TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Nuclear Technology in the Soviet Union (0:00-11:55)
Vladimir Artisyuk reflects on what it was like growing up in a Soviet Union town surrounded by nuclear technology and how it impacted his career choice

Q: How did you come into the nuclear space?
A: Vladimir Artisyuk is the Adviser to the Director General of the State Atomic Energy Corporation, ROSATOM. In the former Soviet Union, there were two technologies which made the vision of the general image of the Russian: space technology and nuclear technology. Vladimir was born and raised in the region where the first nuclear power plant was put into operation in 1954. This plant was not commercial, but it was the first reactor in the world connected to the grid and was a symbol of Atoms for Peace. The reactor was a graphite-moderated and water-cooled reactor. During Vladimir’s childhood, nuclear power was an exciting symbol of the 20th century. People working in nuclear power also made much better wages. Vladimir studied at the university in the same town as the first connected nuclear reactor and learned from people who studied nuclear power in Russia, leading him to pursue a career in the nuclear sector. He continued his education to pursue his PhD. In the Soviet Union, people working towards their PhD are staff members instead of students, focused on continuing the track to becoming a professor. Vladimir graduated from university in 1986, becoming one of three graduates to be selected into the nuclear PhD program. His hometown had twelve research institutions devoted to nuclear. The Institute of Physics and Power Engineering is the heart of Russia’s first breeder reactor program. This environment brought unlimited resources to Vladimir and he was surrounded by people dedicated to nuclear technology. When Vladimir finished his first PhD in Russia in 1990, he got a job as a staff assistant professor. In the next two years, the Soviet Union collapsed, opening the door for Russian scientists to go to other countries. Vladimir received a scholarship from the Japanese government to go on a scientific visit to Tokyo Institute of Technology as an exchange scholar. They offered Vladimir an opportunity to enter their PhD course, at a time in which Japan was looking for first breeder reactor development. After received his 2nd PhD, Vladimir worked at the Tokyo Institute of Technology as an associate professor teaching international course students, living in Japan for a total of 10 years.

Triple PhD’s in Nuclear (11:55-25:05)
Vladimir shares his path to three PhD’s in the nuclear sector and his areas of study

Q: When you returned to Russia, did you notice a big difference in your country?
A: When Vladimir Artisyuk first stepped onto Japanese soil, he experienced culture shock in everything. However, the hardworking Japanese attitude towards science was familiar to Vladimir. Before returning to Russia for work, Vladimir defended his third PhD. To pass this level of PhD, a special committee of professors listen to the presentation and hold a closed vote to determine the value and contribution to science. Vladimir’s first PhD was focused on muon catalyzed fusion, specifically a theoretical estimate of how this phenomenon might be used to produce secondary nuclear fuel. His second PhD was devoted to transmutation of nuclear waste. In Japan in the 1990’s, it was very important to advertise transmutation as a solution of the waste problem since there were not many options for deep geological repositories. Vladimir’s last scientific focus was dedicated to plutonium protection and how to make it unusable for potential terrorists or weapon use. He developed this study jointly with his Japanese professor and a professor from Germany, Dr. Günter Kessler. In the later years of his careers, Dr. Kessler focused on how to make plutonium unusable through increasing the fraction of plutonium-238. This isotope is used in the nuclear sector for heart pacers and is produced to provide electricity for space missions, meaning it is commercially available and industrially mature. The problem was how to produce this plutonium in significant quantities. IT can be produced through neptunium or curium, which are considered high level wastes. University science is strategic science and looks further in the distance. They showed, generally, that nuclear power has the potential to be wasteless and to be protected in terms of plutonium. The problem for waste is longevity, looking at the half-life of a hundred thousand years for certain isotopes. The general public needed to be shown the waste could be isolated for a long time and offer the models that make good predictions for isolation.

International Relations in Nuclear (25:05-37:42)
How global experiences improve international relations and Russia’s mission to bring nuclear education to the world

Q: What have you pursued after your studies and now that you are an expert, what do you teach?
A: After Vladimir Artisyuk returned from Japan, his expertise lost some impetus. It’s regular practice to move from expertise to management at a certain age. He came back to Russia, which had changed since when he left for Japan. Russia had become more open, starting to play globally with many countries in several sectors of economics, including nuclear power. Russia needed people with international experience to organize these kinds of connections, allowing Vladimir to move into management. His first position back in Russia was as the Vice-Rector of the university, responsible for international cooperation, also maintaining a part-time professor position. Vladimir’s Japanese professors first impression of him was that he would not last long in Japan, simply based on how his appearance differed from stereotypical Russians. After studying in Japan for a couple years, they talked to him more sincerely, and Vladimir spent ten years in the country. The most important thing is to understand each other and cannot be done simply over email. Vladimir’s personal strategy to understand others is to be sincere with people. Russian people build very long term relationships, instead of short term relationships to gain profit. Japanese people do the same. Commercialization is a recent phenomenon for Russian experts. In the former Soviet Union, several nuclear power plants were built in Eastern Europe, without surviving in a global economy. Now, Russia is building construction in Bangladesh, Belarus, and other countries which badly need energy. Vladimir visited Belarus and listened to presentations from the president of the country in front of students of the national university. Getting a nuclear power plant inside the country’s borders was not only for electricity, since it could be provided by the Russian nuclear plant only 60 km away. Building a nuclear power plant in Belarus brings intellectual power to a nation. Russia provides many types of support, starting with university education for international students.

Nuclear’s Role in Reducing Emissions (37:42-50:19)
Russia’s strategy to fight climate change through innovative energy technologies

Q: What else are you looking forward to in the nuclear space? What exciting things do you see come into fruition in the next ten years?
A: Vladimir Artisyuk is excited for the introduction of new nuclear technology. Steam has been producing electricity for 200 years. Nuclear power should make a new, much more effective step in development, such as high temperature gas-cooled reactors and supercritical light water reactors. Hydrogen, a clean energy source, could also be produced in high temperature reactors, a clean energy process. In Russia, clean energy is not simply an academic pursuit. Climate change is a global phenomenon and science has clearly shown the process behind global warming. Emissions must be drastically reduced. Russia has a lot of resources and is a very big country, but the country first developed nuclear power, and with great impetus. Russia is still developing the strategy towards a non-carbon future. This real strategy includes reduction of coal, increasing efficiency of energy use, and an increase in nuclear power. Russia understands the situation globally. Sharing Russian experts of nuclear technology with other countries is an illustration of its efforts to fight climate change. Russia’s floating nuclear power plant is a very great achievement. It is not a technology breakthrough, but it is based on the reactor technology applied in icebreakers North of Russia. The first icebreaker was put into operation in the late 1950’s. This showed an application of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. A new generation of icebreakers is based upon small modular reactors (SMR), six of which have already been produced. For the countries that don’t need the icebreaker application, Russia has just commissioned the first floating nuclear power plant in May of this year. Russia is on track to scale production, but legislation has not yet determined how to move floating nuclear power plants through international territory. There are also plants to commercialize fast breeder reactor technology. In order to be feasible, this technology needs to be competitive, at least within the nuclear power domain. Nuclear power is a gift from the god to people to provide opportunity to reach clean, sustainable development.

Birth of Jordan’s Nuclear Program (0:00-9:00)
How Kamal Araj became involved with the nuclear sector and his mission to bring the technology to his home country of Jordan

Q: What is your background and how did you get involved in the nuclear sector?
A: Kamal Araj received his Bachelor’s degree in physics and nuclear engineering from the University of Michigan, interested in nuclear energy in the early days. His PhD at MIT focused on nuclear engineering with a specialty in reactor engineering and energy technology policy. Kamal’s doctorate thesis was done on global climate change. In 2000, there was a large build-up of nuclear energy but slowed down after a change in power. At this time, the capacity to build up nuclear energy was 50 gigawatts per year, a combined capacity for various manufacturers. The goal was a limit of 450 parts per million, but the temperature increased 1.5 to 2 degrees Centigrade. The model captured renewables coming up at a very rapid rate, but was still insufficient to be able to show the effects. The same conclusions predicted at that time are still valid. They saw a lot of variability in the seasonal changes, such as tornadoes and quick changes in weather that have been predicted around the globe. A realization from the study was that reactor design should be standardized. There cannot be 100 types of reactors built around the world. In order to reduce nuclear to the competitive prices it had in the beginning, massive construction programs should have a large learning curve with lots of sharing of equipment and supplies. Vendors have to work together to create business for all. The only option is for the nuclear industry to work together, in terms of construction engineering methods and best practices. After graduating from MIT, Kamal worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory on advanced reactor design, specifically high temperature gas-cooled reactors and pebble bed reactors for nuclear propulsion and other innovative applications. He then spent two years at Harvard as a visiting professor, working on severe accidents after Three Mile Island for the American Physical Society. After his time at Harvard, Kamal returned to Brookhaven, then moved to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to conduct studies on relevant energy technologies, advanced reactors, and energy policy. He then transitioned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) where he spent five years in the policy planning group. In 2006, he returned to Jordan, his home country, to work on starting a nuclear program. King Abdullah II was very supportive of the program and thought nuclear energy could advance the industrialization of Jordan and the capacity building for advanced technologies. Jordan has a lot of naysayers that compare the cost of natural gas with nuclear, or now the very low prices of renewables, which no one knows how to calculate.

Jordan’s Energy Portfolio (9:00-22:55)
A look at Jordan’s current energy sources and the country’s first research reactor

Q: Why is it so difficult to calculate the true cost of renewables?
A: The cost of renewable energy is difficult to calculate because it is calculated by the developer of the technology. All the costs of system connection and grid stability - and at night, the back-up power required - are all taken by the government. The technology developer only gets paid for its electricity during the day time. The developers make very good internal rate of return (IRR) and still there are 5-7 cents per kilowatt-hour of cost for interconnection. This cost should be paid by the electricity providers. All the natural gas providers must be kept on hot standby in case the sun is shadowed or the wind goes away. Jordan wants to increase renewables from 20% to 31% by 2030. Kamal Araj predicts this will cause a lot of instability in the grid and intermittency. Natural gas is cheap now, but still the prices will go up and C02 emissions need to be reduced. There are a lot of other applications for natural gas that are higher value than just burning it. Dr. Khaled Toukan is the chairman of the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission and the foremost authority on nuclear energy. He has been shepherding Jordan’s nuclear program since the 1980’s. When Kamal returned to Jordan in 2008, they established an independent commission and Kamal was appointed by the King as the Commissioner for International Cooperation. A regulator was established immediately and became an independent authority that also reported to the Prime Minister. The commission also worked on uranium exploration and research reactors. Jordan now has a 5 megawatts operating research reactor to produce isotopes and be used for research. The reactor was built as a turnkey by the South Koreans, but it is not 100% operated by Jordanians. The reactor is a cornerstone for human resource development and research and development. It was built on the campus of the Jordan University of Science and Technology where they have established a nuclear engineering program. The reactor is also open to the university researchers for things such as neutron activation and solid-state physics. It now produces radiopharmaceuticals such as iodine-131 and molybdenum-99. The licensing for the research reactor was done by the regulator, Energy and Minerals Regulatory Commission, which essentially follows the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) two-step approach. Former U.S. NRC commissioners advised the licensing and the Koreans used their regulatory body to assist as well. Jordan has abandoned the idea of large reactors for at least two decades and is now focused on small modular reactors (SMR). Jordan hopes to have a certification of design from the country of origin to apply in Jordan, but in the absence of that, Jordan would have to rely on the regulator from the country of origin. Jordan is not looking for first of a kind, only nth of a kind. The NRC requires a 10-mile evacuation zone for nuclear reactors, including SMR’s. Kamal argues that SMR’s should have zero-mile radius evacuation zones and that sheltering indoors is much safer than evacuating.

Economics of Small Modular Reactors (22:35-33:25)
Insight into which SMR’s Jordan is currently considering and how they measure up to current energy sources

Q: As you look at the landscape of technologies in the small modular reactor (SMR) approach, do you see them being able to achieve such cost reductions?
A: Kamal Araj believes there ought to be a large reduction in the cost of nuclear power. At the time nuclear came, it only cost 1-2 cents per kilowatt-hours and was cheaper than coal. Kamal does not see new SMR technology achieve the necessary cost reductions. Jordan has evaluated most of the SMR’s that will come into the market by 2030. The cheapest cost was 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, even with a very low interest rate and discount factor. It’s important to rethink the financing for nuclear power. Nuclear power should be treated as a global common because carbon dioxide is a global common problem and nuclear energy is a global common mitigation strategy. The fatal mistake may have been continually increasing the size of the nuclear reactor design. A standardized design would help achieve nuclear goals. Jordan has looked at all SMR’s globally, selecting the designs which the country thought they could make commercial by 2030. They have not looked at liquid metal reactors or molten salt reactors, as they view those current designs as higher risk. Jordan is currently interested in NuScale, GE 300, and the Chinese HTR-PM based on price and simplified design. One company, X-Energy, offered Jordan a turnkey SMR product, which would also include contracts for fuel. This is one option, but the only barrier is the purchase agreement because the price is still much higher than the renewable energy or natural gas in Jordan. In the current climate, 8-9 cents per kilowatt-hour is a good price for nuclear power that could justify the technology. There ought to be government intervention for implementing carbon taxes and making nuclear power more affordable. Jordan imports natural gas from its neighbors, but when that import gets interrupted multiple times per year, the country has to run off diesel instead of natural gas. This use of diesel was subsidized by the government instead of the cost going back to the customer. With the global climate change and the disaster that could come from that, the Middle East will become the hottest region in the world. Jordan has a lot of water shortages, which is a major constraint on the country’s nuclear thermal power because water is required for cooling. Kamal brought members of his Parliament to Palo Verde Nuclear Plant in Arizona, where treated wastewater is used in conjunction with the power plant to provide cooling.

The Reality of Climate Change in the Middle East (33:25-43:08)
Kamal’s perspective into why nuclear energy is a critical response to global climate change

Q: How do you get things through in the nuclear world if you have political opposition?
A: Most of the political opposition are propped from outside and are not really local, indigenous sources. They may visit some countries that are anti-nuclear and get a lot of information, especially about waste. Kamal Araj encourages his country that Jordan can deal with nuclear waste like every other country, following the U.S. by storing waste on-site and using it as a resource for fuel. There are a lot of misunderstandings about nuclear and a lot of it is in bad faith. The anti-nuclear lobby is very rich. Many German foundations sponsor a lot of those people to visit sites like Fukushima. Most of the fatalities at Fukushima were due to ill-though evacuations. This fear-mongering causes apprehension in the public’s eyes. Jordan had no problem with nuclear until Fukushima, which caused people to question the technology and people needed explanations for what happened. Even second generation nuclear reactors are safe enough. The total risk picture needs to be looked at, in terms of all industrial accidents across different sectors, to appropriate funding. Jordan is a long-term member of the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) and hosted a small modular reactor (SMR) workshop in 2014. Still, Jordan is following this technology. It’s important to have international cooperation between newcomers and advanced countries. In IFNEC, every country has a vote and a voice. SMR designs should be down-selected to only one or two designs, which should be standardized and certified internationally. Creating enough global supply chain for this design could assist in international deployment by reducing the price to affordable and competitive with natural gas. The nuclear industry has to work cooperatively to serve an international, global problem, which is the global atmosphere and climate change.This should have higher value attached to it, as it contributes to civilization worldwide.

UK’s Radioactive Waste Management (0:00-11:23)
Roy Payne introduces the UK’s Radioactive Waste Management division and how he became head of stakeholder engagement

Q: How did you find your way into the nuclear industry?
A: Roy Payne’s background in communication and engagement was used to run political campaigns, large scale marketing campaigns, and lobbying and public policy campaigns. He has worked inside government, corporations, and in the community. United Kingdom’s Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) had just reached a point where the previous search for a site for a geologic repository had failed. After a review, RWM looked at renewing the policy and wanted someone who understood communications and stakeholder engagement. RWM is the UK’s body responsible for final disposal of radioactive waste and is in the process of trying to identify a site with a consent-based approach to get the approval of the local community. Roy has been employed by the RWM as the head of stakeholder engagement to look at the policy and review how the communication and engagement strategy may work. Additional work was needed to challenge nuclear industry perception and perspectives, but there were also constraints upon a public body in how they conduct their business. Roy wanted to be outside that to challenge some of the conceptions and provide more flexibility. People vote, not because they are rational, but because they believe in a set of values or sentiments. The nuclear sector still primarily communicates through providing information and making people understand the logic or science. However, people want reassurance and addressing of their emotions and feelings. The UK was one of the founding countries to research and use nuclear energy. Waste wasn’t originally given the same level of thought about consequences that it is given now. Some studies in America are showing that some of the standards in terms of radiation protection are way beyond what is necessary. But these standards were introduced and built up in the 1970’s and 80’s when there was a huge distrust of nuclear and to secure public acceptance. At this stage, there is an issue about what is logic and science and what public acceptability is. Before standards are reduced, work needs to be done with the public to make them comfortable. Industrial processes in developing human societies produce a lot of waste, most of which is not regulated and is disposed of carelessly without any form of protection to the environment or public health. A discussion needs to happen about waste and responsibility, especially which is produced as a result of energy or certain products that we see as beneficial to us. Radioactive waste is part of our society and part of our politics; we need to understand it within that context instead of just seen as a physical substance.

Community Discussions About Nuclear Waste (11:23-19:30)
Why geological disposal of radioactive waste is a social and political issue, not a technical one

Q: Are you afraid that, by putting radioactive waste in a special category, the public is getting an idea in their mind that this is something that needs unique considerations?
A: The moment someone enters a community and brings up a discussion about radioactive waste, there is an automatic emotional, negative reaction. It is latent within populations around the world. Largely, this is driven through a lack of information and instinctive fear when risks are not understood. Much of the research in the nuclear industry shows that safety is the first issue, therefore industry thinks they should lead conversations with safety. There is an increased realization within the nuclear sector that the messaging of the past 10-25 years has had no impact. On the communications side, this is a poor return in investment. It is universally clear that geological disposal is not a technical issue; this is a social and political issue. However, when looking at the communication campaigns, the message reverts to the safety and technical description of the project, rather than looking at the social and political dimensions. Roy Payne has worked in multiple different sectors throughout his career and each sector has its own language, culture and norms. The nuclear sector has gotten into a habit of wanting to teach and explain nuclear science, but the wider population are not students and don’t want to learn. They have a different set of demands. The nuclear sector is slowly addressing this. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held a large conference months ago which brought hundreds of mayors and leaders of municipalities from around the world to share how they perceive the nuclear sector. This audience would be very supportive of the sector because they are familiar with the risks, but feel as though they are treated as “children”, not as partners. The nuclear sector has kept the public at arms length, but that gap needs to be bridged.

Bridging the Gap Between the Nuclear Sector & the Public (19:30-31:21)
Roy’s perspective on how to create a partnership with a community and engage them in long-term decision making

Q: Who’s responsible for bridging the gap between the nuclear sector and the public?
A: Roy Payne suspects outside organizations, such as the Energy Impact Center and new companies such as Deep Isolation, are better placed to bridge the gap between the nuclear sector and the public because they can come with a fresh attitude. It is more difficult to get large governmental, international, and corporate organizations to shift to open the pathways. The new entrants make the change and show the way forward. When Roy joined Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) in the UK, it was at the time a division of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority but was being established as a new entity. The name for RWM was chosen because it does what it says in the name, as opposed to a made-up name that was not value-laden in any way and would give an opportunity for people to make even more negative associations. Introducing yourself as who you are when you first arrive, which may initially put up a wall, is actually necessary to get through to the other side and have a realistic, difficult conversation. A lot of the process is about empowering the community and having a partnership with the community. An important part of building a foundation of trust is to have the difficult conversation, but allow the community to walk away if it proves not to be attractive to the community. It will take 20-30 years to work out what can be done safely because there is so much analysis to be done. Only 10-15 percent of the total radioactive waste is looked at for storage in deep geological repositories. Many people believe the waste being thrown away is actually a usable product. But no matter how much is recycled, there is always a concentrated residue of waste. Roy aims to build and engage in conversation about geological disposal in a social and community context. Most people in the first stage do not want to dive into the technical discussion about the dilution or concentrating, but are more worried about how it impacts themselves and their community. Roy’s role is to create the space in which communities and the sector can start having a discussion in a constructive and organized way where both sides are treated with respect, but also, both sides are listening to each other. Discussions have slowed due to COVID, but it will probably start with very small community meetings. The possible locations are not yet disclosed, but could be anywhere throughout the UK. There are multiple motivations, including economic purposes, to finalize these locations. How these conversations evolve will be driven by the community. Sweden is at the end of a process that has taken over 30 years. It is not always easy to maintain a public dialogue over 30 years when there is not much to talk about, since analysis takes a long time. While they are analyzing the geology and technical requirements, there will be a lot of discussion within the community about what the community wants and funding made available to give it a sustainable future.

Long-Term Infrastructure Planning (31:21-40:07)
How to shift the conversation about radioactive waste storage from short-term political decision-making to long-term community investment

Q: Does funding for the community ever get perceived as a payoff to take something undesirable?
A: Roy Payne has seen that the first default position of most people is that funding to the community is perceived as a payoff to accept a deep geologic repository. However, if no compensation is not offered, people wonder why not. If compensation is offered, people consider it bribing, creating a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. It isn’t just about the money, it’s about what the community wants to feel engaged and involved in a process over the longer term. A facility like this will be operated within the UK for 150-200 years, offering consistent work. The community in Carlsbad, NM sees radioactive waste as a constant, steady stream of business at WIPP that attracts high-skill, high-pay jobs. Other industries in the area come and go with booms and busts. In ten years, Roy doesn’t anticipate much change but sees conversations about geologic depositories taking place in four or five communities as research is looked at for individual sites. The broad environment in which this all happens has potential for change, however. The nuclear sector often looks at itself in a vacuum, while the world around it is changing, including generational outlooks. If climate change is not addressed and the carbon footprint is not reduced, the world is in a much more dangerous position. If there is any risk associated with nuclear, it’s a small one because nuclear will help achieve the carbon targets, which is the more urgent and pressing issue. One of the issues is that nuclear decisions are caught up in complex, short-term political decision making. Societies have forgotten how to plan for long-term needs, as evidenced by crumbling infrastructure. Nuclear is one part of that. There’s a wider sense, though - increasingly, what we’re seeing now with the coronavirus, we’re bringing it home - is a generation beginning to think ‘No, we need to plan better. We need to plan longer term. There are consequences to our actions. We cannot just keep throwing waste away.’ There is, more generally, a changing mindset around the world about waste, not just radioactive waste. People are realizing these longer term problems must be dealt with alone and must be addressed collectively. Doing nothing in itself has risks. The reason for burying radioactive waste is because another ice age is coming and the Northern Hemisphere is going to be covered with glaciers. These moral and ethical considerations are being taken seriously by this generation.

Ghana’s Entrance into Nuclear (0:00-11:06)
Seth Kofi Debrah shares his path into the nuclear power sector and his role in established a nuclear development plan for Ghana

Q: What is your background and how did you get into the nuclear space?
A: Seth Kofi Debrah studied physics at Kwame Nkrumah University Science & Technology in Ghana, later pursuing his Master’s and PhD at the University of Ghana. The Ghana Atomic Energy Commission recruited Seth Kofi as a research scientist while he was still in school. He was first assigned to the Ghana Research Reactor with a focus on physics. Later, Seth Kofi had to get more involved in the nuclear engineering side of research, including hydraulics. A few years ago, he was moved from the reactor center to the Graduate School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences and later was brought into the nuclear power problem. Seth Kofi looked up to Albert Einstein when he was growing up, which led to his interest in physics. He wasn’t looking to get into the nuclear industry as a career, but once Seth Kofi started studying nuclear physics, it became a subject that he wanted to delve into further. Ghana’s research reactor is a 30 kilowatt Chinese Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR). It’s main purpose is for irradiation training for engineers and physicists within the country. The government at the time tried to build a bigger research reactor, but were not able to procure one until 1995 through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Only five of these reactors are in use around the world. The original design required a highly enriched uranium reactor, but has since been changed to a low enriched uranium reactor, Ghana being the first country to make the transition. Ghana’s President saw nuclear energy as one of the major, strategic infrastructures that needs to be built. Right after the Akosombo Dam, which has a capacity of 900 megawatts, was built in the 1950’s, the government wanted to enter into the nuclear field. There were many years of ups and downs until 2008, when the then-government intended to actually pursue nuclear power. A lot of energy, momentum, and intellectual progress was lost over the years of ups and downs. In 2012, the Ghana Nuclear Power Program Organization was established and taxed to undergo the phase one activities of the program. In 2015, the now-director, Professor Nyarko, established the Nuclear Power entity within the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission. This commission houses most of the research scientists in the country’s nuclear field and the group decided to follow the ideology of the IAEA. Ghana has completed Phase 1 studies that show the government is ready to make a commitment to nuclear. The Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) has been established as a Phase 2 activity and Nuclear Power Ghana is in the process of building competencies as an operator.

Electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa (11:06-26:01)
A look at how supply chain development for the nuclear sector impacts the electrification of the Sub-Saharan African region

Q: Since Ghana has invested so much energy into the future of energy and moved onto Phase 2 - which is preparation for construction and site selection - how is the mood in the country? Do people know about this project and have communities accepted it?
A: People are afraid of what they don’t understand and there is much perception about nuclear that needs to be corrected. Seth Kofi Debrah found, through a survey, over 50% of the people that would like to see nuclear energy come on board. Less than 40% of people didn’t want nuclear power because they viewed it as dangerous. But everything is dangerous. If the Akosombo Dam breaks, the whole capital city of Ghana is gone. The basic understanding of the sun is that a nuclear reaction is ongoing in the sun. Nuclear radiation is a natural phenomenon which has been around since the world was created. In the capital city, a lot of people are willing to accept this, but the biggest issue may be where the plant will be situated or the electricity rate outside the city. The Ghana Atomic Energy Commission is trying to push the stakeholder engagement within these areas. Some of the land in Ghana is handled by chiefs, not by the government. They are also undertaking a nationwide survey and utilizing a third party to increase credibility for the program. Coronavirus has brought a lot of things into perspective. The supply chain is going to change and the government needs to think about how it will become autonomous within projects and energy systems. Ghana undertook an industrial survey, giving them a fair idea of how to elevate the supply chain, especially during construction, to achieve the quality that the nuclear industry seeks. This is a challenge that Ghana is willing to take on and looks to solve as soon as possible. It is nearly impossible to get 100% autonomous, but it is very possible to get to a place in which the country can sustain the growth of the project and not delay any issues that need to be addressed in this context. Sub-Saharan Africa has one of the lowest electrification rates in the world. The grid is being connected so electricity can be shared and some of the boundaries can be pushed. Many of these countries are land-locked and most don’t have enough water to generate hydroelectricity. Ghana’s energy policy highlights the goal of becoming an energy hub to supply energy to the region. Without energy, these countries are going nowhere. Ghana is in a good position to assist the neighboring countries. If the nuclear program comes into places and goes into the integrated grid, there will be enough energy for people to progress, not just in Ghana, but in the whole of Africa. Africa is the richest continent on the planet in terms of resources. What they don’t have is the energy to actually refine these resources and push it out in a certain product in a certain way. Ghana has gone through various governments and political parties with different ideas about nuclear power. Various political parties have been engaged on both sides. Information has been consistently provided to the leadership of Parliament, where majority and minority are both represented. The focus in communication is that nuclear energy cannot just be “touched” on and off.

Nuclear’s Role in Industrialization (26:01-38:13)
How the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission is focusing on educating its young citizens and preparing for an industrialized future

Q: A common criticism of nuclear power is that it is expensive to build and the projects take a long time. The director of the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission released a construction start date in 2023, with a six year timeline from beginning to end of construction. How is the agency looking as ways to avoid these delays?
A: Seth Kofi Debrah’s research of construction projects has shown that the only ones that run over in terms of budgets or timelines are megaprojects. These projects are complex and it’s not particular only to nuclear. Ghana has considered all these things in terms of risks and mitigations to these project overruns. Programs must be built to keep people interested so they understand what is going on. Another program focuses on the junior high schools and getting these students interested in senior high schools and nuclear energy. If this person can be kept interested in career lines that can be built, they will carry the message out for you. COVID has slowed down engagement programs, but nuclear needs to be continuously drawn into the people. Ghana is looking at this program critically to keep it interesting and apply it to the culture of the people. The hope is that the neighboring countries also understand the program, because people are very skeptical about nuclear and Ghana does not want to be drawn back by their neighbors. Bringing nuclear power to Ghana is not just an energy project, but a strategic project that needs to be carried out to give a future to the next generation. Nuclear power has many beautiful aspects. It is not just energy, it affects the economy in every way, including how people think and live. The program comprehensive report details these impacts as a requirement for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the nuclear program. As a country, Ghana has some of the key institutions being established for industrialization. Ghana is looking into the development of the aluminum industry, which requires a lot of energy. Coal is not going to power it, because it has its own pitfalls when it comes to energy security. Coal financing in this era is much more difficult than nuclear, so the energy must come from nuclear. Ghana cannot develop as a country if the industries don’t have the energy support they need to grow. The comprehensive report has woven industrialization into the nuclear, including the economic plan and even the water sector, since nuclear can produce clean water through desalination.

Ghana’s Relationship with Nuclear (38:13-51:05)
An overview of the challenges and opportunities in Ghana as it looks to bring its first nuclear power plant online

Q: Does climate change play a part in the conversation you’re having or have you found much more effective communication strategies to help people understand the benefits of nuclear energy with the project you are running right now?
A: The Ghana Atomic Energy Commission focuses on communication the same thing but to different people in different ways. When speaking to governments and industry, the focus is on economic aspects, but climate change also plays a large role. There have been talks about solving climate change issues with renewables, but there needs to be a consensus and realization within the international community that renewables alone are not going to cut it. There needs to be a way to bring nuclear into the agenda. To deal with the issue of climate change head on, nuclear energy needs to be considered as one of the sources in the energy portfolio to make things work. Until that point is reached, no progress can be made. Germany has invested so much in renewables, but are not seeing the effect when it comes to climate change. Last year, Ghana came to a definite conclusion that, without nuclear, the country cannot achieve the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) for CO2 emissions. Seth Kofi Debrah’s major concerns, as he manages the technical part of Ghana’s nuclear project, are related to financing. A country like Ghana might not be able to put out a bid invitation and specifications. Seth Kofi is concerned about Ghana’s ability to attract the needed vendor that can bring financing to the project. So much has been done to prove that Ghana is a strong partner. Ghana wants to make a knowledgeable commitment and build systems and structures so vendors can put in the financing into the project. Political support is not a problem, because all the political parties in Ghana have supported nuclear power at a point in time. Seth Kofi is excited to see a working nuclear plant in Ghana in the next 20 years. Ghana has the biggest chunk of young people who do not have a clear idea of a career path or interests. All they have known is what is around them. An operating nuclear power plant can be the “new oil” industry, where people clamor to work in the industry and fight for positions. In the next 20 years, Seth Kofi sees two or three plants operating, once the first plant is established. Other plans include small modular reactors (SMR), because Ghana’s grid is not very big. Small plants could fit into the grid perfectly and different technologies are being watched by Ghana.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

Introductions and background (1:15)
(1:15-10:40) Starting out in politics and specializing in nuclear communications.
Q: How did you get started in the Nuclear industry?
A: John Lindberg is from Sweden but has spent the last 8 years living in various parts of the UK.
John is currently a PhD Candidate focusing on Radiological and Nuclear Risk Communication at
King's College London and Imperial College. He is also a Public Affairs Manager at the World
Nuclear Association.
Before arriving in the UK John wanted to become a doctor, but after discovering he couldn’t
stand working with blood, he transitioned to a career in politics. His first professional role in
nuclear energy was as a political advisor to a member of the Scottish parliament on matters
related to energy, environment, and foreing affairs.
John grew up in southern Sweden, close to an abandoned uranium mine, having grown up with
stories of Chernobyl his perception of nuclear was largely negative so he never really
considered a career in nuclear. After completing his time at the Scottish parliament, John
decided to look more closely at nuclear and pursued a master’s degree in climate change and
risk communication at King’s College London.

Since then he has worked with various Think Tanks on nuclear energy in the UK and USA, now
with the World Nuclear Association.
(11:56-18:46) Addressing the root causes of radiophobia
Q: Do ideologies and emotions drive people away from nuclear energy?
A: John believes that world views play a huge part, no one is born being afraid of nuclear
energy and radiation, but we are instead socialized in fears of both. Going over the years there’s
always being some form of social aversions towards nuclear and radiation, in pop culture and
political debates.
Since not everyone has the access or willingness to go through the facts of every pressing
issue, in this case nuclear, John highlights this as a reason why people primarily fall back on
popular opinions or world views on radiation.
John conducted a study examining how popular culture had changed over time, starting from
the late 50s, negative public opinions started from the nuclear bombs that hit Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, and the resulting radiations from that event became closely related to the nuclear
reactors that were operational at that time.
Add a few disaster/apocalypse movies, then Three Mile Island which reinforced in the minds of
many the fears they had of what nuclear accidents can be. When events like these happen,
people fall back to their social environments, which in most parts of the world is already
radiophobic. Considering all these, John thinks it isn’t strange that we find many people are still
radiophobic.
(19:22-30:39) Building trust between the public and the nuclear industry
Q: How can we effectively communicate about nuclear energy?
A: John asserts that building trust is the first step in tackling sour public opinion but this in no
way takes away from the importance of having the facts on your side, looking back the nuclear
industry has done a good job in getting accurate facts out into the public but that hasn’t been a
successful strategy but a lot of bodies in the nuclear sphere still continue with this approach. As
John puts it: ‘Most people are not driven by facts, they are driven by emotions’.
The nuclear community needs to start talking about nuclear in a different way then it is currently,
the current tone seems almost apologetic in practice. John believes this is something that must
change especially as criticism grows without facts or justification.
Harnessing the power of stories is another important piece that John highlighted, explaining that
employers need to empower their employees to feel confident about sharing what they do with
their communities and to feel proud for contributing to a sector that generates reliable energy
and doesn't emit CO2.

(31:25-37:44) Engaging on nuclear energy with multiple demographics
Q: How do you continue to refine your messaging around nuclear issues?
A: John spends a lot of time testing his approach to nuclear communications with his 79
grandmother who is deeply anti-nuclear and frequently suggests he consider an industry
change.
John’s grandmother belongs to the generation that remembers Chernobyl and the dangers of
nuclear weapons well, so speaking with her helps him find out which frames work and which
doesn’t. Adapting this to the current generation that only knows of nuclear weapons as a
concept and have their perception of nuclear accidents formed by movies and popular culture,
this creates a need for a different type of approach.
John also spends a lot of time speaking to environmentalists who are deeply passionate about
their work but remain agnostic about nuclear energy. Another group are politicians who require
a more target brand of messaging to reach their constituents and align closely to their next
election campaign.
Recently John started a new project to write a children’s book explaining what nuclear is and the
role it plays not just in the energy transition but in our everyday lives. An important part of this
project is highlighting the climate message of nuclear, as the awareness of climate change
continues to grow among young people worldwide, nuclear must also position itself properly to
make people understand the role it plays in reversing the effects of climate change and securing
the future of the next generation and generations to come.
Conclusion (38:00)
(38:00-40:40) Looking to the future of nuclear technology
Q: What are you most excited about in the future of nuclear energy?
A: John is looking forward to the new technologies being developed in the nuclear industry and
points to this as the main driver for growth in the sector over the next year. Seeing young
entrepreneurs with interesting ideas that challenge conventional ways of thinking and inefficient
practices currently in the nuclear sector.
In the communication space, John hopes to one day be able to move on from talking about and
working around radiophobia and focus on something else. Although the work he does is
important, it can be depressing constantly researching harmful societal effects brought about a
misunderstanding of radiation, pointing to how survivors of Chernobyl and Fukisima were bullied
and ostracized by their communities which led to many suicides.
John hopes the next stage of his career will involve bringing nuclear technology to places
around the world that still struggle with energy access.