya Lal [00:18:23] And then, there's a challenge of size because of the lower flux. So, the solar panels on the space station, which your listeners might know about, span a football field. To produce that same level of power would require solar panels that are two football fields on Mars under the best of conditions and maybe five football fields if we account for dust storms. And given that we need, basically, seven kilograms of propellant to transport one kilogram of usable payload to Mars, imagine the cost of that transportation. This will be a nearly impossible feat. So, nuclear power is essential for any kind of sustainable presence, whether human or robotic, on Mars.
Bhavya Lal [00:19:05] So, that's just on the power front. There is the propulsion front as well, right? Mars is so far away; the journey is fraught with peril. There's radiation, there's lack of gravity, there's loneliness. We want to get there fast. So, if we just use chemical propulsion, it'll take 1,100 days, about half of which is travel time. With nuclear propulsion, the travel times could be cut by 30% or more. So, it is just really important for us to look at these alternative sources of both power and propulsion as we go deeper into space.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:19:43] It all makes complete sense, and it's really fascinating. I think that the payload restrictions and requirements and also thinking about these harsh environments is something that... We see the same sorts of challenges when we're thinking about decarbonizing places that might not have great natural resources for geothermal, for hydropower, or for solar and wind, and nuclear always seems to be that one key technology that just doesn't really have those same challenges based on geography or resource constraint. But then of course, I think the scale, as you described it, is also so critical because as you said, in an ideal world, sure, we could just put whatever we want on Mars, but you have to get there. You have to really plan out, I mean, quite literally, every single aspect of all of these missions, and nuclear seems like a really critical piece of enabling that next generation of more advanced missions and more advanced planning.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:20:42] So that's all great, but I'm sure there are so many challenges that you think about on a daily basis, not just with meeting all of those objectives, but also with the nuclear technology itself. I mean, it's a technology that's primarily been developed for terrestrial applications. It's been used in certain systems like Voyager and some of the others that you mentioned, in the past. But we haven't really fully relied on it to the point where some of those space cowboy movies that we all watch are actually true. So, what are some of the challenges that you foresee and that NASA forsees in really relying more on nuclear technology to help enable our goals in space?
Bhavya Lal [00:21:26] There are obviously technical challenges, both nuclear thermal propulsion and nuclear electric propulsion have challenges. So for example, for NTP, the reactor system must heat the propellant to at least 2,700 Kelvin. Reactor materials must be protected against hot hydrogen attack. We need to store liquid hydrogen in, basically, a zero degree, absolute zero space with minimal losses in deep space. We need to be trusting. I mean, so there's a huge list of technical issues both with NEP and NTP. There was a National Academy of Science report written in 2021 that really laid the challenges out.
Bhavya Lal [00:22:07] But in my view... And again, I have the NASA Technology, Policy, and Strategy hat on right now... The main impediment is not technological, it's that there is no demand pull, and therefore it is underfunded. The lack of demand basically inhibits investments. And if you have no investment, users are worried about saying, "This is something that we want." So, I think one of the ways to stop this vicious cycle is for either our Exploration Systems Directorate, or even outside of NASA, a user saying, "I want this," right?
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:22:53] Yeah, absolutely. I'd love to unpack some of that. I mean, now you're tickling the part of my brain that really lights up. So obviously, NASA is the premier space agency that everyone thinks of. They think of the US government in space, they think of NASA. But it's not just NASA that operates assets and has missions and objectives in space. I mean, there's NOAA, there's even USGS. I think there are 17 different agencies that have some role in something that I'm sure NASA supports. And so, can you talk to me though about how funding works? Because NASA really is kind of the critical agency in all of our space applications. So, what other agencies are working in space nuclear or is it only NASA? And then, within NASA's budget, I'd love to unpack how much of that actually goes to your office, but really more to enable the nuclear technology within NASA's budget.
Bhavya Lal [00:23:50] So, NASA is not the only organization, government agency, investing in space, which is just wonderful. DARPA, which is part of the Department of Defense, has a program called DRACO. It stand for, I think, Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations. And so, the DRACO program is a collaboration. They're collaborating with NASA to build a nuclear thermal rocket, NTP system, that is of use to both of our agencies. And their goal is to test a nuclear thermal rocket-enabled spacecraft in Earth orbit during the 2027 fiscal year. So, that's just DARPA.
Bhavya Lal [00:24:27] AFRL, the Air Force Research Laboratory, is investing in a program called JETSON, which is, I think, short for Joint Energy Supplying On-Orbit Nuclear Power. And again, their focus is on producing power in space. There's another DoD entity called Defense Innovation Unit, DIU. They are looking at chargeable, encapsulated radioisotope batteries for both propulsion and power. So, there's really good investment across the board.
Bhavya Lal [00:24:57] With respect to funding, I am not sure I should speak to funding in other agencies, but Congress appropriates NASA about $210 million, annually, to focus on nuclear thermal propulsion, NTP systems. That funding goes to our Space Technology Mission Directorate, STMD. In fact, all of the nuclear work happens within STMD and a set of NASA centers. So, we have a center in Alabama called the Marshall Space Flight Center, where a lot of the work gets done. And obviously, we have contractors who are all over the country who work in this area. So, the work isn't just happening within NASA, but it's happening in industry as well. And companies like Aerojet Rocketdyne, BWXT, General Atomics, USNC and Blue Origin and others are getting this government funding across the board to do some of this work. It's a very exciting time to be in the space nuclear community.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:26:05] Yeah, that's fantastic. I'm sure a lot of people think about SpaceX as kind of a premier example of how public-private partnerships with NASA in space have worked out, but could you unpack some of the other types of private sector investments that we see in this space? There's obviously funding coming from government, but how is the private sector really being involved in terms of helping to either, sure, provide investment and funding, but also in terms of helping to create that demand that you're talking about?
Bhavya Lal [00:26:39] So, I just want to clarify that the private sector has always supported government investment in space nuclear, but exclusively in a contracting role. So for example, for the Perseverance rover that landed on Mars in 2021, the Department of Energy procured the system, the RTG radioisotope system from Aerojet Rocketdyne, and a company called Teledyne Energy Systems. NASA contracted with a company called ULA, United Launch Alliance, to provide launch services. So, the private sector has always been there, however, in recent years we have seen private investment in space.
Bhavya Lal [00:27:22] I mentioned some of these companies, right? USNC, there's a new company called Dark Fission. You mentioned Zeno Power earlier. And there's venture funding in this area. Many of these companies are interested in doing things on the moon. They understand that if you want to extract resources from the moon, for example, there is need for power that goes beyond solar and chemical batteries. And they're actually hoping that they would have customers that aren't just NASA or the government, but also other private companies that want to, for example, do some of this extraction. So, there's a lot of excitement about creating a cislunar economy and creating this infrastructure. Whether it's power, it's propulsion, it's communications, it's sort of this backbone we need to build in space so we can start to... And again, using the parlance of the internet, build out on top of the infrastructure.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:28:24] That's great.
Bhavya Lal [00:28:25] And there's a lot of excitement in the community. We have tried for many years to create a private space sector, but I think, finally, we are starting to get one. And you mentioned some of the companies that are putting some of those pieces together. And again, these companies like USNC and Dark Fission hopefully will be able to provide the power that both the government and the private sector can purchase.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:28:49] That's fantastic. You also earlier mentioned it's not just NASA and American companies thinking about space, it's other countries. It's essentially the whole world. And so, that means from the policy standpoint, from the regulatory standpoint, from the diplomatic standpoint, this is a pretty tricky thing to really think through and ensure that we have all the right agreements and processes in place to ensure that worries of this space becoming a free for all... I mentioned the cowboys earlier, but some of those aren't too hard to imagine if we don't have really good, solid policy and understanding and cooperation among nations who are active in space and are looking at the moon, Mars, beyond, but also in terms of, as you said, resource extraction, powering potential human or robot civilizations on those places. So, how do you think about these regulatory and international cooperation challenges?
Bhavya Lal [00:30:05] On a regulation perspective, there is actually a national policy. It just came out in 2020. There's a memorandum called the National Security Presidential Memorandum 20. You know, government bureaucracy. It specifically provides guidance on how to make sure that nuclear systems are safe to launch. And it has a three-tiered system, and each of them has a different approach or a different level of controls. And those depend on the system, the level of hazard, and national security considerations. There is a NEPA implementation to this policy. There is a very rigorous, risk-informed safety analysis that needs to be done and it needs to be reviewed by the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Board. So, a lot of guard rails, you could say, that are in place to make sure that we will launch nuclear systems safely.
Bhavya Lal [00:31:08] There's still a lot more to be done. I mean, we haven't launched one in almost 60 years, at least a fission system, right? So, there has been some concern about what's called regulatory uncertainty. Which is why I'm really excited about the DRACO test, because that will be the first time, I think, we will be testing some of these new policies that we've put in place. And I think having regulatory clarity would actually help even more private investment.
Bhavya Lal [00:31:41] On the international front, you asked. There are a lot of international treaties the United States is party to. And most of them have some reference to space nuclear systems. So for example, the United States is liable for any damage caused by space objects that they launch. If there's any damage that we cause to another asset in space, that's something we need to be thinking about. The United States is required to authorize and supervise nongovernment activities in space and maintain what's called "control and jurisdiction" over that object. This is something, actually, that we don't have and we are working on. And it's really important for the government to have legal authority over the private sector working in space. The only United Nations principle or guidance is this thing called UN Resolution 4768, which basically lays out 11 principles related to safely operating nuclear systems in space. So, not a whole lot of guidance, but all the important ones are in place.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:32:49] I mean, it really is so critical, right? What's so interesting is that we have what sounds like at least a clear pathway. I think that's okay language, right? Towards how we think about regulation, ensuring safety, ensuring nonproliferation of American assets and American private sector and American public sector activities in space. And we're getting there, it sounds like, on the international front. But it definitely to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like NASA and the United States government is really leading the way, in many ways, in terms of how we set the initial ground rules for what activities nations should be liable for and in what areas nations should cooperate to ensure peaceful uses of space, but also peaceful uses of nuclear power in space. And that's incredibly critical. Is your office directly involved at kind of the UN level, those international working groups or talks?
Bhavya Lal [00:34:00] My office is about providing advice to our leadership. So, to the extent that our leaders speak at the UN, we get to make a contribution to that. So, yes. Actually, last week I was giving a keynote, not in nuclear, but in a different area, planetary defense, which actually does have some nuclear implications, which was a UN conference. And in the past, we've presented inside the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs. So yes, we get to participate in some of these discussions, and it is very clear that the whole world is looking for leadership from the United States, whether it's just pushing the frontiers of technology or laying out guidelines for safety. Or in general, creating inspiration for spreading out into the solar system, which is something that all of us at NASA are so excited about.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:34:56] Yeah, that's fantastic. I mean, I think that is a good segway into a question that I always love to ask people on this podcast, which is... You personally... It sounds like your career has just been absolutely leading up to this point, and now you're really a central figure in terms of thinking through how we as a civilization will act in space and how we utilize this type of technology in space. When you think about the future of nuclear power as it applies to space, what is your vision?
Bhavya Lal [00:35:30] So, let me give you a high-level vision and then go specifically to nuclear. So, the highest level... I like to quote Carl Sagan. He basically said, "Every planetary civilization is obliged to become spacefaring, not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable, staying alive." We have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds. So, that is a big picture vision, which is an elephant-sized vision. And you know, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And so, my bite is to work with space nuclear power, because in the long term, we have no alternative. As we get farther away from the sun, as we need to travel faster, we need nuclear power.
Bhavya Lal [00:36:22] And one thing that is very exciting to me, and we've touched on it a little bit is, it used to be that the government was the only game in town, but with a growing commercial sector, I think there's just going to be more players. A growing international sector, I think there will be more of us working towards it, which is very exciting. And we have to take a lot of lessons from terrestrial systems. Terrestrial power in the United States is entirely commercial. Terrestrial power in the United States is an international supply chain, and there is no reason why space nuclear shouldn't also be the same. So, that's kind of my vision for the future of space nuclear.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:37:00] I love that. As you think about the outlooks, the missions that you're supporting, the projects you're supporting, what is particularly intriguing to you that's coming down the pipeline that you're looking forward to being a part of?
Bhavya Lal [00:37:17] I pointed to it before, Michelle, but I think it's worth underscoring that our challenges aren't new, emerging technologies. Our challenges really are strategic, and they are about growing the pie. And I think that's where we need to put our effort. We need to have an end goal. We need to say, "This is when we want to go to Mars. This is how long we want to take to get to Mars," because that will help define which specific nuclear technology we focus on, whether it's NTP or NEP or a combination of NEP and chemical, or chemical alone. So, that will help us with direction.
Bhavya Lal [00:37:56] Again on the strategic piece, making sure that we collaborate with our international partners. There is growing interest in investing in space nuclear in the United Kingdom, the UK space agency and the French space agency. I think these are our traditional partners in other parts of space, for example, the International Space Station. It would be great if we work together with these partners in the domain of space nuclear, as well. So, those are some of the things where I think we are going to be focusing on, and that's where I'm putting some of my efforts in.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:38:30] Fantastic. All right. I'll ask the last question we always do, which gives you the floor. Are there any key messages that you'd like to share with our listeners about nuclear?
Bhavya Lal [00:38:44] I started by saying we launched the first reactor in 1965. Since then, we have had a dozen efforts where we started and stopped investing in nuclear power. We may have spent $20 billion in this area. But I think we finally have all the pieces in place. We have a mission. Technology is in a good place. We have a way of proceeding in a secure way with lower-enriched uranium, something that we couldn't do before. So, we have policy now in place. We have congressional interest. We have commercial interest. I think all the blocks are put together nicely, and I'm just very excited and very optimistic that this time around we are on a great, positive track and we are going to get our mission, whether it's first with DRACO for the first test of a space nuclear reactor, and after that building prototypes that go to Mars. So, that's my message for your listeners. And I hope they stay and stay connected with us to see what we are doing and how we are doing it. And we want all of us to go together.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:39:54] Fantastic. Well, thank you so much, Bhavya. It's been fantastic to have you on Titans. A real pleasure and honor for me, personally. Thank you so much.
Bhavya Lal [00:40:04] It's my pleasure. And again, remember Dragonfly's going to Titan in 2026. So, we are connected.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:40:10] Well, I'll be watching. Awesome. Well, thank you so much, Bhavya.
Bhavya Lal [00:40:14] Of course.
1) How Tim came to have a seat on the Georgia Public Service Commission and exactly what the Commission does in Georgia
2) A deep dive into Plant Vogtle, Tim’s experience with nuclear, and how ratepayers and constituents view the nuclear construction process
3) An exploration of Georgia’s unique energy mix
4) Tim’s energy goals for the future, a discussion of his own podcast, and a bit about Tim’s work with EVs
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:05:20] I'm pleased to have Tim Echols, Commissioner of the Georgia Public Service Commission here with us today on Titans of Nuclear. Tim, it is an honor to have you on the podcast.
Tim Echols [00:05:28] Yeah, thanks for all you guys do to keep awareness high on this very important energy source around the world.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:05:35] Absolutely. Obviously, I'd love to dive into the fantastic work specifically around nuclear that you've been doing on the Commission for the past several years, but I'd actually like to start earlier. How did you start getting into energy and when did you first really start to think about nuclear as a critical energy source?
Tim Echols [00:05:53] Well, I spent my 20s and 30s building a nonprofit before I even ran for office. So, I ran for office in 2010. Vogtle had been approved in '09 and the legislature had changed the financing mechanism to be able to collect the interest in advance. They had done that in '08, so that was critical to Plant Vogtle really getting a chance in Georgia, Units 3 and 4, of course. I think originally Vogtle had been planned as a six-unit site, way back in the day when Units 1 and 2 were conceived back in the '80s, completed in '87 and '89.
Tim Echols [00:06:37] But this seat opened up on the Public Service Commission, and while I didn't know a ton about energy at the time, I'd had this goal to be a statewide elected official all of my adult life and there just had not been an opportunity. We had seven children, I had been building this nonprofit. When the opportunity finally came available, I ran for the seat. I had three other Republicans running against me and defeated those guys and then won the general election. And I've been in the seat ever since.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:07:19] So, maybe we could explain what the Public Service Commission does in Georgia. I mean, it's much more than just what you think of as traditional energy infrastructure, as I now understand. What did you think it was going in? You're kind of a regulator for utilities and critical infrastructure, but what does that actually mean in practice? What is the overall scope and remit of the PUC?
Tim Echols [00:07:43] Most of these PUCs and PSCs came about during the railroad era in America, when monopolies had a lot of power, these train companies that could build segments of track. And as these companies grew in stature and as rail became such an important aspect of American life, both financial and social... I mean, it was everything. There were no cars, so I mean, it was going from horses then to rail. These companies began to misbehave. Maybe they were charging too much in the fare box or they weren't treating freight, fruit, agricultural products properly. And these companies wound up getting regulated first by the state and then by the feds. And once the agency was created, at least in Georgia, then the legislature began to hand the Public Service Commission other things to do. Telegraphs came along, telephone, gas line, electrical, call before you dig, transportation. So, the agency just began to acquire other duties.
Tim Echols [00:09:01] And what remains with us now is regulating utilities, which have a monopoly, if you will. Georgia Power, in our case, and Atlanta Gas Light, we regulate those companies. And then small telephone companies that were created in 1910, '11, and '12 when the big phone company, the Bells, if you will, wouldn't go into the rural areas. So, small phone companies were created in counties. Very rudimentary phone systems, and those phone companies still exist today and they are in high cost-to-serve areas. So, they still receive a little bit of a subsidy and we control that subsidy.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:09:49] Fantastic. So, you had been working in the nonprofit space in your work for quite a long time and decided you wanted to become an electric official, and jumped into what sounds like a really important agency in the state, being a regulator for not just big energy projects like the nuclear power plants, but also all of this infrastructure. It sounds like you and some other commissioners have really done a fantastic role of focusing on nuclear and focusing on critical infrastructure and really seeing it through. Can you talk to me about what the state of Vogtle was when you first joined and those early years?
Tim Echols [00:10:33] Yeah, it was just a pile of dirt. Or, in this case, a hole with a pile of dirt. So in 2010, when I got elected, nothing had been built. Westinghouse had really pitched the AP-1000 design as something that was more modular, easier to build, assemble pieces of the module at one place, transport them. But then Fukushima happened. And when that Japanese accident happened, really it was devastating because so many states in America said, "Well, we think we will reconsider our nuclear plans."
Tim Echols [00:11:17] Georgia, South Carolina, and a few other states said, "No, we're going to continue on." And eventually, it was just us and South Carolina building the AP-1000s. And then, another six years go by and the contractor's bleeding cash. I mean, Toshiba had written down, I think, $5 billion. We had gone from Shaw to Chicago Bridge & Iron to Westinghouse. Obviously, we were struggling. We were having overruns really from the beginning.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:11:55] Let me actually ask you a little bit more about that beginning stage in 2011 with the Fukushima accident. Up until then, first we'd seen what was called the nuclear renaissance. This is when utilities across the country, as you mentioned, started really considering nuclear energy as their next big project. And as you say, after Fukushima, but also, I think in the face of other issues around natural gas becoming cheaper, more focus on other types of renewable technologies coming into the market... Not as prominent maybe back then, but starting to get their hold.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:12:36] And so, it sounds like there were some really tough decisions even then, after the Fukushima incident, that the Georgia Public Utility Commission, as well as, obviously, Southern and Westinghouse and South Carolina had to make. Why then did you all decide to stick with it, given the perceptions that I think were caused by the Fukushima accident, but also seeing the forecast of energy in America shifting? Even though probably wasn't that clear looking back the, but what was going through your mind over that six year period after Fukushima until you were just getting up to?
Tim Echols [00:13:12] We were $5 billion into the project. That was one. We didn't want to strand all that money. And to Southern Company and Southern Nuclear's credit, they really had a a will to do this project. I think if they had wavered or if they had come to us and said, "Let's just take the tax write off. We just don't think we can make it," I think we would have been more likely to end the project. But they really had their back up, so to speak, in wanting to complete this, that they could do it. And I mean, maybe part of it is being a Southerner and feeling like folks from New York and California and others look down at us that, "Hey, we can do something they can't do." I know for me, Southern pride was part of this.
Tim Echols [00:14:05] But we also realized that our long-term planning through our integrated resource planning process told us we were going to need the energy. And we had a possible penalty payment that Toshiba was going to make, which they did make. And we felt like in the end, with all of the possible carbon regulation coming out of Washington and all the things, there were so many variables that could have negatively impacted us way off in the future and we just felt like finishing the plant was the best use of ratepayers' money and the best overall long-term strategy for the state of Georgia.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:14:50] That's amazing. I definitely identify with the Southern pride bit. I'm from Alabama, so I don't know where you went to undergrad, but Roll Tide for me. I mean, I think that the perseverance and the dedication is really fascinating. I think a lot of times people focus on the economic story, which obviously, it's a big throughline in the story because that's mostly what's being weighed, but the clean energy and future-proofing side is also really important.
Tim Echols [00:15:20] And remember, South Carolina had one-third of the customers that we had. So in their defense, they had to spread out the cost over a smaller group of people. So, it was going to have a greater rate impact. And it's unfortunate, I think, that they canceled their project. All seven of those commissioners wound up losing their jobs. The entire state was downgraded by Moody's. Obviously, SCANA then was acquired by Dominion.
Tim Echols [00:15:52] I remember my colleague Stan Wise leaning over to me during all these proceedings and he said, "There's only one thing worse than this thing going way over budget the way it is." I said, "What?" He said, "That's canceling it." And so, we were just determined not to give up on this project.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:16:15] That's around, I think, you said six years. This is around 2017, 2018, when the decision was made in South Carolina and you guys decided to persist. You won the Nuclear Trailblazer Award from the US NIC by David Blee that year for your persistence. Can you talk to me about that and and how the nuclear community really started to really rally around what you guys were doing?
Tim Echols [00:16:37] When I met David Blee in 2011, my very first year, he kind of adopted me. He's passed now, but he was a very blunt guy. But he took me all over the world. He got me to go to the World Nuclear Exhibition in Paris. He took me up to Normandy to see reprocessing and then down in southern France to see the fuel fabrication, the MOX fuel fabrication facility. He would have me come and speak at all of these different things.
Tim Echols [00:17:08] So in some ways, Blee kind of tutored me in my nuclear knowledge. And obviously, we were building a plant he wanted us to finish. And so, he recognized that, "Hey, I need to invest in Tim Echols because he's one of five votes on a Commission that will either give up on nuclear energy or keep it going." That award that he gave me... And we were at the Presidential Library, the Bush Library in Texas when he presented that to me, I guess at Texas A&M. I just really appreciate the investment he made in my life.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:17:53] Yeah, he certainly was a force of nature. I really love how much he truly invested in you. I mean, I also had the privilege of knowing him later in his life, on my very first day working for this organization, actually. He spent time introducing me to the nuclear sector. And I think it's just really important to have people, to have titans like him and like you to really shepherd in that next generation, but also to give confidence and support to those who are truly the decision makers and the gatekeepers for this industry.
Tim Echols [00:18:32] I've been saying to everyone for the last dozen years that Georgia's completing this project is so important for other commissioners who have the ability to approve probably SMRs in their state going forward. That if Georgia finishes it and we get a lot of affirmation federally from the White House down, then there's a greater chance that other states will follow. And I think the converse is true. Had we given up and commissioners are looking in South Carolina, they're looking in Georgia, "Oh, those projects didn't work. We don't want to go there. We don't want to take a chance." I just felt that the entire industry had a lot riding on the completion of Vogtle.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:19:26] That's very astute. I think there are a lot of lessons, though, that can be learned. And I think that you bring up... You know, SMRs is really smart, right? I mean, this was a major construction project. It did go years over time and it also went very, very overbudget. But it was completed. And I've even spoken to colleagues who were closer to the engineering of the project. They're they've learned so many lessons in design and construction techniques for large plants going forward, but also for the next generation of small plants. The things that were most critical for those cost and budgetary overruns are now being designed out of the next generation of designs. And I think that's also super critical.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:20:12] I think it's too naive to say, "Oh, well, this one didn't go perfectly." It's not like we're going to copy and paste that exact experience. We're always learning by doing. And if we don't do, then we never learn. I think that's just such a critical lesson. How have the conversations been like maybe throughout this process, actually? Not just now that we're nearing the actual end, but throughout the whole process with your fellow commissioners, not from Georgia, but across the states. Do you interact with them and share best practices?
Tim Echols [00:20:46] Yes, we do at our NARUC meetings three times a year. And of course, the best practice I think we had throughout this was the construction monitoring hearings that we did twice a year. And those monitoring hearings gave us a chance to put utility executives under oath twice per year to get the truth as to what was happening. We could ask any questions. We had our own monitor at the plant. We had our own consulting group at the plant. And it just made sure that we were up to speed so that if we did want to do something like cancel the plant, we had all the data that we needed to do that. And so, we continue the monitoring hearings today.
Tim Echols [00:21:34] Essentially, at the end of every monitoring hearing, we made a vote on whether or not all of the expenses that were spent during that six month period had been spent. We essentially did a tiny financial piece twice a year along and along, because these are mammothly expensive projects, so that we didn't lose the institutional knowledge. Because I mean, three of my commissioners that are on with me now weren't there when Vogtle was started. It's only Commissioner McDonnell and I that are still here. So, I think that's one of the most important things that we've shared with fellow NARUC commissioners.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:22:21] What kind of KPIs or specific metrics were you guys checking at each of these regular intervals?
Tim Echols [00:22:28] We had a critical path. Things that were on the critical path... And that would change. So, for a while it was the modules, the construction of the modules. Then it became the rebar. And then it became...Whatever was behind at the time.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:22:49] Yeah, the priority.
Tim Echols [00:22:50] Yeah, that needed to get done. And we were able to dig in. "Okay, why are these modules coming to us out of spec? How did we miss those those welding audits on those modules?" So, we were really able to identify the real culprits of what was causing the plant to be behind.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:23:16] In real time, it sounds like.
Tim Echols [00:23:18] Yeah. So, we had about a six month lag, but we were always getting updates from our monitor in real time. I felt like the financial accountability... And we are the financial regulator. I felt like that has gone really well. I liked that process. If we were going to do something like that again, I would do the same thing with the monitoring.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:23:44] Yeah. And all of that information, as you said, those are some of the best practices that you established. How was that information shared back to you? I mean, obviously, it came from the constructors, but how did you essentially give them direction post those hearings to address the issues that you saw?
Tim Echols [00:24:07] Well, Southern Nuclear would have their executives on the stand and they would under oath tell us, "We plan to go back and do this and that." So, there was a lot of sunlight shining on this process. These were open to the public. And so, those executives would tell us the remedies that they were planning on making. And remember, our original contract for the project was a fixed and firm contract. We had only about $2 billion worth of exposure in this and above that $2 billion band, the contractor was responsible for all overruns. And that's why you saw Toshiba write down $5 billion. It was only after the bankruptcy that the contract was null and void that we had to renegotiate a contract with Bechtel that was time plus materials.
Tim Echols [00:25:05] Had we been able to keep our original contract and keep the deal together, we wouldn't have the financial issues that we're having. And that's what I tell my ratepayers in Georgia. Look, no one could anticipate Toshiba bankrupting the Westinghouse LLC in America. That's really what caused the greatest financial stress on this project. And the only way Toshiba could get out of it was to use bankruptcy. And my ratepayers, unfortunately, were the victims of that.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:25:40] What has that been like? I mean, you're the elected official that's speaking with ratepayers and constituents on a daily basis. What's been the mood from them throughout the process? And then, maybe now as these units are actually being commissioned, how has that started to change?
Tim Echols [00:26:01] I think most people thought the charge on their bill was for the plan itself, but it was only for the interest. So people, as they looked at their bill, the two or three or four dollars that they were being charged was pre-paying the interest. And there's a lot of wisdom to getting that interest out of the way because it does compound. But once we finish Unit 3, rates will jump about 4%, and then Unit 4 will jump probably another 3%. So, there's going to be some pain on this in the future. But I think once it's built and Georgia's getting a lot of accolades, I think Southern pride is going to kick in and people are going to feel like, "You know what? We did something these other folks couldn't do and we're doing the best we can." I think we'll get some forgiveness on this, but clearly, Georgia ratepayers have been the tip of the spear for this first of a kind project in America. And I don't know that I would want to do that again.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:27:09] Yeah. I wonder, when you say they'll be kind of the silver lining, they'll begin to understand just the importance of their role in this, what messages actually seem to resonate most? Is it clean energy? Is it just having a clean environment? Is it that pride of the technology prowess that comes with being the only state to have a new nuclear plant? What seems to resonate with your constituents?
Tim Echols [00:27:39] I think at the end of the day, most ratepayers are concerned about the amount of money they're paying on their bills. So in the end, this will be the cheapest power that we have at some point. It is going to make our grid more efficient, it's going to save us money. I'm always leading with that. We know that harsher federal regulations probably will come regarding carbon and CO2. This is kind of a hedge against that. I talk about the closure of coal plant and gas plants and how you have to have baseload energy somewhere. We love solar and we've got a lot of it, but you can't run the grid on it. So, it's kind of a combination of things.
Tim Echols [00:28:29] And then when you look at the growing electric car market, particularly in Georgia, the Kia EV9 was just announced that it was going to be built in Georgia. The Telluride electric version that will be built in Georgia. You've got the Hyundai plant, the Rivian plant. We've got all these electric car batteries being built.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:28:50] All of those auto manufacturers require baseload energy, right? And to charge your car, you have to have good clean energy on the grid.
Tim Echols [00:28:57] Exactly. And so, Vogtle is going to provide power. You can look at it like this, it's going to provide power for a million homes in Georgia. That's about a tenth of our state, so that's pretty strong.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:29:13] So, bring me to the last few years of the project. Where are we at today with the status of Vogtle?
Tim Echols [00:29:23] Well, it's nice when you're building a house or whatever and you're starting to... You've dried it in, you've got the roof, you're starting to put cabinets in and you start to realize this is a house and it's going to happen. And so, that's the way it's been with Vogtle. We got the top, we put the tops on, we've began to get everything in shape. We've began to finish up certain buildings. So, I think the excitement around everything coming together... And of course, Unit 3's completely done and putting power on the grid now. We haven't put it in commercial operation, but we're going to very shortly. And Unit 4 looks the same. So, it really looks like a finished plant, and that's very exciting.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:30:11] Have you personally gotten to go on to the site and see some of these big moments like putting on the top of the containment? What have those been like? What's been the coolest thing you've gotten to see in this project?
Tim Echols [00:30:22] Yeah, I think the coolest thing was putting the top on because it was such a heavy lift. But then I got to go in during fuel load and see them putting those fuel assemblies down into the reactor. And watching them do that from up top, that was exciting. Because I've been to the Columbia, South Carolina plant where they make those fuel assemblies and those are the assemblies that we're using. And so, getting to see all that, it's just been very exciting.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:30:51] That's awesome. Just like David Blee took you around and showed you some of the coolest parts of nuclear, are you or others in Georgia thinking about how Vogtle can be the same inspiration for the next generation of youth? Is there interest by local schools to go do tours, the colleges? How is the community getting involved?
Tim Echols [00:31:17] Yeah, I've lined up a tour for the University of Georgia environmental law class; they're going. I did University of North Georgia. I'm constantly lining up tours for people to go. Of course, all the school kids from an hour around the plant, that's a go-to field trip once a year for certain science classes. And then, our Southern commissioners are coming out this September to see the plant. I have no doubt that the Department of Energy will have their highest-level staff down for the ribbon cutting. I'm hoping President Biden actually might come down as well. I'm sure he'll mention it. I mean, it's really been something that's enjoyed bipartisan support. I really attribute the reason for that to our union labor force.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:32:18] Tell me more about that.
Tim Echols [00:32:20] So, if you've got 8,000 union workers out there... I mean, the Republicans had been behind this all the way, but 8,000 union workers inoculate this against Democratic criticism. You didn't hear Stacey Abrams, when she ran against Governor Kemp the first time or the second time, criticize the plant. You didn't hear President Biden criticize the plant. It just enjoys a lot of bipartisan support from the top all the way to the bottom.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:32:53] Absolutely. I mean, it is the flagship nuclear project in the United States. And certainly, sitting here in Washington, D.C., I think if there is any truly bipartisan issue, it is nuclear. It brings people together for so many reasons. If you care about national security, if you care about climate change, you care about clean energy, you care about jobs, if you care about just everything. It's a fantastic technology that oddly brings people together. And it's so cool to be able to be part of that industry and to share the stories about this technology. And for you to be one of the people who've been really instrumental in making that happen and making it an American story. I definitely hope that in addition to Granholm and higher levels of DOE that President Biden makes it down there. I think that would just be absolutely fantastic to see.
Tim Echols [00:33:52] Yeah, I think that ribbon cutting is going to be quite the story. And I think a lot will be forgiven on that day. I think America takes a lot of pride in American ingenuity and there are going to be many other states, with all the tax money available for small modular reactors, that I think will see that we can't close coal plants and not replace it with something. And the most logical thing to do is SMRs.
Tim Echols [00:34:23] I just feel like... And we're going to talk about this at the NARUC meeting in Austin... That military bases probably should be our top priority for these. The military has a very strong resiliency goal of being able to be off the grid for 21 days. And if you're going to be off the grid for 21 days, I think you're pretty much going to have to have a microgrid with an SMR as a part of that. I think if we perfected these from a price standpoint on military bases with the federal government kind of backstopping the cost, then after we've built 10 or 15 reactors, I think we'll have it down to a science. We will be able to know for sure that this reactor is going to cost you $10 billion or $8 billion or $6 billion or whatever the cost is going to be. And I just feel like after going through this with Georgia, I just don't think a state, one state or two states should have to bear the brunt of the finances of perfecting something.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:35:40] Yeah, of kind of the innovation cycle. That's very wise. I mean, I think a big government customer like that, they can put the resource and the attention in, is absolutely an obvious area where we could be matching up the interests of speeding up that innovation cycle from the nuclear technology provider side, but also helping to increase our national security and meet all these other objectives that we have.
Tim Echols [00:36:09] Think about the internet, think about GPS technology. All of that was run and tested by the government, and in some cases the military. And then it was put out to the commercial market. So, I think there's a lot of wisdom in that. Hopefully, the federal government will see that and realize that this is the way it needs to go.
Tim Echols [00:36:40] Jigar Shah, who is a very smart guy and he and I are very good friends and he runs the DOE loan office. I've told him multiple times, "Look, I know you've got some great incentives, but the greatest of incentives can be undone with a first of a kind project that has some snafus." And we've personally experienced that. And I'm definitely not going to do that again without some backstops. And we're ready. We've got a piece of land on the Chattahoochee River on the Alabama line below Fort Benning. We've spent $49 million on site work to determine if it can handle a nuclear reactor. It's passed. So, we have the site. I'm just not going to vote to put one there without some cost assurances. So, no amount of incentive is going to work for me. It's got to be a federal backstop that says, "You will not have to spend more than 'X' billion dollars to do it."
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:37:49] Talk to me a little bit about Georgia's overall energy mix once both the fourth unit comes online as well in terms of getting off of coal and natural gas and trying to replace all of that baseload eventually with clean nuclear. And then of course, I'm sure there's an increasing amount of renewables coming online continuing to create intermittency issues maybe for the grid, so maybe you're looking more at batteries as well. Do you think there's a pretty big market then for SMRs to fill in the remaining gap of coal and natural gas?
Tim Echols [00:38:22] Yeah, we're looking at 2038 as probably closing our last Georgia Power owned coal plant. And the cities that run their own utilities, that's a whole 'nother story. They are anticipating really not being able to get off that coal until after 2050. But Georgia Power is looking at being able to do that by 2038. I'm just looking at a graph here of what our mix will be in 2030. So, we anticipate solar and storage being about a third, 34%. Nuclear being about 13%. Natural gas being another third, 33%. Coal down to 8%, and then the rest, biomass, hydro, a little wind that we have out in Oklahoma, some oil. So, solar and storage and gas. Those are going to be the two big ones by 2030. And then if we are able to close those coal plants, '38, then you're going to see, I think, a bigger swath of solar.
Tim Echols [00:39:45] But Georgia is really not carbon-centric in our decision making. I think we are reliability-centric, then cost, then carbon is kind of how I describe it, at least with the current composition of the Commission. Obviously, if I lose my election and Fitz loses and Tricia loses next year to Democratic challengers, then I think all that goes out the window. I think there's going to be kind of a different philosophy of running the Commission if we lose our elections over the next year and a half.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:40:22] And so, you guys are obviously also looking at those other technologies. Can you talk to me about what it's been like thinking about that energy mix and some of the role the Commission has in those regulations, specifically around incentivizing renewables?
Tim Echols [00:40:41] I think the approach that we started taking in 2013 with utility-scale solar was we agreed as a Commission that we weren't going to subsidize it. That it had to be below the avoided cost of energy was probably the best decision that we made through the process. And we've held to that, and that has allowed us to essentially benefit every ratepayer on the system because all of this utility-scale solar... And we'll be fourth in the nation with it by next year... All of it below the avoided cost of energy. So, the way we've done solar... While the rooftop people have really criticized us for... And I have rooftop solar myself... But the rooftop folks would, I think, have preferred to see us grow it like California did with more rooftops, and we've opted to do it more in fields, big fields of 200, 500, 1,000 acres. And when you build solar...
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:41:40] What was the rationale for that decision? I wasn't really realizing there was so much of a decision behind which direction to go or if it was just kind of a mix based on preference of the homeowner. So, how does the Commission actually shape where it's deployed with the utilities? What is the difference between the way that Georgia has done it and the way that California has done it?
Tim Echols [00:43:14] For us, it was money. Solar wasn't in infancy in 2013 because Germany really began their Energiewende program in 2000. And I'd gone to Germany, Commissioner McDonnell had gone. We had looked at a lot of different models. And we wanted to use this model because we felt like we wouldn't get to a place where we had to claw back some of this or where our ratepayers...
Tim Echols [00:43:43] And Germany was in a difficult place by 2012 where they were locked into very high dollar contracts, about €43 cents per kilowatt from the beginning of their energy Energiewende program. We just felt like we don't want to go there. We need this to work over the long haul. And we felt like it would also be something that Republicans in Georgia would accept. And they, in fact, did. And the program's just continued to grow. And it's really a fantastic source of energy at a cheap cost that we've been able to acquire.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:44:31] I assume this is also under Georgia Power. What are you looking forward to with just the overall clean energy portfolio of the utility? And I know you said that's not really how you guys think about the decision making. You think about it more about cost-efficiency and what's best for the ratepayer. But when you do kind of think about that clean energy portfolio, are there specific ways that you do incentivize the utility to move more towards clean energy, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, than coal and natural gas?
Tim Echols [00:45:05] We didn't want the utility building this themselves. So, all of these are power purchase agreements built by private developers and on a Georgia landowner's land that's usually being leased. So, that model has been great. The utility gets an additional sum, we call it, about a 10% cut of all that. So, that kind of takes the place of it going into their rate base like say, Plant Vogtle will, where they'll then draw their full ROE that we approve every three years.
Tim Echols [00:45:46] Having a model that assures us of being below avoided cost that we can then scale up, continue to scale up. That helps Georgia have a more balanced grid. I mean, the Southern Company, they're out there messaging to their stakeholders about being net zero by 2050, and they're doing that. But as I kid Tom Fanning and some of the others, "Hey, you don't have a seat on the Public Service Commission. You don't really get a vote in this." And that would have been a smartaleck comment before 1991, but when the Georgia legislature created the Integrated Resource Planning Process, the state via our agency gets to pre-certify everything they do.
Tim Echols [00:46:42] Before '91, we didn't pre-certify and the utility could do whatever they wanted to. Then they just came to us after the fact and asked for a recovery. They either got it or they didn't; sometimes they didn't. But this compact that we have now, the reason it's so good, the reason it's never been amended is because the utility gets their projects in rate recovery and the state gets a say in what's done. And because we're elected statewide, I think the overall process reflects Georgia. Not every person in Georgia; I have plenty of Democratic constituents who love rooftop and wish we didn't have a nuclear power plant. But I would say overall, our energy mix reflects our people and they're happy with it. They're happy with our hedging approach, having a kind of an all of the above approach with energy sources and not going all in on one particular thing.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:47:52] Fascinating. When you think to the future... I mean, you've already talked about how you're sharing the wisdom and the knowledge around Vogtle, how you're trying to influence and teach people in government to learn from the lessons that you guys have learned and really set up policies and programs to inspire the next round of nuclear projects. What does the future look like for you and how you personally want to take this forward?
Tim Echols [00:48:29] Obviously, I've got a reelection that's going to be approved by the courts at some point in some way. This is another whole controversial thing going on at the time of our recording. My election was delayed due to a lawsuit. And so, we're waiting for the courts to tell us if I run by district or if I run statewide as I've been running. So, we'll see what happens there. If I do survive and stay on the Commission, one of the things that I want us to do right is EV charging, both from a fleet, individual, highway... I'm very involved with this.
Tim Echols [00:49:09] And then, I'm also co-chairing a hydrogen energy brain trust with our US senator because I do think while hydrogen has been talked about for many, many years, with all of the federal incentives and the opportunity at a plant like Vogtle being able to create green hydrogen and that green hydrogen being worth more than another color hydrogen, I want us to continue to make these technology advancements. And that's kind of part of my brand with innovation technology. With all my educational events that I do, I want to just continue to grow innovation and technology. And eventually, I want to see SMRs in Georgia. I hope that I'm on the Commission when we are able to do that, I just can't predict the future.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:50:08] Well, it's fascinating. You've been talking about education, so I know you do have a podcast of your own. I would love to dig more into the work, especially what you're doing with batteries and EV charging in particular. When I drive through the South, I just wish that I could drive an electric car, but we just aren't there yet. But I'd love to see it. So, can you tell our listeners more about the podcast and if there are particular episodes around nuclear, around EVs that you think they can do a deeper dive in on what's going on in Georgia?
Tim Echols [00:50:39] I think we are at 217 episodes this week. We've had 700 of the brightest energy stars come through our studios. My podcast is actually done on terrestrial radio. It's produced by Cox Media. It goes out first to stations in Georgia and then it hits podcast platforms later. So, it's embedded with commercials and everything like that. So, folks can find it at Energy Matters with Commissioner Echols. Energy Matters with Commissioner Echols. We've got episodes on any and everything as it relates to energy and technology. So, you'll have a lot on EVs and solar and biomass, nuclear of course, natural gas, renewable natural gas. We do everything.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:51:30] Wow. That sounds like a really great resource. And I think having more perspectives of people like yourselves on how these projects actually can go from ideas to, as you said, the house is built, is really, really important for capturing all of those key learnings and really, I think, inspiring people that it can be done and that it can be done in their hometown as well. I think that's just so critical. Are there any other things you'd like to share with our listeners before we wrap up?
Tim Echols [00:52:02] Yeah, I know that solar has been mostly accepted by my Republican colleagues around the US, but electric vehicles are a sticking point, I think, for many Republicans. I've had six electric vehicles, and I'm really keen on using this advanced technology. So, if you haven't driven an EV yet, you should go and borrow one from a friend. I'm loaning my EV out right now to different elected officials. I give it to them for a month at a time with a free charge card. It doesn't cost them anything to drive my car because I'm wanting them to experience range anxiety. I'm wanting them to come up to a charger that's not working. I'm wanting them to have to plan out their route. I'm wanting them to have to think about parking in a different way. Because if you're going to make policy about something, it's good to know something about it. And so, I'm wanting these policymakers to experience it. So, that's one of the big things that I'm working on right now. And obviously, finishing up Plant Vogtle and the ensuing celebration over that. It's going to be fantastic.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:53:21] Well, amazing. And thank you so much, Tim. It's been such a pleasure to have you on. Tim Echols, Commissioner of the Georgia Public Service Commission, doing amazing things in nuclear and certainly a trailblazer, and now a Titan of Nuclear. Thank you so much, Tim.
Tim Echols [00:53:35] Follow me on Twitter @TimEchols and subscribe to the podcast Energy Matters with Commissioner Echols. Thank you.
Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:53:42] Thank you.
1) Brian’s background as a Mechanical Engineer and his experience being hired in the first group of Shift Technical Advisors at Indian Point 3
2) A day in the life of Indian Nuclear Power Plant back in the mid 1900’s and a discussion of its unique build
3) The mentorship which made Indian Point special and the excitement of outages and refueling
4) Some standout photos from Brian’s book and the family members that worked at Indian Point together
Sarah Howorth [00:00:58] I'm Sarah Howorth. Welcome back to the Titans of Nuclear Podcast. Today, I am here with Brian Vangor, who is the author of Images of America's Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. Brian, thank you so much for being on the show. We're lucky to have you here with us.
Brian Vangor [00:01:14] Well, thank you so much for having me. I'm honored to be on the show.
Sarah Howorth [00:01:17] Of course. So, let's just start off with a little bit about your background. Where'd you grow up?
Brian Vangor [00:01:24] I grew up in Yonkers, New York, and went to a high school there called Saunders, which was a trade and technical high school. It wasn't like a normal high school, like Yonkers High or Roosevelt or Lincoln. We had the choice of taking an academic curriculum or a trade curriculum. And I chose machine design. So for three years, I spent a lot of time in the machine shop. A lot of time breaking metals apart, and a lot of time drafting. The whole curriculum was geared to you becoming a mechanical engineer.
Sarah Howorth [00:02:03] And how did mechanics kind of lead you, eventually, to becoming interested in nuclear?
Brian Vangor [00:02:10] Well, that's a good question. I really didn't become interested in nuclear until I started working at Indian Point, believe it or not. I graduated from Manhattan College in 1979 with a Mechanical Engineering degree. And my whole Saunders senior class, all seven of us in machine design, ended up in Manhattan College with Mechanical Engineering degrees, so we all went in the same direction.
Brian Vangor [00:02:36] When I graduated, I went to work for American Electric Power in New York City, in Manhattan, in materials handling. When I got there, I found out they were planning on moving to Ohio. And everybody there was looking for a job. So, I ended up in the wrong place to start off with. So one day, one of my fellow engineers walks into my office and throws a piece of paper on my desk, and it said, "Nuclear power shift advisors wanted at a nuclear power plant 30 miles north of New York City." So, that was like the first thing I thought of, Indian Point. I knew it was Indian Point. It didn't say the name of the plant, but we all knew it was Indian Point.
Brian Vangor [00:03:20] And this was right after Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island happened on March 28, 1979, and many, many things came out of that event at Three Mile Island. The NRC issued thousands of regulations, new regulations that had to be followed by nuclear power plants with all certain due dates. And one of them was to have a Shift Technical Advisor. That would be a degreed person who would be in or around the control room around the clock.
Brian Vangor [00:03:54] One of the things they learned from Three Mile Island was the control room operators didn't necessarily understand all the thermodynamics behind what was going on in the plant. Up to that time in the '70s, most nuclear plant control rooms were manned by ex-Navy personnel, from aircraft carriers and submarines. Usually, no degrees. So, the NRC thought it would be a good idea to have a degreed person on shift around the clock as one of their requirements. They issued two large volumes of documents, requirements, NUREG-0737 and NUREG-0578. And in NUREG-0578, it required the Shift Technical Advisor. So, I was hired in the first group of Shift Technical Advisors at Indian Point 3.
Sarah Howorth [00:04:44] Okay. That's a pretty contentious time to go into the nuclear industry. Did you have any initial skepticism to overcome, or were you just all about getting involved?
Brian Vangor [00:04:57] Oh, no, I had no skepticism. In fact, they talked a little bit about that at my interview. But I had no skepticism. I wanted to learn something and nuclear power seemed very exciting. The one thing we did have to overcome was our acceptance into the plant. When we got there, we were brand new engineers. We really had no idea how the plant worked. And here we are walking into the control room, talking to these operators who have been doing this for years, virtually. So, we weren't well-accepted in the beginning. It took a few years for us to become part of the group, but we did.
Sarah Howorth [00:05:35] Yeah, that's great. In the book, you talk a lot about how close the community really was there and how it was kind of like a family.
Brian Vangor [00:05:42] Oh, it definitely was like a family. You spend 30 years or 35 years in that control room with the same people and the same people outside the control room, you definitely become a family. That's our second home. It was our home away from home.
Sarah Howorth [00:05:54] Right. So, talking a little bit about your book now, what's the piece all about? What inspired you to write it?
Brian Vangor [00:06:04] Well, I was the town historian here, where I live, in Carmel, New York, for five years. About ten years ago, I helped with the book The Arcadia Images of America book on my town, Mahopac, New York, so I was a little bit used to working on these books from Arcadia Publishing. And then, I just got the idea from a friend who knew that I had all these photographs and all these years at the plant, and suggested that I work on one of these Arcadia books on Indian Point. I applied, and after going through their board of editors, they decided to go through with the book.
Brian Vangor [00:06:44] I wrote the book for a couple of reasons. One, I wanted the people who worked at the plant to have something to hold on to in the future to remind them of what the amazing job that they did at the plant. Something they could have and look at and remember. I wanted to commemorate the plant itself. It was an amazing mechanical achievement and engineering achievement. And then, I wanted people who were non-nuclear to be able to pick this book up and learn something about the plant and see how hard we worked to make that plant as safe as it possibly could be.
Sarah Howorth [00:07:21] Yeah, absolutely. So, you have a historian background. Can you give us a historical snapshot of what a typical day or a day of your choosing looked like at Indian Point in maybe the 1950s or '60s or at any point during your career there?
Brian Vangor [00:07:42] Well, it was an amusement park up until 1956. Indian Point Park opened up in 1923. This June 26th will be the 100th anniversary of the opening of Indian Point Park, which was a pleasure park with mostly walking trails and picnic grounds and playgrounds and things like that. It didn't have rides and amusements until later on. But that closed in 1956 and the property was sold to Con Edison, who built Indian Point 1, which started operating in 1962 and ran until 1974. And then, they started building Indian Point 2 and 3 in 1966 and 1968, respectively. Indian Point 2 started up in 1974 and Indian Point 3 in 1976.
Brian Vangor [00:08:34] But as far as myself, I started 43 years ago, 3 days ago, March 31st, 1980. I spent most of that time, 35 years, in the Operations Department and 32 of those years with a Senior Reactor Operator's license. So, we spent a lot of time in the control room. And whether you came in at 6 A.M. or 6 P.M., it was a long 12 hours in the control room. It was a room with no windows and a room you couldn't walk out of. On a day shift, the phone rang constantly, and on a night shift it was pretty boring, hopefully. On a day shift, lots of people walking in and out. Maintenance people, instrumentation and control people, lots of tests going on inside the plant. So, 12 hours in the control room on a day shift was a very busy time. You look forward to the weekends because less people are there. You look forward to night shifts. It was a very busy time in the control room on a normal day shift for control and personnel.
Sarah Howorth [00:09:44] Yeah. So, you mentioned that the plant announced and began its construction in the early 1950s. What was the public's outlook on the whole operation? And at the time, the recent passage of the Atomic Energy Act as well? For first time listeners who are learning about nuclear currently, and to use the words of Brian in his book, "The 1954 Act allowed for private, peaceful use of the atom."
Brian Vangor [00:10:14] I believe that the surrounding community at the time, in 1956, was pretty accepting and wanting Indian Point 1 to be constructed. First of all, Westchester County was growing by leaps and bounds, and Con Edison was predicting a large increase in the demand for electricity over the next 15, 20 years. So, they needed power plants. And of course, the community needed jobs. And this was going to bring in thousands of jobs at the time and be a long construction project. I'm not sure how early on they knew about Indian Point 2 and 3, but even back in the '50s, they talked about building 6 units. We know that they built Indian Point 2 and 3. We know they were planning on building plants, I believe, close by in Verplanck. And there was also thought about building a nuclear power plant in Queens.
Sarah Howorth [00:11:06] Okay.
Brian Vangor [00:11:06] So, there were going to be a lot of plants, but I think, at the time, it was accepted by the community. It was a big construction project, and not many people knew about nuclear, pro and con, at that time, I believe. So, it was just another construction project, and here's something that sounds pretty neat, a nuclear power plant.
Brian Vangor [00:11:24] Growing up in Yonkers, as a little kid I remember my dad being interested in seeing what this Indian Point 1 was all about. And we got into our 1961 Ford Fairlane and drove from Yonkers to Buchanan, which was the ends of the earth back then. And I remember being in the visitor's center and looking out and seeing the dome of Indian Point 1 and thought that was pretty cool as an eight or nine year old.
Sarah Howorth [00:11:52] Yeah, that's awesome. And Indian Point did tours throughout its time of being open, too, for families to come explore and learn more?
Brian Vangor [00:12:00] There was a visitor's center which, really, was just removed a few years ago. You were able to come in and there was a movie and there were brochures and there was a back patio where you could look out onto Indian Point 1. And then, there was a second part of the tour, which I only found out about in the last couple of years, where they took you down into the plant. There was a glass room or an enclosure that you could enter and look out at the control room of Indian Point 1 and see the operators operating the plant. And I know where that space is today; it's now an office. And I've seen pictures of it, so it was probably the second part of the tour, which I didn't get to go on as a young child.
Sarah Howorth [00:12:40] Yeah, that sounds like a special experience, though, for sure. And then, switching gears a little bit, was Indian Point built on or near Indigenous land?
Brian Vangor [00:12:51] Well, we do know that there were Native American tribes to the north in Peekskill and to the south in Ossining. So, Indian Point is a made up name. Real quickly, the history before Indian Point Park was the Hudson River Day Line Company, which was the major steamship company from 1861 all the way up until the mid-1900s, 1971, in fact... By the 1920s, they were having a problem competing with nearby Bear Mountain, which was a very popular place to go. So hundreds, if not thousands of people would get on the boats every morning in New York City, come up the Hudson River. Everybody would get off at Bear Mountain and the boats would go up the rest the river empty.
Brian Vangor [00:13:37] By the 1920s, they were trying to figure out a way to remediate that. So, they bought 320 acres south of Peekskill, right on the Hudson River, and they figured out, "Let's come up with a name that's really attractive to the younger passengers. We've got Bear Mountain. Let's make this Indian Point." Sounds pretty cool, but as far as tribes nearby, north and south of us, not where we are.
Sarah Howorth [00:14:05] Okay, gotcha. I was just curious if there was a relationship fostered with Indigenous people in the area or if they had a say in how the land was being used or the fact that a plant would be constructed. But it seems like they maybe weren't close enough to that area?
Brian Vangor [00:14:23] No, they weren't. And again, it was strictly a fabricated name.
Sarah Howorth [00:14:28] Interesting. So, let's jump into maybe the technical aspect of things for a bit. How many megawatts was Indian Point generating and what other details are important to the history of the plant?
Brian Vangor [00:14:42] Well, Indian Point 1 was one of a kind. It was a Babcock & Wilcox reactor. It was 60% nuclear and 40% an oil super heater. So, it was really a one of a kind plant. It had horizontal steam generators. It was a pressurized water reactor, but the rods came in from the bottom, which was unusual and typically, for a boiling water reactor. It only ran for 12 years. It originally had a thorium core, which was called Core A. And after its first cycle, Core A was removed in its entirety and replaced with Core B, which was a uranium core. And it made 265 megawatts.
Brian Vangor [00:15:31] Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 were, for the time, classic Westinghouse pressurized water reactors, four-loop pressurized water reactors. Indian Point 2 was built at, I think, 875 megawatts and Indian Point 3 at 965. They were later upgraded to larger outputs. Indian Point 3 ended up at about 1,070 megawatts at the end of its life. But those were typical four-loop pressurized water reactors, 15x15 Westinghouse fuel assemblies. Many of them were built in the '70s.
Sarah Howorth [00:16:09] And how did this differ at all from plants that were built before?
Brian Vangor [00:16:16] The plants that were built before were smaller. They were either, maybe, two-loop or three-loop plants. The early plants, like Connecticut Yankee or Yankee Rowe... There was a number of them, Dresden. They were smaller plants, different containment buildings. Didn't have the large containment buildings. Some of them had a metal sphere just like Indian Point 1 did. So, they were smaller plants. And again, there was no standard design. They were all built special. They were all one of a kind.
Sarah Howorth [00:16:47] Gotcha. And so in your book, you give a detailed account of the plant layout as well. Can you give us sort of an abbreviated, or not, account of what the layout of the plant looked like?
Brian Vangor [00:16:58] Normally, nuclear power plants had a control room that was shared between, say, two units. So, the control rooms were like back-to-back horseshoes, but it wasn't the case at Indian Point. Indian Point 1 sat between Indian Point 2 and 3. They had separate turbine halls and separate control rooms and separate control buildings and separate spent fuel pools. In a lot of things that other plants would combine, Indian Point was separate. So, that led to things later on. But it was definitely unusual. I visited other plants in my career and it was interesting to see a control room back-to-back and both units in one room. I was so used to Indian Point where I sat in the Unit 3 control room and Unit 2's control room was 800 feet away.
Sarah Howorth [00:17:50] Right.
Brian Vangor [00:17:51] But they did that because, I guess, the layout of the land. They decided to build Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 on either side of Indian Point 1.
Sarah Howorth [00:18:00] And so, tell us a little bit more about your time at Indian Point. Did you have a particular day-to-day task that was most intriguing to you or any passion projects or anything like that during your career there?
Brian Vangor [00:18:13] Well, like I said, I started in 1980 as a Shift Technical Advisor. And in 1982, they sent myself and my very best friend, Don... We went to college together, and we both had jobs right out of school we weren't real thrilled with. He went to GE and I went to American Electric Power. So, when I got that piece of paper on my desk that day down in the city about being a Shift Technical Advisor, I immediately sent it off to Don, who lived much closer to Indian Point than I did. And we both started the same day.
Sarah Howorth [00:18:46] Oh, wow. That's awesome.
Brian Vangor [00:18:48] Yeah, March 31st, 1980. He's retired now, but we started the same day. We were both STAs. We were also the first two STAs to go to license school for our Senior Reactor Operator's license in 1982. And we finished in 1983. So, really in 1983, we went on the watch as licensed operators. We were kind of used as special projects people by the Operations Manager. Whatever was going on in the plant as far as an INPO visit or an NRC evaluation or if procedures needed to be revised, we worked on special things like that. We didn't spend our entire day in the control room, we were able to float around and work on other projects, so that was very good.
Brian Vangor [00:19:30] The other part of that was Don and I were chosen way early on in the '80s to do refueling, which became our passion. So, refueling is when you shut the plant down every year-and-a-half or two years and you are going to refuel the reactor. So, it's quite a evolution taking the reactor apart with a 169-ton reactor vessel head and 193 fuel assemblies. But we were given that job; we didn't know anything about it. Westinghouse did the work. Westinghouse was always hired to come back during outages and perform all these large tasks, whether refueling, steam generator maintenance, turbine maintenance, reactor vessel head inspections, reactor coolant pump maintenance, they did all that work. But they always had somebody from the company with them to help them along the process because they didn't know the people, they didn't know the plant, and they didn't know the processes. So, Don and I were assigned to do refueling.
Brian Vangor [00:20:28] When you do refueling in a reactor, there needs to be a Senior Reactor Operator who monitors the core alterations. You must be in direct line of sight or communication with the core alteration. So, that was Don and I. So, that was like the late '80s, we were doing our first refueling. And then, we did every refueling after that until the plant closed. So for like 30 years, we did refueling. And that became, really, our passion. We really looked forward to outages. I mean, we spent our entire lives in the control room, 85 to 90% of the time. When the outages came, we went off and did refueling. And it was just such an interesting and fun job to do. Moving the fuel, taking the reactor apart, doing reactor disassembly, taking all the fuel out, bringing it over to the fuel building, inspecting it all, and then bringing it all back in. It's just a really interesting job.
Sarah Howorth [00:21:25] That's awesome. So, you feel like you really learned by doing for the most part?
Brian Vangor [00:21:29] In that case, we certainly did. Westinghouse taught us in the beginning. Realized we were young kids with brand new SRO licenses, and we learned from there. It took a number of refuelings to learn, but we eventually did. And then, we just inherited every refueling after that. There was no question about it, who was doing refueling.
Sarah Howorth [00:21:52] Right. And was there kind of a mentorship culture that eventually came to be between the people that had been there for a while or been in nuclear for a while and the people like yourself who came in a little bit later?
Brian Vangor [00:22:05] When Don and I arrived at Indian Point, there was... I'll call them this. They'll hate this, but they were old timers. And they had either come to Indian Point from Con Edison in the city... Most likely Con Edison in the city. And they were near the end of their careers and they had aspired to work at Indian Point, and they were. And we learned everything from these guys. They just knew the plant backwards and forwards. They watched it get built. They watched it during construction. They did the first refueling. They did the first everything. And they just knew the plant inside and out, backwards and forwards, and you just tried to be like them. And we really admired these guys. They were just great to work for.
Sarah Howorth [00:22:52] That's amazing. And do you feel like that's one of the things that was maybe unique to Indian Point? And what else really stood out about the plant?
Brian Vangor [00:23:03] I'm sure that was unique to Indian Point. What really stood out about the plant was that we had some really smart people. They really set the plant on the right track from the beginning. A lot of things were done over the years, a lot of things were practiced, a lot of procedures were performed, and it all came from this first group who really started the plant up and set the tone for how the plant would be operating over the decades.
Sarah Howorth [00:23:34] And you also talked a little bit already about the huge time commitment that this was and how employees sometimes missed the soccer games and the birthdays and things like that. What really kept you all going during those long shifts and your time there?
Brian Vangor [00:23:51] Well, first of all, we loved being there. So, you grew to love the job, and it wasn't something you could easily walk away from. I mean, not only did we work 12 hour shifts, normally, in the control room, whether it was 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. or the other way around, but in outages, you typically worked 6 or 7 "12s." So, you were there for 30 days, sometimes, in the early days before they had a fatigue rule. You could be there for 30 days in a row working 12 hours a shift. There was only one thing in your brain, and that was just to get this refueling done and get it done right and get it over with. And your family knew this was coming. You went home, you went to sleep, you woke up, you ate something, you went back to work. It wasn't something we hated doing, it was something we loved doing.
Brian Vangor [00:24:42] Refueling... I explained this to other, younger, SROs later in my life. Refueling became addictive. You really couldn't wait for it to happen. You knew it real well. You couldn't wait for the same Westinghouse guys to come back from Pittsburgh. We had a great time and we ended up with a group that really did the outages very well.
Sarah Howorth [00:25:05] And are people today still able to visit the grounds of Indian Point? Are there any other historical resources other than your book, of course, which is an amazing one to start with?
Brian Vangor [00:25:16] Well, yes. We give tours today, still, to people who are interested in coming to the plant to see what's happening now with decommissioning. We're always open to that. In fact, we do West Point tours. We do local politicians, leaders, local community groups. Everybody has been to the plant in the last couple of years to see what's happening. The Buchanan Local History Room, which is in the village of Buchanan, has a lot of artifacts and memorabilia and photographs of Indian Point over the years, the park and the power plant. So, yeah, there are things to do, and you can visit Indian Point.
Sarah Howorth [00:25:56] That's awesome. And then, what would you say, maybe, nuclear now, nuclear today, could learn from Indian Point?
Brian Vangor [00:26:06] One thing that made Indian Point successful where other plants may have not been so successful in this area was Indian Point was not a revolving door. People came and stayed for their entire careers and it made a huge difference. I know of other plants that are basically, people come in, they stay for a couple of years and they leave there. They're just not as conducive to staying there. Whereas, Indian Point was. And so, all the people that I worked with over the years, they were there from the '80s. And we all knew how to work together. We all knew what each other was capable of. We knew how to communicate with each other. So, operating the plant and performing outages on the plant became much easier when everybody knew what each other was doing and everybody got very good at it. So, that was one thing. If you can keep people for a long time and make them happy, that works out much better than having a revolving door at your plant.
Sarah Howorth [00:27:08] That makes a lot of sense, for sure. And where is Indian Point at right now in the process of decommissioning? What will that look like in the future, as well?
Brian Vangor [00:27:18] Right now... So, we started decommissioning in the fall of 2021. We shut Indian Point 3 down on April 30th, 2021. We have two major projects going on at Indian Point right now. One is Pool to Pad. So, that's unloading all the fuel assemblies out of both spent fuel pools, Unit 2 and Unit 3, into dry cask storage and up to the spent fuel pad, or the ISFSI pad, is what it's called, the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. We finished Unite 2 on February 1st. So, we're going to start Unit 3 in June, and we're hoping to be done by the end of the year, or in November, actually, with Indian Point 3. So, that project should be over by the end of the year. That's the Pool to Pad project.
Brian Vangor [00:28:03] The other project is vessel segmentation. So, that's the cutting up of the reactor coolant systems and the reactor vessels, basically. So, they started first with Indian Point 3. The Unit 3 head is completely cut up and the pieces are being removed right now. It's almost gone, actually. The upper internals package is being cut up and most of it is gone. The RCS loops, where they connected to the reactor vessel and the steam generators have been cut. So, the next big project is to get down into the reactor and start working on the core barrel or the lower internals and, eventually, the reactor vessel. So, Unit 3 is first in that process. Then they'll go over to Unit 2. And I think the last thing to come apart will be Unit 1, which looks like it might be a little more difficult. But those are the two projects, Sarah. Vessel Segmentation and Pool to Pad.
Sarah Howorth [00:29:04] Okay, great. And one of the things that kind of gave me chills or really stood out to me when reading through your book was when you mentioned and showed a picture of the fact that some of the people who had been working at Indian Point for such a long time actually signed a part of the plant upon their departure. Can you tell me a little bit about that? I thought that was really cool.
Brian Vangor [00:29:26] Normally, we don't write on walls or write on things when the plant was running, but when it came time to start taking the plant apart, you would see names and things popping up. So, I think the thing you're referring to is probably the top of the manipulator crane mast when we took the last fuel out of Unit 3, which was the last fuel out of any reactor there. So, we all signed the top of the mast. That mast is long gone now. But I did take a lot of pictures of it, and people added their names over some time. I did put it in the book. There are other instances of that going on right now.
Sarah Howorth [00:30:04] That's awesome. Well, even though it's gone, it'll be forever immortalized in your book. So, that's very cool.
Brian Vangor [00:30:09] That's what I'm hoping. Especially for the people who really worked hard at that plant to make it the success that it was.
Sarah Howorth [00:30:17] And do you all keep in touch still, today, after forging what seems like such a strong bond while working there?
Brian Vangor [00:30:24] We do. There's Friends of Indian Point on Facebook. There are retiree luncheons that are held like every month or two. There's one coming up in a few weeks that I'll probably go to. But yes, we do keep in touch with a lot of our friends. And I send out photographs of the decommissioning to hundreds of them pretty regularly. So, I'm still taking a lot of pictures and a lot of video at the plant. I've been doing that for years and years, and I have quite a collection of tens of thousands of photographs. Everybody likes to see that stuff, so we do keep in touch.
Sarah Howorth [00:31:04] And so, as Indian Point is being decommissioned, do you have a vision that you want to share for what the future of nuclear could look like?
Brian Vangor [00:31:14] Well, as far as Indian Point goes, Indian Point will be there, probably, for the next 12 to 15 years. We're not talking about taking the containment buildings down for about 12 years. So, they'll be disassembled from the inside and all the reactor coolant system and all the equipment will be slowly cut up and removed from the buildings. But the containment buildings will be there for quite some time, as will Indian Point 1.
Brian Vangor [00:31:38] There was talk about... Holtec, who is now the owner of Indian Point, is heavily into small modular reactors, which is the way that it seems like the industry is going for the immediate future, and it seems like the next wave of nuclear power in this country. I'm sure they would love to put a small modular reactor at Indian Point. Whether that will happen or not, I'm not sure. I know they're looking at other places in this country, as well. So, Holtec and other companies are heavily investing in small modular reactors. Many of my coworkers are seeing the end of their career at the plant, and they're going to work for Holtec on small modular reactors. So, that seems to be the next wave, SMRs. Whether that'll happen at Indian Point, you know, I'd love to see an Indian Point 4 and 5, but who knows?
Sarah Howorth [00:32:31] Yeah, we'll definitely have to see. Where can people who want to read your book find it?
Brian Vangor [00:32:37] Oh, my book is on Amazon. It's on Barnes Noble. It's on Target, I think. So, it's on a lot of websites, you can just order it. I have it here. You can see the front of it if you want.
Sarah Howorth [00:32:50] Yeah, yeah. Let's show it off for all of our YouTube viewers. And if you're listening, there's a very cool historical picture on the front and there's a big sign on the top that says "Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant." And do you have a name for the person who is operating on that photo?
Brian Vangor [00:33:07] Well, the funny thing about that photo is Arcadia wanted six possible cover pictures. And I thought an aerial photo would probably be the best, but they didn't want an aerial. They wanted something that was old and they wanted something that showed a person in it. So, I always loved this picture. It's a Con Edison picture. It's the first refueling of Indian Point 1 in 1965. And this person here is sitting at the control panels, and he's sitting right over the reactor vessel underneath him, and he's actually moving fuel using these controls. So this, I think, is 1965.
Brian Vangor [00:33:42] It took me a while to find out who that was. I figured if this is going to be the cover, let me do everything I can to find out who that was. So, I sent this photo out to every old timer I could think of who worked at Indian Point, especially Indian Point 1. And most came back and said, "No idea. Before my time." But one person, Bill Lettmoden wrote back and said, "That looks like Jimmy Oakman to me." So I said, "Okay, and who's Jimmy Oakman?" He mentioned another employee who I did know, Madalyn Noto, who worked in my era. That's her dad.
Sarah Howorth [00:34:15] Oh, wow.
Brian Vangor [00:34:17] So I said, "Are you kidding me?" So, I emailed the photograph to Madalyn in Florida. She had never seen the picture before. And she said, "Oh my gosh, where did you get that picture of my dad from?" And so, we have a little bit of a story. Not only did Jimmy Oakman work at Indian Point in Operations and Maintenance, but his daughter, Madalyn, worked at the plant for 37 years. She married her husband, who worked at the plant, Dan Noto. He worked there, also, 30-plus years. So, the cover has a little bit of a story.
Sarah Howorth [00:34:49] That's amazing. Yeah, it definitely goes to show how much of a family it really was there, for sure.
Brian Vangor [00:34:53] It was. We had so many fathers and sons and fathers and daughters and uncles and grandfathers who built the plant. I mean, there are two pictures in the book where I show a control room operator sitting in the Unit 3 control room in 1985. And then 30 years later, his daughter is sitting there in the same exact spot with an SRO license and also as a Control Room Supervisor. So, it's quite amazing, the people who have gone through there. Amazing people.
Sarah Howorth [00:35:22] Yeah, that's amazing. I think if I'm remembering correctly, too, there's a picture in your book of a few family members that all worked at the plant, which was very cool.
Brian Vangor [00:35:30] Lots of family members. Lots of husbands, wives, like I said, fathers, sons, and grandfathers who built the plant and uncles who built the plant. So many stories and so many thousands of people went through Indian Point over the years.
Sarah Howorth [00:35:46] And I know you took a lot of the pictures yourself, too, if I'm not mistaken. Do you have, maybe, a standout photo or two that is your favorite, if you could even choose?
Brian Vangor [00:35:57] If I could even choose. Gosh, that's a tough one.
Sarah Howorth [00:36:01] I know. There are so many good ones in there.
Brian Vangor [00:36:04] My favorite part of this book is Indian Point 1. I'm totally fascinated by Indian Point 1, and I was so lucky to find these pictures of Indian Point 1. But I didn't take any of those pictures. I love "then and nows." So, I was able to take these two pictures. This picture here is a Con Edison photo from 1962. I couldn't wait for us to remove this concrete plug out of the floor here so I could take the same exact picture in 2020. And so, here's a picture of the same thing taken over 50 years apart, almost 60 years apart. And so, these are kind of my favorites. I went through great pains to get the same exact angle. I know my lens was, probably, slightly a different lens than the person who took this original Con Ed photo, but I did the best I could.
Sarah Howorth [00:36:58] Yeah, well, it looks pretty identical except for everything else that's going on in the photo. So, that's amazing.
Brian Vangor [00:37:03] In the original photo ,the reactor vessel head is not on yet. But in this picture here from 2020, the head has been on for, like, 50 years.
Sarah Howorth [00:37:15] And what page are those photos on for everyone who wants to grab your book and take a look?
Brian Vangor [00:37:19] They're on pages 38 and 39 of the book.
Sarah Howorth [00:37:20] Amazing.
Brian Vangor [00:37:20] And there are lots of construction photos. And then, here's another great photograph given to me by a former coworker who's now retired. I talked about families. This is a Family Day in 1970 where Jim Mooney, Sr., up here, is an INC supervisor at all three units, at the time, and he's taking his family through Indian Point 2 to look at the construction. And I ended up working with with Jimmy and Mike Mooney down here. Jim's retired and Mike is working overseas. But it's just amazing that he was able to find that photograph of his whole family in the airlock at Indian Point 2.
Sarah Howorth [00:38:05] Yeah, that's amazing. That's such a cool photo.
Brian Vangor [00:38:07] It really is. And I was so happy to contact Jimmy, and he had the original.
Sarah Howorth [00:38:14] That's great. That's awesome. Well, everyone will definitely look forward to seeing those photos and many more in your book. Do you have a message that you want to leave us off with or anything we didn't talk about that you wanted to mention?
Brian Vangor [00:38:30] I'm just thankful for all the people that went through that plant over the years. They really worked together, they made it happen, and they made Indian Point successful. It ran for 59 years, overall. And then in the end, in its final run, Indian Point 3 set a world record, which is in the book. For the first time ever, one of the Indian Point units ran what we call breaker to breaker.
Brian Vangor [00:38:54] So, breaker to breaker is you leave one refueling, you refuel a reactor, you start the plant up, and you go all the way to the next refueling until you have to shut the plant down. Typically, there was always something happening, a maintenance outage, an unplanned or unscheduled shutdown, where something would disrupt that. So, the final run of Indian Point 3, which is very fitting to all of us, was a world record run of 753 days, breaker to breaker, refueling to refueling, and we are very, very proud of that.
Sarah Howorth [00:39:26] That's a great note to, I think, wrap up on. And that was Brian, everybody. You can go ahead and get his book anywhere he listed before. I personally ordered mine on Amazon, and I've really been enjoying looking through it. Thank you so much for coming on, Brian. It's great to have you.
Brian Vangor [00:39:41] Thank you so much for having me, Sarah. Thank you. Have a great day.
1) We kick off ‘Nuclear Now’ Day with a story of how the film came to be - Listen in for the story behind it all
2) How Oliver Stone and Joshua Goldstein took a deep dive into the nuclear industry in search of the film’s content, as well as what and who viewers might see in ‘Nuclear Now’
3) A discussion of how we’ll get electrons on the grid and some of the most thought-provoking discoveries made in the production of ‘Nuclear Now’
4) A glimpse into what our nuclear future looks like according to Oliver and Joshua
Olivia Columbus [00:00:58] So, we are here today on Titans of Nuclear with Academy Award-winning filmmaker Oliver Stone and Joshua Goldstein, author of A Bright Future, who is now a two time Titan. Oliver and Joshua, welcome to the show.
Joshua Goldstein [00:01:11] Good to be with you.
Oliver Stone [00:01:12] Thank you, Olivia.
Olivia Columbus [00:01:14] So, today we are here to discuss the film that you two co-wrote. It's based off of Joshua's book and the film is titled Nuclear Now. It's being released in select theaters on Monday, May 1st, a week from today. I'm really excited to see the film; I'll be at your D.C. event next week. And I know that many of our listeners are also very excited to see it, and some of them already have. I also want to mention that there are a number of Titans in your film. Just to name a few, obviously Joshua, Jake DeWitt, Isabelle Boemeke, and I'm sure many more. For our listeners, if you haven't heard those episodes or want to refresh, be sure to go back and listen.
Olivia Columbus [00:01:47] So to kick it off, Oliver, the film is inspired by Joshua's book and it takes a lot from from that book, but how did you come to nuclear? Did you learn about nuclear and then come and find the book? Did you read the book first and then you were really inspired about nuclear? What was that journey like?
Oliver Stone [00:02:02] I guess I'm the new player in the game so, I'd quickly just tell you that I was just concerned. I was not a specialist at all, nor do I have a scientific background. But obviously, the future looms for everybody and it's a big concern. I mean, my films have addressed my concerns, and this is a big one. This is my children's, and potentially, grandchildren's future. And I didn't know what was going on. And it's confusing because everyone in this huge marketplace we have is talking different things, different solutions, green this, "blah, blah, blah." I was not particularly original. I just went along with the conventional. And when they banned nuclear, I thought maybe they know something that I don't know.
Oliver Stone [00:02:48] But I realized as the argument went on and on that nobody was making much sense to me. Joshua's book came along at that time. It was reviewed in the New York Times, and I thought the review was brilliant. Richard Rhodes wrote it. I read the book quickly. It's a simple book to read and not too long, thank God. And I said, "This has to be said. I presume it's accurate and I presume we have to tell this to people because it's common sense." Again, common sense.
Oliver Stone [00:03:19] And that's what we did. I called Joshua up. He didn't know me from Adam. And we talked about it and we made the deal. It took longer to make the movie than it took for all that. So, it was about two years in the making, off and on. You've seen the result.
Olivia Columbus [00:03:36] And Joshua, what was your initial reaction when you were approached to make this movie? Along with that, what are some of the differences you found in writing a screenplay or working on a screenplay versus a book?
Joshua Goldstein [00:03:46] Right. So, they turn out to be pretty different. I had these conversations with Oliver where I would say, "Oh, I've never worked on a film before. Can you tell?" Like, it's just a very different way of communicating. And I would say that the big differences were with the book. Staffan and and I... I mean, he's a nuclear engineer, I'm a professor. We're both very careful to get all the facts right and to back it all up with graphs and data and footnotes and make sure every footnote is correct and all of that, which is great for a book, but it's not very emotional. And that's what you want in a film, is something... A human story, not a bunch of facts and figures.
Joshua Goldstein [00:04:28] So, the early versions... I sent in... It's not a screenplay, really, but a narrative. And then, people in Hollywood said, "That's going to put everybody to sleep. That's not going to work." And then, Oliver would come back with something that works better as a film. And I'd say, "That's great. I really love that, but it does have a lot of mistakes in it." And, you know, we'd go back and forth that way. So, getting sort of the artistic side and the scientific side to work together took a lot of doing, but I'm very happy how it came out. It doesn't have mistakes, it is all scientifically-based, and it's a beautiful movie. And Oliver got Vangelis to write the soundtrack for his last soundtrack.
Oliver Stone [00:05:16] [00:05:16]Additionally, we went to Russia. Rosatom cooperated, France EDF cooperated, and the Idaho Nuclear Lab, Advanced Lab in Idaho cooperated because I think the Department of Energy... You arranged for that, Josh. I don't know how you did it, but it worked. They gave us a lot of good information. [21.4s]
Olivia Columbus [00:05:39] That's wonderful. And when you were really going on this sort of deep... I mean, to be able to effectively talk about nuclear, you really need to be doing a bit of a deep dive into the industry. How did you go about that, Oliver? Were there any resources you found particularly valuable?
Oliver Stone [00:05:54] We reached out to everybody we could. Josh helped us. He's been in this for years. Maybe I should have reached out further, but we had a lot on our agenda. We traveled, we met... We had the cooperation, as I said, of some... China was the only one that we couldn't get into, partly because of the situation politically. But we learned about China. So I think... What would you say? I think it was a very difficult process because I wanted to make it logical for myself. It was my learning experience. It wasn't about trying to make a scientifically objective thing. Maybe that became the issue, but I wanted to say, "How do I understand this thing?".
Oliver Stone [00:06:38] Go back to the very past, the beginning of the world. Where is uranium? What has the universe given us, this tremendous discovery, this miracle that we have completely abused? We haven't waken up to it. What Marie Curie found... And Einstein worked on it, and Fermi, all these people... They gave us a miracle and we screwed it up, really screwed it up. It went very well for a while; we were getting there in the 1970s. There wouldn't be a discussion about climate change if we'd continued on that path, with accidents or without accidents. It was only one significant accident and that was terrible. And it became such a huge outcry of protests everywhere in the world.
Oliver Stone [00:07:22] Unfortunately, certainly the oil lobbies had something to do with it. We know that. The Rockefeller Report of 1956 was huge in condemning radioactivity. And of course, then the environmental movement, which we all support. Wonderful thing. But as Dr. Moore says in the film, "We got one thing wrong." And he was one of the founders of Greenpeace. "We got one thing wrong," and that was nuclear power. They combine nuclear power with nuclear war, and that is a huge, huge misunderstanding.
Oliver Stone [00:08:00] So, here we are. Humanity's screwed to a certain degree, and we're way, way behind. And my realistic estimate is that this film is not going to change anything overnight because there's so much ingrained resistance to nuclear from people. Most people would like it, but it's not going to change the course right now. But I'm hoping, by the time it gets worse and worse and worse, they're going to wake up. It's not going to work with renewables. It's just not going to get there, nor is oil going to get us there without more carbon. So, I don't see a solution except nuclear is the basic solution and we never used it, damn it. We never used it. So, if we're going to go out of business as a world, we've got to take that fact into account.
Olivia Columbus [00:08:47] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, your process of research is actually very similar to what we did when we came to the nuclear space. We came as total outsiders, our founder was a Silicon Valley tech guy. He decided he wanted to learn about nuclear, and he launched a podcast to have conversations with hundreds and hundreds of people in the industry. And through that, really learned what went wrong and how do we fix it. So, I think that is really the value, the way to have that journey because you really identify the challenges, but then you also identify the ways that we make things happen.
Oliver Stone [00:09:22] And at the end, we wanted to show some future, the hope. So, we went to Idaho. We showed some of the new developments and panaceas, too. But there's a lot of young generation people like yourself who are doing their homework. And that's what's crucial.
Olivia Columbus [00:09:41] Yeah, absolutely. So, when you guys initially pitched this film to producers...
Oliver Stone [00:09:46] Nobody wanted it. No, nobody wanted it. No, come on. I couldn't get to first base with this thing. There's no protagonist. And it's just a certain force; it's an element. Uranium is the protagonist. So, here we ended up struggling to get it made. Rich people subsidized us, thank God. And my partner, Fernando Sulichin, is European, and European contacts and some American contacts put this thing together. We eked it out over these two years. We'll probably never get our money back; it's one of these nonprofit enterprises. But so what? This is important. We're hoping this showing, a theatrical showing, is the beginning. We'll go to digital, platforming it and platforming it. And educational, that distributor is reaching out.
Oliver Stone [00:10:38] But basically, we have to get it outside the United States; we have to go around the world. And that's where the foreign distributors are very important to us. This is a film about India, China, Korea, Japan. It's not just about the United States, which is a problem. We have 1 billion people in the rich countries and 7 billion in the lesser countries, and they have to deal... They want electricity, as well as other reasons, industrial products. So, what are we going to do?
Olivia Columbus [00:11:10] Absolutely. You mentioned you traveled in the U.S., you also traveled abroad. Did you see differences in public perception in various countries that you traveled to? And what were some of those nuances that you noticed?
Oliver Stone [00:11:25] What I noticed is most people don't even think about it because nuclear is uneventful. When you open a plant, people forget about it and it goes and it works and it works. In Germany, they were working fine, but all of a sudden the population got excited because the Green Party started saying awful things about nuclear. And of course, they point always to the Chernobyl disaster, which we deal with at length in the film. We went to Russia to get to the bottom of it with the scientists who were at Chernobyl. And it's an interesting section, but Chernobyl has been "boogeymaned" into a modern myth. If we'd had more accidents, if they'd had more accidents in nuclear from the beginning, the world would be much more relative in understanding the nature of the... The deaths in nuclear are minor compared to what the deaths are in the fossil fuel industry.
Olivia Columbus [00:12:16] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think when you contextualize some of these facts in ways that people understand, it's just so impactful. I'm always really interested by the fact that the United States Capitol has higher radiation levels than are allowed at a nuclear plant because it's made of marble. Like, these things are so normal in our everyday lives, but when you talk about them in the context of nuclear, they feel so scary.
Olivia Columbus [00:12:39] Josh, have you noticed a shift in public sentiment towards nuclear since you published your book, originally? Do you feel like more people are starting to come around to it?
Joshua Goldstein [00:12:50] Yeah, definitely in the last few years. It's not because of my book really, but just the energy crisis this last year in Europe, especially, has made a big difference. And generally, the pro-nuclear people are speaking out now trying to get past this wall of fear and denial and the taboo on it. I think there's been quite a bit of change.
Joshua Goldstein [00:13:13] What's the problem in a lot of countries, and Germany's one of them, is that the public supports nuclear power... Which is kind of a miracle after all this propaganda about how terrible and dangerous it is... But supports it. But politically, especially in parliamentary systems, the Green Party has that balance of seats that you need their votes in order to form a government and they demand that you shut down nuclear. So, nobody else much cares about it. They're passionate and fanatical about it, and you need their seats to form a government. So, in Germany, Belgium, Sweden, it happened in all these places. The government says, "Okay, let's form a government. We'll give you your way on nuclear power, and then you give us our government so we can do all these other things.".
Joshua Goldstein [00:13:59] I think that's one reason that China and Russia end up in the lead on the technology, because we're shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak, in the Western countries by these. The ability of a small minority of people to scream about it so loudly, and they have a lot of money behind them too, spending billions of dollars to tell us how dangerous it is. And then, even most of the public supports it. And by the way, the closer you live to a nuclear plant, the more supportive you are is what the polling shows. But those voices can be drowned out from the loud minority in that kind of system.
Olivia Columbus [00:14:40] Absolutely. It's unfortunate that it takes things like literally not having enough energy for countries to change their policy and become more favorable towards nuclear like we're seeing in countries like Poland. It's not just that they have coal-fired energy, too much dirty energy, it's that they literally don't have enough to keep the lights on. And it shouldn't be that way. It's literally inhumane to not choose nuclear, because you are choosing something that is worse for your...
Oliver Stone [00:15:17] I believe that's the future. I mean, I think it'll get worse and worse and worse because no one's going to do really anything about it. There's no mandate to build more nuclear like we're talking about. As it gets worse and worse, there's going to be a scramble. There's going to be a real scramble to build as fast as possible, because they would have exhausted all the other efforts with all the wind... And wind is good. I mean, we support renewables, but they're very expensive and land is required. And solar has its problems, too. That's all good, but still, for the aggregate total required, it's nothing compared to what we need to do. So, as people become more and more panicked, it's obvious that there's going to have to be a faster and faster reaction. And the only thing that we know works today is nuclear fission.
Olivia Columbus [00:16:08] Absolutely. And I mean, that's not even accounting for the fact that we're going to see a global increase in energy threefold in the next 20 years and the fact that there are so many heavy energy-using industries and companies that need baseload power. You know, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Renewables are intermittent, so they're not a solution. For something like a data center or a hospital, those things can't go down. You need a baseload solution, and that's really where nuclear comes in.
Olivia Columbus [00:16:42] And sort of on that, I'm really curious... There's a lot of conversation about the next "nuclear renaissance." It's something I feel like, every ten years, people talk about. I think we really need to approach that using large builds, the Gen III SMRs, and advanced reactors to get us to this nuclear shift. But I think we need to primarily focus on what we can build the fastest and what can solve some of those fringe problems. I'm curious what your opinion is on how we solve this technology mix question and how we really get electrons on the grid.
Joshua Goldstein [00:17:21] I like all those sizes. The big ones, like the Chinese Hualong 1, China can just build those fast now. They're pretty cheap workhorse reactors, we call it in the film. And as fast as they can build them, they can replace coal plants. And Poland, too, buying a big reactor is very good. We like the SMRs also because, you know cheaper and faster to build. And then, the microreactors and smaller stuff also very, very good. And we touch on it at the end of the film, the potentials for producing hydrogen with nuclear and that kind of thing.
Joshua Goldstein [00:18:00] I'm also very interested in what your founder is doing with the smaller reactor in Poland to go, and other companies, too, to go behind the meter and deliver both heat and electricity directly to industrial users. And this is what X-Energy is doing with Dow Chemical for their first reactor on the Gulf Coast in the United States. So then, you don't need the transmission lines. You don't need all the sprawl of the wind and solar. You get the heat directly, and that's what the industries need. A chemical plant uses a lot of heat as well as electricity, but by making it smaller, it's faster to build. You can start selling your product faster and make some money and not wait out there for 10 years with a billion dollars invested, or $10 billion or whatever, and then get it behind the meter and directly to where it's being used much more efficient and cheap. It has to be cheap, or else it's not going to replace fossil fuel. And it should be cheap.
Oliver Stone [00:19:08] It will if we're desperate enough. And then, cost won't matter. If you're looking death in the face, you're going to pay your way out of it somehow. So really, you'll get desperate. It needs to get desperate.
Olivia Columbus [00:19:21] Yeah. I think the real barrier is getting the construction timelines down and manageable regulatory costs. And if you can achieve those two barriers, you can grow nuclear the same way we grew renewables, right? It's not about the technology. It doesn't matter what technology you choose as long as you can sort of apply a renewables-minded approach to how you scale it. That's at least sort of the conclusion we've come to, and I think is what we're seeing the market sort of incentivize. So, hopefully that takes hold and hopefully we're able to see this nuclear future that we want to build.
Olivia Columbus [00:20:00] I would love to know, without giving too much away about the film, people are going to see it... What was the most thought provoking or sort of impactful experience you had while making this movie?
Oliver Stone [00:20:15] Well for me, it was getting to know a whole world that I did not know. So, I went to, as I said, to these reactors, most of which are very uneventful. So, as always the case, in France it's the same thing. It's a government, EDF. There have been some problems, but it's a very well-run organization and it's been there from the beginning. France went nuclear in 1970s and '80s with de Gaulle. They converted 58 reactors in France in 15 years. They built fast because they had the oil shortage as well as there were other problems in France. Compared to what German electricity prices are, or were, there's no comparison. France was cheaper. But now, France has to replace its nuclear reactors because the maintenance time has run out. Same thing was true in Sweden,right? Same thing in Japan, Korea. We're hoping for Indonesia now. We're hoping that... India is certainly a huge player here. Lots of coal in India, but they aren't building reactors. That's hope. And China, as I said, that Hualong, the Hualong's a big one. And boiling water, right? It's a boiling water reactor. Am I right?
Joshua Goldstein [00:22:12] That's a pressurized water reactor.
Oliver Stone [00:22:14] It's not, okay. Well, then there's the one...
Joshua Goldstein [00:22:17] It's a light-water reactor like most.
Oliver Stone [00:22:20] GE Hitachi in America is building something...
Olivia Columbus [00:22:25] In Canada, yes.
Joshua Goldstein [00:22:26] That's the boiling water, yeah.
Oliver Stone [00:22:27] BWR-X, is that the name of it, 300? That has great hope. Great hope. ThorCon, you didn't mention.
Olivia Columbus [00:22:39] In Indonesia.
Joshua Goldstein [00:22:39] Right, ThorCon. Build it in Korean shipyards the way you build big natural gas equipment or cruise ships or these big, complicated machines that they build in the shipyards over and over again and get really good at it and produce them cheaply and then float them to where they're going. But this all has to do with the scalability. That's what I like about ThorCon, it's really scalable. You can crank them out by the tens, by the hundreds, by the thousands, eventually.
Joshua Goldstein [00:23:06] And if you look at the speed at which clean energy has ever been added to the grid in different countries and contexts, I think nine out of the ten fastest are nuclear. So, renewables did scale fast and it has scaled quickly. It certainly showed that the cost comes down as you do something over and over again. But in terms of actually getting the energy onto the grid, nuclear is the fastest. And one of my favorite graphs, which isn't in the film in the final version, is France's electricity mix. It's mostly fossil fuel, and then in 15 years, the fossil fuel just drops completely out and it's replaced with nuclear. Nuclear up, fossil down, and then you have a decarbonized grid which they've had to this day, and as Oliver said, it's a cheap electricity source. So, it's just a great, proven example.
Joshua Goldstein [00:23:59] And all the ideas how we're going to solve climate change, I like a lot of them, but they're not proven. You know, the deep geothermal... Great idea, hasn't been done. Fusion, 30 years in the future. Maybe now it's less. And so forth. They may work, they may not work. But I've got a granddaughter who's less than a year old, and we're talking about staking her life on the decisions we make now. And I'm not going to risk it on something unproven. I want to do what France did and what we know works, build it really fast and take the fossil fuels off and decarbonize.
Joshua Goldstein [00:24:33] Everything we've done on climate change, we keep putting renewables on and so forth, but the film makes this point, we are not actually reducing carbon emissions. And we haven't for 30 years since we've been talking about how we need to reduce carbon emission. We have to recognize we're in a big moment of failure about climate change. It's not like we're on track and we just need to tweak it a little bit or we need a little bit of nuclear to fill out where the wind and solar don't get. It's not like that. We're way, way off track. We need a real, substantial change.
Oliver Stone [00:25:07] That's the truth, that's the truth. And every time you mention nuclear, the media is asleep to some large degree. The first thing that comes to their minds if they haven't done their homework is danger. That's the first thing. They say, "Well, nuclear is great, but it's dangerous."
Olivia Columbus [00:25:25] Absolutely. And Josh, you mentioned France... My favorite example of nuclear buildout is South Korea. Talk about embracing nuclear in a really desperate situation. Post-Korean War, they were just completely decimated, and they used nuclear not only to bring themselves out of poverty but to become a massive industrial force. And it's just such an incredible story. They also had an energy security concern, because they couldn't have a pipeline running through North Korea. That was just not an option. So, I think it is such a fascinating story. And if you look at these historical examples, you see how we could, how we will, honestly, embrace nuclear when we come to this global point of desperation. It's just unfortunate that we're going have to get there before we can... Hopefully we don't have to get there, but unfortunately that may be.
Joshua Goldstein [00:26:18] The other thing about South Korea's nuclear until they stopped building it five years ago, now they're starting again... It was the cheapest thing of all the energy. Cheaper than hydroelectricity, cheaper than coal. And they are building not a lot of them, but they've started to build the same reactor over and over again, the APR-1400. And they built it... I guess, four of them in South Korea.
Joshua Goldstein [00:26:44] And now they've been building them in the United Arab Emirates, a four reactor plant. Three of them are on the grid. The fourth one's under construction, coming along. It's on budget, it's on schedule. It's all those things that the anti-nuclear people say nuclear can't do. They're doing it on the ground, in real time, in the United Arab Emirates. And almost never do you see anything in the news about that. I'm sure almost everybody out there has no idea that's going on. But here it is. Here's the example. You can build a lot of electricity really fast and cheap if you just do it this way.
Olivia Columbus [00:27:18] Absolutely. And it's such a point of national pride, too, in the UAE. We've had some folks from the program come on the podcast. They are so happy to sort of show it off. And they should be, because it really is such a great example of how we can achieve nuclear at scale.
Olivia Columbus [00:27:35] So, I want to sort of wrap us up, but I want to give you both an opportunity to sort of outline your vision. Obviously, it's going to take a lot for us to get there, but what does your nuclear future look like?
Oliver Stone [00:27:52] I think it'll be squeezed. We'll be squeezed down to the very bitter end because humanity has to wake up and it's just going to take desperation. Desperation will be all forms of climate change that are going to upset people, make immigration enormous. There'll be so much movement in the world away from countries and so much disruption. War will hopefully not become popular again, but there's a possibility there'll be more wars too. But it'll reach this place of madness. And when you have madness, people react. I mean, we're not stupid as a race, although we seem like it. We'll react and we'll build fast. We have no other choice at this point. I don't see us... I don't see carbon capture. I love it, but I don't see it as a possibility of realism.
Joshua Goldstein [00:28:45] I guess my vision is that someone's going to figure out how to make nuclear really cheap, which it should be, inherently. That's the clip in the film about how the fuel pellet the size of the tip of your pinkie has as much energy as a ton of coal, and it costs a couple of bucks and the ton of coal costs $100. So, it should be the cheapest thing if we just do it right. And somebody's going to figure out how to make that work. Maybe it'll be Last Energy, maybe it'll be ThorCon, maybe it'll be Westinghouse. I don't know. But when that happens, I think things will start to shift really quickly. And people ask me, "Will people ever stop being afraid of nuclear?" And I say, "Yes. When it's $0.02 a kilowatt hour, no one will be afraid of it and they'll forget why they ever were afraid of it." Just like flying where we know we're afraid of flying, but we still fly because it's so good, right? It gets us where we want to go.
Olivia Columbus [00:29:39] And you're exposed to radiation when you fly.
Joshua Goldstein [00:29:41] Right, right, right.
Oliver Stone [00:29:43] The problem with what Josh is saying in my mind is that it's an out. It lets people off the hook. You can say, "Oh, well, for now it's just not cheap enough." Well, that's not the issue. We're going to have to spend money if we're in desperate conditions. And we're getting there. And we are there. What the hell? The world has changed remarkably in 10 years, 15 years. And 2050 would be in my out point, 2040 more likely. But I don't see much... I don't see that we're going to change this. Waiting around for a cost, somebody to invent something with nuclear seems like utopia to me.
Joshua Goldstein [00:30:23] Well, I think that if you start to build them, people get more used to them and less afraid of them.
Oliver Stone [00:30:31] That's right.
Joshua Goldstein [00:30:31] And right now everything's all frozen up in the countries that are afraid of it. And I'm hoping the film does some good, just in a broad way to make people less afraid, to get the taboo lifted off the subject, put it on the table, let's talk about it, how do we get there and so forth. But I think in different countries it'll look different. In some countries, the government will say, "Yes, we want it." Like the UAE, "We're going to build these plants and that's it." And in other countries, it's going to be more companies jumping into the space and trying to make it work like we're doing in the United States.
Olivia Columbus [00:31:11] Absolutely.
Joshua Goldstein [00:31:11] I think we'll get there. But I agree with Oliver that it's not going to be timely enough. But if we spend the 2020s developing the technologies that we need to grow really fast in the 2030s and '40s, that's where I see the best hope. Start building now, start developing now, but don't expect it to pay off right away in the next few years.
Oliver Stone [00:31:35] And hopefully... The oil companies could do it. They have the profits. Did you see the recent report about how Shell Oil buried all that information back in the '70s? Shell Oil, did you see that report? They buried all these documents that pointed clearly to climate change.
Joshua Goldstein [00:31:54] The oil companies have vast amounts of money and they're used to making these big investments in risky things. It's pretty daunting if you're not a big oil company. Like ThorCon, you know? For a billion dollars, you can put money in to build the first ThorCon and own the future of energy and everything's great. And I can give you a list as long as your arm of all the risks. It's completely insane, the political risks, the economic risks, etc. You're probably going to lose all your money, but if you don't, then you're going to be fabulously rich and then the world will be saved. Oil companies do that all the time. They'll spend billions of dollars to drill dry wells somewhere, but the one that works out is going to make them a ton of money.
Joshua Goldstein [00:32:38] Unfortunately, oil companies are in competition, to some extent, with nuclear energy. So, it may not be where the money comes from. So, that we have to work out. And that may be... I think I agree with Oliver. That's where a government has to step in and say, "Look, this is ridiculous. Energy is critical national infrastructure. Climate change is a threat to our way of life. We need to just build nuclear reactors and not get all hung up on the private sector having to do everything."
Olivia Columbus [00:33:12] Well, I am very excited to see the film next week and encourage our audience to see it either in person on Monday or if it's not playing somewhere near you stream it when it's available. Oliver Stone, Joshua Goldstein, thank you so much for joining us on Titans of Nuclear.
Oliver Stone [00:33:28] Thank you very much.
Joshua Goldstein [00:33:29] We should mention the website for the film. It's nuclearnowfilm.com and it lists all the theaters, 375 theaters that are going to be screening it one night only, May 1st, Monday. So, that's where you can find it all. Also, watch the trailer, which is really fun and wonderful.
Olivia Columbus [00:33:46] Great.
Joshua Goldstein [00:33:46] Thanks for having us.
Oliver Stone [00:33:47] Thank you.
1) A roundtable discussion of Brent and Lex’s backgrounds in science, nuclear, engineering, and more
2) How Brent and Lex came to connect about the ideas behind Solid Atomic, as well as a deep dive into what these ideas could mean for nuclear energy
3) How transmission from 500 feet under the ocean works in the Solid Atomic gameplan
4) A discussion of HALEU fuel and where the Solid Atomic team currently stands in terms of prototyping
Sign up for our newsletter
No results found
Please try different keywords