0:02

the repercussions of the sl1 explosion

0:04

lasted well, past 9:01,

0:06

p.m on january, 3rd, 1961,

0:09

and although most people no

0:11

longer remember the accident, it touched

0:13

hundreds of lives and ripple down to generations,

0:15

dick leg died

0:17

before he could see the birth his jack

0:20

burns and richard mckinley both had

0:22

young children, who would never know their the

0:25

men's not only had to put their back

0:28

together but also deal with nasty

0:30

rumors of love triangles and murder suicide

0:34

the rescuers lived with the horror

0:36

of what they'd seen and some of

0:38

them no doubt worried about what effect all

0:40

that radiation exposure would have no

0:43

one left a permanent mark on their lives

0:45

and on the nuclear industry as a whole

0:48

for the army the accident was a handwriting

0:50

on the wall

0:51

it was basically the beginning of

0:53

the earth like that by the say okay

0:55

esl one blew up sorcery down the program

0:58

but i went into like this general

1:00

perception that it was not cost effective

1:03

or practical

1:04

and no one became a case study

1:06

and what not to do in

1:08

the aftermath of the accident investigators

1:10

and officials wrote report after

1:12

report about what went wrong trying

1:15

to glean valuable information from the tragedy

1:17

there are lessons learned from that

1:20

accident that are incorporated into reactor

1:22

designs in fact all of our reactor designs

1:24

and operations given how early on that

1:27

are newer nuclear power industry

1:29

that accident was oaks making

1:31

sure the inverted removal

1:34

of one for right

1:39

about the shoddy maintenance

1:41

any inexperienced operators know

1:44

, biggest issue will always the fundamental

1:47

problem of the five control rods

1:49

rods designed the reactor that way

1:52

to make it lighter and simpler to operate

1:54

it was operate off but one with a serious

1:57

and deadly flaw

1:58

in a design flaw the out of

2:00

all of the control rods in the the core

2:03

the central control rotten the center

2:05

of if that were removed you to go

2:07

critical go , power

2:10

and they they knew that the army knew

2:12

that but they

2:14

kept operating

2:16

the new it and they still designed that

2:18

way

2:19

they kept operating even

2:21

when it became abundantly clear that sl

2:23

one had big problems they put

2:26

people in harm's way both inside

2:28

the reactor and

2:30

murray in the name of progress

2:32

science technology because

2:35

it was the path of least resistance because

2:38

it's just how they did things they

2:40

so enthralled with nuclear energy

2:42

the potential that they were blinded to it's

2:44

flaws and as we consider

2:47

our future and all the possibilities

2:49

and drawbacks of nuclear power is

2:51

this something we risk repeating

2:53

what do we stand to gain from this technology

2:56

and our the costs are that

2:58

i know retreats and this is wild

3:01

thing going nuclear a series

3:03

about the power of the universe contained

3:05

in the tiny little package of the ad

3:10

you and i are living in the atomic

3:12

gave the endless debate over harnessing

3:14

the power the mysteries of the universe

3:17

and whether we humans are responsible enough

3:20

to message of benefits

3:24

good already

3:27

hindsight i've been told is twenty

3:29

twenty the time that central

3:31

control rods may not have seemed so

3:33

dangerous the operators themselves

3:35

didn't seem to be aware of it's power and

3:38

may not have known that it could cause a meltdown and

3:40

then on top of the poor design add

3:42

in all the other little errors like

3:44

the bad choices and materials that caused

3:47

the rods swell and get stuck so

3:49

that the men had to use brute force to get

3:51

them out and the poor maintenance

3:53

on the reactor even after multiple complaints

3:57

to to move forward in the face of known

3:59

problem

3:59

that lives in danger it's

4:02

something we see again at chernobyl which

4:04

also had serious design flaws that officials

4:06

disregarded and fukushima where

4:08

the nuclear industry sidelined reports

4:10

that highlighted the dangers of a tsunami and

4:13

after every incident like this we say

4:16

well no we know better look what

4:18

we've learned will never make that mistake

4:20

again

4:21

then we probably won't

4:22

that pattern implies that

4:24

there's a good chance we make other one

4:26

which i think part of the reason that so many

4:29

of the people i spoke to seem nervous

4:31

about a new

4:31

the your future

4:33

what we always be reacting to events

4:35

rather than anticipated

4:37

you're for better or worse we do things

4:39

until something bad happens and then we

4:41

have that hindsight go man

4:44

here's how we should have done

4:46

that's what this was

4:47

the fact that we see potential problem

4:50

and still decide to move ahead of raises

4:52

some red flag take nuscale

4:54

for instance that small modular reactor

4:56

we learned about in the last episode one

4:58

same sort of like of the can and that comes

5:01

impacts the nuclear regulatory

5:03

commission noted safety concerns but

5:06

officials still signed off on the design although

5:08

new skill will have more regulatory

5:10

hoops to jump through and remember

5:12

this is a model that nuscale plans

5:15

to mass produce on an assembly line with

5:17

identical reactors potentially scattered

5:19

all over the world

5:21

there are those little problems deal

5:23

and could they become one or the the

5:26

of thing that might be an issue later on down

5:28

the road a problem that we'd

5:30

look back on and say oh yeah we

5:32

noticed that but chose to move ahead anyway

5:35

or do we trust that we are better at this than

5:37

we used to be and that those problems

5:40

don't actually pose a significant risk

5:43

in the decades following world war

5:45

we held onto our dreams of an atomic

5:47

future but they didn't since

5:50

the nineteen seventies we've used less

5:52

and less nuclear power every year accidents

5:55

in fear tarnish his reputation and

5:57

the costs the wastes the health can

5:59

the have all chipped away at americans

6:02

confidence in nuclear energy we've

6:04

turned to other sources cheap natural

6:06

gas wind and solar and

6:09

given all that even former nuclear

6:11

enthusiasts like todd tucker who

6:13

worked with reactors in the navy have

6:15

trouble seeing

6:16

the future for nuclear energy i think

6:18

it's time has passed a nightclub

6:21

you create kind of the euro for

6:23

elegance technology like it's hard to say

6:25

goodbye right i guess as part like i you

6:27

know i spent a significant part of my life like learning

6:29

how to operate nuclear reactor so like

6:31

up out of school of thought to be a same like

6:34

of we stopped using them i just

6:36

think that the total cost

6:38

of ownership of nuclear plants so

6:40

i would you wrap up like to risk

6:42

in the regulatory concerns of them the

6:44

waste disposal and so as

6:47

the price plummeted with fracking

6:49

with fracking gas assists like no

6:51

business entity would ever consider

6:54

it and yet the nuclear industry

6:56

is proposing all kinds of new reactor

6:59

designs

7:00

the already heard about new skills small modular

7:02

reactor there's also marvel a micro

7:04

reactor which can be up to a thousand times

7:07

smaller than the conventional reactors we

7:09

use today these micro reactors

7:11

could help power remote communities or

7:13

service backup generators for power plants

7:16

and disaster

7:16

her power a nuclear

7:19

energy company founded by bill gates

7:21

announced and twenty twenty one that it would replace

7:24

of coal fired power plant in wyoming

7:26

with a nuclear war that's to

7:28

some of what's happening in the united states

7:31

overseas companies like rolls

7:33

royce or developing their own small

7:35

modular

7:35

reactors for use in the united

7:37

kingdom and the french are building

7:39

new reactors for the first time in decades

7:42

since i started working on his podcast

7:44

i'm not sure a week has gone by without

7:46

my mom sending me a new

7:48

article about yet another new reactor

7:50

concept thanks mom morton

7:53

salt reactors fast reactors

7:55

lead cooled reactors

7:57

scientists and engineers are developing all

7:59

kinds

7:59

different technologies that nuclear enthusiasts

8:02

claim will be more efficient reduce

8:04

risks and produce less waste

8:07

so perhaps there is still hope

8:09

for an atomic future after

8:11

what changed we have global

8:13

warming to deal with meetings really to

8:15

switch away from corporate gray sources

8:18

of energy

8:19

the historian richard wrote to we heard from

8:21

earlier in the series says that

8:23

even in the the early days people touted

8:26

nuclear power as a clean energy source

8:28

in fact in nineteen fifty that

8:31

to sell pittsburgh on the idea of america's

8:33

first civilian nuclear power plants

8:35

officials heralded it as an environmental

8:38

projects

8:38

are you interview the head it gives you

8:40

can't our likely to

8:42

he said you know the city of

8:44

pittsburgh was worse than to various

8:47

beijing in terms of air pollution

8:50

cause of all the coal burning to make steel

8:52

he said we saw was true

8:55

can you cancel the pittsburgh because

8:57

he would help clean up the air fare

8:59

for sure the very first commercial

9:02

reactor the united states

9:03

was considered the latest a green

9:06

technology

9:07

that changed in the nineteen sixties and seventies

9:09

especially in the wake of three mile island

9:12

environmentalists turned against nuclear

9:14

energy and most of the maintains that

9:16

position until fairly recently

9:19

climate change though has altered

9:21

the landscape

9:22

promoters of of nuclear today

9:24

argue that every energy

9:27

regime as accompanied by rest

9:29

and if you weigh the risks of nuclear

9:32

against the risks of ever

9:34

escalating rates of carbon emissions

9:37

there's really no comparison

9:39

and says historian natasha zaretsky

9:42

this time a lot of environmentalists

9:44

are on board so see where

9:46

brand is an example of a very famous

9:49

environmentalist he had his teeth on

9:51

anti nuclear activists and back in

9:53

the seventies and is now a

9:55

very well known pro

9:57

nuclear environmental as

9:59

his

10:01

that argument is that the

10:03

more you learn about climate

10:05

change and carbon emissions the more frightened

10:08

you guys and with nuclear it's the opposite

10:10

the more you learn about nuclear

10:12

it the less afraid he gets yes

10:14

nuclear energy poses long term

10:17

risks we certainly have to think

10:19

about things like potential accidents the

10:21

storage of nuclear waste and what

10:23

those mean for future generation the

10:26

climate change has it's own laundry

10:28

list of problems but continuing

10:30

to rely on fossil fuels we can

10:32

expect more frequent and intense droughts

10:34

and storms rising sea levels

10:36

melting glaciers and warming oceans

10:39

all of which pose a growing threat to

10:41

our economy and our communities now

10:44

and for generate

10:45

the to com

10:47

advocates say nuclear energy is

10:49

a way to potentially bird that bleak

10:51

future that's certainly on the

10:53

mind of john radford for sits on the city

10:55

council in idaho falls

10:56

and we have to realize that

11:00

the extreme weather events in the west and particularly

11:02

for us here in idaho falls the fire

11:04

season comes

11:07

from climate science and

11:09

if we want to hire called a lie for are bringing

11:12

her our outdoor recreation with

11:14

and we all need to be concerned that my change

11:17

no idaho falls gets almost all of it's

11:19

power from hydroelectric as well as

11:21

from solar and wind that more

11:23

people are moving to idaho demands

11:25

for energy are going up and john

11:27

doesn't one idaho falls to use fossil

11:29

fuels if it doesn't have to

11:31

i think we have a bear responsibility to

11:34

sequester , through the trees

11:37

plantlife in our city but also

11:39

just ensuring that we get away

11:41

from gas powered vehicles and

11:44

dump trucks and and so we

11:46

need the flexibility to be able to have

11:48

on demand power so when

11:50

our rivers running low and

11:53

we aren't producing as many megawatts of power

11:55

from our turban it would be very

11:57

nice to be able to turn to

11:59

the nice the power of a small

12:01

marjorie actor

12:02

not everyone in idaho falls is as

12:05

enthusiastic about nuclear energy as

12:07

dot or even thinks it can solve climate

12:09

change tammy thatcher lives on

12:11

the outskirts of idaho falls and has extremely

12:13

strong opinions about anything and everything

12:16

nuclear

12:17

climate change is very frightening it's

12:19

very real but if you have

12:21

enough nuclear to make a difference to climate

12:24

change you'll be ruining

12:27

not just one generation of lies

12:29

your wife pink steer wiping out

12:32

humanity

12:33

hannah used to work at the idaho national laboratory

12:35

doing risk assessment for nuclear reactors

12:38

she doesn't anymore sheila

12:40

years ago

12:41

that she still keeps an eye on what's going on

12:43

out there at the site

12:44

and it's fair to say that she's extremely

12:46

anti new

12:47

clear in fact some tell you that herself

12:50

i'm anti nuclear because i

12:52

i believe people should they have the tools

12:54

to be healthy

12:56

health is probably tammy biggest concern

12:59

she says that both her grandmother and great

13:01

grandmother died of cancers that she

13:03

thinks could be related to radiation

13:05

exposure from the national reactor testing

13:07

station we learned in earlier

13:10

episodes this can be

13:11

hard case to make

13:13

the tammy nuclear energy as a tremendous

13:15

threat to human health and safety

13:17

you're you're promising either

13:20

we're looming catastrophe the

13:23

and or the economic

13:26

the ability to eat and

13:28

make and burden of

13:31

crying tix and find the since

13:33

you're trying to find a solution

13:36

suits and fine it for ten

13:38

cents

13:39

the hundreds of thousands of years

13:41

is that a solution we have to kill the

13:43

planet to save the planet

13:45

i don't know that i agree with all of tammy

13:48

claims and i certainly see the effects

13:50

of climate change like air pollution and

13:52

the human and economic toll of natural disasters

13:55

to be equally if not more threatening the

13:58

tammy gives voice to many of the

13:59

years rational or not that

14:02

people have with me

14:03

they are power

14:04

she also makes the argument that nuclear energy

14:06

is not in fact the answer for

14:08

climate change are you know not

14:10

a solution is edit

14:12

it it's tracks from the real

14:15

words of finding solutions

14:17

better energy sources in

14:20

other words the money and time spent

14:22

on developing nuclear power or resources

14:25

that could perhaps be better spent on other solutions

14:28

it's something something from a few other people as

14:30

well and it's a point worth considering

14:32

because despite this new

14:34

the are running

14:35

the reactors i mentioned above are

14:38

still only in the testing phase they

14:41

will require a lot more money and a lot

14:43

more time assuming ,

14:45

goes according to plan and that the nuclear

14:47

regulatory commission signs off on everything

14:50

the nuscale reactor won't start producing

14:52

power until twenty thirty and

14:54

it will only be doing this from one location

14:57

at the company will then

14:59

have to get a lot of other reactors have been running

15:01

have process that neither cheap nor fast

15:04

other reactor prototypes will take just as

15:06

long to start producing energy and then

15:08

have to scale up jumping through all

15:10

the hurdles and bureaucratic red tape there

15:13

it's better to raise the question of whether this

15:16

actually is the best way forward

15:18

we , a long way to go before nuclear energy

15:20

can replace fossil fuels in this country

15:23

but nuclear advocates argue that it doesn't

15:25

have to be that way

15:26

the thing you have to keep in mind is

15:29

it the people making that arguments are also

15:31

doing everything in their power to make nuclear

15:34

as costly and difficult to

15:36

build as possible

15:37

head nord house again we heard from him in

15:39

the last episode

15:41

he's the founder of the breakthrough institute a think

15:43

tank that focuses on technological solutions

15:45

to environment

15:46

the problems the people who

15:48

almost always say that if

15:50

you then ask them about

15:53

risk about reform at the nrc

15:55

so that we should actually go be things faster and

15:57

cheaper oppose all of it

15:59

the

15:59

the first to admit that reducing regulation

16:02

seems like a bad idea given

16:04

what happened in the past when we moved sas

16:07

it doesn't necessarily seem like the right answer

16:10

ten points out that of all the industry's

16:12

out their nuclear energy is

16:14

the only industry regulated to

16:16

the point of zero risk

16:17

it costs so much because we

16:19

literally have

16:22

practically zero tolerance

16:25

for health risks associated

16:27

with radiation exposure

16:29

your although as he points out that specific

16:31

to radiation exposure from electricity

16:33

generation or perfectly

16:35

happy to get all kinds of medical procedures

16:38

that and

16:38

the radiation as soon as you start doing

16:40

it

16:41

for medical uses or any

16:43

number of other industrial

16:46

uses all of that flies out the window

16:48

and were willing to tolerate lots

16:50

he's not suggesting we get rid of regulation

16:52

entirely and he certainly not

16:54

pushing for

16:55

turn to the early days of nuclear energy

16:57

on a nineteen sixty one was kind of the

16:59

wild west of the cold war and

17:02

a just was sorta like whatever it took to get

17:04

the uranium out of the ground to

17:06

get a process the getting a bombs

17:08

to get it into breeder

17:10

reactors and so know

17:12

obviously like nineteen sixty one

17:15

is not the model for what we need he

17:17

sees a middle ground between know

17:18

elation and too much and if

17:21

we're really concerned about climate change

17:23

then we need to reconsider our risk tolerance

17:25

around nuclear energy we

17:27

certainly have with other industries refineries

17:30

explode

17:31

the collapse daems

17:34

collapse offers a wide sad

17:36

things happen

17:37

and we should

17:38

we should try to avoid the

17:40

within reason those bad things happening

17:42

in a way that also recognizes that

17:44

often we think are associated

17:47

with sort of critical activities

17:49

that we need to sort of live something

17:51

that looks like the kind of modern life that you and

17:53

i take for granted

17:55

sometimes accidents will happen and

17:57

there's no way we can predict everything that michael

18:00

long as if anything we

18:02

can take precautions but not to the point

18:04

of avoiding all risk

18:07

this season wild is supported solely

18:09

by first light capital group,

18:11

founded by female entrepreneur all

18:14

the toll firstlight capital group is an

18:16

innovative investment firm strives

18:18

to outstanding financial returns

18:20

and change how the industry foster's talent

18:22

and diversity first

18:23

light has a dual pronged mission first

18:25

day trades, public, equities, private

18:27

equities and debt using its proprietary data

18:30

informed investment and

18:32

second through a separate seed fund, it seeks

18:34

to cultivate the next generation of female

18:36

entrepreneurs by providing women-led

18:38

businesses in the technology and biotechnology

18:41

sectors with a capital infrastructure

18:43

support and mentorship needed to

18:45

take their companies, to the next level to

18:47

learn more about first sight group please

18:49

visit first like capitalgroup.com

18:53

rather than trying to figure out who's

18:55

right those who are enthusiastically

18:57

pro nuclear are those who are vehemently

19:00

against it john macklin suggests

19:02

looking at it from a different person

19:04

active you have to deal with

19:06

the world the way you do

19:08

john is the editor in chief of the bulletin

19:10

of atomic scientists the magazine

19:12

founded in nineteen forty five right after

19:14

world war two when a group of scientists

19:17

and engineers from the manhattan projects

19:19

including the likes of albert einstein wanted

19:22

to ensure that the public would be educated

19:24

about nuclear science

19:25

it still exists now seventy

19:28

five some years later and

19:30

, we cover mattress

19:33

nuclear weapons nuclear power but all

19:36

technological threats to

19:38

the continuation of civilization

19:41

john is first and foremost

19:44

a journalist and he wants to be clear

19:46

that the opinions he's sharing our his own

19:48

not the magazine

19:49

the bottom

19:51

doesn't take positions on

19:53

just about anything were truly a

19:56

public interest serve consumer magazine

19:59

the puts all sort

19:59

the is out there to educate

20:02

the public about the most important issues

20:05

around he doesn't claim to be an expert

20:07

in nuclear energy but she has talk

20:10

to those experts

20:10

on both sides of the debate and has

20:12

been doing so for much longer than i have

20:15

so we have had experts

20:18

from all directions dealing with

20:20

nuclear power in there simply

20:23

is no agreement

20:25

the expert level on

20:28

whether nuclear power should

20:30

or should not be a major factory

20:33

and dealing with climate change

20:36

critics say it's not feasible too costly

20:38

to risk proponents say a nuclear

20:40

powered future is our best hope of dealing

20:42

with climate change and back and forth

20:45

and back and forth it's enough to give anyone

20:47

whiplash just reading

20:48

that or it truly is i

20:50

mean how

20:51

people can judge for themselves

20:54

whether to believe somebody

20:56

when they're talking about nuclear power

20:59

the

21:01

they are doing

21:03

how certain they are of themselves

21:05

three kind of because it is

21:08

not black and white

21:09

and there are a lot of factors to weigh

21:11

on both sides of the argument we've

21:13

covered a fair number of them over the course of the

21:15

season but john and i

21:17

going to do a quick recap here for

21:20

the pro side of nuclear power is

21:22

what's a power plant is built

21:25

as long as it's run safely

21:28

for power essentially carbon free

21:30

there are no emissions nuclear reactors

21:33

generate electricity without all of the nasty

21:35

stuff like sulfur dioxide not

21:37

to mention they don't pump out greenhouse gases

21:40

like carbon dioxide which pollute

21:42

the air and damage the atmos

21:43

there was a clear coal power plants

21:46

you get not only carbon dioxide

21:48

which is bad for climate change to

21:50

get all sorts of other solutions including

21:53

mediation as you may recall from

21:55

episode six surplus

21:57

one for nuclear

21:58

it is

21:59

continuous or operate

22:02

for long periods of time between feeling

22:05

nuclear plants only need new fuel

22:07

every eighteen to twenty four months while

22:09

colin gasp constantly burn up

22:12

carbon and expel it into

22:13

the atmosphere and uranium

22:15

far away produces more energy by weight

22:18

than coal oil order a

22:20

nuclear reactor also takes up less land

22:22

than solar and wind farm and can

22:24

operate anywhere on the globe regardless

22:27

of climate and weather pattern

22:28

so another point for nuclear

22:30

for these communities are nuclear

22:32

powerplant to , credit

22:36

it's lotta jobs

22:38

good paying jobs yet another

22:40

mark in the plus column with , exception

22:42

of these these rare

22:45

accidents or throw so much attention

22:48

there in some ways safer and

22:50

say or com fired power plant because

22:53

particulates whatever that of coal

22:55

fired power plant put plant have

22:57

killed lot of people to for people

22:59

lung disease ten years ago

23:01

paper by nasa scientists made

23:03

the claim that between nineteen seventy one

23:05

and two thousand nine we'd saved

23:07

one point eight million lives

23:09

by replacing fossil fuel sources with nuclear

23:13

they also stated that the number of deaths

23:15

caused by nuclear power even if

23:17

we assumed the highest possible body

23:19

count was considerably lower

23:21

than the number of lives saved

23:24

the score another point for nuclear to that

23:26

sort of a pro side of nuclear power

23:29

the cowboys the third really

23:31

really expensive cost overruns

23:34

takes way longer to build was expected

23:36

all sorts of problems

23:39

, this has been such

23:42

a recurring factor have nuclear

23:44

power the united states that insists states

23:47

they're not

23:48

the finance the average nuclear

23:50

built after nineteen seventy has

23:53

been two hundred forty one percent more

23:55

expensive than their original budgets

23:57

and that's is considering the

23:59

building costs

24:01

although rare are also extremely

24:03

costly the haven't been there any

24:05

answers and split the accident happened

24:08

the major ones are really horribly

24:11

expensive hundreds of billions

24:13

of dollars in

24:16

fukushima

24:17

the money that communities may not want

24:19

to risk and that brings up another

24:22

big negative for nuclear because accidents

24:24

cost not only money but lives

24:26

you don't lose thousands of people killed

24:29

probably , more than the happen medical

24:31

thousands killed at chernobyl

24:34

about so

24:35

the people died as a direct result

24:37

of the chernobyl incident it been harder

24:40

to know how many people died from long term

24:42

radiation

24:42

exposure and

24:44

learn in an earlier episodes you can't know

24:46

certain if it's exposure to

24:47

the asian from something like chernobyl or

24:50

from something completely different

24:52

there is a huge range of estimated

24:55

the world health organization puts the number

24:58

around four thousand you

25:00

radiation scientists claim it could

25:02

be as high as sixty

25:04

there's for accident possibility

25:07

that many people think is unavoidable

25:09

that every so often a

25:12

nuclear power plant will have

25:15

a major accident that will have

25:17

catastrophic results regard

25:19

most of the nuclear industry safety rec

25:22

chernobyl is seared in people's minds as

25:24

a cautionary tale that was

25:26

an accident

25:27

what if something deliberate happen

25:30

i don't think anyone anticipated the rest

25:32

the military would seize chernobyl or

25:34

shell ukraine's nuclear power plants

25:36

in twenty twenty two

25:38

how do you take something like that into account

25:41

it's certainly raises questions about

25:43

our ability to be responsible around this

25:46

then there's the west brom perfectly

25:49

reasonable question reasonable to whether humanity

25:52

has figured out how to do this how

25:54

to do anything that lasts

25:57

say ten thousand per hundred thousand

25:59

i'm in civilization

26:02

has

26:02

last about more so post

26:05

has made negative

26:08

by my count that's for negatives and

26:10

for positives kind of leaving us

26:12

where we started which brings me

26:14

back to john's earlier point that you

26:16

have to deal with the world the way it is

26:19

and he's not sure nuclear energy has

26:21

a way forward

26:22

specially when there are so many

26:24

trench opinions about it i

26:26

agree with some of the pro nuclear people's

26:30

point of view that the fears of radiation

26:33

are awesome exaggerated

26:35

overblown fueled by ignorance

26:38

those fears exist and

26:41

you can't just snap your fingers

26:44

make them go away

26:45

and then of course it's something

26:47

of a political issue and while it would be

26:49

nice to remove politics from the equation

26:51

actually from a lot of equations that's

26:54

not the world we live

26:55

politics is a real fight for

26:58

instance it's against the

27:00

law for build a nuclear power

27:02

plant in california until

27:05

the federal government gets i

27:07

used fuel repository

27:09

so until that's built in it

27:11

spends pit are it's decades

27:14

and decades and are still hot any real

27:16

plan for having one there

27:18

will never be another nuclear

27:20

power plant in california because it's against

27:23

the law and that law was passed

27:25

because politically nuclear

27:27

is like kryptonite in

27:29

california

27:31

california is one of many

27:33

well other states have restrictions on nuclear

27:35

facilities minute

27:36

nota had an outright ban and

27:39

stuff

27:40

given all that john personally doesn't

27:42

seem nuclear energy making a big comeback

27:44

at least not in the us

27:46

the you know no idea how many times

27:49

the american nuclear renaissance has been announced

27:52

as , often tell people it's

27:54

different in different countries with different

27:56

needs but i don't

27:59

actually

27:59

the nuclear power coming

28:02

back any significant way

28:04

in the united states

28:06

i spent a lot of the podcast weighing the

28:08

pros and cons of nuclear energy listening

28:11

to both sides of the debate should

28:13

be used nuclear energy or shouldn't we

28:15

the what if that is the wrong question what

28:18

if it's not should we are shouldn't we what

28:20

if it's will we are won't i

28:23

put that question to ted nordhaus the founder

28:25

of the breakthrough institute

28:26

there are lots and lots and lots

28:28

and lots of things in this country that

28:31

we obviously sure to do

28:33

and we don't do and maybe

28:35

probably won't do i

28:38

hope new players not wanna hi

28:40

there are so many things that

28:43

are kind of solar i'd

28:45

act polarize dysfunctional

28:48

political system can't manage to do

28:50

for a

28:50

it's looks like nuclear power

28:53

may not have much of a future in the us

28:55

despite all of our futuristic dreams

28:58

the number of existing plants was shrinking

29:00

new plants aren't coming online fast

29:02

enough to replace him and the next generation

29:05

of reactors will be slow to arrive if

29:07

they ever do until you get it

29:09

open burning nuclear energy is costly

29:12

in both time and money and

29:14

says ted nordhaus many of the people

29:16

in charge of these decisions just

29:18

don't like nuclear energy

29:20

you know we have this sort of legacy

29:23

anti nuclear he of sort institutional

29:26

and sort of ideological anti nuclear

29:28

position but like a lot of people just

29:30

their old and they needed i am like

29:33

i don't wish ill upon them at

29:35

all but you know we just know

29:37

you know what is the arm that he

29:39

was science advances one funeral at a time

29:42

a good number of the officials running our current

29:44

nuclear energy policies grew up

29:46

during the height of the cold war they

29:48

experienced first hand some of the

29:50

big problems with and fears about

29:52

nuclear power the events

29:54

in ukraine likely reawakened

29:56

some of those worry

29:58

the world has changed

29:59

and technology has progressed and

30:02

now climate change poses as big a

30:04

threat as nuclear annihilation ever

30:06

did they had points out

30:08

it maybe time

30:09

to reconsider our feelings on nuclear

30:11

energy take a sort of risk that

30:13

a lot of people actually get really scared of out but

30:15

that we do anyway image

30:17

that if we have had the equivalent of

30:19

the anti nuclear movement

30:22

fighting tooth and nail at every level

30:24

the make aviation more

30:27

difficult more costly

30:30

less tolerant of any risk at all

30:32

where we wouldn't have modern age

30:34

no way

30:36

the tide may be shifting in april

30:38

of twenty twenty two as i put the final touches

30:40

on the season the biden administration

30:42

announced it would launch a six billion dollar

30:45

effort to save nuclear power plants

30:47

that were slated for closure nuclear

30:49

power contributes more than half of america

30:51

as carbon free electricity so keeping

30:53

them open means relying less on fossil

30:55

fuels

30:56

it also helps america maintain energy independence

30:59

so it won't have to do as much business with foreign

31:01

countries like russia

31:03

the federal government is also actively

31:05

seeking volunteer communities to take

31:08

spent fuel and other nuclear waste

31:10

and plans to compensate them for doing so

31:13

public opinion appears to be shifting at

31:15

least for now however as

31:17

john macklin pointed out there have been

31:19

past attempts at a nuclear renaissance

31:22

there are no guarantees that this one

31:24

will be any different or that public

31:26

opinion and political will won't

31:28

reverse their direction if there's another accident

31:31

part

31:33

of moving forward of advancing as a civilization

31:35

kicking rent

31:37

and i fully get how terrifying that

31:39

can be and also see the ways in which

31:41

can go horribly wrong after all

31:43

what happened at the sl one reactor

31:46

came at a moment when we were also trying to

31:48

advanced civilization and the

31:50

question remains of whether we're any

31:52

better at this than we were i

31:55

like to think so think found the scientists

31:57

the scientists with both thoughtful and

31:59

the area

31:59

they're trying to build reactors that are

32:02

slow for better and more effective

32:04

while keeping the potential problems with

32:06

nations accidents in mind

32:09

and , i don't think nuclear power is

32:11

on track to be all of america's future

32:14

it's a distinct possibility that it will

32:16

be in the cards for some communities cases

32:19

where people are willing to take some risks and

32:21

push ahead with that long held idea

32:23

of a nuclear future a fame

32:26

that more than a thing will sort of changed a lot

32:28

of perspectives and minds on nuclear energy

32:30

is that you get some first of a kind plants that get

32:32

dealt am i gonna do a bunch of the things

32:34

that people have said they could do and they

32:36

what their friends and they're operating at a

32:38

very different scale than

32:41

sorry your grandparents nuclear energy

32:44

i think we can get to that place is gonna change a

32:46

lot of hearts and minds if all goes

32:48

according to plan

32:49

we could see that happen in idaho falls

32:52

a place where a deadly accident once

32:54

changed the course of nuclear history could

32:56

end up being a place

32:57

crude nuclear future

33:04

if you enjoyed the season of wild thing that please

33:06

leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts

33:09

also definitely tell your friends because

33:11

it really helps get the word out about the show

33:14

and makes another season more like for

33:16

more information about the show check out the website

33:18

wild thing podcast dot com that's

33:20

wild thing podcast all one word this

33:23

podcast is podcast production of box to post inc

33:25

with generous support from first like capital

33:28

while thing is edited by alicia lincoln was

33:30

sound mixing and music from louis weeks and

33:33

are executive producer is comforting

33:35

in addition to the names you heard above i want

33:37

to extend my thanks to people who generously

33:39

shared their time knowledge and resources

33:42

including sarah newman jorge per

33:44

as guy goes the university of colorado

33:47

boulders nest studio for the art new

33:50

coins he can tackle just

33:52

baron walled kelsey ray marcello

33:54

lesser an alias rojas special

33:57

thanks to all the people whose voices you heard

33:59

in this podcast and the many more that

34:01

you didn't but his contributions helped

34:03

make this story better