TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Erik Walker [00:00:07] Hi, my name is Eric Walker, and welcome to Titans of Nuclear. Today, our guest is Roger Blomquist, and he is a principal here at Argonne National Laboratory. Roger, welcome.

Roger Blomquist [00:00:20] Thank you, Eric.

Erik Walker [00:00:21] So, before we get into the nitty gritty details, you want to go into a little bit of your background? How did you get started in nuclear? What led you down this career path?

Roger Blomquist [00:00:32] So, I'm a nuclear engineer by accident. Maybe that's a poor choice of words, but... So, I was a physics major in undergraduate school. I got my degree in 1969 and went to graduate school in physics. And we had the first Vietnam-era draft lottery in late 1969. And my lottery was number one. And my dad was in World War II, earned a Purple Heart and told me I didn't want to be infantry. And so, I had a choice between letting myself get drafted for two years or using my physics degree in the U.S. Navy. And so, that was my choice. And I became a Nuclear Propulsion Officer on a nuclear submarine. And so, that training is really... It's the best training in the world, other maybe than fighter pilot training. I don't know, but very thorough training.

Erik Walker [00:01:30] That's crediting Admiral Rickover, right? That was his program.

Roger Blomquist [00:01:34] Yes, and I met Admiral Rickover, too.

Erik Walker [00:01:36] That's so cool.

Roger Blomquist [00:01:37] I had to meet Admiral Rickover. It wasn't cool, but I got through it.

Erik Walker [00:01:42] I've heard his interview techniques to be somewhat unorthodox.

Roger Blomquist [00:01:48] Yeah, he was... He used the bully technique and it was pretty effective. And he tried to bully me. I'm a pretty mild mannered guy, but I didn't cave, and I managed to escape the interview without executing myself. But anyway, so I had been a physics major and then I was a nuclear engineer in the Navy, and when I finished my active duty after four years, four and a half years, I went to graduate school at Northwestern in nuclear engineering. They had a small program, but some of our teachers and professors were very senior, top of the field people at Argonne National Laboratory. So, it was a good program. And when I finished my Ph.D. there in computing methods and reactor physics, I came to Argonne in 1979, and I've been here ever since. I just officially retired in January, but I'm still part time. It's kind of a nice transitional arrangement.

Roger Blomquist [00:02:53] And I've worked in the physics part of nuclear engineering my whole career. So, for a young person, they might say, "Wow, this guy really... He was thinking way ahead." But no, it was really just stuff that happened to me and I took advantage of opportunities that came along and actually forced themselves on me.

Erik Walker [00:03:14] Well, that's incredible. So, just a couple of questions a little bit back into your past. Just in case some listeners don't know, currently all the submarines and aircraft carriers in the US Navy's fleet are all nuclear powered. For people who weren't aware, that's the connection there that Roger's talking about. What was life like on a nuclear sub back then? It doesn't sound to be too enjoyable.

Roger Blomquist [00:03:42] So, it's a combination of stress and boredom, but I think that's true in any kind of warfare situation. We were not in a shooting war at the time; this was the height of the Cold War. My ship was about to run out of uranium-235, and so we did a deployment. But it was a fairly short one; it was only three and a half months. The standard deployment then was six months, or if you went to the West Pacific, it was nine months. We went across the Atlantic, so ours was only, because of the situation, only three and a half months.

Roger Blomquist [00:04:21] My stateroom... I was one of the most junior officers on the ship, but I had a stateroom shared with two other guys. The floor space was about two feet by two feet, and that was taken up by a fold-down desk. And being the shortest guy in the stateroom, I was in the top bunk. So, I had to kind of climb up and slide into my bunk like a monkey. In the bunk, you can't sit up. There isn't enough headroom, but there's a nice fluorescent reading light right above your forehead, which is very handy except if you suddenly sit up, you would crash into the lamp. So, they had a real nice sturdy grill over it, which I did plant my forehead on that a couple of times.

Erik Walker [00:05:11] Wow. Yeah, three and a half months deployment. You can't... Stir crazy, I feel like, is an understatement.

Roger Blomquist [00:05:19] We were too busy to get stir crazy. And most people imagine they're claustrophobic. Really, most people are not. It's pretty unusual. And if you're busy, all of this other stuff just sort of disappears into the wallpaper, kind of.

Erik Walker [00:05:37] Right. Okay, well then, linking that to Argonne is... I'm sure you're very well familiar with the Argonne Reactor Tree, that picture?

Roger Blomquist [00:05:52] Yes.

Erik Walker [00:05:52] For viewers and listeners, if you just go and Google the Argonne Reactor Tree, you'll see this pretty image that comes up. And Argonne has been pretty integral to nuclear engineering, basically, since the very, very beginning, right? The trunk of the tree on this image is CP-1, the Chicago Pile-1, the world's first nuclear reactor. And then, all the branches are the different types of reactors that have come off that. And one of them is the Nautilus. And so, that was actually the first nuclear powered submarine, if I'm not mistaken. And that was designed by Argonne. So, Argonne has been integral to the nuclear industry, basically, all the way back to the beginning.

Erik Walker [00:06:37] So, looking at this image and all these apples on the tree, all these different reactor designs and types, I'm assuming you've been involved with analyzing some of them, probably? Working on any of them?

Roger Blomquist [00:06:53] Well, even though I've been here a long time, at the time those reactors were operating, I was one of the really young guys or not here yet. And so, Argonne was established in 1946 to develop peaceful uses of atomic energy. So, we've never done, for example, nuclear weapons work. But Argonne did build several dozen reactors, a bunch of them here in Illinois and a bunch of them at Argonne West in Idaho, which in the early in mid-2000s became part of Idaho National Laboratory.

Roger Blomquist [00:07:30] The first reactor that generated electricity was Experimental Breeder Reactor-1, and that produced electricity in 1951. Now, that was only nine years after Chicago Pile-1. If you think about innovation pace, that was a really good clip for nuclear innovation. And for a long time... Well, we've gone through a long period when innovation was not very active, and we're back into that zone again, fortunately. But I've seen a few of those reactors. I never operated any of the Argonne reactors. Even though I had operational experience, I came here as a reactor physicist, so.

Erik Walker [00:08:17] Okay, I see. When Argonne split, Argonne West became Idaho National Labs. So, a lot of those reactors that were built and designed by Argonne are now under the purview of Idaho National Lab.

Roger Blomquist [00:08:41] Yeah. Actually, most of them were already... They'd met their missions by then and were shut down. There were several that were still operating and one of them has been resurrected from standby, TREAT, which is a fabulous fuel test reactor. You can put fuel in it that you want to test and drive it to destruction and see how it fails, understand all the physics and chemistry of fuel failure and so forth. And there's a couple of others.

Roger Blomquist [00:09:12] One other that was a physics experiment reactor that's still in standby. But the way our reactor program has worked over the decades is you build a reactor to test a certain concept or to generate a certain set of experimental data, and then when you finish that, then the question is, "Well, can I use this reactor for something else we hadn't thought of originally? Or, is it just a big drain on our resources and we need to kind of shut it down and do something better?" So, that's kind of the way those considerations were made. But as I said, a lot of our reactors, the more edgy ones, were built in Idaho.

Erik Walker [00:09:58] Right, okay. So, I had a little experience in the national lab space. For grad school, I was a contractor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. And then after my postdoc, was hired on as a staff scientist for a few years. It's a very similar situation at Oak Ridge where it started in wartime with the graphite reactor, but then over the years there have been numerous reactors that have been built and operated on sites that have seen the end of their useful life. And currently there's only, I believe, one still operating on Oak Ridge's Reservation, that's the High Flux Isotope Reactor. Are there any of the Argonne reactors still operating or active?

Roger Blomquist [00:10:48] No, none in Illinois.

Erik Walker [00:10:50] Okay.

Roger Blomquist [00:10:51] In fact, we had a Chicago Pile-5, CP-5, which was a heavy-water reactor used for training reactor operators and for the emerging civil nuclear electricity business in the US, but also a lot of neutron physics experiments. That one has been greenfield decommissioned. That was the first greenfield decommissioning of a reactor in the United States. We are actually using some of the other facilities that contained some of our Zero Power Reactors. Zero is not perfectly correct, it's just so low-power you don't need a cooling system which makes your whole experiment way cheaper.

Erik Walker [00:11:38] Right.

Roger Blomquist [00:11:39] Anyway, so we're still using those cells for other kinds of experiments that may involve a lot of energy, like high-power lasers or potentially vigorous chemical reactions.

Erik Walker [00:11:55] So, you've touched on a point I'd like to go into a little further, the greenfield decommissioning. That's something that we want to strive for, but you don't hear that too much. Can you just explain for those who don't know what that means and how that's accomplished?

Roger Blomquist [00:12:12] Greenfield's sort of a descriptor that you return the site to what it was before they first broke ground to build the facility. That's kind of the holy grail of decommissioning. I personally have reservations as to whether that is always a good idea because there is such a thing as brownfield industrial facilities where you reuse industrial property that has satisfied its first mission for some other purpose. And it's way cheaper to do that than to start with a greenfield somewhere else. And so, that is one of the considerations that needs to be made. Greenfield is something that people want to insist on, but it's expensive. And there's a good question as to whether or not that is, overall, a good approach. In some cases I'm sure it is, but in others there may be better uses for that property or facility.

Erik Walker [00:13:16] Right. And it's a testament to these sites that have nuclear facilities on them that they can be returned back to the state that they were before the facility. So, the notion that once a nuclear facility is in a location it's contaminated for all time and there's nothing we can do and it completely ruins the environment is just a fallacy.

Roger Blomquist [00:13:38] Yes. Exactly.

Erik Walker [00:13:41] That's, I think, an important point to touch on. So then, you're at Argonne and now part time at Argonne. But I see that you've sort of moved into the public speaking sort of realm. Would you like to go a little more in detail to that?

Roger Blomquist [00:13:58] Yeah. So, I worked quietly as an engineer for decades and listened to all the public discourse on nuclear energy. I understood for a fact that a lot of it was distortions, exaggerations or worse. And it was pretty annoying. But engineers kind of like to... We know what we do is good work and it stands by itself. And we don't want to argue with people who think what we're doing is dumb or evil or bad or somehow negative, generally, because they don't know what they're talking about, really. So, we have never considered that a constructive way to spend our time.

Roger Blomquist [00:14:50] But eventually, it wore me down; I got tired of it. So, I started giving a few talks to civic groups and so forth. And then Fukushima happened, and now there's a public hysteria. And the lab gave me some media training. So, I was then authorized to talk to reporters and stuff. And so, I found that was enjoyable. It wasn't always successful, in my view, in terms of conveying to the public what I wanted to say. But it was still worthwhile and an interesting mind game if your reporter is acting like an opponent.

Roger Blomquist [00:15:32] So, I've been doing a fair amount of that. I don't talk to reporters every month, but I probably talk to one or two every year. And I have talked to more civic groups and I give a lot of tours. We have a fabulous Nuclear Energy Exhibition Hall here, and I give tours to groups that come in like college science and engineering students or even art students and VIPs. So, I've done a lot of talking about all this stuff, and I've also thought a lot about analogies that are understandable to people who are not engineers that will help them really comprehend the issues in a broad sense.

Erik Walker [00:16:22] Have you found it difficult conveying some of the finer aspects to a non-technical audience to get them to understand. Using analogies is a good way to do that, but have you found it difficult to communicate or are people generally pretty receptive to your talks?

Roger Blomquist [00:16:45] Well, generally the people I'm talking to are receptive. Certainly the ones who come to the lab to see the exhibit, they are. Outside the civic groups, it's a variety of different attitudes or pre-conceived notions that people come with. It is hard to convey details. So, I think when I'm talking to public groups, I try to keep things at a very high level and I try to use analogies, and also try to engage them to get them to ask the questions, because what I really want to do is answer their questions. I don't want death by PowerPoint. I can do that, but after a while...

Roger Blomquist [00:17:33] And I tell people, "I'm asking you to be my referee on jargon alert. So, if I say something that's jargon, I want you to raise a yellow card." And I'm still looking for a yellow card I can hand out. But anyway, that sort of humanizes things, too. And I give a little bit about my background, and I think that's humanizing. And I try to use humor and everyday analogies. Like, I compare the chain reaction, the neutron chain reaction to the money chain reaction that our economy is, for example. It is challenging and it takes some practice. And you think of these analogies and ways of presenting information, you know, with repetition.

Erik Walker [00:18:30] Right. So, either dealing with reporters or dealing with, say, a listener who isn't as supportive of nuclear energy as we are, have you ever had misinformation or been misquoted? And how did you combat that? How did you fight back against maybe a mischaracterization of something you might have said?

Roger Blomquist [00:18:56] By a journalist who's anti-nuclear, I've never been misquoted. But I have ended up on the cutting room floor because I didn't say what they wanted me to say. Because in a lot of cases, a journalist comes with a story idea and he's gathering evidence to support the story idea. This is the liberal arts technique. And I'm not disrespecting liberal arts, but the whole idea of writing a paper is state your position and support it if it's expository writing. That's a little bit different from an engineering and science approach. You have your hypothesis; prove it or disprove it. So, there are two options there.

Roger Blomquist [00:19:37] And there was one case where I was supposed to be on Mysteries at the Museum. I spent an hour and a half or two with the producer who was interviewing me about how dangerous the Chicago Pile-1 experiment was. Which it wasn't. I mean, it had its risks, but it wasn't dangerous. And I refused to say it was dangerous. And so, she got someone else to do the entire episode. And I'm proud of that.

Erik Walker [00:20:11] Right. Yeah, you didn't want to be used to propagate a story that just isn't true.

Roger Blomquist [00:20:18] Exactly.

Erik Walker [00:20:21] So, for your public speaking, obviously, I also agree it's extremely important. Nuclear is somewhat of a siloed industry where if you're in you understand and there's somewhat of a "everybody knows" type of mentality. So, being able to communicate with those not in the nuclear industry, but also non-technical, is extremely important. I was just wondering how would others in the industry start to get involved in communication and just educating the public in general? Do you have any recommendations for how to get involved and how to start, hopefully, disproving some of the myths that are out there?

Roger Blomquist [00:21:11] Actually, there are a lot of pro-nuclear groups that have a variety of, let's say, technical competencies amongst their members. Competencies, not competences. I think one of them is Atomic Illinois or something like that. They're kind of all over the place now. They don't have any budgets to speak of compared to the anti-nuclear organizations which are funded to the tune of... Let's see, I've got to count the digits. Nine digits or more, annually. But these groups are pretty effective given the resources that go into them. The industry doesn't generally support them, so they are fairly independent. I guess I could make a list if there's a list you can post on the podcast thing, I could come up with one.

Erik Walker [00:22:16] Okay. Yeah, I'm aware of a few out there, and I know there's...

Roger Blomquist [00:22:21] Yeah, you probably are. Yeah.

Erik Walker [00:22:23] There are a lot of grassroots organizations that are out there that people can Google them and try and get involved and see if there's rallies or events. Recently here, just outside of Oak Ridge, the NRC had a public meeting about a potential use over near the Oak Ridge Reservation and it was pretty well-attended by pro-nuclear folks. You'd expect there were a couple anti-nuclear folks there, but the word got out and there was enough pro-nuclear support there that the overwhelming majority of those they were in favor of pro-nuclear.

Roger Blomquist [00:23:04] I also do a lot on social media, specifically Facebook, which proves that I'm a Boomer. Anyway, I try to present technical information. And I have a a pocket protector rating, a nerd rating on a scale of zero to five pocket protectors. If it's a really very technical article, I'll say, "Well, this is five pocket protectors, but you can read the first two paragraphs and the conclusion and mostly understand it." You know, it kind of humanizes things too, because even people like you and me with advanced degrees have trouble understanding stuff that's outside of our lane. It's a lot of hard work to do so. And it's sort of a joke, too, because I'm a nerd. So, there we go. And proud of it.

Erik Walker [00:24:00] Yeah, exactly. Back to that, I wanted to get more into the nitty gritty detail. So, I'm a reactor physicist as well, so I'm very intrigued by your work. I see that you've done reactor physics work, Monte Carlo. I was hoping you could add a couple of pocket protectors to the talk at this point and maybe get a little more technically detailed as to the type of work that you've done in the past at Argonne and are still doing currently.

Roger Blomquist [00:24:29] Okay, so scaling up the pocket protectors, I became the developer of Argonne's Monte Carlo code, which I didn't write, but I was to maintain and upgrade it and keep up to date with neutron cross section revisions. And this code was used for analyzing our critical facilities, which had a very nice, simple geometry. And so, the code would run pretty fast. So, I ended up working with one of the leading lights in resonance theory, neutron resonance theory, Richard Wong, whose office is next door to mine. And he was a real math genius. I'm pretty good at math, but I'm orders of magnitude less than him. So, I had the privilege of working with some great people. Another one is Eli Gelbard, who wrote the book on Monte Carlo neutronics while he was at Bettis. And so, he was sort of my technical big brother here at Argonne because I had no training in Monte Carlo. I was basically handed this job, saying, "Here, make it work.".

Roger Blomquist [00:25:37] But that went on for quite a while. And then, I got involved with criticality safety analysis because one of my colleagues was analyzing a heterogeneous core fast reactor, and I had a situation where the result was clearly wrong. And so, the question was, "Why is this wrong?" And it turns out it's the inability for neutrons to get from one part of this heterogeneous reactor to the other, and it made the whole thing very tilty. In total, in five pocket protector nerd terms, the eigenvalue separation between the principal and the first eigenvalue was very small.

Erik Walker [00:26:28] Okay.

Roger Blomquist [00:26:28] So, I ended up chairing a group at the Nuclear Energy Agency, an expert group on problematic calculations, Monte Carlo calculations in nuclear criticality safety. It turns out there are a number of cases where this is an issue. I worked with a group that came up with a set of test problems that are very, very challenging for Monte Carlo codes. Actually, they're pretty challenging for deterministic codes, too. And so, these have been used now for decades to help people evaluate things like acceleration techniques and ways to avoid putting all the source particles in the lower reactivity region of a criticality safety analysis problem.

Erik Walker [00:27:24] Right. Okay, and just to test myself, is that ratio of the zero in the first eigenvalue, that's the dominance ratio, correct?

Roger Blomquist [00:27:34] Yes, it is. In fact, I'd forgotten that term. Thank you for reminding me. It's the dominance ratio. And if the dominance ratio is close to one, then you have to be very, very careful about converging your solution.

Erik Walker [00:27:49] Correct. Yeah, that's a five pocket protector, for sure.

Roger Blomquist [00:27:54] Yeah.

Erik Walker [00:27:55] You touched on a lot of the talent that is just literally next door to your office. I've found that one of the strengths of the National Labs is it's really just the best of the best, all in one place, but not necessarily all the best in the same area. Like you were saying, you have a great physicist, great mathematicians, and they're all different backgrounds, different trainings, but they're all working together towards these same problems. I was hoping you could speak a little bit to the benefits of these big multidisciplinary teams that are ingrained in the National Labs.

Roger Blomquist [00:28:38] Yeah, that's exactly the case. Even in your own lane, if you want to do something you haven't done before, there might be somebody down the hall who has done something like it. And instead of doing a big literature research, you can just go say, "Hey Jack, have you ever tried this?" And that's what I did with Eli quite a bit. He'd say, "Well, that was done in 1958 and it didn't work because of "X," you know? It's actually a force multiplier. And then there are the people, as you mentioned, in the other areas that I work with, cross-section experts and thermal hydraulics people too. I worked a little bit in thermal hydraulics, also. And lately, I've sort of morphed into research reactor design. And so, those are areas that I didn't know much about. And so, there were people here who could help me get past roadblocks or give me quick answers to important questions that would smooth my path.

Roger Blomquist [00:29:42] And I'm also just inherently interested in reactor safety. And so, I've always taken the trouble to go to the many colloquium seminars that we have on subjects like reactor safety. Now, it's advanced reactors and SMRs. And so, we have people from these companies and other labs come and give talks. So, it's a benefit not just to the work, but to me, that I can learn this other stuff. And that's peripheral to what I'm doing in my lane, but it's important for me to understand in the overall picture.

Roger Blomquist [00:30:24] And that's one of the big lessons that the Navy teaches people. You need to understand what's going to happen to the core if you adjust the speed of the condensate pump two fluid systems away. And so, viewing a reactor as an organic whole is a very worthwhile understanding.

Erik Walker [00:30:47] Right. Also, that interdisciplinary benefit that the National Labs have is also beneficial for private companies in other industries, not only in nuclear. Having different technical experiences and different trainings, education viewpoints is very beneficial to any organization doing any type of technical work to get those different perspectives.

Roger Blomquist [00:31:17] Yeah, they're useful even in policy arguments, too. You know, people claim that batteries are going to allow us to use wind and solar. And I'm still asking people the question, "Well, okay, now we have inverters. You tell me we have inverters that follow the frequency, but we don't need to follow the frequency. We need to set the frequency. Where is the energy coming in a wind turbine to set the frequency when the load goes up or some of the wind turbines drop offline?" And so, it equips having exposure to these other areas.

Roger Blomquist [00:31:54] In this case, the Navy was particularly valuable because on the ship I was also running the electric company when I was on watch. I ran the electric company; I ran the propulsion plant. And so, I understand something about microgrids because we had a microgrid. And so, that puts me in a good position to ask questions of people who are making press release type claims, which seems to be the common mode today in communicating policy discussions.

Erik Walker [00:32:31] Right. So, back to a comment that you made earlier. Some of the work that you've gone into is criticality safety. For those who might not know what it is, would you just explain what it is and kind of give some examples of other criticality safety stories that you personally experienced? Or, some of the famous ones that are out there just to give people an idea.

Roger Blomquist [00:32:56] Yeah, criticality safety is a very tricky field and a very important one. Generally, a reactor is built so that when it's all put together, all the materials are in there. Then you can make it critical. It's easy to make it subcritical. So, almost anything that happens to the reactor will make it subcritical. Like if the temperature goes up, then the neutron chain reaction will naturally be reduced a little bit. And so, that's what stability is. And so, that's how we design reactors.

Roger Blomquist [00:33:33] But if you're processing nuclear materials in a chemical plant or shipping chunks of fissionable material around, now the conditions are not so regular. Criticality safety is the art and science of avoiding a situation where you have too much fissionable material in one place at one time. And there are lots of ways of doing that and there needs to be analysis to support that. My role was to work on these analytical techniques.

Roger Blomquist [00:34:12] But while I was in that area, there was an accident in Japan that had fatalities. And this was a procedural accident. There was a system that was designed for handling chemical solutions of uranium that was enriched up to 5%. And because there was insufficient management oversight and following of safety procedures, they were using it higher than 5%. And they actually had a criticality excursion when there were three operators right next to the tank where this occurred and there was no shielding. I think two of them got killed and there was a radiation release, which was very scary for people. As I recall, it was not harmful to human health in the neighborhood or anything, but this was a really big deal.

Roger Blomquist [00:35:12] And it turns out that there have been many, many criticality accidents, and almost none of them involve reactors. They are pretty much all in processing plants. There's one funny one where... Everyone remembers from their high school chemistry class having an electric stirrer with a little magnet in the bottom of the beaker. It sits on something that spins the magnetic fields, which turns that little agitator, and that stirs up the solution. And somebody filled a system with fissionable material or had a layer of fissionable material. And it was subcritical, but when they started the stirrer, it went critical; it went supercritical. So, who would think that throwing a switch would make something supercritical?

Roger Blomquist [00:36:02] So again, just like in a nuclear reactor, you have to view this whole system in an organic way and think about all the failure modes and so forth. And size your containers in such a way that there's no way it could ever go critical, for example. That's one common technique; have the container so small that no way can criticality be achieved.

Erik Walker [00:36:29] Right. Another topic I wanted to speak about was something that I think is a little unique to the National Labs. How you get started on projects and how projects get to the labs. Proposals and funding. It's all something that, to someone who works for a private company, might sound kind of foreign. So, it's something you could just go into at a high level. Just, how projects in the National Labs work together.

Roger Blomquist [00:37:02] I think over the history of the National Labs, and certainly over Argonne's history, this has evolved quite a bit. At the beginning, Argonne was told, "Go explore reactors for civil use." And so, Argonne built all kinds of different types of experimental and test reactors and some prototypes and so forth. By the time I came, then projects were being managed at the Department of Energy. When I first came to the lab, essentially, there was a breeder reactor program that the lab managed. So, if we needed somebody to work on this one particular kind of computer code, the managers would just find somebody and say, "Okay, this is your project now.".

Roger Blomquist [00:37:52] Now, it's more like there are requests for proposals from the Department of Energy or NRC or whomever. And so, we sort of compete. I mean, the National Labs each kind of have their own lanes that they're particularly strong in. So, it's not capitalism raw in tooth in terms of competition. And there's a lot of collaboration among the labs, too, because we have different lanes. But now, the DOE program managers, we give them deliverables and so forth and so on, progress reports and all that stuff. Formerly, I think much more of that was inside each of the labs. Now, it's much more centralized in the funding institutions.

Roger Blomquist [00:38:43] But that means that some of these projects reflect external needs that the labs haven't necessarily thought of. And one good example of that is the Iran nuclear deal, which I had the privilege to work on. That was my first reactor design project. And that's a response to a geopolitical issue where Iran was building a research reactor. The question was, "Is this a plutonium production, nuclear weapons proliferation threat?" And we established, in very short order, "Yes, it was." And so, that morphed into providing the State Department, the interagency team, actually, with technical information, real truth about their reactor design and what it could do.

Roger Blomquist [00:39:43] And so, we supported the negotiations and then we worked on the project with evaluating the Iranians' response to the requirement that they redesign their reactor. And so, that's an external motivation for this work in particular. But out of that has come a program that we're just kind of getting started on involving sort of an organic look at the nuclear proliferation characteristics of any nuclear system that's proposed. And it's with the idea of kind of designing in from the very beginning, the ground up, design features, configurations, whatever other aspects of design that would make it hard for a nuclear system to be misused.

Erik Walker [00:40:42] Gotcha. So, that just goes to show the types of external sources that can direct work at the National Labs. It's not only industry or DOE space, there's all sorts of external influences that can help shape and direct the National Labs' efforts.

Roger Blomquist [00:41:07] Yeah, we're also paid by the Department of Energy to work with a lot of these innovative reactor companies, especially in advanced reactor technology because we have the experiments that provide the information and also the heavily tested computer programs that analyze experiments that they can use to do their design analysis and safety analyses. So, we do quite a bit of that, too. That's externally driven.

Erik Walker [00:41:38] Right. So, a curious question I have is the nuclear space is pretty, pretty large. We've touched on multiple different aspects and areas of expertise within it. You've had a long career. Are there any parts of the nuclear field that you get to work very much in, that you had a strong interest in? Or is there anything, maybe future work that you, hopefully, can get more involved in?

Roger Blomquist [00:42:17] Well, probably not for me, but for many people interested in the field. I think material science is always going to be a good field in nuclear because nuclear fuel... A reactor's a pile of hot rocks that's configured to be able to keep it cool and extract the heat to use to make money, or to produce the neutrons that you can use in experiments in the case of research reactors. And we're trying to improve the performance of those in various ways, and that involves a lot of material science. Particularly fuel behaviors, but also there's corrosion chemistry and a lot of other areas that are very important that aren't really nuclear engineering, but they're a part of nuclear engineering. That's the great thing about nuclear engineering because there are so many disciplines that have to interact. And that's true in aerospace as well, but I think it's particularly true in nuclear engineering because we have radiation effects on materials, which is almost unique.

Erik Walker [00:43:23] Yeah, that's another layer of complexity that nuclear has to worry about.

Roger Blomquist [00:43:27] Yes.

Erik Walker [00:43:27] To your point on material science and technology, fusion reactors are a very similar thing. There's a lot of research for the next generation of fusion reactors, getting materials that can withstand those types of environments because we haven't had as much experience in the fusion space as in the fission space. So, material sciences is critically important there as well.

Roger Blomquist [00:43:53] And maybe another order of magnitude more challenging than in an fission reactor.

Erik Walker [00:44:01] Right. Yeah, I agree. I wanted to finish off with just some high-level questions. Roll back the pocketbooks a little bit. What is your view of not just Argonne, but all National Labs? How would you characterize their importance not only to the United States, but just to nuclear energy? Because National Labs aren't only nuclear labs, they're Department of Energy labs. There's all types of research that's going on there. How vitally important do you feel the National Labs are to the nuclear energy space?

Roger Blomquist [00:44:41] I think they're crucial. And one reason is historical, because this is where most of the R&D has been done over the decades. But that leaves open the question of the future. But then a lot of that experimental legacy is really what we're building into the future, because we've been sort of stuck in the light-water reactor mode now for 60 years, really in terms of commercial applications. And that seems to be on the cusp of a major change right now.

Roger Blomquist [00:45:16] And so, I think we can provide that experimental data, the modeling, the models and so forth that are derived from or tested against those data for all kinds of different reactors and applications because reactor applications are changing now, too. A lot of the advanced reactors are targeting industrial process heat as a means of of decarbonizing industry where they're burning gas for heat now, which of course is a carbon pollutant, CO2 pollutant, and also nitrous oxides. So, there are more missions that are being envisioned for power reactors now than there were 20 years ago, at least in the public policy sphere.

Roger Blomquist [00:46:09] Nuclear engineers have been thinking about this stuff for a long time as potential applications. But now the interest in decarbonization, I think, is opening a lot of minds. We do experiments here in support of these companies, too. So, our experimental facilities, which are too big, too complicated, and for a university, possibly too risky, to run, National Labs do that. A university has an endowment, especially a major research university. And if they are doing experiments that have some sort of associated financial risk, then that's a consideration they have to weigh carefully. And that's one role the National Labs play. We have huge facilities here like the Advanced Photon Source that we use for evaluating and studying nuclear fuel and structural materials with radiation damage, for example. That's a billion dollar machine. So, show me a university that's going to build and operate a billion dollar machine. There are a few, but not many. So, that's one of the roles that the National Labs can play.

Erik Walker [00:47:32] Yeah, and you touched on it perfectly. That was the point that I was trying to drive home. There's a critical spot, a critical void that National Labs have to fill that, really, private industry and universities either can't or don't want to take the risk to do those types of research.

Roger Blomquist [00:47:51] Yeah, I mean, there's commercial strategy that a company has on how they're going to get their product to market and so forth. But then, there's sort of a scientific strategy, too, that's, "What is it we need to know more about?" And so, ATLAS is another one of those at Argonne. It's a heavy ion accelerator; it can accelerate uranium ions and hurl them into targets. It's a nuclear physics facility, but it is also used for evaluating the behavior of materials in reactor fuel because, guess what? Fission products are heavy ions. And so, we can, for example, accelerate xenon ions into fuels and see how the fuels behave at various temperatures and study their behavior in a non-radiological way. So, that makes the R&D, the science part of it, way cheaper. Or faster. Much faster turnaround time.

Erik Walker [00:49:01] Cheaper, faster, which are both... In the nuclear industry, those are both good things.

Roger Blomquist [00:49:06] Yeah.

Erik Walker [00:49:08] So, we touched on it briefly. To circle back a little bit, you mentioned earlier, Fukushima. I was, I think, finishing my junior year of undergrad when Fukushima happened. The nuclear industry at that time was pretty rocky. There was talk of a nuclear renaissance, then Fukushima happened and things got pretty dicey. I was just wondering what your perspective is on the nuclear industry as it stands today as opposed to back then? The trajectory that we're going in and sort of the current state of the industry as a whole and where you see it going.

Roger Blomquist [00:49:56] There isn't an industry as a whole. I think there are several industries. Conceptually, I think it's worth distinguishing. So, we have the current commercial reactors. They're perfectly good; they're safe. They've never hurt anybody, anywhere, our light-water reactors. And they're efficient; they're economical as long as the electricity markets aren't buggered, which unfortunately, I believe they are. And so, they are doing some innovation with fuels, working on economics, improving burnups, perhaps. There are efforts underway to do things like that. And those are all good; they're incremental.

Roger Blomquist [00:50:45] Then there's the other part. And they are owned by companies with stockholders, typically. So, they are publicly traded companies. They have a quarterly earnings issue they need to consider, because that's the way our financial markets work in the United States. They are also geographically fragmented. So, we have Exelon, which owns a bunch of reactors in Illinois and a bunch of reactors over on the East Coast. Well, now it's Constellation, I guess. In the Southeast, we've still got a bunch of regulated utilities where those regulated utilities are responsible for strategic resource planning. So, there are a couple of different wrinkles on how we're currently implementing nuclear energy.

Roger Blomquist [00:51:36] But the other part is, now we have venture capitalists funds or money supporting these advanced reactors and small reactors. And the small modular reactors, their role is, A, in the export market, which will come chronologically first, if you ask me, and B, a reduction in the amount of money regulated or a current US utility would have to lay on the table to commit to building a reactor. And right now with the big reactors, that's kind of at a "bet the company" scale. And the small modular reactors will reduce the size of that bet. I think that's an artificial incentive for us to pursue small modular reactors. There are other incentives, but that one is artificial. But that's the world we're in right now.

Roger Blomquist [00:52:34] And we, of course, have deindustrialized. In this country, we've generally gotten away from mining anything. And so, we're going to have to... Not just nuclear stuff, but battery materials, uranium, all kinds of materials. I think we need to seriously reconsider why or what the advantage is for us to outsource that mining to countries with lower environmental standards. And now, strategic materials are a big public policy concern, and they should be. Now, it's understood that it's a national security issue in a way that it wasn't understood five years ago.

Erik Walker [00:53:22] Absolutely. Well, Roger, we're, I think, maybe a little over. I apologize for taking so much of your time. One last comment is if there is anything that you would like to share with our listeners just about nuclear as a whole, anything that we didn't touch on... If there was a specific point you wanted to drive home that we didn't get to spend too much time on... One final thought from you.

Roger Blomquist [00:53:47] So yeah, it's a hope. And the hope is that all of the impediments to the implementation of nuclear technology, especially new nuclear technology that have been put in place like state bans on new nuclear reactors, changes and regulations that were developed over time in support of regulating light-water reactors... There's a whole host of these political, regulatory, economic, marketing aspects to nuclear energy and we are going to need to unwind many of those. And I think it's going to take a long time. But people in the nuclear business, in all aspects of it, and concerned citizens need to get involved in untangling that, basically, big spaghetti bowl of complications that is slowing down innovation and implementation and decarbonization.

Erik Walker [00:54:53] I couldn't agree more; that was perfectly said. So, Roger, I want to thank you again for joining us today as our guest on Titans of Nuclear. And if anybody ever is up near Argonne, we'll reach out to you for a tour.

Roger Blomquist [00:55:10] Absolutely. Thank you.

Erik Walker [00:55:13] Roger, thank you very much.

Adam Smith [00:00:42] Welcome to the Titans of Nuclear Podcast. I'm Adam Smith, and we have a very special episode today. Today on the show, we have Joe McBrearty, the President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Joe, welcome to the show.
Joe McBrearty [00:00:57] Thanks very much. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to join everyone today. I think this is a great opportunity for us at CNL to be able to tell the world a little bit about Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, and in particular, our campus at Chalk River which is just north of Ottawa, what we do and how we interface with the nuclear world and how we are working on technology and research and development to advance not only nuclear energy, nuclear science, but also radiopharmaceuticals to help combat disease.
Adam Smith [00:01:34] Yep, you guys up in Chalk River kind of cover the whole spectrum of nuclear activities.
Joe McBrearty [00:01:39] We do. I mean, there's a long, very storied history back all the way to the Second World War, starting around the mid-1940s. Chalk River was the birthplace of the CANDU reactor, which is deployed not only within Canada, but internationally with just a great safety record, very reliable reactors. And between that and the production of radio isotopes to support radio diagnostics or therapeutics in cancer and other health issues, it really has left a huge mark on the world. But sometimes, it's just that we're not as well known as some of the other laboratories or nuclear entities that exist out there today. So, hopefully being on the podcast today will help spread a little bit of that word, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to join you.
Adam Smith [00:02:34] Absolutely. Now, just for my benefit and the benefit of our audience, the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is essentially the Canadian equivalent of the National Laboratory system of the US, correct?
Joe McBrearty [00:02:48] Correct. I mean, I think that's a really good way to put it. The US National Laboratory system is a bit more broad, but it's actually a very good comparison because actually, just a few years ago, the Canadian government actually decided to change the operating model, what had been known as a government-owned, government-operated laboratory, to what the US National Laboratory system uses, government-owned, contractor-operated. So, we are actually a private company, a private joint venture, that operates a federal entity. And part of that is designed to bring business acumen, business practices, and much more, say, financial and operational rigor to the laboratory system.
Adam Smith [00:03:37] Yeah, you're focused on commercializing your research efforts or your research findings, essentially.
Joe McBrearty [00:03:43] And that's a very good way to sum it up. Because of the type of research that we have done throughout the years and what we are doing today, we actually operate more as a bridge. And so, a lot of research that is done at universities and colleges is what we refer to generally as more basic science. It's more a very low technology readiness level. It's more advancing very new concepts. But we are kind of in the middle between those universities and the commercialization of product. So, your point on trying to drive commercial success really is a key part of our DNA to be able to take academic ideas, something on the blackboard... And I know that's an old term for most people, but I still am old enough to remember blackboards.
Adam Smith [00:04:38] It plays still. It works. We get it.
Joe McBrearty [00:04:40] I think people would understand. They've seen an old black and white movie. And so, to be able to take those theories and that very bench-level testing to a bit more of a lab scale and a bit more of a pilot production capability before it goes to industry. Because industry really wants to be able to see something that has been tested before they want to invest a lot of money into it.
Adam Smith [00:05:05] Okay. That's very interesting for, basically, that structure where you are the bridge between the academic world and the commercial world, and you get to have your foot in basically both areas.
Joe McBrearty [00:05:17] And you do. You know, I have a little bit of history with the US National Laboratory complex. The complex is very mature and has the ability to take the ideas which are frankly very esoteric that people don't think are ever going to come to fruition and be able to invest the time, the energy, the money, to be able to show that they really will work in maybe not necessarily the first idea of what people had, but some sort of follow on revision of that idea to actually get to a useful commercial product for industry.
Adam Smith [00:05:58] Interesting. Sounds like you've had quite the career path then. Can you give us a little bit about your background, your career path, and how you ended up within the broader energy and nuclear space?
Joe McBrearty [00:06:13] Sure. I appreciate that question because I think it's important for folks who are actually trying to get into the nuclear industry in particular, because it can be a little overwhelming or a little odd. Because it's not always seen on the evening news or in sitcoms. Not necessarily. If it is, it's not in a good way.
Joe McBrearty [00:06:34] I actually started off in the US Navy as a nuclear submarine officer and spent 30 years in the nuclear submarine program all the way up through command of a submarine and a few other facilities. And then I went to the US Department of Energy, where I was fortunate enough to be able to lead or be the Chief Operating Officer for the DOE's Office of Science. And the Office of Science really drove 10 national laboratories in the United States for more basic research. But the experience that I was able to gain there really, I think, set the foundation for me to be able to translate that up to this laboratory, which is really undergoing a rebirth.
Joe McBrearty [00:07:21] As I said earlier, 70 years of just incredible history here, but it needed to be revitalized. It really needed a different focus, especially as we were looking at the impacts of climate change, the real impacts here of the last few years of energy security. Energy security has always been a big deal, but it hasn't come to the front edge of the market recently until what's occurred over the last couple of years in Europe and Central Asia. And so, the ability to see how the nuclear program works, how it can be done, how it can be done in a reliable, a safe, and a very cost effective manner, and then translate that into research and then come here. Really, I'll tell you, I felt just very blessed to have that opportunity and really the opportunity to work with, simply, outstanding people throughout my entire career. Because trust me, if it was not for them, I would probably not be here.
Adam Smith [00:08:27] Standing on the shoulders of giants is, I believe, the phrase that people use?
Joe McBrearty [00:08:32] Correct. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And then sometimes those folks just don't get the recognition that they deserve. There are just tens of thousands of people working in this industry. And it really is... It's a safe industry. Yeah, there have been a couple of major incidents, but when you break those down, there were very specific reasons for them. But what the nuclear industry in particular has learned... It has learned how to address issues in the past, learn from those, and be able to reflect advanced and more proactive measures to be safe, be reliable, but also to be cost-efficient.
Adam Smith [00:09:18] Yeah. When you compare nuclear to the full spectrum of energy technologies, I think it has, by far, the best safety track record of all time. So, I think you're absolutely right. The industry is not only just naturally careful, but it has learned to be increasingly careful and has established all sorts of safety systems and passive safety systems so if something does go wrong, we can step away from it for 72 hours and everything's fine.
Joe McBrearty [00:09:49] Absolutely. And I think one of the things that hurt the nuclear industry very early on... And I'll say some of this is because it comes from a bunch of people in the US operating submarines in a very secretive, cloistered society... They never really felt like talking about what they do very much. It was always a little hush-hush. And we learned that was a bit of an Achilles heel for us when the Three Mile Island incident occurred back in the '70s. Probably, most of the people listening to your podcast weren't born in the '70s; I was. When you look at our ability over the last few years, it's really to be able to communicate.
Joe McBrearty [00:10:32] But we still have issues, I would say.. We're not still there yet that we can communicate as clearly and without pushback as some other clean, renewable energy industries. But when you look at... And I think you brought up a good point when you talk about safety, lessons learned, reliability. When you look at the different generations of nuclear technology... We'll just stick with reactors for this point... And how that's evolved to the latest crop of small modular reactors or advanced reactors, where safety is really at the core of... Pardon the pun there, I guess... Is really at the center of how we do business. Because we have to be able to earn and keep the public's trust. We really do.
Adam Smith [00:11:30] Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Public perception is one of the hardest things to influence, but it's one of the most important factors with any project development. It's just that you have to have everyone on board. And the better we can educate people, the easier that becomes for the industry.
Joe McBrearty [00:11:51] Absolutely. And times have changed, right? So, back in the early advent of nuclear energy, the public was not as informed. And I would say that we have learned that is not the right way to do business. And here, in particular, in Canada, we have learned a lot of lessons with what has occurred with indigenous communities and First Nations in the past. And that really is not a track record that the country should be happy with. I think it's getting better. But one of the things as an industry that we need to do, and I think we are doing it, is to be able to reach out and listen to what indigenous communities and First Nations, what their concerns are. Because many of the potential deployment possibilities for small modular reactors are in their territories.
Joe McBrearty [00:12:48] When you look in particular, if you want to look at really an area that could really use autonomous power that is clean and is not necessarily always the best for solar or wind... When you look in the North or when you look at isolated areas that need not only electricity but heat, potentially hydrogen production, kind of the whole nine yards when it comes to energy production, but also energy security, it offers that whole package. But people have to want it. And you have to be able to have the conversation to understand what their concerns are. And I think that will probably remain.
Joe McBrearty [00:13:36] I think one of the crucial areas of the nuclear industry, as with most industries, is to make sure people are educated about it, that they understand. But equally as important, that we listen to them. We understand what their needs are, what their concerns are, and why they have those concerns and just not talk at them. The governments and industry have been very good for probably millennia at talking at people because they want to sell something, versus actually listening to what people need and what they want.
Adam Smith [00:14:12] Do you have some sort of... I guess I would call it like a dialog program or a marketing program at CNL for those conversations?
Joe McBrearty [00:14:21] We certainly do. As a nuclear entity, as an entity... And we haven't really talked about this very much, but the vast majority of our budget at CNL is actually for environmental remediation and cleanup.
Adam Smith [00:14:35] Interesting.
Joe McBrearty [00:14:36] So, most people think of CNL as a laboratory, but we are a laboratory that is committed and has been tasked by the federal government to basically conduct the largest environmental cleanup in Canadian history. So, it is the legacy work. The nuclear legacy and liabilities that exist not only here at Chalk River, but in some areas around Toronto in the Port Hope area, and in what we call the Northern Transportation Route coming from the Northwest Territories all the way down to Toronto. We are the ones who are responsible for the decommissioning and the demolition of the federal reactors. So, those are reactors here at our site. We have a site out in Manitoba called Whiteshell. And so, to get to your question, do we have those conversations? Absolutely.
Joe McBrearty [00:15:30] And those conversations, especially when you're talking about how are you going to deal with nuclear... You can call them byproducts, you can call them whatever, it's basically nuclear waste at the end of the day... How do you take that and convince folks that there are legitimate and technically satisfactory ways to deal with it? And how do you convince them to do it in their area? And so, those are all processes and parts of a very, very complex and, I think, very rigorous licensing process that we go through, that every nuclear entity in Canada goes through with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Joe McBrearty [00:16:13] And so, we are today in the process of going through multiple regulatory approvals for different either waste remediation or environmental remediation projects or future energy projects. So, a lot of conversation. It is central and core not only to what our federal client, AECL, needs, but it's also central and core to us to make sure that we can actually do our mission and we can do it in partnership with local communities, whether they're municipalities or whether they're indigenous.
Adam Smith [00:16:50] Interesting. So, that's just one part of the CNL business. There's also, from my understanding, there is the R&D on the energy generation side, there's the medical isotopes. Do you find that you have a particular draw to one of those sections or some sort of passion project that really excites you at CNL?
Joe McBrearty [00:17:07] So, there are multiple. Early in my career, I would have probably talked mostly about nuclear energy production. So in reality, the small modular reactors that we talk about today, even though we say that it's all new technology and it's a new concept, that technology really has existed for 70 years, they've just been floating around on submarines and aircraft carriers and out of people's minds. But the concept of autonomous power, I think, was really for me a key component of why I got interested in this and why I've continued it.
Joe McBrearty [00:17:45] But over the last few years... And this really for me started with some activities when I was in the US Department of Energy... Was really the radiopharmaceutical and radioisotope portion of the nuclear industry spectrum. And when you look at the possibilities of these new therapies for cancer, therapies for chronic disease, either what we call targeted beta therapy... They use a product called lutetium-177. Actually, I think Bruce Power is working on that. But there's another one called targeted alpha therapy, which we are working on. It basically takes a molecule of actinium. Now, I really didn't know what actinium was for most of my life, and I got exposed to it... I mean, not exposed to it.
Adam Smith [00:18:39] Not literally.
Joe McBrearty [00:18:40] Got involved in the program when I was in the US. And the potential positive benefits of this treatment are enormous. Not only from the standpoint of where it could save people, but also from the standpoint of very little collateral damage to the patient. There's a YouTube video out there. I think it's done by Triumph. The name of the video is "The Rarest Drug on Earth." There's so little of this particular isotope to be able for, in particular, cancer treatment. What we're looking at here is to be able to produce more of it, either through decay of some actinides or production via an accelerator, a path.
Joe McBrearty [00:19:35] So, when I look at that, when you ask the question, "What have I become passionate about?" When I look at friends or family members who suffer and don't have a solution to that from a medical perspective, and we actually have that capability to provide it from our industry, we should jump on that. Obviously, I would be a bit parochial here, but I think that should be near the top of the government's priority list in combating chronic disease. And if you have that capability, if you can give folks that chance of a new chance at life, you should really be able to do that.
Joe McBrearty [00:20:22] And so for me, that really is kind of a passion. It's not an easy process. You have to get funding, you have to get through regulatory approvals. You actually have to have all the technology work. It's not something that you go out and pull something out of the drawer and it works, and boom, you're good. It is a process, and it is, I think, a project which could revolutionize oncology. I really do. For me, that's really, really important.
Adam Smith [00:21:03] What would you say has been the biggest holdup? You kind of named a few. Like, getting everything to work, getting the technology to work, the regulatory side. It seems like this has been around. This isn't new technology is what it sounds like. It just sounds like there hasn't been a lot of development of it.
Joe McBrearty [00:21:21] There has been in certain respects. There has been. There are different methods to be able to produce it. But one of the issues is there's not much. So, the principal production path today is decay of, as I said, some actinides, and they are in very small quantities. That's a limited production path. But the other more aggressive paths are actually radiation or irradiation of targets, of certain targets, to be able to produce actinium. But there are some concerns with that. Whenever you produce one thing, you always get a lot of other little guys floating around who you don't want. So, you have to be able to not only produce something in specific quantities that are cost-effective and also actually are something that business or venture capitalists or banks or whomever want to invest in to provide the necessary financial uplift. So, that's one issue.
Joe McBrearty [00:22:28] The second issue is being able to get any kind of new drug to the market. We are not a pharmaceutical company. So, we are actually partnered with a pharmaceutical company to try to do some of that effort. But trials of any new medication take a long time. And it's timing of not having too much or not having enough. It's the right amount at the right time for folks to not only want to invest in it, but for the medical community to want to start to demand it. And once you can get through the different phases of testing and prove that it works... Because it takes years to be able to get to a product that is profitable... I'll just say that because it's a business... For companies to be able to actually produce. And it has to be tested enough and then marketed enough that the medical community, whether they're physicians, whether it's hospitals, or whether it's large insurance companies or whatever it is, to be actually interested in it and want to promote it and use it.
Joe McBrearty [00:23:51] And so, the pharmaceutical industry is full of many things that were tried and never quite made it. And so, there's significant monetary investment that's necessary for this. But we do believe that this is a game changer when it comes to saving lives. So, that's why I think we're really important. I'm really excited about it. I'm not as concerned about the regulatory approvals because there are accelerators throughout the country. And it's a relationship with CSC where we provide our projects and they assess them. They provide what the regulatory environment has to be to be able to do things safely.
Joe McBrearty [00:24:45] And so, I would say it's a healthy tension always between industry and the regulator. Because you can't be too close to the regulator because then people go, "Well, are they actually doing the right thing?" But you also can't be completely at opposite ends of the spectrum. Their job is to make sure we do something. And if you do it, you do it right, you do it safely. You're not going to endanger the public, not going to endanger the environment. And that's where they're always going to come from.
Adam Smith [00:25:23] Got it. Yeah, it sounds like you have a couple different issues from the medical isotope production side of things. Is actinium the only medical isotope you guys are looking at?
Joe McBrearty [00:25:39] Actinium is the only one that we are looking at at this point in time. But as I mentioned, lutetium-177 is also being produced in the Canadian nuclear complex, which as I said, is a targeted beta emitter. It's a little bit different than a targeted alpha, but the effect is similar. So, there are different organizations looking at different things. But the actinium one, we believe at this point in time is key. That said, as a research laboratory, we are always looking for the next, in that case, the next radioisotope that we could use. We have our own biological research facility where we can do limited trials on animals. So, we have some capabilities to actually look at the effects of radiation, the effects of these different isotopes on living things.
Adam Smith [00:26:41] Interesting. It sounds like you guys have quite a bit going on up there at Chalk River.
Joe McBrearty [00:26:46] There's a fair amount. It does keep us busy on a daily basis, yes.
Adam Smith [00:26:51] So, I guess you guys are so busy, you guys must be forward looking a little bit. What is happening at Chalk River? And could you talk a little bit about the Vision 2030 Plan?
Joe McBrearty [00:27:02] Sure, sure. And thanks for bringing that up. So, we're in the middle of, for us, a 10 year contract, and we're about at the midpoint. The vast majority of the first portion of the contract was really focused on environmental remediation. And that program will continue, probably, for 60 or 70 years because there's so much that has to be cleaned up. But we began to think, "Okay, how do we, working with the federal government and trying to think of what are the needs of the nation, how do we focus on what we can do to better the country? And where are the key areas that Canada, and frankly, the rest of the world want to focus on? And how can we influence? We're not going to be doing some types of research that other laboratories are going to do, but what's kind of in our bailiwick to be able to perform?"
Joe McBrearty [00:28:01] And so, we stepped back and looked at it and we said, "Okay, climate change." Kind of a big thing for people. It does make a little bit of news. "How do we as a nuclear laboratory fit into that?" Well, I think, obviously, we fit in pretty well because we supply, we support all of the CANDU technologies. We support light-water reactor work, which is a boiling water or a pressurized water reactor. But we also have a program supporting new small modular reactors. So, in concert with a company called Global First Power, which is a JV between OPG and Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation or USNC, we are working with them to site the first microreactor on a campus here in Chalk River.
Joe McBrearty [00:28:49] So, that process is already underway. Global First Power is working closely with providing license input and EIS input into the CNFC to be able to get a license, and at the same time, working through technical challenges with us. What we're doing, on the other hand, is providing services. And really, at the end of the day, we're a material chemistry laboratory. We're a materials laboratory. We happen to do a lot in the nuclear world, but we're really a materials laboratory. And so, we provide technical support, analysis, whether it's fresh fuel or materials or irradiated fuel or materials, we provide that type of service to the entire industry. Not only the CANDU industry that's operating today, but also through the new SMR vendors, whether it's high-temperature gas, boiling water, pressurized water, molten salt, the whole nine yards. So, we do that through really a cost-sharing program.
Joe McBrearty [00:29:55] Another area that I think is really important and is gaining traction even more within the Canadian ecosphere is hydrogen. So, CNL has always had a very strong hydrogen program. Not only from the potential for hydrogen production, but more importantly now, the hydrogen safety. So, as nations want to go to hydrogen as a fuel source... hydrogen doesn't behave like gasoline. It doesn't even behave completely, truly, like natural gas. It has different chemical properties and it has to be handled a little bit differently. You have to figure out what's the best method to transport it and what's the best method to store it. So, we actually have a very strong hydrogen program tied to the government and tied to industry to be able to support that.
Joe McBrearty [00:30:47] Secondly, we also have some of the very limited expertise in the world on tritium management. So tritium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, in many cases has been used in heavy-water reactors. The water gets tritiated. But tritium, for most fusion reactors... Fusion reactors for the future require deuterium and they require tritium in some form or fashion. And the ability to handle it, manage it, safely do it, have the safe radiological engineering, is something that we have as a piece of expertise.
Joe McBrearty [00:32:11] So, the other thing that we are doing here is development of what we call a Clean Energy Research and Development Initiative. And so, that's starting for us today in the laboratory, in really, bench testing. But eventually, what we intend to do is to be able to take that out into a demonstration park where it will show how, in a microgrid, a nuclear reactor or small modular reactor, hydrogen, wind, and solar all work together. So, they can actually show in this little microgrid, not only for energy production for electricity, but also the autonomous power sources that you would really like to be able to deploy into the North or into a remote area.
Joe McBrearty [00:33:03] So, the real advantage of this National Laboratory concept, if you want to get into this, is the ability to test and to demonstrate. We're not necessarily looking to make a profit of a demonstration reactor, but if you want to actually be able to convince folks where you want to put one of these things, that it's safe, that it operates, that it can do all the things that you claim it can do and it can do it safely, then you really need to be able to demonstrate it and you really need to be able to test it. And that's what a National Laboratory brings to the equation.
Adam Smith [00:33:43] Earlier you had mentioned that most of this technology has been operating in submarines since the '70s, essentially, or even before that probably.
Joe McBrearty [00:33:53] '50s. Let's go back to the '50s.
Adam Smith [00:33:56] Yeah, since the '50s. What testing or what additional analysis do we need? It feels like 70 years to try this technology out should be sufficient operating history.
Joe McBrearty [00:34:07] So, the reactors are a bit different. And I'll just leave it at that because the Navy's very, very touchy about descriptions of its power systems. But even the technologies, as with most of the technologies that are being researched today, the technology itself is not brand new. So, high-temperature gas reactors have been around for a long time. Boiling water reactors have been around for a long time. But some of the stuff that's new are the materials that you're using, the types of fuel that you're using today. You have the potential to use TRISO fuel. You have the potential to use high-assay, low-enriched uranium or LEU+. So, the fuels will be different. To be able to ensure that the fuels and the materials will react and act safely under these new conditions is really pretty important to be able to do.
Joe McBrearty [00:35:03] The technology exists; the theory is there. These have generally been done on a much larger scale. They're large-scale, high-temperature reactors. They're large-scale, PWRs and BWRs. But we're using, probably, different types of materials, some different types of materials. They're smaller. They're designed to be, basically, for the most part, I won't say completely portable, but easy to build, built in a factory and placed. So, all of that type of stuff requires some sort of study. It require some sort of demonstration. And most reactors today... I won't say all of them, but most reactors have not really acted as their own autonomous little grid.
Joe McBrearty [00:35:48] Operating on a warship is a little bit different than operating on land where you have the populace right next to you. And you have to be able to demonstrate to the regulator and to demonstrate to the communities and the folks that you want to, as I said earlier, deploy these machines to, that they are safe. And so, while the technology may not be brand new, it's still different enough in some of these cases that it's smaller and it should be tested.
Adam Smith [00:36:28] That makes sense. That makes sense. I get it. It's probably a little bit different when you're out at sea and you have a continuous cooling source rather than setting it on the ground somewhere in rural Canada.
Joe McBrearty [00:36:42] Well, it is different. And like I said, the uses are different. And to be able to play on a grid is a bit different. And to play with other, I would say, more transitory or less stable energy sources, solar, wind, etc., you actually want to make sure that you have, I would say, almost a package deal. You could say, "This reactor, this solar, this wind all worked well together. You can produce hydrogen from it. You can produce heat, electricity. And it works, and it's economical." Because at some point, if the process is not economical, the proponents are not going to continue to go down the path. So, you have to be able to help the proponents get the most cost-effective design which is safe.
Adam Smith [00:37:36] Yeah, it's all about... At the end of the day, it comes down to, "Can we do this economically and will someone invest in this?" And that's really what will expand the industry. It's exciting times with all of these different technologies and ideas coming out into the industry.
Joe McBrearty [00:37:55] It is. I mean, I've gone through several nuclear renaissances or almost renaissances. You get to a certain point and then something happens. Whether it was TMI or Chernobyl or Fukushima, the faith in the industry goes away. Or, very cheap natural gas, there was no need. But I think you actually are at this tipping point from a climate standpoint, but also from an energy security standpoint, that people are looking at options. And reactors have traditionally been associated with just producing electricity. Well, if you actually want to reduce greenhouse gases and all that stuff, a large percentage of the stuff that you have to decarbonize is process heat. And so, you need to be able to have something that will be able to safely handle, from a reactor physics standpoint and reactor operations standpoint, something with changing heat loads.
Adam Smith [00:39:03] Yeah. Well, we can produce electricity. We can produce heat to heat your homes in the winter. We can cure cancer with it. It's an all-around just amazing technology.
Joe McBrearty [00:39:13] It is. Bit just to close on a practical note or a pragmatic note, folks do worry about what do you do with the byproducts? And it's always been a bit, as I said earlier, a bit of an Achilles heel for the industry to talk about this, because they're there. They are there. Now, there are some theories to reprocessing and you could get rid of some of that. But the amount of other types of waste are still there.
Joe McBrearty [00:39:41] The story really is there isn't that much when you compare it to the other energy sources. The other part of that story is we know exactly where it is. It's safe, it is highly-engineered. We are highly-regulated. And sometimes... I don't want to say we're our own worst enemy sometimes, but we are so safe about these things, we're so open about issues that can occur, people don't understand the context. But when you look at how stuff is stored or disposed of in this particular industry, nobody can touch us. Nobody can. And I think it's a testament to the engineering design, the rigor, and just the basic principles that this industry follows.
Adam Smith [00:40:38] Well, to wrap things up, Joe, I wanted to see if you had any sort of message that you wanted to share with our listeners or the broader energy community just on your thoughts on nuclear and our prospects.
Joe McBrearty [00:40:52] Sure. I mean, I think it's bright. I really do. I think nuclear will continue to advance throughout the world. I think developing countries will look at this power source once it's cost-effective. I mean, you can't just throw something out there and say, "Pay all the startup costs." That this is an autonomous, it's a clean, it's a reliable, stable base power. It can be used in concert with wind, solar, natural gas, the whole nine yards. When I sit back and look at it, I really do think that nuclear... This is our time. I do think that we can advance it.
Joe McBrearty [00:41:38] At the end of the day though, the one thing that... As an operator, and I've been an operator for really, my entire life. You've got to do it safely. And so, sometimes in all the thrill and the sales of, "We're going to do this, we're going to say this. We're going to do all these things," we forget about the tens of thousands of people who are, day in and day out, operating these plants and these sites. And it comes down to those folks who do it on a day in and day out basis to make sure it's done safely. Because the reputation of the industry really comes down to the individual.
Joe McBrearty [00:42:14] My message to folks is this is an industry that's rigorous. The training that folks go through from day one at anything in the nuclear industry is really not comparable to many other things. And when you look at the rigor that's in there... And really it's high-consequence stuff; we know that. But it's also incredibly important that we do things the right way. And we have done it. And sometimes, the 70 years of history is lost on folks, that it's been done safely.
Adam Smith [00:42:54] Joe, thank you for coming on the show. This has been great.
Joe McBrearty [00:42:57] Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate it. Thank you for the time. And certainly, if your listeners have any questions, they can contact our public affairs folks or visit our website. We'd love to continue the conversations.
Adam Smith [00:43:11] And I would highly encourage everyone to do so. I went through it earlier and they have quite a bit of great information on some of the topics that we just discussed.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:00:05] Thank you so much for joining me. We have Julianne Antrobus here today with us. She is PA Consulting's Global Head of Nuclear, and we're excited to have you here on Titans. Welcome.

Julianne Antrobus [00:01:10] Delighted to be here.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:01:12] Great.

Julianne Antrobus [00:01:12] All the way over in Washington.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:01:13] Absolutely. You don't get to do these in person too often. So, it's very exciting to have you actually in the studio.

Julianne Antrobus [00:01:18] Thank you, thank you.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:01:20] Let's actually start... Maybe, take me back. When did you first start getting interested in energy? I know you grew up near Liverpool and Manchester. Your parents had a hotel business. So, how did you kind of transfer from your childhood, really strong work ethic, moving into the energy space and engineering?

Julianne Antrobus [00:01:40] That's a great question. You've done your research. I can tell.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:01:43] I have done my research. Well, Andrew Sherry did my research for me. I'll have to plug Are We Nearly There Yet?

Julianne Antrobus [00:01:47] He's done a remarkable job on those podcasts. Well, it's really simple, actually. I just have always been interested in the world around us. You know, when I was back at school, geography, I just loved the idea of traveling. I loved the idea of the world that we lived in. How do we keep the lights on? Just all of that kind of piece around the different geographies and the challenges that different geographies have be it geopolitical, be it the energy situation. And for me, I just had this pull always to the world that we live in and kind of got very into the environmental side of things. When I went through university, I studied environmental science and went on to study my master's at UMIST which was all about environmental technology and protection. And nuclear was a big part of that.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:02:45] In university? Why was that part of your curriculum?

Julianne Antrobus [00:02:46] Because we were looking at different technologies. And that was back in the 90s. It was around clean technologies and the arguments for and against nuclear because it's always been quite an emotive subject. Just all about the energy systems, understanding the technologies that could clean up the environment and what that meant. And actually, as I went through school, as I went through my education, my degree, my master's, I never thought I would have come into the nuclear industry.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:03:17] So, your first exposure was actually through thinking objectively about energy technologies that can clean up the environment. What were the arguments that you were presented with as to pro or con for nuclear back then?

Julianne Antrobus [00:03:29] Well, obviously, the big con everybody needed to get over and talk about was waste. That was a big challenge. But equally, nuclear at that time... You know, we had a big program within the UK. Obviously, we had the existing fleet of both the Magnox reactors and the advanced gas-cooled reactors. And I think we took that for granted. And it wasn't until I lifted the lid of understanding really where does the electricity come from and how do I turn my lights on and where does it come from and understanding the contribution that nuclear actually already made... Back then it was about 25 or 26%. I'd just taken that for granted. So, through my understanding through my educational roots and then understanding it through my master's, it was just kind of, "Wow, nuclear has a big part to play. And I have just taken it completely for granted."

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:04:24] When you were first exposed to the technology and the pros of the technology, is that when you started thinking, "Oh, maybe I could do a career here." How did you actually get sucked into the nuclear sector?

Julianne Antrobus [00:04:37] Well, sucked in and staying in, it comes together? Well, actually, it was a really interesting point in UK legislation because the UK had started to look at environmental legislation and how to mitigate emissions both through water, air, etc. And the Integrated Pollution Control Act had just been brought out. And big organizations, big blue chip organizations at that time were having to think about the impact on their own organizations through the legislation. And actually, British Nuclear Fuels, at the time, was a big blue chip organization that was a heavy industry player within the UK. And they were looking at themselves and saying, "Well, okay. How are we going to comply with this new legislation?"

Julianne Antrobus [00:05:22] Throughout the UK, BNFL at that time manufactured fuel for the reactors. It designed the reactors, it built the reactors, it generated and produced electricity out of those reactors, and then there was the waste and decommissioning to consider. So, they had a whole fuel cycle that they needed to consider at every stage. What was their own environmental impact? Let alone then they were also having a positive environmental impact through the generation of the electricity, etc.

Julianne Antrobus [00:05:53] So, it was a bit of a double-edged story, really, why I was attracted. One was because of just the story behind they reduce the greenhouse gases and the electricity, etc., through the reactor design. But also, they needed to satisfy their own environmental obligations. It was that bit that first got me into British Nuclear Fuels as a very kind of wet behind the ears graduate at the time. But it's an industry I have loved every minute of being within. And that's what sucked me in to start with. So, I started on the graduate program with BNFL, '97...

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:06:32] Was this like the current nuclear graduates program, or is this a much earlier or was it in-house to BNFL at the time?

Julianne Antrobus [00:06:36] Yeah, it was much earlier, and it was very much in-house to BNFL, British Nuclear Fuels.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:06:43] So, location around, getting exposed to different parts of the business?

Julianne Antrobus [00:06:45] To different parts of the business, absolutely. And very exciting. I think for me, they brought me in to look at those environmental implications and to learn, etc. Kind of the rest was history, really. But that was the starter.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:07:02] That was the start, okay. So, you were there, and how long were you at BNFL?

Julianne Antrobus [00:07:07] Just shy of a decade. Probably nine years, because I started out on the environmental side through being a radiation protection advisor, which is a very technical role. I realized that the role of an RPA, as they call it, was very much understanding the implications of the operations and looking after the environmental side, the safety side. But I'm a real team player. And I think the role of the RPA at the time was more of compliance and ensuring everything was safe and compliant with the environmental regulations. But for me, it wasn't about stopping operations, it was about how do we continue to enable operations whilst meeting those requirements. And I felt kind of always in a struggle. I didn't want to be the police. I wanted to be kind of in with the gang doing it and delivering. So I moved, probably after three years, into fuel manufacture itself.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:08:06] So, were you at Springfields?

Julianne Antrobus [00:08:06] Yes.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:08:08] Okay, great. Preston, I've been there.

Julianne Antrobus [00:08:10] You've been there?

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:08:11] It's such a cool facility. Oh, my gosh. Tell me about that. What was your role there? What's it been like, I guess also, to kind of always be so close to one of the few places in the world where nuclear fuel is produced and supplies all the reactors of the AGR fleet, I think, as well as some of the PWR fuels all being produced there? How did that feel to be amongst that?

Julianne Antrobus [00:08:38] Springfields is a really, really special site. I mean, when I started there, it was a site of probably 3,000 or 4000 people. And it's always... One of its biggest mantras was "It is cleaned up and decommissioned as it's gone." It's evolved as a site. Originally, it provided the fuel for the Magnox reactors. We no longer have the Magnox reactors now. They're obviously going into decommissioning. But they continue to provide the fuel for the AGR stations and overseas.

Julianne Antrobus [00:09:09] So, they've had to reinvent themselves a number of times in terms of bringing new facilities on. They built the new oxide fuels complex at the site, which was real high-end manufacturing in its time, state of the art. The facility was outstanding. And yet you had then this real legacy of the Magnox facilities. But as they've kind of turned facilities off, they continue to decommission those facilities right back to an all brownfield site. And almost, they have released land from the nuclear licensed site into greenfield site as well, which is a real testimony to how they have looked after and been custodians of that nuclear facility and a great blueprint for others to follow, actually.

Julianne Antrobus [00:09:56] But you know, at that time it was BNFL, but then BNFL bought Westinghouse. So, Westinghouse brought this real different approach to manufacturing. World class manufacturing, in fact, and a real focus on customers. They had a program called Customer First, which, it says what it says on the tin in terms of really focusing on delighting the client and really focusing on that customer experience. And that drove a totally different operating facility for Springfields. And Springfields even today has a big part to play in the future of whatever happens on new nuclear build. It's going to have to again look to reinvent itself as we design new fuel types going forward, particularly with the new SMR and AMR programs. And they are, I know, excited and seeking to support that new program going forward.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:10:48] And it's also such a key asset and really important thing that the UK has. They have the full life cycle of the supply chain for fuel in-house. And that's just such a strategic asset to be able to have.

Julianne Antrobus [00:11:02] Oh, absolutely. And a great skill base. A great skill base there already. They've obviously had to reduce the footprint of the site physically, but with the resources that they have on the site to meet the customer demand. But they've shown that they can be agile and they can flex to meet that. So yeah, as I said, Springfields will always have a place in my heart. It's gone through a huge amount of change and was the springboard, really, to the rest of my career within nuclear.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:11:31] Fantastic. And so from there, you went into consulting, is that correct?

Julianne Antrobus [00:11:35] So, from there... I stayed, as I said, with BNFL for just shy of a decade. I had a very fortunate opportunity halfway through that when I worked for the Chairman of BNFL for a year, which gave me the opportunity to travel with the Chairman on the Senior Executive Board of BNFL at a time that was really exciting. The Energy White Paper was being written at that time, which kind of set the path for Hinkley Point C. We only have Hinkley Point C today because of the foresight of people in BNFL to get that kind of program off the ground.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:12:09] And so, you were working with the team?

Julianne Antrobus [00:12:10] Yeah. Working with the executive of BNFL at the time. And through that year, I traveled a lot with the BNFL board. At that time, BNFL was a global organization with endeavors out in the US, endeavors over in Japan, etc., and lots of places in between. And so, I had the fortune of traveling and getting to know the executive and just really understanding the relationship between BNFL and the government at that time and the role that BNFL played. But then of course thereafter, we changed the sector wholescale with the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which came and reformed and restructured the whole sector because we were about to go into a whole new phase of decommissioning and needed to be ready for that.

Julianne Antrobus [00:13:04] So, as that kind of embarked and that whole change came about, I stayed with, obviously, the Chairman for a year and I got to know a network that has stayed with me really to this day. The senior executives that were working at BNFL at that time, leaders that I had a huge amount of regard for, but thereafter, kind of informed and shaped some of my future career as well.

Julianne Antrobus [00:13:28] So, I stayed with BNFL, to your question, as I said, shy of a decade. And then, I went to work for Nuvia as Marketing Director with Nuvia, part of the VINCI Group. And they were very much focused on the decommissioning at that time and did a huge amount of decommissioning in France, but also starting within the UK.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:13:51] To kind of bring that skillset over.

Julianne Antrobus [00:13:53] Yes.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:13:54] What was that transition like for you? To go from focusing on... Well, there's a lot of transition in your career, but I guess at that point, going from thinking about new reactors and supplying fuel for new reactors, new build-enabling projects like Sizewell, to thinking about the existing fleet and decommissioning that. What was that like for you?

Julianne Antrobus [00:14:18] It was a huge shift, as you can imagine. But actually, it's probably... You know, I always look at my career as a bit of a game of two halves. I started out in that deep technical, kind of understanding as a radiation protection advisor and in the fuel manufacturing. And then the move into Nuvia and thereafter was more into commercial and the business development strategy side of things.

Julianne Antrobus [00:14:41] And I got my hard yards in Nuvia. It was a real deep contracting organization. I went to open up our market up at Sellafield to win the big multi-year, multi-million pound frameworks up at Sellafield to decommission parts of the Sellafield site. And that was a huge learning curve for me. But also, I realized that I loved the chase of going to go out and build the business with clients directly and build a portfolio, really, for Nuvia, at that time, to grow its own capability. And I was really excited. I went onto the board of Nuvia at the same time as I had my first child. So, it was all lots of shift and lots of movement happening. But no, Nuvia had a huge portfolio of decommissioning and techniques to bring to the UK. And that was an exciting time.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:15:33] Yeah, absolutely. And the legacy that I think that established... I think what I'm starting to definitely see and I already knew in knowing you personally, but in your career is really kind of being at the forefront of big changes that are going to really shift how the government, how the industry focuses on nuclear. And you've been right at a lot of those starting places, which is really fascinating.

Julianne Antrobus [00:15:55] It's actually not until you said that... I feel like there could have been a couple of Forrest Gump moments, actually, along the way. Because in coming back to Washington, in fact, I was reminded of the privilege of having a meeting at the time with Spencer Abraham back in 2003 or 2004. He was the Secretary of Energy and I was wet behind the ears, but I'd gone to a meeting at the White House. I mean, could you imagine? I was like 20-plus. And the very fact that I'd be even in a meeting like that, that for me is probably my Forrest Gump moment. But there's been a few, now that you said that, along the way. Big milestones that have redefined our sector and our industry going forward.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:16:37] Absolutely. And I think we're certainly at the cusp of one, quite literally even today, I think, in the UK. But we'll get to that. We'll get to what's happening there. So, from Nuvia, then did you go into Atkins? And you went more into a technical role there.

Julianne Antrobus [00:16:54] No, it was actually... So, back to the network that I knew. We'd been having business meetings with Atkins. One of the executives, in fact, he was the MD of Sellafield, Brian Watson, who I hold dear. We had a business meeting, and later that night, he phoned me and said, "Can I just talk to you about an opportunity?" And he told me this story about Atkins. And Atkins had this big vision, a big transformation story. And I was really excited by it. And I thought, "Wow, why wouldn't I want to be part of that?" They were right at the start of a transformational journey. I got the opportunity to work with some of the best. And we were right at the start of a big journey to take what was really a UK consultancy organization into becoming a global powerhouse. .

Julianne Antrobus [00:17:46] You know, Atkins is a great brand. They were obviously acquired by SNC-Lavalin Atkins, which has made them even more significant in the market, particularly here in the US, as a big Tier 1 player in the DOE market. But the journey and the team that I had the privilege of working with, we just had a vision and it was how do we take that vision and become the best in terms of where we are. And I think that was led through being really clear on our strategic intent. And I would say that because I was working with the CEO at the time, a gentleman called Chris Ball, and he just had a really clear vision for the business. And my job, as Strategy Director was, "Okay, how are we going to go and get that?" He was able to balance investment in the long term with the near-term needs of the business to grow it. And how do we build a sustainable and scalable business?

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:18:43] What would you say were kind of the key pillars of being able to accomplish that from a strategy perspective? Internally?

Julianne Antrobus [00:18:49] Absolute clarity on focus on what we were going to go get. And being almost two or three steps ahead of where we needed to get to. So, it was very thoughtful in terms of the work that Atkins wanted. ITER was a step to get closer towards the new build program that was going to start in the UK. It was the program that was going to start. Very thoughtful, very focused, being clear on what we would and wouldn't do and just sheer determination as well. A team that just kind of really worked well together. It was great to work with that team. And I stayed with Atkins for, again, a decade and loved every minute of it.

Julianne Antrobus [00:19:33] But what I realized through that journey was, for me, the exciting bit was being on the journey. A journey of transformational growth is just exciting because you're shaping it, you're moving it, and you're moving at a pace. You're building the business; you can see it. And overnight, I think the business became so big with the acquisition of SNC-Lavalin, I suppose I looked at it and thought, "You know, everything hereafter is going to be quite incremental. It's not going to be as transformational as probably what we've seen." And I found that difficult to square in my own mind, which is why I kind of then realized, "You know what? I want to go and do it all over again and do it somewhere else." And that was where the relationship with PA came together, really. It was a great opportunity to do it all again, as you say.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:20:23] Well, let's focus a little bit on PA. In our engagements with you, we've just been so impressed by, I think, that clear vision that you've actually had throughout your whole career and that you've clearly brought to PA and the whole team. The whole leadership team has a very clear vision of how they want to help enable the industry to transform into being what we truly need it to be, which is focusing on deploying clean power projects and doing so in a way that is sustainable for the sector but really just for the planet. And so, can you talk to me about who is PA consulting? What is your role there? What is your vision as a company and you personally?

Julianne Antrobus [00:21:05] Great question. You might have to remind me a few as we work through that. For me, from a personal perspective... I'll start with that because that is quite important. I think it shapes the rest of the story. When PA came and spoke to me, I didn't really know PA in a nuclear context. But I was open to a discussion and I sat down and they started to talk to me about the work they were already doing in nuclear, which was small at that time with some contracts at Sellafield.

Julianne Antrobus [00:21:37] And I was ready. I kind of knew I'd gotten to a point with Atkins... I would have loved to stay with Atkins, but I could have continued just doing what I'd already done. And you either decide whether you want to step out of your comfort zone and back yourself and go and do something else. I felt that I'd kind of grown up with Atkins at a point that was really pivotal in my career, but I was ready to take all of that, and with Nuvia and with BNFL, and I was wanting to do it in my way. And this for me, my step into PA was what I would say is my first leadership role in the way I want to build my business. I've always been, probably somebody else's number two. And I felt for me, PA provided an opportunity for me to bring all that great learning, all the great learning that I've had working with others and they've led businesses and bring it to how I want to build my practice within PA.

Julianne Antrobus [00:22:32] And PA afforded me a blank piece of paper. They said to me, "Okay, we're really interested in this nuclear thing. We've invested in Sellafield. Come and tell us what you think this market could do and how big it could be and why PA in this sector? And when I started to think about that and started to do my own due diligence with PA, I just got really, really excited. They were about 3,500 when I joined. They're now 4,500, and big ambitions of growth. And I just sat there and thought, "Surely, I can't be at the start of another," what I say, "transformational journey." And for me, this time, to be able to lead it and take, as I said, all of that great learning.

Julianne Antrobus [00:23:16] And that's the journey we've been on. What I've been able to bring to PA is the fact that nuclear was not a market they knew. I was able to understand the capability that they have. And first and foremost, PA is a innovation technology consultancy. Now, I would drop the consultancy, because actually, we're just first and foremost innovators and real technology junkies. And I think consultancy can actually give us a bit of a misrepresentation. We very much work with our clients who've got a big ambition. They think big, they need to start small and then scale fast.

Julianne Antrobus [00:23:55] And we work with our clients through either them wanting to develop a technology, whether they want to set up an organization and start from the beginning and create the right culture, create the right organizational design to build that capability for the future, or we help them orientate themselves within a market to see what is the market they should go for relative to what they want to be in the marketplace. So, we work in many different guises, but first and foremost, we want to work with taking our clients through the journey of realizing their own ambition. And for us, we have the right to play in that space because we bring innovators, we bring technology together. We can help our clients commercialize that technology and set themselves up to deliver on their ambitions. And that for me is why nuclear. I think PA brings something really different to nuclear.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:24:43] Okay, so when you joined PA, a small nuclear team that you're now leading, you've got the clear vision for it. What is that vision in your words? And what's the team that you've built? You've kind of transformed the existing team and then grown it to be. What is that new capability?

Julianne Antrobus [00:25:02] So first of all, I haven't built, really, a nuclear team. I think that the difference is we have a nuclear practice, but that nuclear practice is working with clients, but bringing, I think, very different skill sets to this sector. And what do I mean by that? So, we have absolutely skilled capability within the UK nuclear market already, deep engineering capability. I mean, we were talking about it earlier, Michelle, around we need different skills now in this sector to drive the next generation of what we need to deliver down to reducing costs and decarbonizing the market, etc. And so [00:25:42]for us, it's about bringing a totally different skill set. Economists, innovators, data analysts, not the traditional set that we have used before. But that different set complements the existing capability. It's not to displace it; it's to complement it and build up and out. [18.2s]

Julianne Antrobus [00:26:01] So, we're not trying to be like the established supply chain that is already within nuclear. I think we're trying to really complement it, but with a very different skill set. And my ambition is... Well, it's not limited. For me, I'm over here in the US taking the practice after three years into a broader market. That's really, really exciting for us. For me, I've got the backing and a great leadership team that now is fully on board with where we're trying to go with our nuclear practice. And it's all about continuing to drive disruption and pace into our sector. Two things that we desperately need to ensure that we can deliver for the future and really drive those costs down. So, lots in that. But ultimately for me, it's about growing the team with people that are first and foremost passionate about making change, making a difference, and being disruptive at pace.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:27:04] That's fantastic. I completely agree, and I'm very excited to see how that vision plays out and work with you, hopefully, to make it play out. It's such an inspirational note, so I'm going to start to wrap us up, but I kind of want to keep on that thread. As you look to the UK and where the UK is going, the government, looking at tomorrow, or sometime this week, if not tomorrow, potentially having the Great British Nuclear announcement about what that will look like, which creates a ton of opportunity, I think, to really jump start the SMR, AMR development process in the UK.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:27:45] But it's not just in the UK. As you mentioned, in the US, we have a ton of opportunity here to build out nuclear and clean technologies that all complement each other and really think about things from the systems level perspective. How do we actually decarbonize hard to debate sectors? How do we actually put in place policies that will enable innovation to be deployed and commercialized? And how do we ensure that we can finance these types of projects going forward in a way that brings in that kind of multidisciplinary thinking and learnings from other sectors, other disciplines, to ensure that we're actually successful in this overall challenge of decarbonization?

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:28:23] So, when you think about that grand challenge in the UK, but also in the US and even more globally, what are you looking forward to and what is your sense of where we're at? Tie it to GBN, but I'm kind of curious where you're at in terms of what the next chapter looks like for nuclear and for the global energy state of play.

Julianne Antrobus [00:28:54] Those who know me know that I'm an eternal optimist or I still wouldn't be within our nuclear sector. I've been in our sector probably for 20-plus years. I stay because I've worked with the best and for the best. And I mean that in all genuineness. And for me, we have an opportunity right in front of us. And I really do hope that we don't miss this opportunity and give it away. But we've got to make it happen in terms of some commitments, in terms of decisions this week.

Julianne Antrobus [00:29:25] GBN is only one of the things that needs to happen. I posted out something this week about GBN being that curator. It needs to really be an accelerator to unlock and enable the market to move. We're on the cusp of having investors really excited about this market, but if we can't make it happen soon, they're just going to go again. We've got to demonstrate and build confidence, and we'll only build that confidence if we're going to start delivering what we say we can deliver.

Julianne Antrobus [00:29:56] So, the opportunity is there. I think it's for us to make, but we do need some of those decisions to happen over the course of the next few days to unlock this. I think there are other things that are happening around the patch, but [00:30:09]globally, I really sense that nuclear... It's not about nuclear, it's about nuclear within the energy system. You said that, and that's really important for us because we never talk about nuclear on its own. It's about how does nuclear play within the overall energy system, its role. And if you only look at it and argue it from a nuclear point of view, that's going to be quite limiting. So, we need to broaden out the discussion, broaden out the conversation to look at it at that energy systems level. [29.6s]

Julianne Antrobus [00:30:39] And that's where nuclear wins. It doesn't win against another technology type, it just wins in the overall argument that we need nuclear to be part of that balanced portfolio. If we can get to that point, then that's the right conversation to be having. And I want us to get to that point and kind of almost mature the conversation that we have within the UK, but also globally around the role that nuclear will play within that bigger picture.

Michelle Brechtelsbauer [00:31:04] Well, that's fantastic. Thank you so much, Julianne. It's been really brilliant to have you here. And thank you so much for coming all the way over to us to do the episode. Thank you so much.

Julianne Antrobus [00:31:13] It's a pleasure, Michelle. Pleasure. Thank you so much.

Josh Mesner [00:00:59] My name is Josh Mesner and welcome to Titans of Nuclear. Today, we have the honor of chatting with Dr. Wayne Solomon, who is the Vice President of Magnetic Fusion Energy at General Atomics. Wayne, welcome to the show.

Wayne Solomon [00:01:15] Josh, thanks so much for that introduction. Thanks for having me here today. Appreciate the opportunity.

Josh Mesner [00:01:22] Super excited. So, we always like to start with a bit of a background on our guest. So, let's start with where are you from? Tell us about Wayne as a child growing up.

Wayne Solomon [00:01:34] Sure. Well, I don't know. Maybe you can tell from my funny accent that I born in Australia, in Sydney. I lived there for the first six or so years of my life. I moved up north with my family to a place called Brisbane. You may have heard of it; it's in a state called Queensland. I guess at a young age... Maybe like many people who end up in science and technology fields, I really was fascinated by math and science from an early age, even though, frankly, there wasn't really that kind of interest or enthusiasm within my immediate family or even my extended family. In the later part of high school, I was selected to be part of our national squad for the Physics Olympiad.

Josh Mesner [00:02:24] Oh, very cool.

Wayne Solomon [00:02:25] I had the opportunity then to see fusion research at Australian National University, ANU, as it's affectionately referred to sometimes. And I thought this was amazing and a world-changing type of thing that I'd love to be involved with. And I guess the rest, as they say, was history.

Wayne Solomon [00:02:47] During that time at the Olympiad, I also really enjoyed later helping to create some new pathways for students who were interested in physics trying to get into this, working with some of the other physics Olympiads to kick off like a Junior Physics Olympiad program in Queensland.

Wayne Solomon [00:03:07] So I guess, with that intense interest locked in for physics, I did my undergraduate studies at the University of Queensland then I went back to the ANU and did my Ph.D. I ended up coming to San Diego about 20 years ago for my postdoc with the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Coming out here to work in DIII-D at San Diego, General Atomics. And that's the largest fusion experiment in the US. I really felt passionate about devoting my time and effort to helping to realize fusion at this point because it really can provide near limitless energy to the planet. And DIII-D was really the natural place to do that kind of research.

Wayne Solomon [00:03:55] And honestly, that was a great time for me. I was employed by one of the preeminent national labs, working at one of the preeminent devices, living in sunny San Diego, and my boss is on the other side of the country. So, what's not to like?

Josh Mesner [00:04:10] There you go. I'd love to go back. Growing up in Australia... I mean, I'm not too in tune with Australia's nuclear climate, but I know it hasn't been a perfectly straight course since about the 1950s. However, I mean, you guys have what, the second or third highest uranium deposits behind Canada, Kazakhstan? So, tell us a little bit about studying nuclear at that time in Australia.

Wayne Solomon [00:04:38] Well as you said, nuclear as an energy source... Now we're talking nuclear fission, of course. None of the power really is generated in Australia by fission. But we have those reserves and the country as a whole is happy to sell those resources for other countries that are interested in using uranium for their nuclear power. And so, there isn't much of a nuclear program. But of course, fusion, especially then, but even today, is largely driven by on the physics side, plasma physics. And so, they're kind of really quite separate in space for training and background and just even public perception about what the two are. And I think I see a lot of that in US too now, as well. I mean, there's quite a big divide, I think, between the perceptions and the baggage, if you want to call it that, associated with fission and sort of the promise and hope of fusion.

Josh Mesner [00:05:44] Yeah. I think most people probably remember the kind of treaty that was signed a while back about nuclear submarines and Australia. And like, that is their extent of nuclear in Australia.

Wayne Solomon [00:05:57] That's pretty much it. That's pretty much it.

Josh Mesner [00:06:00] So, you find yourself in sunny San Diego. Tell us a little bit about some of your first roles at GA.

Wayne Solomon [00:06:10] So, when I was here as a post-doc, I was doing research early on and in some ways was connected to the stuff I was doing in my PhD. So, I was studying basic plasma transport, turbulence, how that affects how energy escapes out of the plasma. One of the key ways that you can improve the confinement of a fusion-grade plasma is through rotation, the way the plasma spins. And you can think of it simply as if you have a plasma rotating at different rates at different parts of the plasma, then you create kind of like a shear layer. And if you imagine these kind of turbulent eddies, then having this kind of shearing process splits apart and makes those eddies much smaller and makes it harder for the turbulence to take that energy out of the plasma.

Wayne Solomon [00:07:07] So, my early research here at DIII-D was really focused on trying to understand rotation, what mechanisms can lead to it. And there's a whole fascinating realm there. I mean, you might think, "Well, momentum, rotation, that's all pretty straightforward, right? Conservation of momentum." But even in a tokamak environment, you have these funny situations where the plasma can spontaneously appear to spin out of nothing. You can explain it still in terms of those fundamentals, but you get these effects which we call intrinsic rotation, and you can have this even if there's no obvious momentum input. It just has to do with the way that...

Wayne Solomon [00:07:52] If you look at the distribution of those particles, some of them are going in one direction, some are going in the other direction. There's a way that some of those particles might be lost. And then the ones that are left have a preferential direction, and that leads to a net rotation. So, it's really, really cool. And so, the plasma has ways of even generating its own rotation that can help with this improvement in confinement.

Josh Mesner [00:08:17] I'm just curious about this kind of phenomenon. Are you experiencing or noticing those in some of the complex simulations that you're running ahead of actual...

Wayne Solomon [00:08:27] Yeah.

Josh Mesner [00:08:27] Okay. And do those line up with what could or is happening in real life, or are you seeing stuff that is disassociated from the simulations that you're providing?

Wayne Solomon [00:08:40] Well, I think one of the things that's really been a key advance overall in fusion is the ability to carefully simulate all these different aspects of the plasma. And I think when intrinsic rotation was first discovered, it was a bit of a head scratcher. And theorists got to work. They maybe dusted off some ideas they had before. I would say it was relatively quickly understood. And then, large scale simulations were able to reproduce these. And I would say the case isn't maybe fully closed, but I think there are enough different models and ways of explaining it. Yeah, we can capture this understanding.

Josh Mesner [00:09:19] Very cool. I don't want to jump too far ahead, but you're at a one year anniversary right now of your new role as Vice President.

Wayne Solomon [00:09:26] That is basically right. Yes, that's true.

Josh Mesner [00:09:30] Before we jump into that and the exciting projects that you're working on, I'd love to just reflect on your previous number of years at GA. What are some of the notable projects? It sounds like this one, this rotational one is one project. What are some of the others?

Wayne Solomon [00:09:45] Well, I've had a very interesting time with my time at DIII-D and General Atomics. I'm often working on sort of what you might call some more fundamental physics understanding. You have to realize that fusion and the experiment that we run is really a whole integrated thing. Like, what you do in one to deal with one particular issue has an impact on maybe the confinement or has an impact on the stability or impact on the heat that's coming out of it. So, it's very tightly coupled. And so, I found myself moving into looking at sort of whole scenario optimization, but still with an interest of rotation.

Wayne Solomon [00:10:27] I mentioned that rotation has an impact on the confinement. And so, we've long learned, even without these detailed understanding simulations, we've understood how to exploit that to make the tokamak better. And then you start realizing what these processes actually translate to as you go to what might eventually be a commercial fusion power plant or a next step device. And so, it turns out some of these things don't scale necessarily well. The ability to rotate the plasma gets harder, perhaps. And so, you start looking at that and what is the impact.

Wayne Solomon [00:11:00] We did a whole range of scenario development trying to get all of the benefits that we'd learned from rotation or shear improvements on confinement, but finding other knobs, basically, that can give you the same type of effect. And things like the way you craft the magnetic profile, the current profile, all of these types of things all can give similar types of benefits. And so, we kind of worked on this for several years. Also, I've worked on parts of the plasma to try and improve.

Wayne Solomon [00:11:34] So, we have different modes of confinement. And one of those is called H-mode. It stands for high-confinement mode. And it's characterized by something that we refer to as a pedestal. It's because you've got this very thin insulating layer between the very hot core and what ostensibly becomes a room temperature, the metal walls. And so, there's this very thin insulating layer where the confinement is very high, the temperature gradients are very strong. And there all sorts of interesting instabilities that happen there. We have to try to figure out how to control those instabilities as well. And so, that was another part of that process of integration. How can you get high-confinement and maintain those instabilities without ejecting all of this heat and particles to the wall which could damage the wall. So like I said, it's just a very integrated challenge.

Josh Mesner [00:12:26] You turn one dial and 80 other dials are messed up. And you have to turn those dials and come back, yeah.

Wayne Solomon [00:12:31] Exactly. But I think over time, we really got a good handle on how to do all of these things. It's really been fun to watch all of this come into place.

Josh Mesner [00:12:40] Before we go further, I'd love for you to just give us a layman's description of a what is a tokamak. For the average listener, what is that and what does it stand for? I hear it's kind of like a conglomerate of words or phrases.

Wayne Solomon [00:12:56] Yeah, well, it actually is a Russian acronym. I'm not sure if I can remember it exactly, but basically the device is... Okay, let's go back. In magnetic fusion, what we're trying to do is recreate the process of the sun. The sun does fusion every day; that's what we're trying to do in the lab every day as well. So, the tokamak is a device that we have that basically uses strong magnetic fields to try to confine this very hot, what starts off as a gas, but enters into what is sometimes referred to as the fourth state of matter, a plasma. This hot plasma, when you get it really hot, of course, you can overcome the electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei. And that's what lets you get to fusion. A tiny amount of mass is converted into a tremendous amount of energy. That's just the realization of Einstein's famous E=mc² equation.

Wayne Solomon [00:14:04] And so, the tokamak basically is a device that provides this magnetic field. There's a series of what we call toroidal magnetic fields. These are basically field coils that go around the outside of the vessel and provide the major component of that magnetic field. But it's a little bit more complicated than that because if you only had this one direction of of magnetic fields, it turns out that you find that the plasma will basically drift out of the top or the bottom of that device, even though it's wrapped around into a torus shape, like a donut.

Wayne Solomon [00:14:42] So, we have another component of the magnetic field that we provide through a central solenoid. Basically, we drive current in that central solenoid. You can think of it as like the secondary coil of a transformer. And so, we ramp the current in that central coil there and that provides a changing flux and induces a current in the plasma. And that provides another component of that magnetic field. So, the tokamak really is that device that provides that magnetic bottle, if you like, for containing the plasma.

Wayne Solomon [00:15:21] And into that bottle then, we have to inject heating power to get the plasma hot enough to get into fusion-relevant conditions and do various things that we would like to do to control that plasma, whether it's through adjusting the exact details of the magnetic field or the current or the rotation, all of these different control actuators that we have as well. So that, if you like, is the tokamak.

Josh Mesner [00:15:54] Absolutely. Awesome, I really appreciate that. So, can you give me maybe a bit of a history of the DIII-D facility?

Wayne Solomon [00:16:05] DIII-D, as the name maybe slightly alludes to, is one in a series of tokamaks that actually started out in a configuration called a doublet, which is really kind of something to do with what the shape looked like. Let's put it that way. And that doublet was really the first "D" in that DIII-D; that's what it stands for. And actually, if you walk through our machine bay today, you can still find pieces of Doublet I and then Doublet II and III, which is sort of the succession of devices that were built of increasing size to test the scaling of this particular concept.

Wayne Solomon [00:16:44] Between about 1984 and 1985, Doublet III was converted to the machine that we now call DIII-D, which was then affectionately referred to as Big D, reflecting the change in the vacuum vessel in the plasma shape which was made at that time. And that actually was the final D in that DIII-D. That change was really driven by some of the understanding that had been developed on the theory side that suggested that this particular big D-shaped plasma was the one that had the best overall confinement and stability properties and would ultimately lead to a more attractive fusion plant.

Wayne Solomon [00:17:29] We're really proud of the impact the science that has been done here has had on the world. It's certainly directly influenced the ITER device, the way that's come to be. A lot of the underpinnings of the physics there was developed right here at DIII-D and the institutional experience that we've developed as a result of that.

Josh Mesner [00:17:51] And when you were referring to the D-shape, that would be in the vertical direction with the solenoid being that main kind of...

Wayne Solomon [00:17:58] Yeah, so if you imagine the tokamak as a donut and if you take a cut through that donut, the D is sort of that cross-sectional shape that you would see there rather than a circle that you might have for a typical donut.

Josh Mesner [00:18:20] Got it. That makes sense. All right, we'll get back on track now. So like I said, you're one year into a new role a VP role. What has that transition been like for you? How are things going? I know you've been kind of rolling up your sleeves, getting your hands dirty, and now you've got some other departments and divisions that you are overseeing. What's that been like?

Wayne Solomon [00:18:44] I mean, it's been excellent. And it's just really an excellent time for fusion as well. So, I mean, nothing but exciting. So, within the Magnetic Fusion Energy division, obviously, we host the DIII-D National Fusion Program. As I mentioned, the largest fusion facility in the US. We operate that on behalf of the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and we're very proud to do that. And it's really a world leading scientific platform. And you can imagine it's highly sought by US and international research just due to its immense flexibility and control and the upgrades that we do on it to keep it at the cutting edge, as well as a really comprehensive set of measurement capabilities which make it often referred to as one of the most diagnosed tokamaks in the world.

Wayne Solomon [00:19:35] In addition to that, we do lots of other things here at General Atomics in the magnetic fusion energy space. We have a world leading fusion theory and computation department that actually develops a lot of these fundamental theory and simulation codes that we were referring to earlier in our discussion. But really, they've been tuned to a wide range of applications. There are sort of these high fidelity simulations that might take months of time to run on the world's fastest supercomputers. But then there are reduced models that we have that our experimental team might use down at DIII-D to look at and analyze the shots that we take sort of between shots. And then even more reduced models which can be embedded into the real time control system that we use to control the plasma.

Wayne Solomon [00:20:34] We also have a world leading Engineering and Projects department that really is delivering large scale fusion systems. So, we're heavily involved in... You may have heard of the large international collaboration called ITER, which is being built in the south of France. General Atomics, actually, is responsible for producing ITER's central solenoid, which is a massive superconducting magnet. In fact, it will be the world's largest pulsed superconducting magnet when it's fully assembled. It consists of six modules, roughly 60 feet tall and 14 feet in diameter when it's fully assembled. And this will drive 15 million amperes of current inside of ITER. And each one of those modules uses something like three miles of superconducting cable to produce these magnetic fields that ITER will be making use of. So, we do large-scale manufacturing. We support fundamental theory research.

Josh Mesner [00:21:44] You guys do small-scale manufacturing too, right? You are working on developing the targets for ITER?

Wayne Solomon [00:21:50] Now, within General Atomics we have what we call our Energy Division, and that's really focused on sort of both aspects of fusion. So, I'm focused on the Magnetic Fusion Energy Division, but we have an Inertial Fusion Technology Group as well. And yes, they produce these very precision targets that are needed for doing the other aspect of fusion, the inertial confinement fusion. And you probably know that there breakthrough results happened at the National Ignition Facility up north in Livermore, recently. General Atomics actually supplied the target that was used in those shots. So yeah, we span the range of manufacturing capabilities, that's for sure.

Josh Mesner [00:22:40] Absolutely. So, you have the DIII-D, National Fusion kind of facility. You've got that kind of ITER manufacturing component. I hear you've also, maybe in the last year or so, been awarded some time on some of the DOE supercomputers as well. Talk to me a little bit about the advanced computing portion of your field.

Wayne Solomon [00:23:02] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this has really been, in my mind, fundamental to the breakthroughs that we're seeing in fusion in general. I mean, we're able to simulate with exquisite detail sort of what's going on inside the plasma in terms of the transport, the turbulence, and really discovering new things. And you really need these high-performance and high-fidelity simulations to understand some of the coupling, even between like the iron and the electron species. When you're trying to simplify models or do pen and paper type theories, "We'll make this approximation or that approximation," in most cases, those are pretty good and they work very well, but you can find cases where that breaks down and these simulations really lead the way in terms of understanding that. And I would point to, again, those great results that we saw at NIF. Underpinning those are important first principle simulation capabilities as well.

Wayne Solomon [00:24:02] Of course, bringing all of that together, right now many of us at General Atomics are super excited about a new project that we have to design, build and operate what we refer to as a fusion pilot plant that has the goal of delivering electricity to the grid. And you can imagine, this is a huge undertaking that's needed to mature the various technologies that still remain and integrating them all together in a way that can translate into something that will ultimately be economically and commercially attractive. There's a lot happening here, and like I said, no shortage of things to keep us excited.

Josh Mesner [00:24:37] Well, that's a really good point, right? I mean, utilizing the fusion pilot plant project that you just brought up, as you said, there's a lot of involvement in these sized projects. How did General Atomics first come to a proposal given all of the inputs that you guys received to decide, "Okay, here's where we're going to start for this style of plant. Here's how we're going to utilize our partners and our in-house engineers and some of the computers that we have access to?" Because I'm sure there are just millions of data points that you're having to filter through to even begin such a complex project like this.

Wayne Solomon [00:25:18] Yeah, well, fortunately, we're not starting at this from scratch. I mean, General Atomics has been in the fusion game for more than six decades. And so, we have a preferred approach, a preferred concept that we've been developing here internally for many years, and really with a focused effort for the last few years in fact. It's something that we refer to as the advanced tokamak. I don't necessarily need to get into that. But one of the distinguishing features of that advanced tokamak is... You remember when I was describing to you the tokamak, that one of the features of the tokamak is that you've got this central solenoid that you have to ramp the current through. Well that, in a way, makes the device inherently pulsed because you've got to be able to swing flux through that system. And so, one of the advantages of the advanced tokamak is that you can find ways to drive the current that you need to provide that other component in the magnetic field through some other external means. Or even better, internally, the plasma can drive its own current. We've found ways to do this.

Wayne Solomon [00:26:25] So, that's the leading approach that we have here, and that's sort of what we've been building our concept around. But there's a whole suite of technologies, of course, that have to be matured alongside just the physics concept that are needed there. Some of these key technologies, of course, relate to developing new materials that can withstand the harsh fusion environment. And another is the technology needed to breed the tritium fuel. So, for these fusion reactions, we're thinking that is deuterium-tritium, 50/50 mix. But you want to produce that tritium fuel within the power plant itself using a so-called blanket. And we're working on a blanket concept here that marries advanced materials, that can simultaneously make the breeding process more efficient and also potentially open up more efficient thermodynamic conversion cycles. So, that's pretty exciting, too. Yeah, there are a lot of things that are coming together to make all of this happen.

Josh Mesner [00:27:37] What are some of the aspects of this design that you are most excited about? And think about that in a way of maybe limitations that you are seeing so far that are going to really be challenges that you're excited to overcome.

Wayne Solomon [00:27:55] Well, I think I just was alluding to them right there. Really, figuring out what the right blanket concept is and the right way to fuel this. You've got to actually get the deuterium and tritium into the plant itself. And right now, we're able to do that on a device like DIII-D by pumping gas in or injecting... But it becomes a whole lot more complicated when the plasma gets up to the power plant-type densities and when you've got the size and the temperatures. And not to mention dealing with tritium itself.

Wayne Solomon [00:28:31] So, the whole aspect of how you close that fuel cycle and how you do this in a way that's safe and lets you recover the tritium, makes sure you don't have a huge inventory on site because that affects how you might license the device and what it looks like in terms of the tritium reprocessing plant that you need. The footprint of the facility itself, in fact, can be greatly affected by that. Those are some of the real exciting things that we have for ideas that we're pursuing internally right now, in partnership with some of our national lab colleagues and universities and the like.

Josh Mesner [00:29:12] Absolutely. Just out of curiosity, because I know General Atomics has quite a few diverse divisions that all relate back to energy to some degree, unmanned vehicles, I'm thinking. How does General Atomics utilize, or on the other side, silo its divisions for development in one area that can help development in another division or area?

Wayne Solomon [00:29:37] Oh, yeah, you're right. I mean, General Atomics works in a lot of areas, including energy, space, defense. In many of those areas, we work and develop technologies in-house from start to finish. So the Energy Group, where magnetic fusion energy lives puts a lot of its own resources, obviously, to R&D every year. Everyone here is very committed, understands the challenges remaining to support the projects that we're looking at and that can have a major impact.

Wayne Solomon [00:30:09] As a company, of course, GA has a proven track record of bringing this technology from the lab to the field. This goes all the way back to our early beginnings where we developed the first inherently safe fission reactors which were used for training. These were called trigger reactors. More than 60 of these were produced and deployed around the world. We went on to develop commercial fission reactors with what was then called the Atomic Energy Commission. And this has continued through the decades and with the control systems and magnet technologies, for example, that were developed for fusion, they've been adapted to develop electromagnetic launch systems such as those that GA now deploys and you can find on the USS Ford, for example.

Wayne Solomon [00:30:58] So yeah, there's a lot of potential for cross-fertilization and things like that. And certainly the experience that we have with vertical integration, advanced manufacturing, scaling up systems from the lab to the field, making them of production quantities are all capabilities that GA has developed maybe in the defense space recently that will be extremely valuable to deploying fusion power plants around the world in the future.

Josh Mesner [00:31:26] Absolutely. With all of that talent, those partnerships, those opportunities, how does General Atomics stay focused? Is there an annual conference of, "Okay, let's throw all the ideas on the board and come up with the next projects that we want to continue pushing forward with this six decades of history?" How often do new projects kind of get thrown into the mix that the R&D department gets pushed into that, lo and behold, actually helps some of the existing projects that you're working on? Or, more often the case, I'm assuming, is maybe a sunk cost and it's, "Okay, we'll try a different project." I'm just curious how you think about all of the possibilities that are under the umbrella of energy and what to utilize your resources to focus on.

Wayne Solomon [00:32:21] Well, fortunately, we have a lot of divisions which are given a lot of of autonomy. So, magnetic fusion energy, we can focus on that. And focused almost to a flaw, you might add. I mean, one of the joys of working here is... The people that find themselves in fusion tend to be... I often referred to them as fusion aficionados or fusioneers.

Josh Mesner [00:32:50] Fusioneers, I like that one.

Wayne Solomon [00:32:53] They got into it because they really believe in the potential of fusion to change the world. And so, everyone here is really sort of laser-focused on fusion. But of course, different divisions... We meet with other divisions, both within energy and across the board with GA and strategic offsites and things like that. So, we hear about what's going on. Of course, the owner of the company keeps a keen awareness of everything that's going on, and we'll certainly talk about where there might be synergies or things that can be brought to bear across the company. So, all of that happens very organically, but also with particular touch points where these things get brought up periodically year to year.

Josh Mesner [00:33:40] Very cool. Nuclear is... And I'm of course talking about fission a little bit here, but nuclear as a whole has seen a bit of a resurgence even in the last year or two, maybe a little bit beyond that. But in your eyes, what does the future of nuclear look like as an energy source? For you and General Atomics, but more broadly for the world?

Wayne Solomon [00:34:11] I think we have to recognize that in some ways the whole energy challenges can be thought of as through the national security lens. And how it relates to climate change, it really touches everything and everyone. And I think the need for abundant, reliable, clean energy is a real challenge and one that only continues to grow as the world looks to improve the quality of life for all of humanity. Ready access to energy has always been that sort of issue of national security.

Wayne Solomon [00:34:59] For me, fusion's unique potential to provide continuous, safe, carbon-free base load power is a real strength and for me is a reason why I think fusion has to be part of the energy solution going forward. But of course, it's not a one stop shop. You need all of the renewables, and at least in the short term, fission as well, because we need that capability online today if we want to go carbon-free.

Wayne Solomon [00:35:33] I think the other important thing in my mind about fusion is that it can... If you want to call it national security, it can provide economic security also because it really has a path for providing high-tech and high-paying jobs for families as we make some kind of transition to this new, carbon-free type energy environment.

Josh Mesner [00:36:00] Yeah, I mean, you're spot on. What are some ideas... I'm sure you've had a couple... Of ways that folks within the nuclear community can continue to facilitate the discussion of exactly the reasons you just laid out around nuclear and its potential to reshape humanity? What are some, maybe like two or three discussion points that you might be able to utilize for folks not in the nuclear community to really showcase its potential?

Wayne Solomon [00:36:35] When I think about fusion, I think people should perhaps become aware or recognize the potential beyond just supplying clean power. It really has this real opportunity in a way to be done right. I mean, one aspect of that is the fuel for that power is relatively available. It can be made available to sort of all the citizens of the world without reliance on nations that control strategic resources. Therefore, it really has that underpinning to lead to a more equitable and just future.

Wayne Solomon [00:37:18] While we're doing that, we need to develop a workforce that will mature these technologies that we need along the way and build and operate this fleet of fusion power plants that we hope will one day power the world. And because we're growing that workforce, we can embrace new methodologies that can really enable people of all backgrounds to succeed in this new energy environment and in fusion in general.

Wayne Solomon [00:37:42] I think for me, the clean energy revolution and fusion in particular can really help lift people up and communities up that have been otherwise left behind. So, I think this is an important point for fusion beyond all the technical benefits that you might think about. Just this fact that we're starting from scratch gives it a unique potential in shaping that future.

Josh Mesner [00:38:08] I don't know if you've ever given this any thought, but what other nuclear technologies or ideas are particularly interesting for you? Say you couldn't work on fusion anymore, what other aspects or ideas would you maybe be really interested to go down the rabbit hole of?

Wayne Solomon [00:38:25] That's an interesting question. Like I said, most fusioneers are fusioneers to the core, so I don't really think that far beyond that. But of course, there are a lot of interesting things happening in the fission space. GA is actually heavily involved, too. I'm personally not very engaged on that. But there's a lot of work looking at small modular reactors, advanced modular reactors, and GA has some actually quite innovative concepts which they're looking to pursue on that. One of these actually described a while back was called Energy Multiplier Module, which was sort of a modular type system that could be deployed in relatively small units but could be combined together. And I think for some of these type of approaches to sort of make better use of the fuel, reuse the fuel through multiple cycles, I think that is really critical so that you don't end up with so much unspent fuel that you then have to figure out what to do with.

Josh Mesner [00:39:41] Absolutely. Wayne, I'd love to give you just a couple of sentences to close out this podcast on. Just sharing a message with our listeners about nuclear energy, what you're excited about and how they can get involved if they find this also as exciting.

Wayne Solomon [00:40:01] Well, I think if you haven't picked up on it, I believe that fusion-generated electricity has the potential to transform the world with abundant clean energy. We here at General Atomics have decades of experience really innovating fusion technologies and building and constructing fusion systems and plants. I think we have established strong partnerships with governments, national labs, universities, industries. We're really hopeful and optimistic that we'll see fusion delivered to the grid on a timescale that matters.

Wayne Solomon [00:40:35] And I think if people are similarly interested and motivated in this, they certainly should talk to their local representatives and try to get involved in STEM programs. I know a lot of the universities right now are looking for and they're seeing a lot of interest and influx of additional students who want to be part of this. Helping in that sphere, growing new programs, just really expressing that interest and letting it be known that this is the direction we want to go I think can have an immediate impact. Because I think the world and governments are paying attention and want to hear that this is the way forward.

Josh Mesner [00:41:21] Wonderful. Everybody, Dr. Wayne Solomon from General Atomics. Thanks so much, Wayne. Really appreciate it.

Wayne Solomon [00:41:26] Thank you very much. I appreciate chatting with you, Josh.

Sarah Howorth [00:00:46] Welcome back to Titans of Nuclear. My name is Sarah Howorth, and today we're here again at the MIT CANES Symposium, Nuclear Everywhere 2023. And I'm sitting here today with Yasir Arafat, who is the Chief Project Lead of the MARVEL Project at Idaho National Laboratory. Yasir, welcome. It's so nice to have you.

Yasir Arafat [00:01:08] Oh, thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

Sarah Howorth [00:01:09] Yeah, of course. And since we are here at the Symposium, you can likely hear in the background maybe some murmurings of the nuclear industry as well, which is exciting as we're all gathered here. So, let's start off with the Titans of Nuclear question, where did you grow up?

Yasir Arafat [00:01:27] I grew up in Bangladesh. I was there pretty much up until college. In a small place called Chittagong, that's the main port city. And then for high school, my brother and I, we moved to the capital and then from there directly shipped to Pennsylvania for college. So, that was the story there.

Sarah Howorth [00:01:46] Awesome. And where did you go to college?

Yasir Arafat [00:01:48] I did my undergrad at University of Pittsburgh and then did chemical engineering, not nuclear. But nuclear was sort of my... It was a concentration. As a chemical engineer, in the senior year you get to pick which direction you want to go. Pharmaceuticals, food industry or energy. Even in energy, you have different sectors. Petroleum was a big thing there, but I didn't want to necessarily go in that direction. I wanted to move towards something that is not contributing to climate change. And again, especially coming from Bangladesh, that's one of the countries that's most vulnerable to the rising sea levels. And in fact, it's happening now.

Yasir Arafat [00:02:33] As I was growing up, we could see lands being washed away and the footprint is getting smaller. And it's never a debate that the rising sea levels are happening. Some people knew this was related to climate change, others didn't, but that was a fact, right? It was not even a debate. So, I couldn't get my conscience to kind of get to the point where, "Hey, I want to go work for the oil and gas companies." I wanted to work more towards the clean energy sector. And there were the renewables, wind and solar and nuclear. But the physics side of it attracted me the most. in the nuclear area, not as much... And I think the innovation opportunities were as exciting to me, as the solar and wind area, so I kind of went towards the nuclear side. So yeah, that's how it all started, my journey on the path of nuclear.

Sarah Howorth [00:03:27] That's awesome. So, the technical side of nuclear kind of sparked your interest the most.

Yasir Arafat [00:03:31] That's right. That's right. And again, it was kind of interesting that during my junior year, you get to go for an intern fair and pick where you want to do an internship. I printed out one resume and I walked to the Westinghouse desk. And they had their headquarters there in Pittsburgh. I was like, "Hey, I want to work here. This is the only one that I printed off. I'm not trying to like fish around for internship jobs. I know what I want. If if you're in, you can do my interview." And I got picked after a series of technical questions that they ask, which is kind of unusual for intern job interviews. Anyway, that's why I got into the industry as my footing and kind of spent the first 10 years of my career there.

Sarah Howorth [00:04:17] Hey, I mean, that's awesome. You knew exactly what you wanted and you went out and got it.

Yasir Arafat [00:04:21] Yeah, yeah. And I did. It wasn't all nice and smooth. I remember during my senior year, Fukushima happened. So, I did an entire year of internship at Westinghouse, and the following year Fukushima happened. I was like, "Oh, no, what have I done? Did I pick the right direction for my career here?" You have all these people going around and getting all nervous about the whole accident. But after all the scare was kind of settled in, I took a step back and said, "You know what? This might actually be the right decision here. If the industry went through something like this, like a major accident, maybe there are a lot of opportunities to improve it." So ever since then, I sort of made kind of an internal mission to figure out how we can transform the nuclear industry in a way that those types of accidents are not possible. So, that's kind of how the journey started, the beginning for me, and then went from there.

Sarah Howorth [00:05:27] That's awesome. So, you worked through that kind of scare with all of your technical knowledge behind you, which I'm sure was a huge help in rationalizing what really happened. But for someone who doesn't have that technical knowledge or for someone who just started learning about the industry maybe a few days ago, what would you say to them?

Yasir Arafat [00:05:46] Well, I'll take a step back there. Once Fukushima happened, I was going through this emotional roller coaster. I was in my senior year of college. And would I say I knew a lot about nuclear, technically? Probably not. Did I do an entire year of internship? Yes, but I didn't know... It was the beginning of my nuclear journey. I did dig into it and tried to understand what was going on, but at the end of the day, I would be similar to, more on the boat of the general public with some technical information rather than an expert in the industry. But again, I thinking from a notional perspective, I thought, "Hey, if something like this could happen, we can do better."

Sarah Howorth [00:06:29] Yeah, that makes sense. And so, tell me a little bit about your time at Westinghouse. What did you learn there and how did it get you to where you are today?

Yasir Arafat [00:06:37] Yeah, I was very fortunate how my career trajectory went at Westinghouse. I got hired in the R&D, the research and development sector of Westinghouse. And I was there throughout my entire time at Westinghouse in that department. I worked on almost 24, 25 different projects, and they were all very different from one another. So, I got a very nice breath of working through different types of problems.

Sarah Howorth [00:07:08] Yeah, that is nice.

Yasir Arafat [00:07:09] And that's kind of divided into two buckets. One is for existing plants, they were called evolutionary innovation. And then the other bucket was revolutionary, which is like, not done currently, how do you think differently about nuclear? There were two different buckets there. But if you kind of look at all those 24 projects, a few of them were regarding reactor designs. So, there was a time where I was leading the radwaste system in the AP1000. I worked there for a little bit. And then from there, I got recruited into the Westinghouse SMR program, small modular reactor. It was going full-fledged, and then after two years or so, that project got shelved at the time because they wanted to put all their efforts on the AP1000, which was still under development.

Yasir Arafat [00:08:00] And then once the summer got shelved, my colleague and I, we started thinking, "Well, how can somebody just come in and say it's not feasible economically for us as a company and just stop the project and shelve it?" Because there were a lot of good things going on there. It was a smaller version of the AP1000. At that time, I was a purely technical guy. I did not look more into the economics or the business case side of things. So, I started looking and studying more about why do some technologies come to fruition and others don't? So, I started learning more about the product-market fits and working from the problem backwards to the solution, not the other way around. Not like, "Hey, I have this cool technology. Where can I find a place, right?" So, I started learning those as my own understanding on how to go about the innovation process.

Yasir Arafat [00:08:57] In some of the other products that I was doing, initially they failed. It kind of made me understand, "Well, it doesn't matter if you have a cool idea, it might not technically pan out." And then fast forward, there were some other products which were technically very cool, even I have a couple of patents on them, but nobody ever picked it up and put it in a plant or a system in practice. I'm like, "What's the point of that?" So, I started like learning and figuring out and read a lot of books and did a lot of workshops on what did this really mean to find product-market fit?

Yasir Arafat [00:09:32] And we applied a lot of that when we started the eVinci micro reactor program. And again, this was like the 2014, 2015 timeframe. At the time, people didn't even know the term micro reactor. So we said, "Nuclear has to do it better. Let's go figure out..." It is not possible for an energy technology like nuclear to stay confined in just one space. We only have large-scale power plants for the base load generation. That is it. If you look at solar, if you look at wind, if you look at fossil... Fossils, for example, start from our cars all the way to combined cycle gas plants. You've got the entire spectrum that they play in. Same with solar energy, from rooftops to utility scale. I think nuclear was kind of confined. And so, we started asking the question, "Hey, where else can nuclear play a role where currently it's not doing so?"

Yasir Arafat [00:10:30] And so, we spent about a year and a half or so trying to just focus on trying to find the opportunity in the market. We even did a trip up in the Arctic in the remote communities in Canada 20 miles south of the Arctic Circle. I mean, these are remote, remote places where you can't even get there without a plane.

Sarah Howorth [00:10:54] Oh, wow. Okay.

Yasir Arafat [00:10:55] And if we stayed overnight, I could have seen the the aurora borealis. That was a missed opportunity. That was on my bucket list. But anyway, we actually saw and figured out, understood really, how energy is delivered, how they use it, how they rely on it. Like here, if the lights go off, we have an annoying day, for example. Well, not what happened in Texas two years ago. I don't want to undermine that. Hundreds of people died. Energy's super important here. But same thing. Up there, if the energy goes out, their survivability is at risk entirely.

Yasir Arafat [00:11:31] So, the resilience of energy is super important. You basically have the locals running those diesel generators. So, we really learned about what are the key requirements that micro reactors have to do differently that current reactors don't? Like for example, the operator of the diesel plant was our tour guide.

Sarah Howorth [00:11:55] Oh, wow. Okay.

Yasir Arafat [00:11:57] You basically have a system, that essentially, you have to just look at it every couple of hours and not pay a whole lot of attention to it, and you can step away from the system and it will run on its own. It's not reliant on a very highly-trained set of operators that are running this complex machine the way that nuclear is. We have hundreds of people running a nuclear power plant. We can't do the same thing for micro reactors.

Yasir Arafat [00:12:23] So, we started generating requirements like, "Okay, we need no more than two operators the way we do university research reactors." And then, "It has to be walk away safe." And, "We cannot build something here on the ground. We have to transport it pre-built." So, a lot of these features that you see today that define micro reactors are coming from some of our early work when we were trying to define the market at that time. And then, we shared with the rest of the industry what we were trying to do, and then those got picked up by others. And now we kind of, over time, defined... If you go to the Office of Nuclear Energy, DOE has a website on what makes a micro reactor a micro reactor, and they kind of define some of those key criteria like factory fabrication, walk away safety, as well as transportability through standard modes.

Sarah Howorth [00:13:20] Well, going back a little bit to some of what you were talking about, what characteristics of the technology that you were seeing made it able to come to fruition? What were you seeing where you thought, "Oh, this is viable. This can happen."

Yasir Arafat [00:13:39] You mean for the eVinci timeframe? At the time when we looked into all of that, we said, "Okay, well, we need to find a really simple technology that does not have all the complexities of a typical power plant that's water-based." And as we know, water is a great coolant. It's also a moderator, but it also comes with a lot of baggage with it, right? For example, if you try to heat it more than 100 degrees Celsius in atmospheric pressure, it tends to boil. So, you have to have a pressurized system to go to a higher temperature where you can extract useful energy out of it. And then, you have as such, water's a universal solvent. A lot of things dissolve in it. A lot of things can be undissolved from it. So, if you look into all the various systems in a typical power plant, you have about 100 systems that make the reactor vessel kind of happy enough to be able to operate properly.

Yasir Arafat [00:14:41] At that time, Westinghouse was a DPWR company. It was the biggest PWR company in the United States. So we were like, "Oh, can we use light-water reactor technology?" And we determined at the time, probably not the best idea, right? Because yeah, you can make something smaller, but you still have all these various systems which will still give you a plant, not a transportable device.

Sarah Howorth [00:15:02] Right.

Yasir Arafat [00:15:03] So, we started looking into other technologies and we landed into the Los Alamos work that they did on the Kilopower as well as they did a paper study on a transportable heat pipe reactor. They named it Megapower at the time. So, that was kind of intriguing. It had few moving parts and everything was kind of passive, which we liked that a lot. And so, we started talking to Los Alamos and really learned about the capabilities of the technology. And really, it was a pretty cool technology at the time when I looked at it and we thought, "Hey, this actually has the potential to reduce the number of systems, to work passively, to reduce their failure rate and be able to fulfill all the requirements that we actually found." And so, we picked that as our technology choice. We looked at all the other technologies at a little bit higher level, but we thought that would actually meet the requirements the most at the time. Now I have to say, my views have changed slightly since then.

Sarah Howorth [00:16:06] Okay. Noted.

Yasir Arafat [00:16:07] We can get into those. I think most technologies have capabilities to get there except a few. But I'll tell you more that in a few minutes, I suppose.

Yasir Arafat [00:16:18] So anyway, I think at the time it made a lot of sense. It's very difficult to get a really good heat pipe reactor. You have to do a lot of R&D upfront to make sure you do it right. But when you get there, it's a very lucrative technology. So, I give props to our team at the time that evaluated this and said, "This is the direction we want to go.".

Yasir Arafat [00:16:39] And so, we did a heat pipe reactor design at the time. We partnered with Los Alamos National Lab. We strove to pull together a lot of the expertise from other areas of Westinghouse. Essentially, we were like a small startup type of an activity where the majority of the VPs and others did not believe that we could actually do this. And so, we were kind of like a little skunkworks-type of activity. We started pulling resources together. And at some point, we were able to convince... In fact, the first two years, we were asked by our senior leaders at the time to not disclose what we were doing because they thought that there's something brand new and we should keep it hush-hush. And then, we saw another company, a startup company, saying "We're going to build small reactors." We're like, "Hey, you know, what the hell? We should have just talked about it from the very get go." So, that was kind of like the 2014, 2015 timeframe.

Sarah Howorth [00:17:42] Okay. And then, all of that led you to your time now at INL?

Yasir Arafat [00:17:49] Yes. Well, it's kind of interesting. I was kind of leading, from a technical perspective, the eVinci program, and the team was growing at the time. And there was a little transition happening. So typically, what happens and the way it works at Westinghouse, you have R&D programs and innovation projects as they call it. The ones that get to a certain level of maturity, they became a product line. That's kind of like the transition that was happening at the time. And INL kind of reached out to me, "Hey, you fit the profile of something we're trying to establish here for the DOE micro reactor program. We need somebody to help establish the program. Would you be interested?" I was like, "No, no, I'm not. Just go away.".

Yasir Arafat [00:18:33] I just talked to the hiring manager. At the time, it was Jess Gehin, who is the Associate Lab Director right now. And we partnered with INL at the time for various things. So I called, I was like, "Hi, I talked to Jess two days ago." I was curious what INL was up to in the micro reactor space. And I called up Jess, I was like, "Hey, what are you guys up to?" And then Jess was like, "Well, we're trying to formalize the DOE micro reactor program. I think you have a lot of experience that actually would fit to this as one of the early people working on micro reactors. You can help use guide which direction our technology focus should be in some ways." So, I was like, "Okay, well.".

Yasir Arafat [00:19:15] So, backwards... And this a story a lot of people don't know. About six or eight months prior to my transition to INL, I was talking to one of my contacts from the Pentagon in the Army. He gave me information which was like, "Hey, Yasir, it's great that you guys are working on the eVinci micro reactor, but you should make it smaller." I was like, "Okay, interesting. How small?" And he gave me some dimensions of it, which were pretty small. Wanted tens of kilowatts instead of megawatts.

Yasir Arafat [00:19:51] So, I started thinking in the back of my head, "What would that look like?" And at the time, I also knew that Westinghouse would not necessarily have an appetite for another brand new, small, tiny reactor. But I kept at it and let it brew in the back of my head. And so, when INL sort of reached out to me, there were two reasons I transitioned. One was, I was helping one company develop a micro reactor. And because I was one of the earlier people to kind of look into the opportunity of micro reactors, I had my internal mission that it would be super nice to see at least some company make it to market with a micro reactor. And so I thought, "Hey, instead of helping one company, maybe if I go to the national labs, I can have multiple." So I thought, "Maybe I should just do that." That was one reason.

Yasir Arafat [00:20:43] In the back of my mind, that other small reactor was still playing in the back of my head. And so I told Jess, "Hey, Jess, I'll help you establish the program. After that, can I just do whatever I want?" He got all confused. He's like, "I don't know what that means, but sure." Which was kind of nice. It kind of shows the leadership where they just don't want to stifle you in your thought process.

Sarah Howorth [00:21:08] Yeah, that's great.

Yasir Arafat [00:21:09] So, I made the transition. I felt comfortable doing that. And I helped Jess establish the program within a month or so. And then right at the end of 2019, a month after I got hired at INL, I drew up a little sketch of what was brewing in the back of my head. I showed it to Jess. Like, "Hey, can we build this?" He's like, "What am I looking at?" I told him it's a test micro reactor, and I think there's a need for that. At INL, we built 52 reactors in a span of about 25 years, which was fantastic. From the 50s to mid-70s. And if you kind of spread it out, that's an average two reactors a year, which is phenomenal. So I think as a national lab, that role has to be played by a national lab. It can not be done by industry because they don't have all the facilities that national labs do.

Sarah Howorth [00:22:02] Right.

Yasir Arafat [00:22:02] They have infrastructure, they have the people, they have a regulatory body on site, the Idaho Operations Office, they have fabrication capability, all of that. They kind of have the right elements needed to make something like that happen.

Yasir Arafat [00:22:19] So, I pitched it to the lab and I told them, "Hey, we need to get back to that same space of building reactors. That's going to be a great vision for the lab going forward. And the first step of that is building our own test reactor as quickly as possible. Learn from it, share with everybody else, but also gain it for ourselves so we can help for the next demonstration and kind of revamp the capability of doing reactors." That wasn't very hard for me to sell that vision because the lab leadership already had that vision. They were just trying to kind of put it all together. And around that time, when it was the right climax, that's when I pitched the "how to do.".

Yasir Arafat [00:23:02] I told them, "Here's the first step. We're going to build our own test reactor, hopefully funded entirely by one sponsor, not multiple, so we can actually get control over the entire design process." I gave them a whole laundry list of things that we should put in place to make it successful. Like, "Yeah, I'm going to select my own team. We're going to use agile process for hardware. I'm going to modify it for us. We need to have champions in the lab leadership and DOE leadership." All those various things. Things that I learned from my eVinci days and from all the books that I've read. I put them all concisely together into this list of less than 20 items and said, "If we don't agree to one of these items, then we're not going to do it right." And the lab leadership thought it was reasonable and said, "Yeah, go for it." And that's kind of what the recipe was for success in many ways for MARVEL.

Sarah Howorth [00:24:01] Yeah, that's great. So, you got your creative freedom, which was also very technical freedom, which is great. And that came to fruition in the MARVEL Project a little bit.

Yasir Arafat [00:24:11] Yes. I mean, I did have that in Westinghouse as well, but I have never built a reactor from scratch or design from scratch before then. So, it was a lot of learning from there as well. And it's still part of a existing, large company with different dynamics. But if you compare that to the national lab, I think the lab leadership gave me a bit more freedom on the creative, technical side. A bit more. Because we were starting it from scratch, and I was able to learn from my previous experiences and be able to gather and put things upfront that usually took a while for me to learn in the Westinghouse days.

Sarah Howorth [00:24:53] So, the nuclear industry loves its acronyms. Let's break MARVEL down a little bit for people who aren't familiar with it already. What exactly does it mean?

Yasir Arafat [00:25:03] Yeah, it is a good question. I do put a lot of emphasis into how to manage, how to communicate with folks and how to manage branding. For example, before eVinci, we went through a whole naming exercise for a few months.

Sarah Howorth [00:25:24] Oh, wow.

Yasir Arafat [00:25:26] 600 names, and then we boiled down to one name. So, that gave me a lot of experience on what kind of name sticks and what doesn't. So for MARVEL, I actually named it as well, just like the eVinci one. That was one of my... We had a lot of people piling in to the collection of names, and eVinci was coming from my pile. So, I take a little bit of semi-pride on that.

Sarah Howorth [00:25:48] Yeah, you should!

Yasir Arafat [00:25:49] For MARVEL, it's actually not a... It's a different category of names. It's actually an abbreviation. But I wanted to pick a name that actually people can easily remember, regardless of what it's abbreviation is. I can barely remember on a good day. So, it actually stands for Micro Reactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation Project.

Sarah Howorth [00:26:13] Okay, awesome.

Yasir Arafat [00:26:15] M-A-R-V, and then I couldn't get an L, so I just put the E-L for "Evaluation." It worked out okay.

Sarah Howorth [00:26:20] Yeah, yeah.

Yasir Arafat [00:26:21] So, that's what it stands for. And it's not something that is a name of a Greek god or something scary. I wanted to make it something that would be exciting, that people can attach to very well, they're not going to easily forget, and it would be exciting for the industry. Like for example, we have multiple people, sets of tours that we give on various topics at the national lab. And there was a time where we were allowing the public to come in and out. There was a young child that came in for a tour with his parents at the TREAT facility, and I was talking about MARVEL. I was kind of excited to see the level of excitement from the, I think nine or ten year old. He was like, "I really like the name. Is it like Tony Stark's reactor?" And obviously it's not, but I didn't want to crush his excitement. I was like, "Yeah, it's something very much like that. It's a small, compact reactor that can create electricity and power and you can do awesome stuff with it," which is very true.

Sarah Howorth [00:27:24] Yeah, yeah.

Yasir Arafat [00:27:26] So yeah, I think it resonates with people and it sticks. You don't forget about it, and it's not a scary one.

Sarah Howorth [00:27:32] Yeah, that's awesome. A lot of people already really love that name and it evokes a kind of sense of wonder, for sure, like that. So, that's awesome. Let's go into a little more detail about the project itself, where it's at now, and a little bit of its history.

Yasir Arafat [00:27:48] So MARVEL, because we were building a new reactor in quite some time, we're like, "We're going to get the majority of the benefits out of this project as much as possible." So, what are the current challenges? Right now, industry, we are viewed as, "Oh, nuclear is not innovative. They can't get a new technology out," which in some ways is true, but not for the reasons that people think it was. And then, "It's too slow. It takes forever." So we said, "Okay, we're going to change all that. We're going to build a micro reactor as quickly as possible."

Yasir Arafat [00:28:27] So what's quick, right? We started asking ourselves, "Well, if you think about the most innovative technology of the last 20, 30 years that's impacted people's lives the most, what is it?" And actually, it turns out to be our cell phone, right? And we do get an upgrade every two years or so. And that's for an existing technology, right? So, if we are able to actually design a reactor within a two year timeframe, I think that's going to be super phenomenal. Like, it's unheard of, right? Yeah. When we started pitching eVinci at Westinghouse back in the days, we said, "We're going to design this thing in five years." And we were told, "That's crazy."

Sarah Howorth [00:29:06] Yeah.

Yasir Arafat [00:29:07] And we're talking about even crazier, two years, right? And I said, "Well, even if it takes even double the time, we're still transformationally different and faster than everything we've seen so far." So, speed was definitely one of our metrics of performance. Safety is number one, for sure. I mean, you're not going to get a reactor authorized or licensed or be able to start it without proving to the regulator that you are safe, period. So, that's a given. So, I'm not going to talk about that. But speed was definitely the other one. So, we started asking ourselves... I'm kind of going around into your question, but I'll come back it, I promise.

Sarah Howorth [00:29:46] Yeah, no, no. I believe it.

Yasir Arafat [00:29:47] So, we started asking ourselves, "Okay, well, what are the key metrics we should build to actually meet that two year timeline. Or, let's say in the worst case scenario, double of that, like four years? Two to four years, what can we really do?" So the basic thing is, we can't try to make the most, let's call it the shiniest reactor out there. We have to build a reactor using technologies that we can either find off the shelf, components, which have an existing supply chain. Second, things that we cannot buy off the shelf should be easy to fabricate. Those were the two rules that we used from the very start to now for the project.

Yasir Arafat [00:30:32] And so, we started in June of 2020. And right now we are about approaching the third year. We have gone through the final design review last September. We're addressing all the final comments right now. We're already purchasing material to build the reactor. And we have another approval that we're working with DOE on. Once they review that, the document, and give us the approval to actually fabricate, our plan is to start fabrication in the next two to three months. And the idea is we'll fabricate all the components this first fiscal year, majority of it, and then start assembly, perhaps end of this year or beginning of next calendar year. And our fuel will arrive sometime end of next summer or beginning of fall. So, we'll load the fuel in and go critical before next Christmas. So, that's the current goal.

Sarah Howorth [00:31:25] That's awesome. So, what is your ideal vision for how this project turns out and what it's contributing to the really fast development of the industry right now?

Yasir Arafat [00:31:38] So, we knew there were other companies that were developing micro reactor designs, but they were still a couple of years away. And we thought, "If we do it fast enough, we have a test micro reactor on site, and we can do various things." And that's the whole purpose of MARVEL. One is, we wanted to build a test reactor to show how... Not as a materials test reactor, but an application test reactor. So, we can take this reactor, connect it with wind, solar, battery, hydrogen generation storage and be able to see how all of it works together with the nuclear element in the middle of a microgrid. And try to see if we can get to a stable grid where we can use all clean energy, not just renewables, but nuclear as a part of that, and be able to sustain that in the long run? We've done a lot of paper studies to prove that it can, obviously, but that will be the first demonstration to understand the logistics.

Yasir Arafat [00:32:35] So, what that will do is it gives researchers an opportunity to have a test bed to perform all their R&D for the future. Second, a lot of these customers that we're targeting for decentralized generation with micro reactors, whether it be university campuses or data centers or remote areas, these customers have not directly run a nuclear reactor in their backyard. So, it would be great to actually bring those customers, first of a kind customers in many ways, onto the test site and show them, "Hey, this is really what a micro reactor is. Here's how we operate a grid. You need two operators. The majority of the time, they don't need to pay attention and they can play on their phones. And you can eat a sandwich around it or you can walk around it and have a picnic, for example. It is something that is so benign, a university research reactor, that it can reside in your backyard." We can talk about it all day, but until we demonstrate that it's hard to get it convinced to the customers.

Yasir Arafat [00:33:39] So, that's the main goal of MARVEL. For the researchers, for the customers, and a third one, which is my favorite as a technologist, is as we go through this, I want to be able to not keep the learnings in-house. I want to be able to share that with as many industries, as many universities, because a lot of our innovations come from there as well, as much as possible. So, we want to keep the project open-ended so that we can collaborate and share those lessons learned so they don't have to go through those risks themselves and they can reduce the barriers to market. So again, to see at least some company get to market, that's kind of my lifetime mission to see that happening.

Yasir Arafat [00:34:24] So we, every six months or so, we have these webinars and we have like more than 200 people. So, we share along the way what we learned, what we did not learn, what are the challenges we faced, how we overcame them, and kind of shared them whether it's applicable or not. And generally, after those sessions we see a wave of contacts for more information on various topics and reactors. Because if you look at all the various designs, there are a lot of commonalities between all micro reactors. So, there are a lot of things we're learning and we're sharing them openly. That's not the tendency, typically, that we see in industry. They try to keep everything closed doors. So, we're kind of bridging all those learnings across the board.

Sarah Howorth [00:35:07] Yeah. So, let's talk more about this collaboration that you mentioned. We talked a little bit yesterday before the interview about collaboration versus competition in the nuclear landscape. How do you think that this collaboration can really push all of this innovation forward?

Yasir Arafat [00:35:24] Again, as I mentioned yesterday, I personally believe that what I've seen is everyone working behind closed doors and they're not being shared because they want to retain their own IP, intellectual property. Which is a way of doing things, and we've always done things in the past this way. But I firmly believe that the nuclear industry is very unique in the sense that we should compete, but not right now while we're in development. I think we as a community have a lot more to gain by collaborating than keeping everything closed doors and competing with one another at this stage.

Sarah Howorth [00:36:06] Right.

Yasir Arafat [00:36:07] Nuclear is complex, and it generally takes a village to be successful. And I truly believe that companies should start evolving a lot of their thinking. And then we see a lot of partnerships as well. But there are many things that should be talked about out in the open, and currently they don't do that. Of course, they can't do that and talk about everything they're doing, otherwise they'll lose all their IP. But I think I would like to see more open collaboration or more open innovation to be put in place and curb away from the competitive nature. I think that would do the industry way more good.

Yasir Arafat [00:36:43] If you look at the total market... And we talked about it in the MIT CANES Symposium, right? How much nuclear energy does this country need to achieve net zero goals by 2050? And it's something in the order of about 300 gigawatts. And if you think about it, that's 300 gigawatt-sized plants, right? Or, times three. I mean, 900 300 megawatt SMRs. And even smaller, more numerous micro reactors. If you think about it, one particular company, I don't see that they're making 900 SMRs by 2050. I don't see that happening. In fact, if there are 30 companies and all of them are successful, it will be a very difficult task to actually achieve all those 300 gigawatts unless the whole entire country comes together and makes it happen like the way we did back in the 50s and 60s and 70s. We did do this, by the way. We built all our plants in a very short amount of time. It is possible; we have done that before. But I think we need to get there again. But we're not going to get there by a single company or or two companies. I think even if everyone's successful, it's going to be very difficult to actually go through this heavy lift of transforming our energy sector completely.

Sarah Howorth [00:38:08] And do you think the national labs can kind of act as a hub for this collaboration? What makes them so essential to the industry right now?

Yasir Arafat [00:38:17] Absolutely. I think national labs play a very important role in here because, as I mentioned before, they have some capabilities that a lot of the companies, both big and small, don't have. And if you look into the past, I referenced the 52 reactors that INL did. Those were the various reactor tests that collected the data for the current technology, and some for the submarines, that really were essential to lift off the industry to where it is today. I think national labs can play a very similar role to perform various types of reactor tests that can springboard some of those technologies to a higher technology readiness level.

Yasir Arafat [00:39:03] And in fact, if you look at INL's plan, our target is to basically help commercial industry perform more and more of these demonstrations on our site, to be able to provide the workforce, to be able to provide the capabilities, the expertise, and be able to go through first of a kind challenges, and then they can go off and then actually commercialize that technology elsewhere. So for initial demonstrations, I think the national labs play a significant role for the overall industry. And INL, being the lead nuclear lab for the Office of Nuclear Energy, has a significant leadership role in making that happen.

Sarah Howorth [00:39:41] Right. And so, a lot of companies also have go-to-market dates in 2025, 2026, 2027. Where do you personally see us in 2030?

Yasir Arafat [00:39:53] I'm an optimist, so I like to be optimistic about the outlook of nuclear. I feel like there are so many companies that are both funneling in private investment as well as government investment that we ought to be successful by at least some of them. And so by 2030, if things are done correctly and we're able to come up with a product that is not only safe but also attractive from a operations utility perspective as well as economically feasible, I think I can see by 2030 we can have multiple micro reactors deployed or even SMRs deployed. SMRs may take a little longer, but typically I think I see micro reactors being the first waves that would potentially hit the market. Obviously, there are a lot of SMRs in the market that are very mature, like the NuScale design, BWRX-300, and then various other designs out there. But micro reactors, I think you can deploy them a little faster.

Yasir Arafat [00:41:03] If I kind of forecast into the future, my ideal scenario would be that I want to see some micro reactors being built in factories and tens if not hundreds of them being deployed everywhere. That's kind of like my vision for what I see nuclear to pan out to be. And this is what I usually tell people, right? If you look into the world right now, 50% of the population inhabit only 1% of the land. The majority of these places are actually inhabitable, currently. So, what I would like to see is... usually people try to think of nuclear as for developing countries, we can provide electricity, for developed countries, we can provide energy security. But the way I see it, I think nuclear can play a much bigger role than that. I think we can enable uninhabitable places habitable.

Yasir Arafat [00:42:01] Like, for example, the Sahara. If we can provide energy, we can solve some of the water challenges, some of the livable challenges. I think we can make some of these places that are so far away from the grid that it's difficult to live, I think with the power generator that can provide electricity and heat, there's so much more we can do with that and make more places habitable that are currently not occupied by people. So, instead of trying to settle Mars, I think there are a lot of places on this earth where we can make people inhabit.

Sarah Howorth [00:42:35] Yeah, that's very interesting. And aside from micro reactors, what technology are you seeing that you're really intrigued by right now?

Yasir Arafat [00:42:46] Just like most people in the industry, everyone has their different favorite technologies, right? I try not to attach myself to a particular one. And that's advice that I got from one of my early, early mentors. He's like, "Don't get married to your technology. The moment you do that, you get stuck in one place for the rest of your career and you can't see objectively what works in what application and where." And not all technology is best for everything, but you have to kind of evolve along with the demand on how to change.

Yasir Arafat [00:43:19] So right now, where I am, my focus is... I've worked on the light-water reactor sector and the heat pipe reactor technology. And MARVEL is sort of... If you categorize them in the traditional speak, it's a liquid metal thermal reactor. Not a fast reactor, but it's liquid metal cooled, but it's a thermal reactor because we use a fuel form which has the hydrogen in it. So, your coolant can be anything, practically. So, we like liquid metal because it can give you a very, very good power density. So, we're taking all the benefits of the SFR, which is really mainly the coolant because it's such a great coolant out there.

Yasir Arafat [00:44:03] So right now, I'm floating more towards the liquid metal side because if you compare it, if you have a one meter cube volume... If you think about a high-temperature gas cooled reactor, you can extract between four to six megawatts from that cube. So, it's power density is about four to six maximum megawatts per meter cubed. If you take that same cube and look into a PWR, it's about 100, roughly. So, you can get 100 megawatts from that one cube. And if you look into a sodium-based reactor, it's actually 300 to 400. Meaning from that same cube, you can get, three to four times that of a PWR and about 30 or 40 times that of a gas-cooled system.

Yasir Arafat [00:44:57] So, lately I'm a huge fan of liquid metal reactors, personally. And also, if you think about it from a spectrum perspective, I like thermal reactors for small systems. Not for large ones, for the small systems. I like the thermal reactors more than the fast reactors because that actually requires lower enrichment, lower fuel amount, and we can get to better economics, in my opinion, for smaller systems. So, that's where my techie mind is residing at the moment. But obviously, things change all the time. But that's where I'm floating towards. And again, a lot of those, we tried to instill that in the MARVEL reactor. MARVEL is a liquid metal thermal reactor, but it's a very low power system. So, kind of looking into, okay, if you really want to convert that to a higher power system, what are the kind of changes you would make to get there? Again, that's still brewing in the back of my head. We'll see how that pans out.

Sarah Howorth [00:45:54] Yeah. So, you shared some good advice, kind of don't get stuck with one piece of technology. Do you have any other messages for the industry or advice to people who are either working in nuclear or learning about it?

Yasir Arafat [00:46:09] Sure. I think I'll just give a general message here. I think as a species, I think society has never been as dependent on energy as we are today. I mean, think about it. From the beginning of human civilization to now, we're most dependent on energy. I mean, every day, we're dependent on that. If you think about it, a lot of our current challenges in the world, major challenges like climate change, health care, or poverty, they're all related to energy. But if you look into the solution space, a lot of those are also related to energy.

Yasir Arafat [00:46:54] For example, in the developing countries, providing them the right energy, security or availability, and getting them out of energy poverty is an important aspect. For developed countries, I think it's all about the energy security piece. How can we be not reliant on foreign oil and gas or a supply chain that is foreign based? We can move away from that and be able... And again, after the whole invasion of Ukraine, we've seen Europe coming to the epiphany about how important energy security is.

Yasir Arafat [00:47:34] And I think from that perspective, if you think about what technology can really solve some of our biggest challenges and be able to provide the some of the best solutions, like say water purification or desalination or hydrogen production, I think nuclear can play a very, very big role in both the problem solving phase as well as opening up some other opportunities for mankind. And if you look at all the clean energy technology, if you can think about which energy can actually provide 24/7 power anywhere on the globe reliably, regardless of weather conditions and whatnot, the answer is nuclear. And I think if humanity really understands the importance of this technology and gets educated, I think that then we can move in the right direction.

Yasir Arafat [00:48:27] One of my two favorite books... And this is a kind of a suggestion for my authors who are trying to learn about nuclear. There are two good books I would actually recommend. One is The Making of the Atomic Bomb. That's one good book. And the other one is The Power to Save the World. And those two books are interesting. They're very big books, so if you have a lot of time and you want to read some of the content, those are it.

Yasir Arafat [00:48:48] What I like about those two books is the authors, they started their journey as anti-nuclear, but when they started digging into the technology more and more, they understood that it's actually the opposite. So by the end of it, they actually became more pro-nuclear than their initial journey. And I think that gives us an integral message to the public that, in fact... And we see that in a lot of the environmentalists who were anti-nuclear before and they actually have become pro-nuclear now because of the knowledge. So, I think the public is the same thing. If they are curious, if they want to know more about what it actually is and what it isn't, both sides of the coin, I think they'll see that nuclear is actually a fantastic technology to move mankind to this next era of civilization. So, that would be my general message to the listeners here.

Sarah Howorth [00:49:46] Yeah, that's a great note to end on. Go out and get those books and learn some more about it. That's Yasir, everybody. Thank you so much. We were delighted to have you on.

Yasir Arafat [00:49:55] Thanks for having me. It's a pleasure.

Sarah Howorth [00:01:31] Hi, my name is Sarah Howorth, and you're listening to the Titans of Nuclear Podcast. Today, I am here at the MIT CANES Nuclear Symposium, Nuclear Everywhere, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And I'm here with Bret van den Akker, who is the Director of Fuel Cycle Innovation at Ultra Safe Nuclear, lovingly known as USNC. Bret, welcome. It's so nice to have you on.

Bret van den Akker [00:01:57] It's a tremendous pleasure to be on the podcast and I'm really looking forward to our conversation.

Sarah Howorth [00:02:01] Awesome. So, let's start off, like I mentioned, with the kind of classic Titans of Nuclear question, where did you grow up?

Bret van den Akker [00:02:08] I grew up in San Diego, California. My dad was a deputy sheriff there and my mom was a housewife. So, it was a pretty typical middle class upbringing. I have two older brothers. Shout out to John and Eric, wish you guys were here. And my little sister Carrie, so, my family. Father's Jack and Francine, so, hi guys.

Sarah Howorth [00:02:29] That's awesome. And where are you now currently located?

Bret van den Akker [00:02:31] So, right now I'm located in Sevierville, Tennessee, birthplace of Dolly Parton. It's about an hour and a half away from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where we have our pilot fuel manufacturing facility. For your listeners, it's the first privately funded TRISO manufacturing facility in the United States, ever. And Ultra Safe is very, very proud that we are 100% privately-funded company.

Sarah Howorth [00:02:58] That's amazing. And where did you end up going to school?

Bret van den Akker [00:03:01] I did my undergrad in Physics and then I got my masters and Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, all from UC Berkeley.

Sarah Howorth [00:03:08] Okay, awesome. So, California to Tennessee pipeline for you.

Bret van den Akker [00:03:12] Yeah. So, nuclear engineering as a field is a little bit niche. It's a niche application of engineering. And then when you get a Ph.D, you tend to specialize further. So, it's niche within niche. And then, I specialize in the back end of the fuel cycle, radioactive waste management. And so, at that time, really I was looking at either Los Alamos National Laboratory or Oak Ridge. So, New Mexico or Tennessee, was my destination from Berkeley.

Sarah Howorth [00:03:44] Awesome. And so, let's back it up a little bit and kind of talk about how you sparked your interest in nuclear energy and fuel and all of that.

Bret van den Akker [00:03:52] Sure. Coming out of high school, I knew that I'd wanted to do physics. We had an alum that came and gave a week lecture on maglev trains. I thought that was really cool, the applications you could do. And so, I went into physics as an undergrad. I knew that I should probably have a undergraduate research position towards the end of my undergrad tenure, and I got a position. Basically it was an applied plasma physics laboratory, but it was run through the Nuclear Engineering Department. So, I did research there, and then after I graduated from undergrad. And through that connection, I got pulled into the Nuclear Engineering Department.

Bret van den Akker [00:04:40] While I was there, I met a tremendous researcher, Joonhong Ahn, who's no longer with us, unfortunately. He was a great mentor, a tremendous, tremendous scientist, and his area of specialty was the back end of the fuel cycle. I couldn't have asked for a better match from a mentor perspective. And really that is where I began to understand the importance of the back end the fuel cycle. And that's really what drew me into the nuclear industry.

Sarah Howorth [00:05:09] That's awesome. And so, for all of our nuclear undergrads who are listening right now, do you have a piece of advice that really stuck with you through your education into your current career?

Bret van den Akker [00:05:22] Well, I think that everyone is probably going to learn this at some point in their career no matter what they do. But I really can't overstate enough the importance of finding a good mentor and finding a good team to work with. I mean, you really can almost do anything if you have a good group of people around and you have someone, especially if you're doing something new, who's willing to guide you through that process. And I've had throughout the years better and worse mentors and bosses. But man, finding Joonhong Ahn was just a tremendous, tremendous mentor for me. For your listening audience, particularly the undergrads in nuclear engineering, if they can find that strong mentor that would be huge for them, I would say.

Sarah Howorth [00:06:07] That's great advice. And let's dive a little bit deeper into your career background and history before we get to your current work.

Bret van den Akker [00:06:16] Sure. So after after graduating from U.C. Berkeley, I did my postdoc at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and then spent a couple of years there in the used fuel group supporting the DOE as a staff scientist. Supporting the DOE's priorities on the back end of the fuel cycle. So, helping them think through how they're going to manage the commercial spent nuclear fuel. At that time, the Obama administration had just shut down Yucca Mountain. The Blue Ribbon Commission report had come out and not a lot of the recommendations were being followed. I was getting very, very discouraged supporting the federal government. To me as a young career scientist, it didn't look like there was going to be a lot of motion happening there. And so, I pivoted, actually.

Bret van den Akker [00:07:02] My intention was to leave nuclear forever. I pivoted out of nuclear, went into the commercial management consulting. With Boston Consulting Group first, and then on the federal side with Booz Allen Hamilton. And that actually brought me back into nuclear. Booz Allen was looking for a management consultant with a nuclear engineer background who could have a security clearance, and I checked all those boxes.

Bret van den Akker [00:07:27] I don't know who they wrote that job description for. I might have been the only one in the country to have that job description. But that brought me back into nuclear. I was doing cost cutting exercise at Y-12 National Security Complex first, and then the last two years before I joined Ultra Safe, I was working for RPE, which is the DOE's Advanced Research Agency, and helped them stand up the ONWARDS program, which is a $40 million R&D program to support the development of technologies to mitigate the impacts of waste from advanced reactor fuel cycles.

Sarah Howorth [00:08:06] Well, glad that you made your way back to nuclear and could be here with us today to talk a little more about it.

Bret van den Akker [00:08:10] I couldn't be happier to be back. I'm just tremendously excited and fulfilled with what I'm doing at Ultra Safe.

Sarah Howorth [00:08:18] That's great to hear. So, let's talk a little bit more about that. What does your position as Director of Fuel Cycle Innovation entail? What's your role within Ultra Safe?

Bret van den Akker [00:08:28] Sure. I think that it's a little bit of an interesting title that I have given the fact that what I functionally do is to plan for the back end of our fuel cycle. So, my area of responsibility is everything that begins with the defueling of the reactor through the storage and transportation of the used fuel and then the decommissioning of the reactor site and returning that to pre-operational conditions.

Bret van den Akker [00:08:55] I've had people say, "Well, how is that innovative?" To date, throughout all of our commercial nuclear fuel cycles, not one gram of spent commercial fuel has made it underground into a repository. So, if I can help plan and execute on the back end of our fuel cycle, I would consider that tremendously innovative.

Sarah Howorth [00:09:22] Okay. So, this might be a silly question, but if the fuel isn't going underground, where is it going?

Bret van den Akker [00:09:29] Well, let's stick with the current generation of nuclear reactors because nowhere in the world are there commercially deployed advanced reactors. Right now, choose the United States. The fuel is discharged from the reactors, will spend some time in a cooling pool to let the decay heat come down from the short-lived fission products. Then it's discharged from the pool into dry storage casks. And typically, it will sit on the reactor site at roughly 90 sites across the United States waiting for the DOE to fulfill their contractual obligation to pick it up. Unfortunately, the DOE, for circumstances which are outside of their control, is decades behind on their obligation to begin accepting fuel for disposal.

Sarah Howorth [00:10:27] Okay. And for those who haven't kept up to date on recent news from Ultra Safe, what have you all announced lately or been working on that's exciting to everyone involved?

Bret van den Akker [00:10:38] So, for your listeners, Ultra Safe is a micro modular reactor company. Our reactor is a high-temperature gas reactor which uses graphite as its moderators. That's different than your typical light-water reactor today, which uses water for both its coolant and its moderator. We are moving forward at light speed towards our initial deployment of our first MMR in Canada, the Chalk River Canadian Nuclear Laboratory site with a target date of the 2026-2027 window, is what we're shooting for. So that's coming up very, very soon. We also have a partnership, an agreement with the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, to deploy a reactor on campus there as a research reactor in the '27-'28 window.

Bret van den Akker [00:11:36] This was hugely exciting for me to be able to actually be there for the entire evolution of it. But in August of last year, we had our ribbon cutting ceremony at our pilot fuel manufacturing facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. And that's where we're producing our own TRISO particles. And we're producing the pellets, which will fuel our fuel blocks themselves. Again, as I said, it's the only privately-funded TRISO manufacturing facility anywhere in the United States, unlike some of our competitors who have received tremendous amounts of government dollars. We are both privately funded and we are the only company in the United States that is actually producing our own fuel in our own facilities. All other TRISO is being produced in rented space, basically.

Sarah Howorth [00:12:30] Okay. So, that's definitely where the innovation part comes in a little bit.

Bret van den Akker [00:12:34] Well, I think that our CEO would be flabbergasted if I didn't mention our FCM fuel form. That's our fully ceramic, micro-encapsulated fuel. I wish I had brought a mockup of it. But basically there are two kinds of different TRISO fuel cycles. One is a pebble bed where you have graphite balls about the size of a bocce ball or larger that are embedded with TRISO particles. So what they do is you get your TRISO, so you mix it together with pitch and carbon filler, and then you'll hot press it together in order to have your graphite in balls. The reactor we have is a core that is made up of graphite blocks about the height of these tables. They're hexagonal, but you can imagine them as cylinders with the face about the size of a large dinner plate and then about three feet tall.

Bret van den Akker [00:13:39] About 180 of those fuel blocks make up our core. Those few blocks have channels that have been drilled in them that we fill with our pellets. And the pellets look very, very much like your typical uranium oxide pellets used for light-water reactors. Our innovation is that we additively manufacture silicon carbide cups. So, silicon carbide is a very robust ceramic. It's used for tank armor. So, it's very, very strong. We fill those cups then with the TRISO particles that we manufacture, and then also put in silicon carbide micro powder. And then through a process called chemical vapor infiltration, we densify that into a fully dense silicon carbide pellet.

Bret van den Akker [00:14:29] So, that's really novel because we're not using graphite pellets for our fuel form. The silicon carbide is extremely robust. It is very radiation-resistant. And the fact that we don't press it means that we can go to substantially higher fuel loading than you can achieve with a graphite fuel form. So, we can get more fuel into the reactor, which means we can run it at both higher powers and for longer core times.

Sarah Howorth [00:15:03] Okay, awesome. So, how do you see these innovations changing the nuclear landscape as they come to fruition?

Bret van den Akker [00:15:12] The FCM itself, as I said, we use an additive manufacturing process in order to make our cups, but they don't have to be pellets. In fact, we are using this technology to produce fuel for... We have a tech division which does space technology. So, nuclear propulsion, for example, or lunar nuclear modules, which can leverage the additive manufacturing capability that we've developed to produce different shapes of fuel, which are more relevant for those applications. Beyond that, as I said, the FCM being an extremely robust fuel form, it can also serve as a fuel form in light-water reactors. Because of its nature, both the TRISO and the silicon carbide, it's an extremely accident tolerant fuel. And so, it can provide an extra layer of safety for reactor operators that would be looking to leverage that technology.

Sarah Howorth [00:16:15] Okay, great. Yeah, that layer of safety is probably something that a lot of people are looking for as well, especially if they're looking into Ultra Safe.

Bret van den Akker [00:16:26] Absolutely.

Sarah Howorth [00:16:27] So, that definitely makes a lot of sense. I guess within the realm of what you're doing in the realm of nuclear, is this the most exciting project that you've been looking at or working on? What are your other passion projects in the nuclear space?

Bret van den Akker [00:16:44] The other part of my job as the Director of Innovation is to go out and to look for significant opportunities for funding to push forward our technology. I did work through Booz Allen as a federal contractor, ARPA-E. And shout out to everybody at Booz Allen and ARPA-E. They've been doing a tremendous job there at that agency. But ARPA-E is a very, very forward looking organization. They have put out some very, very interesting calls and we've put in, unfortunately, unsuccessful proposals for them. But interacting and putting together those proposal teams, trying to come up with the innovative and compelling ideas for the funding agencies, that has bee also a tremendous part of my job that I've really enjoyed.

Sarah Howorth [00:17:35] Yeah, that must be a really thorough exercise to go through as well and helping everyone involved kind of understand better what your mission and values are.

Bret van den Akker [00:17:45] Yeah, I think so. I don't want to say too much here, but I had the opportunity recently to collaborate with some folks out at Sandia around a cybersecurity effort. Being a micro reactor, one of our initial markets is to replace diesel fuel generation in remote locations. You know, rural communities or industrial sites where the CO2 is being emitted in sensitive areas and they have very high fuel costs.

Bret van den Akker [00:18:24] A significant value proposition, I think for us, and all small modular reactor developers is going to be enabling through cybersecurity efforts and through regulatory oversight the remote monitoring and operations of these facilities. I mean, it's already difficult enough to be trained up as a nuclear reactor operator, but then to have to say, "Well, not only that, but we're going to put you in remote northern Canada," or, "remote northern Alaska," it's going to be very, very challenging from a workforce point of view.

Bret van den Akker [00:19:00] So, if we can relocate those capabilities to urban centers where we can have them in a centralized location through some kind of a secure cyber infrastructure that would be tremendously enabling for both Ultra Safe from a workforce development point of view and for the broader nuclear industry and would tremendously reduce operational costs for these reactors. And I think it's particularly attractive for this next generation of reactors which are passively safe. That's the so-called walk-away safe reactor. And I think that given that layer of inherent safety, enabling remote monitoring operations is a real, real possibility.

Sarah Howorth [00:19:48] That's great. So, for those who maybe don't know, what makes them passively safe like that?

Bret van den Akker [00:19:54] There are a number of features of our reactor which make it passively safe. I think the fear that most people have with nuclear reactors is the meltdown scenario, right? As I said before, our fuel being TRISO and silicon carbide... Silicon carbide can withstand temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees centigrade, which is well below our operating temperature or any temperature that we would reach in an accident scenario. What's tremendous about our reactor is that it has a negative temperature reactivity coefficient, which means that... I'm sure that most your listening audience knows a nuclear reactor is driven by the fission chain reaction. So, a neutron comes in, a uranium-235 atom will split it and that will release more than one additional neutrons, so you have a positive feedback loop.

Bret van den Akker [00:20:45] In our reactor, as the core heats up, the absorption spectrum broadens. And so, what happens is... You can have, basically, three kinds of interactions with the neutron. You can have an absorption event where you'll have a 235 absorb a neutron and become uranium-236. You can have a scattering event where that neutron will bounce off. Or, you can have a fission event, where it splits off. So, the bulk of the reactions shift when the core gets hot from being fission events, neutron fissions, to absorption events. And so, that shuts down the chain reaction and shuts down the reactor itself. So, we could have a complete loss of coolant in the reactor, total ejection of all of our control rods, and the reactor would come down into a safe state.

Sarah Howorth [00:21:47] And then for those who maybe aren't familiar, you talked about the fact that you're developing a micro reactor. What makes that different from a mini reactor or a small modular reactor, which is something we've been talking about at the symposium a little bit?

Bret van den Akker [00:22:02] There are a lot of these terms. I would say that there's no hard and fast rule what makes one versus the other. A small reactor is anything smaller than is currently deployed now. When you're talking about what makes micro or mini, in my mind, I think it would make sense to talk about mobile reactors. These are your very, very small reactors that can fit on the back of a pickup truck. Micro reactor, those are going to be in your single digit of megawatt electric. And so, to give your audience an idea, a large nuclear power plant now will produce about 1,000 megawatts of electricity, and that's enough to power a large city. Our reactors are five megawatts electric, so that's about 200 times smaller than your reactors now. Five megawatts electric is about enough to power 5,000 homes.

Bret van den Akker [00:23:06] We can also produce thermal. We can also do process heat. So, thermal we produce 50 megawatts thermal. And that, the processing could be used for things like cement manufacturing or steel foundries, things of that nature, where typically a lot of heat is required. And one of the benefits of using our reactor as a process heat generator is that the conversion efficiency from the nuclear reaction to the heat is about 80% efficient conversion. With our reactor, like most others, the conversion efficiency to electricity is 30 to 40%. So, you get a significant savings if you can directly tap into that process heat.

Sarah Howorth [00:23:47] So, let's take a bit of a look into the future. Where do you see these micro reactors being deployed? Where would they be best placed?

Bret van den Akker [00:23:56] Everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere. So as I said, our initial markets that we're looking at are communities where they're paying high fuel costs and emitting in sensitive areas. We can also support the defensive infrastructure where they're looking to have grid resiliency and not to be reliant on an external grid network. But honestly, given the ultra safe nature of our reactors, the fact that the way that they're designed and how we're operating them are far away from any of the tolerances of any of the components, you really can deploy them anywhere. And I think that's one of the value propositions that we're showing by our research reactor on UIUC's campus.

Bret van den Akker [00:24:43] Our reactors can be deployed in multiple units, all the way up to about the 200 megawatt area, so enough to support a small city. One of the novel features of our reactor is that we have our gas coolant loop and then we couple that with an intermediary solar salt loop and then use thermal storage tanks to store that heat. That gives us the capacity, unlike so many other reactors... Nuclear is not great at meeting demand variation. It's a little bit difficult to ramp reactors up and down in power. But having that salt storage tank allows us to run our reactor in a steady state mode and then tap into that heat to meet the variability on a grid. Or, for example, to support intermittent renewables like wind and solar.

Bret van den Akker [00:25:34] One of the problems that you can run into with wind and solar as an energy sources is they tend to have to be supported by batteries because it's not always constant. Or, you can bring in one or more micro reactors like the MMR and tie that into the grid and use our reactor to provide that stability against the variation of the wind and solar on the grid. The other benefit I've not mentioned yet is that our flagship design is based on using HALEU uranium, although we can also use LEU+. The HALEU core is designed as a 20 year core. You run that core at 5 megawatts electric or 15 thermal for 20 years before you even have to think about refueling.

Sarah Howorth [00:26:24] Okay. So, as someone who understands a little bit about all of this now, that makes a lot of sense to me. But what would you say to someone who was hesitant to have a reactor like this deployed in their neighborhood?

Bret van den Akker [00:26:38] I think the first thing that I would want to do is to understand the nature of that hesitancy. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding around nuclear. As an industry, and rightfully so, we are held to a very, very high safety standard for operation and for disposal of the fuel. But I think trying to understand what that sensitivity, the nature of that sensitivity, that's really where you have the beginning of those conversations.

Bret van den Akker [00:27:06] So, if it's somebody who's hesitant about nuclear, maybe they saw the Fukushima footage and is saying, "I don't want that happening here. I don't want a meltdown," then the best you can do is try to have an honest conversation and to talk to them about the inherent safety features of our technology. But in the end, you can't force anybody to accept anything. And so, the best you can do is just have that open, honest conversation. Hopefully, you'll be able to demonstrate the value proposition that we have and the ultra safe nature of our technology.

Sarah Howorth [00:27:43] For someone who looks at the name Ultra Safe Nuclear and thinks, "Okay, so this nuclear is ultra safe, but what about all the other nuclear out there?" How would you respond to that?

Bret van den Akker [00:27:59] As I said before, as an industry on both the commercial end... And I'll speak to the United States, that's we're I'm most familiar, but this is broadly true internationally as well. In the regulatory environment and the legal framework which is set up to support the regulatory environment, we are held to extremely high standards. We have tremendously talented and intelligent individuals in the NRC that license these reactors and the DOE, which does the research to support the NRC, who are ensuring that as an industry we are not only able to provide a safe carbon-free energy, but that it's done in a way that is transparent and that is going to protect human health and safety and the environment.

Sarah Howorth [00:28:48] And so you're speaking today at the conference, actually, right after we record this. What will you be speaking about? Can you give the listeners a little sneak peek?

Bret van den Akker [00:29:00] This might be a little bit esoteric. I might come off as a little bit of a geek, too. Recently, I've been reading a lot of stoic philosophy. Marcus Aurelius lived about 2,000 years ago. He was the last so-called "great" Roman emperor. He was also a stoic philosopher. Now, he wrote a book... He would sit down, typically in the mornings, and write to himself meditations. And I'm not going to even try to quote it, but I will give the sentiment of it. The quote's in my slide. But basically, he was talking about dealing with difficult people. But he was just saying that often times, those things which are obstructing your path actually illuminate the path forward.

Bret van den Akker [00:29:55] Speaking from the perspective of someone who's done a lot of work in my professional career on the back end of the fuel cycle and the waste management, in that community, it is often portrayed as a significant burden that we have to meet. That the regulations are written to a safety standard that we have to meet for a million years. And that's codified as part of the regulations. And that's a tremendous challenge. How can you show a safety case for anything over a million years? The whole history of written human civilization is 10,000 or so years, right?

Bret van den Akker [00:30:38] So, I was reading this Marcus Aurelius quote. A million years is 1,000 times 1,000 years. Marcus Aurelius lived 2,000 years ago. And so, I was reflecting on this requirement, this obligation that we have. I started to think, "Is this really a burden on the industry or is it a tremendous benefit?" And I think that we need to start thinking of it as a tremendous benefit. Now, why is that? How could this possibly be a benefit?

Bret van den Akker [00:31:10] As a global society, we are actively moving away from a power cycle which has taken us from horse and buggy to the information age and beyond. That has put us on the moon and has allowed tremendous amounts of the increase in the quality of life across the globe. So, the hydrocarbon power cycle, right? Why are we now moving away from it? It's global warming. Global warming that was driven by a short-sighted view on waste management practices. And so, if we take this obligation seriously and handle it as a nuclear fission industry and really tackle it and solve it... The hydrocarbon power cycle, this is a multi-trillion dollar per year industry that has tremendous benefit. And if we'd done it right from the beginning, we could probably leverage it for another few hundred years, right?

Bret van den Akker [00:32:03] If we do this right as an industry, we will never have to move away from nuclear fission, at least for 1,000 years. So, I think that this is a tremendous benefit that we have as an industry and a real opportunity for us to do it right and to not only replace the hydrocarbon power cycle, but to really put a foundation on which human civilization can take its next step forward.

Sarah Howorth [00:32:32] Right. Yeah, I really like that optimism, and I think that's a great lesson to kind of take forward as so much development and innovation is going on right now. Yeah, that's awesome. So, did we forget to talk about anything today that you wanted to mention? Any more exciting news that's going on or anything else that's on your mind?

Bret van den Akker [00:32:52] No, we could have spent some time talking about the challenges of nuclear waste. But I think that I really had an optimistic message there, and I don't want to get down into the weeds now.

Sarah Howorth [00:33:02] All right, that sounds great. So, I'll go ahead and ask you one last question that I heard recently and really enjoyed the answer to. In this industry, years and years down the line, what would you want your legacy to be that you left behind?

Bret van den Akker [00:33:23] Honestly, it's not so important to me that I have a personal legacy. What I really would like is if I could in some small, or hopefully very large way, push forward the nuclear industry so that it really can be that foundation for the advancement of human civilization, that's is what I want. If I was forced to have a legacy, I would love to be the first person to put a piece of commercially spent fuel underground. If you had to force it on me. But honestly, I am more interested in being an agent for the change to a better, more resilient... to a human civilization where there's an abundance of energy. The abundance and the availability for reliable, resilient and affordable electricity is going to be game changing for the globe. So, that's my rambling answer to your question.

Sarah Howorth [00:34:25] No, no, agreed. And I think that's a great answer and a great way to sort of wrap up the conversation.

Bret van den Akker [00:34:33] Great. Sarah, thank you so much. It was a pleasure.

Sarah Howorth [00:34:34] Thank you. Such a pleasure to have you on.

Bret Kugelmass [00:01:38] So we're here today on Titans of Nuclear with Ken Adelman, who's an author, but also the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Arms Control Director for Ronald Reagan. Ken, welcome to Titans of Nuclear.

Ken Adelman [00:01:49] Well, thank you very much, Bret.

Bret Kugelmass [00:01:51] We'd love to hear about your incredible career. But why don't you start us off at the beginning? Tell us, where were you born?

Ken Adelman [00:01:58] I was born in Chicago, Illinois, at a very early age, let me say, and on the south side of Chicago. And then went to Grinnell College in Iowa, right in the middle of Iowa.

Bret Kugelmass [00:02:11] And do you remember any formative experiences growing up that would have led to the career that you've chosen?

Ken Adelman [00:02:17] Well, after the career that I have chosen... And chosen is making too much of it today; the truth is the career that just happened, the truth. Then I look back at it, and on Tuesday mornings at Bryn Mawr Grammar School, we would have a drill to go down the hall and get on our knees and go in to put our heads in the locker because there was a going to be a Soviet nuclear attack on Bryn Mawr Grammar School.

Ken Adelman [00:02:56] And I remember doing that a few times and then asking Ms. Sinnett, our teacher, "How do we know that the Soviets are going to attack on Tuesday morning at ten o'clock Chicago time?" And she assured me that the principal, Ms. Mulroy, knew about that. And then I asked her, "Well you know, my head is in the locker, but my fanny's still in the hall. So won't that get burned up and destroyed?" She said, "No, as long as your head is in the locker, you're safe." So, that was kind of an early dealing that I had with nuclear weapons, I guess.

Bret Kugelmass [00:03:39] Yeah. It seems like a lot of people had similar experiences around that era. But it is interesting to see you kind of tie it back to what would come later. So, how did things progress throughout college and afterwards?

Ken Adelman [00:03:52] Well, I went to Georgetown for graduate school in foreign service. I was interested in international affairs and foreign service. And then by chance, I needed a government job and joined the Commerce Department and then the Office of Economic Opportunity. And a very young Don Rumsfeld was in charge of the office. 28 year old Dick Cheney was Special Assistant. We had Bill Bradley there. We had Christie Todd Whitman there. We had Frank Carlucci. We had all kinds of wonderful people there. And that was all by chance. From then on, I worked for Rumsfeld three times in my life. We became very good friends with the Cheneys for many, many years and have the friendship now, I'm happy to say.

Bret Kugelmass [00:04:52] But how? How? You're skipping over the details of how you developed expertise in political relationships.

Ken Adelman [00:05:00] Well, I don't know if it was expertise in political relationships, but I did get a master's and a doctorate from Georgetown University. We went over to Africa. And because I was a dependent husband, my wife was in the Foreign Service, I was one of the first dependent husbands in the Foreign Service. And people said, "Oh, well, that must have been humiliating." I said, "No, it was delightful." I was happy to be a dependent husband and I would love to return to being a dependent husband. And it was a glorious time. We had two and a half years in Zaire, made more glorious by the fact that the Ali-Foreman fight was in Zaire at that time. And so I translated... Translated in loose terms... for Muhammad Ali, who was in Kinshasa for the heavyweight fight.

Ken Adelman [00:05:51] And then when I got back, I found out that the people I had worked with before were now in the White House. Don Rumsfeld, was Chief of Staff of the White House. Dick Cheney was number two. And the day we got back, the Cheneys gave us a welcome back lunch in the White House. And it was quite kind of amazing. Soon thereafter, Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense, and he asked me to be his special assistant and help him on all the testimony and speeches he had.

Bret Kugelmass [00:06:26] But so he asked you to be his assistant. How do you... I guess I'm still looking for, like, the meat. I mean, because I'm sure many people want to learn how do you, like, rise to positions of power?

Ken Adelman [00:06:39] Well, that's what I told you, Bret, at the beginning. I don't think there's any great formula, it would seem. And my situation is very fanciful and all by chance. I mean, there's no real intention that, "Oh, I'm going to work for Don Rumsfeld and he's going to be Secretary of Defense someday." I mean, it never happened that way. Or, 28 year old Dick Cheney was going to amount to much of anything.

Bret Kugelmass [00:07:08] Okay, okay. I see. So, maybe I was just missing the timeline. So what you're saying is you developed these relationships with people before they had significant power and then just kept those relationships.

Ken Adelman [00:07:17] Yeah, they weren't even working in foreign affairs. They were working on the war on poverty. And so, it was all a bunch of luck.

Bret Kugelmass [00:07:25] Okay, I see. I see. Okay. Keep taking us then through your career.

Ken Adelman [00:07:29] So then, we lived in Africa. Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense and asked me to do his speeches for him. And I said, "That sounds like fun." It was kind of fun. And so, it was the second time when I was working for Rumsfeld. And then when I was at Georgetown, one of my professors, my favorite professor was Jeane Kirkpatrick. And I really liked her. And then, Ronald Reagan seems like the nominee in 1980. I was asked by Dick Allen, just by chance again, because he read an article that I had written, would I join the advisory committee for candidate Reagan? I said, "I'm not much of a joiner. It doesn't sound like it's very interesting to me." And Jeane Kirkpatrick urged me to do it and not be a pill about it. So I said, "Okay, I'll do it.".

Ken Adelman [00:08:28] And so, then Jeane wanted me to work with her at the U.N. and to be her deputy up there. I explained that I was in Washington with the two girls in school. My wife was working in Washington, and I really didn't care that much about going to New York and joining the U.N. She hired somebody else. And then in the April of that year, which was 1981, she called up out of the blue, said, "Ken, this is Jeane." And I said," Hi, Jeane, how are you?" And she says, "I want you to be my deputy." I said, "Jeane, you asked me that in November. I told you I wasn't very interested. Besides, you've got a deputy. You hired somebody." She says, "Well, I know I hired somebody, but I don't like him and he doesn't like me." And so I said, "Well, that's two problems." And so she said, "Why don't you come up, spend the day, bring Carol with you. And have you ever been to the U.N.?" I said, "No." And she says, "Come up, walk around with me all day. You'll learn about the U.N. And we'll see." I said, "Well, that sounds kind of nice whether I end up there or not. Sounds like kind of fun.".

Ken Adelman [00:09:44] So, we toodle up the next morning, spent the day with her going around the Security Council, the General Assembly, the U.N. building. And that night she gave a dinner with some members of the staff. And after dinner, she sat on the couch and she says, "As Mahalia Jackson once said, is you is or is you ain't?" And I said, "Well, it's all right with me. You have to talk to Carol, here. She'd have to be disrupted in all kinds of professional and personal ways." And so, we talked about it and it was a go. So, I spent two years at the U.N., had a wonderful, wonderful time. And then, Ronald Reagan decided that the existing Arms Control Director that he had hired, Gene Rostow, a very nice man, was not doing the job he wanted him to do, and he asked me to take that job.

Bret Kugelmass [00:10:50] Help me understand how these things work. Like, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., what are the goals for that job?

Ken Adelman [00:10:57] The goals for that job under President Reagan were to represent American interests in a very forthright manner and to take on the third world that was in that time very much aligned with the Soviet Union, at least in many ways we saw it. Take on the Soviet Union, take on the U.N. as being very unfair. And so, we did a lot of what's called rights of reply. So, when someone gave a speech criticizing the United States, we'd pop up and defend ourselves. And as Ronald Reagan described it, when he came up to the U.N. and met with us, it was kind of to take off the sign on our back that said, "Kick me." That's how Reagan thought of it. Before that time, it would have been a lot of the U.N. ganging up on the United States and the United States representative being reluctant to be forceful. And just stand up, clearly, explicitly for American interests.

Bret Kugelmass [00:12:07] Were there like specific goals during your time there that you set out to accomplish?

Ken Adelman [00:12:14] Yes, I was in charge, Jeane put me in charge... Besides her deputy, she put me in charge of the third committee, which was on disarmament and arms control. And what we did up there in terms of the nuclear issue was to really strengthen the Non-proliferation Treaty. This is the one area where the Soviet ambassador and my counterpart, the number two, and I saw eye to eye because we both wanted to strengthen the Non-proliferation Treaty. So, we worked measures up there to do that.

Bret Kugelmass [00:12:54] What were those measures and which countries were the trouble countries?

Ken Adelman [00:13:00] Well, to have resolutions at the United Nations supporting the Non-proliferation Treaty, urging countries to use peaceful means of nuclear power, that's fine, but not to go in and have nuclear weaponry. And at that time, we were fearful of India and Pakistan. Israel was kind of a covert. North Korea, we were fearful of, but there was not any activity at that time that North Korea was getting nuclear weapons. So, all these were countries that we were watching besides like South Africa, now forgotten, was very tempted to get nuclear weapons.

Bret Kugelmass [00:13:49] Didn't they have nuclear weapons and they gave them up?

Ken Adelman [00:13:51] Well, I don't know that, okay? They were certainly down the road to getting nuclear weapons. And that was at the end of the '80s. I don't know if they ever acquired nuclear weapons or not.

Bret Kugelmass [00:14:06] So it says Non-proliferation Treaty, but how does it actually stop countries from getting them if they want to get them?

Ken Adelman [00:14:15] Well, it has no enforcement mechanism. What it says in basic is that there is a legitimate goal for peaceful use of nuclear energy. And we are going to help countries that want to have nuclear power, but that we very much... The Treaty says when you sign here, you are pledging not to have a nuclear weapon, not to build a bomb. Now, some countries have signed and violated that, like North Korea, quite clearly. I think Iran signed. Others didn't sign. India never signed, Israel never signed. So, they never violated it, but they broke the spirit of the international community because the international community wanted a restraint on nuclear weapons.

Ken Adelman [00:15:21] And let me just tell you, Bret, that it's not very well known, but the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, done under President Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, is one of the most successful treaties in the world. Why do I say that? Because in 1962, President Kennedy gave a speech and he predicted that by the 1970s there would be 20 nuclear weapons states. When Kennedy predicted that, there were five, the five major powers at the U.N. When the 1970s happened, there weren't 20 nuclear weapons states, as Kennedy predicted. They were, I think, seven. Okay?

Ken Adelman [00:16:09] Well, one of Parkinson's best laws is the success of a policy is best determined by the dire consequences that do not happen. And this was a case where, compared to the expectations, at least, that President Kennedy had about nuclear proliferation and countries that would get the bomb, this has been a roaring success.

Bret Kugelmass [00:16:38] Now I'm asking maybe not for the policy, but just your perspective. Given everyone you've spoken to and everything that you've been a part of, what's actually stopping there from being more nuclear weapons? Is it just fear that the U.S. will get really mad and like use all of our weight to hurt the country in other ways. Let's say Sweden, they certainly have enough scientists there and have... Like, they know enough that Sweden could become a nuclear power over a weekend if they wanted to. What's stopping, maybe not Sweden because they're just too nice or something, but what's stopping a country like that? What's actually stopping it? Because these pledges, these pieces of papers, these promises, I understand they would look bad if they broke that, but like, what's the real method that we're using to keep that number down to, what, like eight or nine right now?

Ken Adelman [00:17:36] Well, it's a very good question, Bret. I think there are various answers to that. Number one is they don't feel a dire need to do so, okay? Why is that? Because of the nuclear, what we call the nuclear umbrella of the United States, that we have their security. In the case of Sweden, it's going to be reinforced by, I believe, July when they join NATO, formally and feel that within NATO, or at least with Sweden getting a status that's kind of next to NATO, that their security will be protected in some manner.

Bret Kugelmass [00:18:20] Okay. So, it's still security...

Ken Adelman [00:18:24] There are other factors. I think one factor is that their country signed a treaty and if they're going to... If they're a free country, a democracy, then they don't want to be shown as clearly violating, okay? So, then they would withdraw. When they would withdraw from a treaty that they had signed, people would say, "Come on, that's bad form. That really is a bad thing." The alternative would be just to break it, which they could easily do, and being still a member of that treaty. But the advantage of a free country is that they have lots of outside institutions that would investigate and report on it. There's the press, their opposition party, there's the parliament, et cetera.

Bret Kugelmass [00:19:19] Sure, but if it was in their best interest... Yeah, I guess I'm wondering if there are some like... If the U.S. is doing something other than just signing the treaty to make sure that countries don't pursue nuclear programs.

Ken Adelman [00:19:37] A lot of times we have helped them on their peaceful nuclear energy.

Bret Kugelmass [00:19:41] Yeah, exactly. So, that's definitely one.

Ken Adelman [00:19:44] That's right.

Bret Kugelmass [00:19:46] That's a great one, right?

Ken Adelman [00:19:47] That would stop if they were shown to be developing a nuclear device, that's for sure. Secondly, there are various ties that we would have to countries that when they go nuclear, we stop those ties. With India, it was all too temporary, if you ask me, but there's a whole list of conventional weapons and sharing of technology and sharing cultural, etc., that stopped after India became a nuclear power.

Bret Kugelmass [00:20:25] Yeah. Are there countries that you worry about today where it's like our economic and our defense relationships are not probably not strong enough to stop them if they felt it was really in their best interest? Like, Turkey or something. I don't know, I'm just making something up. Or Kazakhstan or something in the Middle East where it's like, yeah, we do some business... Moreso with Turkey, obviously, and they're NATO. Okay, so maybe that's not the best example. Maybe like, Kazakhstan. What do they care if we put economic sanctions on them? If they really thought it was in their best interest... And they have nuclear scientists, I think they've got some former nuclear facilities also. If they were really afraid that, like, Georgia was going to invade them or something and the U.S. wasn't extending our umbrella to them, how would we stop them from developing nuclear weapons?

Ken Adelman [00:21:19] I think the biggest worry today, Bret, would be, first of all, obviously, North Korea having clear nuclear weapons and testing them, et cetera. On the verge of nuclear weapons, I think the main threat would be an unraveling of the existing institutions and presumptions that we have. If the Arab countries were going to see that Israel's policies are far more antagonistic towards its neighbors, toward the Palestinians within occupied Israel, they would really get very fearful that and think that they needed to bolster their own defense more. That would be Saudi Arabia. That would be Egypt.

Bret Kugelmass [00:22:18] Egypt? Yeah, like, why doesn't Egypt have nuclear weapons? Like, we're not particularly nice to them and vice versa.

Ken Adelman [00:22:26] We give them a few billion dollars a year, so.

Bret Kugelmass [00:22:28] Okay, so that's the way we're doing it.

Ken Adelman [00:22:30] We are particularly nice to them.

Bret Kugelmass [00:22:31] I see, I see. I see. We're paying them off, in that case.

Ken Adelman [00:22:34] We're paying them off and we have a defense sharing with them that we give them weapons. We have overall diplomatic relations that are very nice now.

Bret Kugelmass [00:22:49] And is there like a giant chart on a whiteboard somewhere in government where it's like, "Here are the 190 countries. Here's our strategy for each one. Okay, this one, we're going to use mostly economic tools. This one, we're going to use groups like NATO. This one, we're going to use defense relationships. This one, we're going to use threats." Is that like plotted out somewhere?

Ken Adelman [00:23:10] No. What is done is that there is a determination on the non-proliferation and the spread of nuclear weapons as part of the overall relationship with that country. So, we would like to do everything we can to keep the ties with that country so that there isn't more push for getting the bomb.

Bret Kugelmass [00:23:37] Okay, so it's just all the above. It's not like very strategic, like, someone deciding, "This is our Japan strategy. This is our Australia strategy."

Ken Adelman [00:23:45] Yes, but this is our Japan strategy in terms of trade, in terms of defense cooperation. You know, are there any signs that Japan would go nuclear? Because it certainly has the technical capability to do so.

Bret Kugelmass [00:24:01] And they're in a hot spot of the region also.

Ken Adelman [00:24:04] Yeah. And there would be regional. If North Korea steps up it's nuclear arsenal a lot and its threats towards Japan, if the United States steps down on its relationship with Japan, if China steps up on its threats to Japan, then the Japanese would figure, "No one's going to come to our aid. We're going to have to come to our aid." And when that happens, it's very nice to have nuclear weapons.

Bret Kugelmass [00:24:43] Yeah. And what about Taiwan? And what about South Korea? How come they don't have... I mean, to me, I would not trust the U.S. would be there if worst came to worst. Like, I would want my own nuclear weapons if I were either of those countries.

Ken Adelman [00:24:56] Well, I'm very happy, Bret, that you're here interviewing me and not President of South Korea or Taiwan or because they want the defense ties with the United States to continue. We have 20,000... we used to have 20,000, I don't know the number now... Around 20,000 U.S. soldiers in South Korea.

Bret Kugelmass [00:25:20] The South Korea one, I get a little bit more. But if I were them, I'd still want to have the threat directly a pushback against North Korea. Like, you do anything to us we'll wipe you off the face of the earth. Not like, we'll call our big brother and wipe you off the face of the earth.

Ken Adelman [00:25:33] Okay. You would want that, but you would have to... If you proceeded that way, Bret, you'd have to consider that the United States is going to do some things to break the ties that have stayed with us for the last 50 years. And that's a cost that you're going to take. Now, if you're willing to pay that cost, then proceed right ahead.

Bret Kugelmass [00:25:56] You can also call the U.S.'s bluff. Like, would we really end our trade relations? We might pull our troops out, but that would be a good thing anyway, in some ways. Would we really...

Ken Adelman [00:26:05] Not to me, not to me. I think our troops in South Korea are very...

Bret Kugelmass [00:26:11] Yeah, what are our troops there for? They're there for a conventional war, right?

Ken Adelman [00:26:15] They're there for deterrence, yes. And the threat is that conventional war could end up nuclear when you are involved with a nuclear country like North Korea.

Bret Kugelmass [00:26:26] Right. And maybe I don't understand how our troops there prevent that from escalating.

Ken Adelman [00:26:31] Because what you don't want is the start of a conventional war which could then escalate into nuclear weapons.

Bret Kugelmass [00:26:39] I see. So it's just like... Yeah, I mean, that kind of sucks for our troops. They're almost there...

Ken Adelman [00:26:44] Yeah. They're there as a trip wire.

Bret Kugelmass [00:26:46] Yeah, exactly.

Ken Adelman [00:26:47] It sucks for our troops, and you're absolutely right if the trip wire was ever going to be a tripped.

Bret Kugelmass [00:26:53] Okay, that makes sense.

Ken Adelman [00:26:54] But as long as it's a trip wire, your troops are in good shape.

Bret Kugelmass [00:26:58] Yep, that makes a lot of sense, actually. And then what about the Taiwan situation? Talk me through the thinking in Taiwan, because that's the one I think everyone's most worried about right now. Like, if they were attacked... We don't really have troops in Taiwan, right?

Ken Adelman [00:27:11] That's correct. We have billions of dollars of military equipment that we give them. We are the main supplier of military equipment. If they went nuclear, there's a real jeopardy that equipment could be... There are two things that could happen if they went nuclear, Bret. Number one is the United States could either diminish or end its ties to Taiwan. Number two, the Chinese would be provoked to start a war against Taiwan and to reclaim Taiwan.

Bret Kugelmass [00:27:46] Doesn't that go against mutually assured destruction? Why would they start a war...

Ken Adelman [00:27:51] No, because they would have signs that Taiwan was on the verge or in the process of getting nuclear weapons and they would decide "That's it. We have wanted to reunite China for years. We've said that..."

Bret Kugelmass [00:28:08] I see. They'd use the escalation as the excuse for invasion. And then does it go the other way? If Taiwan thinks it's imminent that they're going to get invaded anyway... And like, just knowing U.S. public sentiment. I mean, I don't think the U.S. would support like going in to protect Taiwan even though we're obligated to. I can't imagine the U.S. public actually supporting like putting major U.S. lives at stake if China wanted to reclaim Taiwan.

Ken Adelman [00:28:38] I could.

Bret Kugelmass [00:28:40] The U.S. public? Who? Which voting group?

Ken Adelman [00:28:44] You don't look at the voting group, you look at a crises happening and you say that we just don't want countries, especially totalitarian countries like Russia and China, to be invading their neighbor. Now, I understand that Taiwan is a special case because we've always said there's one China, but two different systems. But over the last 50 years, 70 years, whatever it is, Taiwan has had its own individuality, its own success, its own standing in the world and its own relationship with the United States.

Bret Kugelmass [00:29:19] Totally, totally. I'm just thinking about the voting public.

Ken Adelman [00:29:25] The voting public doesn't like aggressors overseas.

Bret Kugelmass [00:29:29] But with the Ukraine war, it's not like we're sending troops over there, right? Because that would be politically untenable, right?

Ken Adelman [00:29:37] I don't know if that's true.

Bret Kugelmass [00:29:39] And they look like us. It's like, I just can't imagine war breaks out between Taiwan and China and the U.S. public voting for us, our involvement. I just can't imagine that.

Ken Adelman [00:29:52] Okay, well, your imagination is... I understand what your imagination is, but I can imagine it. That a threat against Taiwan would be a threat against the free countries of Asia. It would be aggressive. Japan would certainly see it as a threat against itself. And we have a great, great interest in Japan. South Korea would see it as a threat against itself. And we have a great interest in South Korea. We have a great interest in the prosperity of Taiwan that now makes 90% of our microchips, which we don't want to lose.

Bret Kugelmass [00:30:32] Totally, I know we'd try to stop it. I know it's in our interest. I just can't imagine us sending troops and like putting U.S. lives at stake. But okay, I mean, that's just two different perspectives. Tell me about the Star Wars program. That's always like a classic favorite. What should people know about the Star Wars program?

Ken Adelman [00:30:49] Well, the first thing is that it shouldn't be called Star Wars, okay? But I know what you mean. It's the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative. Next month, it's going to be 40 years since Ronald Reagan made an announcement of it. And basically, it was the whole debate at the Reykjavik Summit in October of 1986 that I recount in the book called Reagan at Reykjavik that is going to be made into a series, a television series with Michael Douglas starring as Ronald Reagan and Christoph Waltz as Mikhail Gorbachev and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Rapace, as Raisa Gorbachev. And Paramount and Sky TV are going to put this on.

Ken Adelman [00:31:49] What SDI did was to change the whole thinking about deterrence of nuclear weapons from Mutually Assured Destruction, which, I destroy you and you destroy me. And we have, as Ronald Reagan envisioned it, two gunslingers with their guns at each others heads, so if you pull the trigger, I'm pulling the trigger, too. He decided that after 40, 50, 60 years of living like that, that wasn't the best way to organize the world, the nuclear issue. We should have protection as well as, or instead of, this provocative approach. And so, he wanted research for protection against incoming ballistic missiles.

Ken Adelman [00:32:43] And I could tell you now, 40 years after the SDI speech, that the research has done very well. That a lot of the threats that are limited from countries like Iran or countries like North Korea would be handled by the Strategic Defense Initiative so that a president would not have the twin alternatives of either launching a retaliatory attack, say, against North Korea and wiping out that country because its leaderships have attacked the United States. Either that approach of wiping out North Korea or doing nothing and saying, "We're awfully sorry that nuclear weapons landed in the United States. We're not going to retaliate, and we're going to bring it up at the U.N.," or something like that.

Bret Kugelmass [00:33:40] So, what is that third?

Ken Adelman [00:33:41] Those two alternatives are terrible. Ronald Reagan wanted a third alternative, which is, "Let's stop the incoming ballistic missile before it lands here."

Bret Kugelmass [00:33:50] Yeah. So, what is the actual way that we stop incoming ICBMs?

Ken Adelman [00:33:56] You launch a rocket that is very fast, very accurate, uses very high-tech detection and re-targeting that hits the incoming ballistic missile either in mid-flight... Well, it's easiest in the original flight, but then in mid-flight or the terminal phase.

Bret Kugelmass [00:34:23] And the controversy behind all this was at first they wanted to do it with lasers or something? What was the issue there?

Ken Adelman [00:34:29] The big controversy was various controversies. Number one, that it upset the strategic framework that was at the heart of nuclear weapons 40 years ago, when Ronald Reagan made the speech. That was Robert McNamara's Mutually Assured Destruction, the MAD doctrine, which was prevailing. This, disruptive. Secondly, the groups of organized scientists in the world, the concerned scientists, atomic scientists and other organizations, said it would never work. SDI will never work. Now, why scientists would say something would never work regardless of the amount of research, regardless of the timeframe, is kind of ridiculous, if you ask me. I always thought it was absolutely insane.

Bret Kugelmass [00:35:27] Yeah, I feel that way too. But I actually didn't realize that they got it working. So, is there like an accuracy? I guess the lasers thing, they maybe stopped that line of approach and now they're just trying to do it missile on missile. Like, a missile's supposed to hit a missile or something.

Ken Adelman [00:35:43] That's right. You have a big ballistic missile or a big warhead and a little rocket goes and smashes it...

Bret Kugelmass [00:35:51] And do we do non-nuclear tests? Like, do we practice launching an ICBM at a silo and then we hit it with a smaller rocket or something?

Ken Adelman [00:35:58] Yes, that has happened over the years. We have a whole agency, the Missile Defense Agency, that conducts those kind of tests. And they've proven in recent years to be very, very effective. Very effective...

Bret Kugelmass [00:36:14] How recent, and how effective?

Ken Adelman [00:36:16] Very effective in a limited nuclear engagement. So, when you're talking about Iran and you're talking about North Korea, you're talking about one, two, three, six nuclear weapons, okay? Against Russia or China, that has a whole large number of nuclear weapons, they would not be effective.

Bret Kugelmass [00:36:38] And how come we don't just scale up whatever we have? So if we have, like, three or four, ten of these missile on missiles, and they cost... Let's say the whole thing cost $100 billion, you know, we just spent $6 trillion in a year on COVID. Why don't we just scale that up and then we've got 400 or 500 ready to go?

Ken Adelman [00:37:00] Well, for various reasons. Number one is people don't like to spend a trillion dollars.

Bret Kugelmass [00:37:08] But that would most go to... I mean like, it would be an injection to the economy, right? It's like mostly U.S. worker that would be...

Ken Adelman [00:37:13] No, it wouldn't be an injection to the economy. It would be money that the government spent for this that they weren't spending for other projects or they shouldn't be spending because the American people can spend the money better than the government. Number two is the more incoming ballistic missiles you have, the more confusing it is to target and to hit the incoming ballistic missiles. In other words, when one or two are coming in, you can see it, you can concentrate on it, you can go get it.

Bret Kugelmass [00:37:45] These aren't people doing it. It's computers doing it. Right?

Ken Adelman [00:37:48] But it's very confusing.

Bret Kugelmass [00:37:51] Interesting. Yeah, I guess I just didn't know that we had this working system up and running.

Ken Adelman [00:37:57] Yes. It's doing very well on limited engagements.

Bret Kugelmass [00:38:02] And when was the last time we did like a physical test? Do they make these things public at all?

Ken Adelman [00:38:07] Yes, they're public. And it's at the websites of the Missile Defense Agency. They'll report on a test. For years, the tests weren't very successful because it's very hard. I have a friend who used to be CEO and Chairman of Lockheed Martin and was involved in the landing on the moon and the moon projects. And he said, "Hitting a bullet with another bullet in space is more difficult than what we did landing a man on the moon."

Bret Kugelmass [00:38:42] Of course, of course. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Ken Adelman [00:38:44] All right. Wasn't "Of course, of course," to me. That surprised me that he said that.

Bret Kugelmass [00:38:49] Well, they landed a man on the moon with like a computer that was dumber than today's toasters, right? But yeah, I guess I am surprised to hear that you're not in favor of scaling up the program. Because if it's useful to have at all, why not make it actually useful for real engagement? Because now it's only really useful, I guess, if like one of only two or three countries we got mad at, but it's not useful to protect us from Russia or China.

Ken Adelman [00:39:21] It's useful for more than that, Bret. It's useful for a country that has limited nuclear weapons. It's useful for a break away of a major nuclear state. So, if there would be a break away from Pakistan or breakaway from Russia or a breakaway from a terrorist situation for the Chinese, they would only get a limited number of weapons. And we could handle something like that.

Bret Kugelmass [00:39:50] I see. I see. I see.

Bret Kugelmass [00:42:27] And do you think it's only a matter of time or do you think the threat is pretty much like we're in a good spot? Like, where we might continue as humanity for the next 200 or 300 years without a nuclear bomb going off?

Ken Adelman [00:42:41] I think it is so far so good and that we have to stay diligent. We have to stay... I think SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative that Ronald Reagan made come about and the research that wonderful scientists have done since that time reinforces the idea that it doesn't have to. The United States and the world does not have to be blown up. That we can have a future that is a future free from nuclear attacks. The fact is, it's amazing, Bret, that since August 6th, 1945, nuclear weapons have never been used in a combat situation. That's pretty amazing.

Bret Kugelmass [00:43:32] Yeah, it is pretty amazing.

Ken Adelman [00:43:33] If on August 7th, anybody told me that, you know, 1945, I would have said, "That's fanciful. That's just pie in the sky. You're just an idealist." But the fact is that has happened.

Bret Kugelmass [00:43:46] Yeah I know, it's absolutely amazing. Yeah, I hope it doesn't happen. And what I really hope is that it doesn't happen at a small scale where it just becomes commonplace. You know, like where they just use something that blows up a city block instead of a city. And then it's like, "Well, now it's on the table." And then, it's like a city block one year, and then it's like 10 city blocks the next year in a different combat situation. And then it just becomes commonplace. I think that would probably be one of the worst...

Ken Adelman [00:44:22] Well, the main threat there, Bret, the more realistic threat is if Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine on a battlefield apparatus. And if Putin is losing the war in a more dramatic way that he is even now, that is a possibility. I don't think it's a likelihood, but it is a possibility and that would be very severe.

Bret Kugelmass [00:44:50] Yeah, what do you think? Can you game plan that out for us? What happens if he decides to do that? What's our response then?

Ken Adelman [00:44:59] If I were running the world, which I'm not, by the way, I would say that the United States and NATO would get very much more involved in winning the Ukraine war, which I hope happens.

Bret Kugelmass [00:45:13] We'd get more involved how? Because it's like...

Ken Adelman [00:45:17] Breaking up the Russian naval fleet in the Black Sea.

Bret Kugelmass [00:45:21] And that wouldn't then just escalate? If he dropped one bomb for normal stuff, if we wiped out his fleet wouldn't he then drop a bigger one and be like, "You better stop it. I'm not messing around."

Ken Adelman [00:45:31] No, if he did that, Russia would be wiped out. And you'd go back to nuclear...

Bret Kugelmass [00:45:36] So, we'd drop nuclear bombs then?

Ken Adelman [00:45:39] Yes.

Bret Kugelmass [00:45:40] Okay. So, you think that's how it plays out? If he drops a bomb...

Ken Adelman [00:45:43] No, if he has a tactical nuclear weapon use on battlefield in Ukraine, I think the response would be a massive NATO conventional retaliation against Russia. Not nuclear, but conventional. And it would do enormous damage to all the troops, Russian troops in Ukraine, to the Baltic Sea...

Bret Kugelmass [00:46:12] And he just sits there and takes it with his tail between his legs because he doesn't want to drop a bigger bomb at that point, you're saying?

Ken Adelman [00:46:19] If he drops a bigger bomb, there's the real threat of wiping out Russia.

Bret Kugelmass [00:46:23] Yeah. Even if it's not against us? Even if it's a bigger bomb just on Kiev?

Ken Adelman [00:46:28] Yes.

Bret Kugelmass [00:46:29] We wipe out Russia in that case?

Ken Adelman [00:46:30] I don't know. We have massive retaliation with conventional weapons which would do an enormous amount of damage.

Bret Kugelmass [00:46:38] Yeah, yeah. Okay, well, I guess this is why everyone was a little worried and why it got so much attention this last year, because we went so long with it almost seeming like nuclear weapons were a thing of the distant past.

Ken Adelman [00:46:53] And we've still gone that way. We're still on that path, Bret. So, don't be real discouraging about that.

Bret Kugelmass [00:47:00] Yeah, I know, I know. It's just like this is now a pretty big war with the country that's got the most nuclear weapons. It seems bad.

Ken Adelman [00:47:09] But year after year, what we've learned is that nuclear weapons have not been used. That the prohibition, the general prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons starting in August, early August of 1945, has helped.

Bret Kugelmass [00:47:27] Yeah. Yeah. So, I guess I am worried that this war is not over yet and there might be certain actions that we take that make him feel like he's backed into a corner. I think that's the worry, right?

Ken Adelman [00:47:43] There's lots of worries. That's lots of worries. I'm not interested in worrying about Putin being backed into a corner. I'm worried about the Ukrainians getting their country back.

Bret Kugelmass [00:47:54] Even at the cost of backing him into a corner and escalating to full-on nuclear...

Ken Adelman [00:48:00] Yes.

Bret Kugelmass [00:48:00] Really?

Ken Adelman [00:48:00] Not the latter part, because I don't believe that would happen. But backing Putin into a corner doesn't bother me at all.

Bret Kugelmass [00:48:08] You don't think that Putin backed into a corner would start using nuclear weapons?

Ken Adelman [00:48:13] Not necessarily, no. Uh uh.

Bret Kugelmass [00:48:16] Why not, though?

Ken Adelman [00:48:18] Well, because the Chinese... One of the few things that the Chinese have said that is clear in this whole engagement is that there would be real consequences for Russia to use nuclear weapons. Russia right now has one major ally, and that's China. And so, you'd be paying attention to that. Number two is the United States and NATO has all kinds of military power that they're not using right now that would be unleashed by the outrage of Putin using nuclear weapons. It's conventional power.

Bret Kugelmass [00:48:55] Yeah.

Ken Adelman [00:48:57] But it's pretty awesome.

Bret Kugelmass [00:49:00] Yeah. Okay, yeah. Well, all right. Well, before we wrap up today, any other kind of just thoughts you want to leave us with from your experience all these years and where you think things are going?

Ken Adelman [00:49:16] The thought, Bret, would be that while over the years there has been enormous worry about nuclear weapons and fear of nuclear weapons, the track record has been better than anybody expected, okay? So, let's celebrate that.

Ken Adelman [00:49:37] On the use of nuclear power for purposes of generation of electricity and other kinds of power, again, the nuclear record has been better than anybody expected. You have the Three Mile Island accident in the United States, which, as I remember, didn't kill anybody. You had the Japanese accident, which was more because of the tsunami there that was fearful, but the nuclear part didn't really kill anybody as I understand. You had Chernobyl, where the nuclear accident did kill people and was devastating. Just a terrible, terrible time. I was in office at that time. But the fact is, A, they had very bad equipment that no one in the world would ever use today. They broke all the procedures, even for that equipment. It was just a screw up from the start to finish. The use of peaceful nuclear power has been quite successful, amazingly, since that time.

Ken Adelman [00:50:51] So, the two things that I would celebrate are the restraint on nuclear weapons use. And even development, I would say, is more restrained than it was. Number two, the tremendous promise that nuclear power has for peaceful purposes.

Bret Kugelmass [00:51:12] Okay, well, those are great notes to end on. Ken Adelman, everybody. Thank you so much.

Ken Adelman [00:51:16] You're welcome. Bye, Bret.

Anton Van Saase [00:00:48] Well, I almost feel obligated to start in Dutch. Welcome.

Marco Visscher [00:00:54] Thank you.

Anton Van Saase [00:00:55] And, yeah, it's interesting. This is your book, this is your book. Is this now in mirror image or not? I don't know. But anyway, I read your book, and I must admit a fascinating read. I was already talking to some of my colleagues. It would be great if it would actually be published in English as well, because there is definitely some interesting stuff in there which I didn't know.

Marco Visscher [00:01:21] Thanks for saying it. And actually, this is something that could turn into reality fairly soon. I hear there's interest from a publisher based in Canada, and I have a couple sample chapters available. I think there's also interest from Poland. Anyone interested, actually, in seeing these sample chapters and seeing if it's something for a publisher anywhere, I mean, that would be fantastic, of course. Because it is never intended to be a Dutch book. So, yeah, glad to hear.

Anton Van Saase [00:01:58] I thought it was an interesting read, especially you going back to, basically, the late 1800s, I guess, which is more than 100 years ago, which is not what most people would think on like, "Okay, this is when all this stuff already started." So, that was an interesting part of it, I thought. And then of course, the whole development going through the ages on ultimately where it ended up right now. So, how did you come about writing this book and on this particular topic? Because I also understand that you did not start out as somebody who was in favor of nuclear energy, if I may say so.

Marco Visscher [00:02:45] Growing up, or as a young adult, I was never interested in nuclear, really. The disaster in Chernobyl happened when I was 10, just before my 10th birthday. And I have no memories at all of news coverage or so. Oddly enough, I do have memories of Maradona beating England at the World Cup that summer. So, it's strange how these things go in memory.

Marco Visscher [00:03:14] But even though I was never interested in nuclear and didn't know much about it, I did have an opinion and I didn't like it at all. When I was a young journalist, I was working for an alternative magazine. And as I was researching my book, I stumbled upon an article I wrote and it was published in the year 2000. And so, there had been climate talks and the nuclear industry was present at that climate summit. And they were presenting nuclear as safe and clean and the solution to climate change. And I wrote about this. I was pretty upset with that, really. I wrote about the worrying return of nuclear. And I was writing that there was overwhelming evidence that nuclear has nothing good to offer to people and nature. My last sentence was, "Now is the time to kill the nuclear industry before it will ruin the planet," or something like that. To me, it was just very obvious that nuclear was not an answer.

Marco Visscher [00:04:31] Back then, I was part of the anti-globalization movement. This was the early 2000s, right? So, this was a movement around Naomi Klein and Adbusters. There was the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in Brazil, where I was. And I think nuclear only entered my thinking thanks to a book that had nothing to do with nuclear or energy or climate. This was a book by Peter Singer, and Peter Singer is a moral philosopher from Australia. He wrote a book, The Animal Liberation in the late 1970s, sparking the movement of vegetarians and vegans.

Marco Visscher [00:05:15] And around, I think, 2010 or so, he wrote a book called The Life You Can Save. And with that book, he sparked a new movement, a movement of effective altruism, which is sort of an evidence-based way of looking at doing good for the world, if you will. He was making a moral call on people to give more of their income to people in poor countries. And when doing so, have a good look at what you donate to and make sure that it has the most benefit to most people. There are organizations sort of calculating all this.

Marco Visscher [00:06:01] That had quite an impact on me, not just in donating to good causes, but also in looking at the world, I guess, looking at policy. But basically, it boils down to the question what works, right? As an environmental journalist, I would ask the question, "So on climate policy, what works?" Basically, a lot of climate policy is still based on the hope that expanding ever more wind and solar and using biomass and turning a blind eye to carbon emissions of biomass, that if we expand wind and solar far enough, then that's climate policy. That's the way to reduce carbon emissions. But if you look at what works, you look at countries where they have relatively low carbon emissions, those are mostly thanks to nuclear and hydro, of course.

Anton Van Saase [00:07:08] I think France is a prime example there. Actually too, I think it's quite interesting. I was talking to an English colleague of mine last week when I was in the Netherlands. And he's like, "Yeah, I was here in The Hague in 1997. There was a protest." And I looked it up and the Kyoto Protocol was actually already in 1997 when all this stuff was going on. Now we're what, 25 years past and you have to ask yourself, "Okay, what changed? What really changed over this 25 year period?" And I think the world has lost a lot of time with decarbonization, with looking into all these issues. You know, everything I think should be part of the solution. And upfront, excluding certain solutions, I think is a mistake.

Anton Van Saase [00:08:00] Now, I think your book kind of like goes in that direction a little bit as well. You know, it's solar; yes, of course, very important and it can play a major role. The same thing with wind. But the Netherlands, of course, has a big advantage when it comes to wind because it is on the North Sea. There's always a lot of wind. Believe me, I grew up there, and I've been there. But then you also have certain countries where that is not the case. And so, what do those countries do? And it's an interesting, complex problem to solve. And excluding certain things, I think, is definitely a bad decision.

Anton Van Saase [00:08:41] So in that respect, I think some of the items you lay out in your book, facts and fiction... I was still living in the Netherlands, for example, when Chernobyl happened. And I'm a little older, I'll have to admit this here on camera. So, I vividly remember a lot of this stuff. And you start digging into it a little bit more deeply, and now even with Fukushima, and I think you indicated that in the book as well, that the facts are not exactly in alliance with the way it's being portrayed in the media and what the facts really are. So, that was actually enlightening to to read.

Anton Van Saase [00:09:23] So, how did you go about the research? What sources did you go after? How did you find all this information? And what is your thinking of why the people who are anti-nuclear have such a relatively loud voice compared to the people who are more neutral and pro?

Marco Visscher [00:09:54] It wasn't only Peter Singer's book that put me on the path of nuclear, because I think around that time I also got familiar with the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank based in the Bay Area, where I used to work actually, and live at the time. Because the magazine I worked for, an independent magazine, we had English language editions and our editorial office was in San Francisco.

Marco Visscher [00:10:22] And at the Breakthrough Institute, I don't think at that time they had coined the term ecomodernism, but by now ecomodernism is a well-established school of thought within environmentalism. The idea being very simple, really. It's allowing for global prosperity and trying to have food production or production of energy on as little land as possible, basically, so we can create some more space for nature to thrive.

Marco Visscher [00:10:59] In the beginning, well, there wasn't much about nuclear, actually, at that time. I think that only came later on. But I was really inspired by by ecomodernism. And in the Netherlands, I coauthored a book on ecomodernism. I did not write the chapter on nuclear energy then. This was in 2017 or so. And in 2018 I wrote a book called The Energy Transition. And in that book, I had a closer look at renewables and where are we with climate policy. And in that book, I was trying to make sense of the debate because it was hotly debated back then. And so I was, in my book, trying to explain what do people mean when they say "It's very cheap," or, "It's very expensive? Or, what do they mean when they say, "It's totally doable," or, "It can be done with just wind and solar." So, I was sort of giving information. The readers could make up their own mind only all the way at the end.

Marco Visscher [00:12:04] In the afterword, I sort of wrote where my thinking was. And my thinking was that wind and solar well, it's not enough, and we need something else, something bigger. And that's where I am still very hesitant. I think I wrote something like, "Maybe it's time for us to reconsider nuclear." I think I even added, "It's not a magic bullet." I would say there are still many concerns about safety. And I remember my publisher wanting me to write more about nuclear, but I was not at all ready then. But can you imagine? I was already familiar with ecomodernism for, well, the better half of a decade, but I was still not so much prepared to look at nuclear as more than a necessary evil.

Marco Visscher [00:13:04] It's like, okay, nuclear is not great, but we probably need it, so let's accept it. I was not very positive at all. And I think that really changed when my book came out. And just the week following that book, the leader of the Liberal Party in the Netherlands in government was saying, "We might need nuclear after all." And then I thought, "Okay, well, now I really have to look into it." And then it's not really that difficult. I mean, look at all the pro-nuclear advocates. It's fairly simple, right? It's the lowest carbon emissions of all energy sources along with wind, of course. Very few resources needed and minerals. A long lifetime for nuclear power plants. The safety record is much better than many assume. So, it's fairly simple, but I think it was when I read the book The Rise of Nuclear Fear by Spencer Weart. I think that book really got me hooked. I think you guys have interviewed Spencer Weart.

Anton Van Saase [00:14:25] Yeah, I would have to check. Bret has done a lot of episodes.

Marco Visscher [00:14:31] It's a fantastic book. It's like a cultural history of nuclear. Writing about how nuclear or radiation was perceived in pop culture, in Hollywood movies, et cetera. And that really made me realize that we need to look into nuclear fear and the suspicion that many people have when it comes to nuclear. Whether it's the waste or accidents or just radiation, there are so many concerns. And there are many pro-nuclear folks who say it's irrational. But actually, is it irrational? So much has been written and we've seen so many movies that it kind of makes sense for many people to be scared of nuclear.

Anton Van Saase [00:15:24] I always find it interesting, especially to people who are against nuclear, always the first thing that comes up is the waste. Well, any form of of generating electricity has a certain level of waste. You can argue maybe hydro has hardly any but, you know, you build a dam, something is going to get ruined because you suddenly build a lake for water. And there are plenty of examples where villages disappeared, et cetera. I think in China, you have a lot of issues with some of the dams there. So, there are some issues there.

Anton Van Saase [00:15:59] If you burn gas or coal or anything else, well, you just have a chimney and it just disappears into the atmosphere and nobody sees it. And therefore, you get almost the feeling people just ignore it. While if you have nuclear waste, it's a relatively small amount, but you can see it. It's not something which just disappears in the air. And if you've got solar panels, well, after 15 or 20 years when they don't work anymore, they go into either a landfill or something has to happen with them. The same thing with windmills. So there is ultimately, no matter how you look at it, any way of forming or creating energy is going to create some waste. And it's just, I think with nuclear, it's actually very well managed in that it's just not being thrown away. It's actually being stored. You know exactly where it is. And therefore, you can almost argue it's less polluting than some of the other forms.

Anton Van Saase [00:17:01] But then again, that is obviously my view. A lot of people look at it from a different point of view. But there are a number of these elements where, almost, if you are in favor, maybe you're looking at very positive and if you're against it, then you come up with whatever argument you can find to say, "Okay, this is bad because." But I think in your book, it clearly identifies well with what are the facts and what is the fiction, right?

Marco Visscher [00:17:32] Yeah. And it's a bit selective. The concerns about nuclear energy are a bit selective. There are so many sources of industrial waste that should raise many more concerns, but still, the focus will be on nuclear waste, as if we don't have the perfect way to deal with this waste. Probably better maintained. And how do you say it? It has never harmed anyone or the natural environment because we keep it out of the environment. And this is probably not the case for the chemical industry, for instance, or obviously not other energy sources where a lot of pollution is just spewed into the atmosphere, of course. There is some selectiveness around nuclear.

Anton Van Saase [00:18:28] So, another question here. After you wrote this book, did you get any reaction from old friends, colleagues, et cetera? Because as you mentioned earlier, you came out of an environment where nuclear was not looked upon very favorably. I assume those people are still friends, colleagues, et cetera. What kind of responses did you get after you wrote this book?

Marco Visscher [00:18:57] Pretty friendly and good responses, I should say. Now, it's interesting. I mean, some of my friends aren't interested in or weren't interested in nuclear, and I may have sparked some enthusiasm over the past years, of course, as I was researching this book. I'm thinking now of a friend of mine who doesn't like nuclear and will never like nuclear. I think he represents a small portion of our society of people whose opinions you won't change from nuclear. We've kind of left the topic. We just don't talk about nuclear anymore. And that totally fine. I mean, he's a great guy and very knowledgeable in all sorts of ways. And let me also add, while I think he's being irrational, when we were discussing nuclear, I might be irrational on other topics. I find myself very rational when I think of nuclear. That's what we all think of ourselves, right? So, even the smartest person can be sort of vulnerable for, I guess, being blinded somewhat and just refusing to have an open mind when it comes to nuclear.

Marco Visscher [00:20:34] But overall responses have been great and reviews as well. I must say, I've been pretty blessed with the attention the book has been getting so far. So, that's great. I think this book is probably different from any other pro-nuclear books because there's so much story telling in here, right?

Anton Van Saase [00:20:57] Well, I thought it was interesting, as I mentioned earlier, the book actually goes back all the way to the late 1800s and how things developed and how we ultimately ended up where we are right now. So, it puts a number of things into, actually, I thought, a very interesting context.

Marco Visscher [00:21:19] My first chapter starts with the atomic bomb, which is probably not... Well, it's not the most likely beginning of a book that is pro-nuclear, ultimately. But thanks to Spencer Weart's book, The Rise of Nuclear Fear, I realized I needed to learn more about the atomic bomb because I didn't know much about it. Spencer Weart makes a very convincing case. What is the term he uses? Psychologists call it displacement. Nuclear war was such a frightening idea back in the 1950s and '60s, for instance, that it was too frightening to even consider and think about. So what we did when nuclear reactors were built, is that we sort of moved our concerns about nuclear warfare onto nuclear reactors and nuclear waste because it was easier to think about that and to protest against nuclear power plants rather than nuclear weapons.

Marco Visscher [00:22:27] So I read another fantastic book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. It was like 800, 900 pages or so. And it's such a fantastic book. And I realized the importance of storytelling and introducing characters and places. So in my book, I'm taking readers into the pilot seats of the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But also to the deathbed of Leonid Toptunov, who was 25 when he was working at the reactor in Chernobyl. And he caused it to explode by following the orders of his grumpy superiors.

Anton Van Saase [00:23:13] Yes, yes.

Marco Visscher [00:23:14] And I'm writing about this place in Finland where highly radioactive waste will be enclosed. And so yeah, all this storytelling, it's fantastic to be able to write in a vivid, lively manner about this and not just focus so much on data and statistics and graphs. They will surely convince some people. I think they've convinced me, for instance. But I think if you take the concerns and the suspicion in our society, if you take it seriously, I think it helps to take readers on a journey, basically, and let them see where their concerns are coming from. And even for pro-nuclear folks, I think it kind of makes sense to be more interested in where these deep-rooted emotions are coming from, their own emotions as well, by the way. Because we've always dreamed of this eternal source of clean energy that can power the whole world, right?

Anton Van Saase [00:24:30] I was in the Netherlands last week just for a number of reasons. And there's a lot of talk shows, obviously, on the TV in the Netherlands. Have you gotten any invitations to talk about any of this? Are you expecting something? Do you think this is not really on people's mind? The government, at this point in time, is rolling out potentially building a number of nuclear power plants in the Netherlands.

Marco Visscher [00:24:57] There's been some. Mostly radio and podcast, not on TV. I guess I'm not in the Rolodex for journalists working for TV. But yeah, in the Netherlands, the Dutch government has decided to prepare the construction of two new nuclear power plants. And that's quite a breakthrough, really. If you consider that our neighboring countries, we have two neighboring countries, Germany and Belgium, and they both want to close down their nuclear fleet. And then there's us, the Dutch. We only have one nuclear power plant. It's from the early 1970s. It's a small one. I guess you could consider it small.

Anton Van Saase [00:25:47] Relatively small, yes.

Marco Visscher [00:25:48] Yeah, yeah, exactly. And now we're suddenly having these plants to roll out nuclear more. That was, well in a way surprising, because for a very, very long time nuclear was just not on the table here in the Netherlands. It's less surprising if you consider that a majority of people in the Netherlands are in favor of nuclear. Actually, I've seen opinion polls around Europe showing this over and over again. A majority of people support nuclear. It's a small, small part that opposes it. It's a small part that's very much in favor of nuclear. And there's a large part in between where people think, "Yeah, it's probably a good idea. Let's do this." And there's a smaller part saying, "I am not so sure. It's probably not a good idea." But those people in the middle, ultimately, they're the most interesting people to be talking to, right?

Marco Visscher [00:26:56] I'm not on Twitter, but there's so much talk between the antis and the pros. I think it's kind of pointless. I think as a pro-nuclear community, we should be speaking to the people in the middle. Because in Parliament as well, we have a majority of parliamentary seats in favor of nuclear. But I sometimes worry that support is kind of feeble. It's not that many political parties are banging on about nuclear being great. The pro-nuclear community in the Netherlands may already consider their work done. "Oh, we're going to build nuclear power plants. That's fantastic. Our job is done." But I think we can expect quite some protests still, and politics may actually change their minds.

Anton Van Saase [00:27:53] I have no particular issue if somebody wants to be against nuclear, but then the question also needs to be, "Well, what's your plan? How do you think that you want to do it?" And don't tell me, "Oh, we're going to build a battery with a windmill and a solar panel," because that is not realistic. Yes, it has its place, but like I said, I was in Netherlands last week. Monday, Tuesday, hardly any wind, fairly cloudy. I'm like, "I don't think there's going to be a lot of power generation at this point in time from windmills or solar panels." And then it has to come from somewhere, right? And I think if you see what's going on in Germany or in Belgium, I am still absolutely amazed that a green party is actually increasing their burning of coal and brown coal or something in order to generate electricity. That they can get away with that and think that is okay, to me, is absolutely amazing.

Marco Visscher [00:29:01] You're very right. And I just wanted to say that I heard you talk about wind and solar now a couple of times criticizing wind and solar. I see that a lot within the pro-nuclear community. And while I think I understand it, I think we should be well aware that the real fight is not against these renewables, it is against fossil fuels.

Anton Van Saase [00:29:23] I was not criticizing it, I absolutely believe it has a place. But to think that it's going to work for a hundred percent of the time, that is, I think, where the problem is. And if somebody can give me a solution, a realistic solution, which would make that all work, then yeah, okay, go for it. But I don't think that is there. The whole electricity production and how it's being used, et cetera, is still for a lot of people, probably a little bit of a mystery on how it all works and how you can make it all... Because it's basically supply and demand that need to be instantly set against each other. And that is not the way it works with gas or even if you've got water coming out your tap or a lot of other stuff, which is like you can put it in storage or in a water tower or whatever, and you get it when you need it. Well, electricity is a little bit more complicated. And that's where I think the the challenge is. And however we get there, it's fine.

Anton Van Saase [00:30:33] Again as I mentioned, I think all these elements have their place. And the Netherlands is blessed with being close to the North Sea, so they have a lot of space where they can put windmills in the North Sea. Great spot, great way of doing it. But not every country has that opportunity. And then it becomes a little bit more tricky on how they're going to do it. And of course also, in the Netherlands, at 7:30 in the morning or 7:00 in the morning in the winter, there's not going to be a lot of sunlight either. So, there have to be some some solutions.

Anton Van Saase [00:31:06] And maybe hydrogen is, and there's, of course, a lot of talk about hydrogen in the Netherlands. And I think hydrogen probably will have its place as well, but you still need to generate hydrogen. And then the whole discussion goes back to, "Okay, we need electricity." And how are you going to do all that? So, it's a complex story, and I think everything has to be part of the mix. And then I go back to what I said earlier. I think we should not exclude any of the solutions at this point in time, but should look at it from a realistic point of view and say, "Okay, can we use it? What are the benefits? What are the risks? And how are we going to go about it?" That's ultimately the way this works.

Anton Van Saase [00:31:48] So, what do you think of the way Belgium and Germany and some of the other countries are looking at that versus some of the other countries? What do you think is behind it or what is the cause of some of the total pro or total against? It always seems to be very hard to have like a neutral stance on it for whatever reason.

Marco Visscher [00:32:13] Yeah, it's a real shame that Germany and Belgium are closing down nuclear power plants. I guess you have to come from those countries in order to really understand it. What I see a lot when it comes to Germany is that people will say, "Oh, in Germany there is this whole tradition of naturalness and of Rudolf Steiner and his Waldorf schools and these philosophies." I guess that's true to some extent, but there's a whole other part of German culture that is very much a technology culture. There's heavy industry in Germany. It's been there for a long, long time. Artificial fertilizer is coming from Germany, you know? You would think Germans are proud of that part of their culture as well. But still, it seems like maybe the naturalness is sort of taking over.

Marco Visscher [00:33:14] Well, there is some contradiction within the German culture here, I think. And in Belgium, I don't know. I mean, this is a country where just two nuclear power plants, one with three reactors, the other with four, has been able to keep out fossil fuels for many, many decades. But now that they're finally closing them after a decision made 20 years ago or so, they're making plans to open new natural gas plants. I mean, this is crazy.

Anton Van Saase [00:33:53] By a green party. I think that kind of like the funny part. Funny part of it, almost like a sad part of it. I don't know how they explain that to their voters if you a green party and you to protect the environment. So, I guess the way that they look at that is different than maybe...

Marco Visscher [00:34:15] Well, what they say is, "Oh, these natural gas plants are only temporary." But you know, everything in life is temporary, right? Once you have them, how difficult will it be to get rid of them?

Anton Van Saase [00:34:29] It's probably not going to be easy. That's probably not going to be easy. So yeah, it's interesting. Of course, the discussion is now going on as well within the European Union about hydrogen production, whether hydro production is green or not. The Germans take the position if it's produced using power from a nuclear power plant it's not green. The French are obviously saying it's green electricity, so therefore if you use electricity from a nuclear power plant to make hydrogen, it's green hydrogen. To me, it's a bizarre debate, an absolutely bizarre debate. But I guess there is a philosophical background on all that.

Marco Visscher [00:35:07] Yeah, yeah. Well, I sometimes think it'll be inevitable that nuclear power will be on the rise again. If you look at the world, there is so much need for energy in poor and upcoming countries. I'm thinking of Asian and African countries, and it will be better for them to skip fossil fuels whenever they can. But then again, wind and solar will increase as well. Maybe hydro power as well. There's still quite some potential in Africa for big hydro contracts. Natural gas will increase as well. And I don't think... Well, it's very unlikely that coal will increase as well. There is just so much need for energy. So yes, nuclear will grow. But will grow enough to keep up with the growing demand? And I think we need to step up dramatically here.

Anton Van Saase [00:36:05] So, what is your view about the regulatory environment? Because you mentioned it in your book a little bit as well where I thought it was an interesting read about the fruit flies and how we got to ALARA. If you compare, for example, some of the regulatory requirements and environment around nuclear compared to other forms of industry, you mentioned earlier chemical, you've got, of course, coal, gas, et cetera, it seems to be almost out of balance. How do you feel about those kinds of thing or where do you see that go when it comes to is that realistic? Is the regulatory environment, do you think it has gone too far? Or do you say no, it needs to be where it needs to be?

Marco Visscher [00:37:03] Nuclear power has such a great track record of safety, but still, the whole industry is focused on being safer all the time, all the time. There's such a safety culture, and I think that has gone too far. Actually, Bret Kugelmass inspired me very much with his talk that I watched on YouTube. I think it's A Revisionist History of Nuclear, or so. I forget the title of the talk, but he is making a crucial point here that the nuclear industry is just making more money for selling safety updates for existing reactors than for building new ones. Basically, their whole business is around safety. If you would go to a website of any business in nuclear power, you will see safety. It's everywhere. It's everywhere. In my book, I think I write somewhere that with such an industry, you hardly need an anti movement, right? Because their language is sometimes even the same. It's ridiculous.

Marco Visscher [00:38:20] I'm very critical of the nuclear industry. I think my opponents really hate that because I don't have any involvement in the nuclear industry. And I'm a green one; I'm a progressive leaning guy. And I'm not even paid by the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry is also so poor at communication. I mean, how they communicate about their... It's a marvelous technology, but still it's just insane to see how they screw up.

Anton Van Saase [00:38:55] And in all honesty, actually, if you look at the process, it's actually relatively simple. I sometimes feel like, also, a lot of the nuclear plants were built in the in the '60s and early '70s. Computer technology in those days was rudimentary at best compared to what it is right now. That's why you always see these control rooms of a nuclear power plant and you're looking at all the older analog systems, et cetera. Nowadays, there's probably more computing power in your cell phone compared to a complete control room there. So, the technology has advanced so much and it seems to be... People who are against nuclear, they completely ignore that element as well.

Anton Van Saase [00:39:43] Because the technology itself is relatively simple. Nowadays, the computer powers, the models, the computer models and how they can simulate what's happening and how to control it, et cetera, is so advanced. They know exactly what's going on compared to the '50s and '60s where, sometimes like, "Oh you know, I'm not so sure." And Harrisburg, of course, is a prime example. When I spoke to one of the design engineers years ago who was actually involved in building the Three Mile Island facilities, they're telling me, at that in those days, having an IO, basically a control input, was a million dollars in your computer system, so they were trying to minimize them. Nowadays, it's what, ten cents to put something in?

Anton Van Saase [00:40:34] So, the level of control on these facilities is enormously increased. And people who are worried about safety, I sometimes feel like they are completely ignoring the technological advance which has been made over the years. But again, obviously, I'm not against nuclear. I think it's a marvelous technology which should definitely be used and not ignored. And it should be valued on its merits and not on myth, on perception.

Marco Visscher [00:41:09] It's funny to hear you say that nuclear technology is so simple. I mean, it is so complicated at the same time, I guess. And to many people it feels so unnatural. It's probably so different from any other way of producing energy we've known from the past. And the technology, it may be strange to say, but technology doesn't interest me so much. I'm not the kind of guy whom you would want to... I'm not going to drive a nuclear reactor or so. That's not my background; it's not where my interest is. My interest is in the social story, the cultural history.

Marco Visscher [00:41:53] There are so many aspects of nuclear energy that I find so much more fascinating than the technology, which may be why I'm... Well, you may have noticed this, Anton, in my book. I'm somewhat skeptical of all this innovation going on. Not in the sense that I am against innovation, but I just think that all this talk about innovation, and especially the talk within the small pro-nuclear community discussing what is the best accident tolerant fuel or which moderator to use, et cetera, I think it gives a message to a broader audience thinking, "Oh gosh, there must be something seriously wrong with our current nuclear reactors that these folks are discussing all these things that probably need improvement. Because why would they otherwise talk about this?"

Anton Van Saase [00:42:48] That was actually a very interesting element in your book, the way the industry deals with it, kind of like messaging that what we currently have is not safe. France has been running these plants forever, and there's never been anything serious going on there. And they've got a lot of them. Same thing in the United States other than Three Mile Island. At a time, there were more than 100 nuclear power plants producing a lot of power.

Anton Van Saase [00:43:18] I think sometimes the industry decided to... And that goes back to what Bret said as well. You reinvent the wheel. You come up with a new technology because we have to do research again. We have to come up with all kinds of... Ultimately, it's a proposition to make money by developing a new technology. You get subsidies from governments, et cetera. And in the end, the existing technology was actually simple and perfectly fine.

Marco Visscher [00:43:50] Or just look at how the nuclear industry deals with the nuclear waste. They're not saying, "Oh, we have this fantastic source of energy still sitting here on our site. And we can repurpose this in our reactors." No, they bury it underground, like 500 meters deep or so, and they stuff it with all things, you know, clay and whatever. How do you ever convince people that nuclear waste is not really dangerous if you bury it 500 meters deep? That's like a burial, what we're doing here.

Anton Van Saase [00:44:28] Yeah. And ultimately I think the reprocessing, because there's so much energy still left in the material, reprocessing is, ultimately, in my mind, something we should be doing. Of course, there are some concerns there about proliferation, et cetera, but I think those fears nowadays should be a lot less than they were like 20 or 30 years ago. But a lot of these decisions are also political. And that's where it becomes, of course, interesting where you've got this interaction between the technology and the people who are looking at it from a pure technical point of view and people who are looking at it more from a social-economical point of view. You've got very interesting viewpoints, and depending on where you are and how you look at it, having a different view on this. It's quite interesting.

Anton Van Saase [00:45:23] I think you have a nice balance of that in your book as well where you have, on one hand, some of the technical background to people who came up with the technology versus how it's being perceived by the population. And I still think, growing up in the Netherlands myself, you had the United States on one side, you had Russia on the other side. So, I think most of the Europeans always felt like, "Okay, if there's ever going to be a nuclear war, it's going to be happening here." That's an element, you of course, can not completely...

Marco Visscher [00:45:58] I do think these historical elements are essential to understanding our emotions. Like, radioactivity was discovered when doctors didn't even wash their hands. The atomic bomb was dropped in a war in which the army in Poland was trying to fight off the Germans on horseback wielding bayonets. The first nuclear reactors in the 1950s, they were heavily promoted by governments producing nuclear weapons. But they were built in a time when there was no color TV. And this is just to say that nuclear power was always sort of ahead of society, and perhaps we were never ready for something so different, so revolutionary. And that may be why we still don't really understand nuclear powers so well.

Marco Visscher [00:46:58] It's funny, you've probably heard this, right? That nuclear power comes too late. Well maybe, the problem is not that it comes too late, the problem may be that nuclear power came too early.

Anton Van Saase [00:47:13] Yes. I thought that was an interesting proposition you had in the book. And I actually kind of agreed with that. It was ahead of its time where people... The association with nuclear bombs, because that was the manifestation. And then you see the things they did in the '60s, that association is very hard to get rid of. It's just the way it is, so.

Anton Van Saase [00:47:38] Anyway, I think our time is actually coming to an end here. But I really want to thank you for this conversation. As I mentioned, I read your book with a lot of interest. I actually read it in one go, believe it or not. It was a good read. It definitely kept my attention, and I can definitely recommend it to people who have a chance. And I'll look forward that there is actually going to be an English version because then my colleagues here in the United States can read it as well.

Anton Van Saase [00:48:08] And especially the historical background, I thought was very interesting. And as I just mentioned as well, it's not all about the technology. It's also about the background and how people who are not technical are looking at this from a different viewpoint, and it's good to understand where it all comes about. So, I think you did a very nice job in the book in that respect.

Marco Visscher [00:48:34] Thanks. Thanks for seeing that. And thanks for having me.

Anton Van Saase [00:48:37] Yes, no problem. Thank you very much. Have a good one.