TITANS OF NUCLEAR

From Oxford University to the UK Treasury (3:06)
3:06-11:04 (Tim discusses his background and how he transitioned from teaching chemistry at the University of Oxford to working in the British Treasury.)

Q. Where did you grow up?
A. (1:03) Tim Stone grew up near Sheffield in the north of England. Both of his parents were in the steel and coal industries. Tim went to the University of Oxford where he studied chemistry and later specialized in physical and theoretical chemistry. He became an atomic spectroscopist and taught physical chemistry at a US college as well as at Oxford. The Oxford University undergraduate structure is different to many other universities. The University is made up of over 30 colleges, each with professors who teach a small number of students. In Tim’s case, he was able to teach just two students each week. This meant he taught only ten students in a year, creating a personalized educational experience.

Tim always wanted to study physical and theoretical chemistry, originally planning to stay in academia to teach and conduct research. But Tim realized that it would be a long time before he would be able to replace one of the existing professors and secure a permanent job at the University. At the end of Tim’s doctorate degree, he knew the job prospects for an atomic spectroscopist outside of research was low. Tim considered becoming a professional double bass player, but decided instead to pursue computing. His first job was writing IT systems for Accenture. Tim found the transition from academia to industry to be shocking because he had no previous knowledge or experience of how businesses are run. The differences between making decisions based on science versus based on people also came as a surprise to Tim.

The first major job that Tim held was with the British Treasury. Cash limits on expenditure were set to deal with the high inflation of the time. Tim’s role in this project focused on creating a different budgeting system for the government. This introduced Tim to how a professional discipline worked.

Tim’s journey to the UK nuclear industry (11:05)
11:05-18:03 (Tim explains how he entered the nuclear industry via the financial sector and government.)

Q. What introduced you to the world of nuclear energy?
A. (9:04) It took a while before Tim entered the nuclear industry. After the Treasury project, Tim built a financial modeling system to price leases of large assets. He then sold this to 160 London banks. Chase Manhattan then offered Tim the job to run the bank’s software in the US. This work made him realize that he understood the financial side well, sparking his shift to the banking side of the business. Tim later ended up running Chase’s international leasing business. He then became involved in the financing of large infrastructure projects and began working with governments.

In 2003, Tim was placed on the board of the European Investment Bank as British Director. He then became interested in carbon and wrote a paper for the Treasury on what needed to happen to build more nuclear power stations in the UK. Several years later, Tim was put forward to help the UK government deal with waste and decommissioning of new nuclear power stations. Tim discovered that his scientific background enabled him to easily understand technical details and his involvement in nuclear grew from there. It became clear to Tim that many things would need to happen to lay the ground to build new nuclear, such as producing white papers for legislation, figuring out planning permissions and determining if the regulator had the structure and capacity to deal with nuclear. Essentially, Tim used his scientific and business background to figure out how to restart the UK’s nuclear industry and advised both the energy and finance ministries. Tim is now the Chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association and Chairman of Nuclear Risk Insurers.

Refinancing the nuclear industry (18:04)
18:04-28:37 (Tim explains the need for the UK government to help kickstart the nuclear industry. He also discusses how the industry must focus on manufacturing a product to reduce costs and remain competitive.)

Q. We need some innovative financing to roll out the new nuclear, right?
A. (16:01) The climate crisis has caused the realization that markets have limits. Not many private companies are able to take on high risk, thus it is the government's responsibility to ensure that needed infrastructure is in place and maintained to support industry and a country’s economic competitiveness. Keeping carbon emissions low and costs down is complicated and using only markets to hit carbon targets within the critical time frame is difficult. Governments must therefore ensure that the much needed nuclear projects begin. In other carbon projects, governments provided subsidies to attract investment. For example, the UK offered £400 per megawatt hour more than the going rate of electricity to kickstart the solar industry. As more facilities are built, costs decrease and schedules become more predictable, lowering risk and making investment more attractive. Restarting nuclear requires high initial costs, something that private companies are unable to provide alone. Once it has been proven that new nuclear facilities can be built and can operate correctly, nuclear could attract large pension fund investment.

If the UK is unable to kickstart the nuclear industry, industry will move elsewhere. Tim uses the example of Bitcoin (a digital currency) where most mining, or the process of creating more of this digital currency, occurs in China and Iceland where electricity costs are low. Similarly, autonomous vehicles and home heating systems rely on large amounts of cheap electricity, something the UK will need to produce to remain competitive. Tim states the need to transform the nuclear industry into a manufacturing industry in order to produce a product that people can purchase. Tim uses the example of the evolution of computers and how they evolved from large industrial machines to something that individuals can buy online. Tim sees the need to efficiently create smaller nuclear products to reduce the cost of nuclear and help the UK’s industry regrow.

Increasing supply chain and regulation efficiency (28:36)
28:36-36:26 (Tim discusses the ways in which the nuclear industry can improve reactor design, supply chain and regulation efficiency.)

Q. Why not just focus on older designs and creating better production lines for the components needed to build those plants?
A. (26:30) Tim agrees with Naomi. There are enough large plant designs that have proven their ability, so there is no need to design new large reactors. Instead, the most efficient few designs should be chosen and built. This avoids a segmented, inefficient supply chain. Using standard parts also avoids unnecessary paperwork associated with licensing new components.

Tim hopes that small and advanced reactors will be designed by working backwards from the idea of a product. This strategy requires designing an efficient and cheap product that meets safety standards. He does not see the need to spend resources improving safety because nuclear is already safer than most other industries. Tim believes this requires a shift in risk perception. A good starting place is increasing nuclear physics education in schools, demystifying radiation risk. The UK government is currently looking into moving forward four of seven proposed advanced reactor designs, which they will help finance.

Tim would like to see more cooperation with other countries to create an environment where countries learn together. This will create a common approach to design, supply chains and regulation. This approach avoids different regulators requiring different changes to the same design. The UK and Canadian regulators are already cooperating in this, creating a more efficient system.

Increasing confidence within the sector (36:27)
36:27-40:37 (Tim explains how a lack of confidence is the largest roadblock within the sector and how governments can help overcome this.)

Q. Are there any roadblocks to making the supply chain run smoothly?
A. (34:25) Confidence within the industry is the biggest roadblock. A better workflow and profitability will bring more trust and confidence to the sector. Governments must play a role in creating trust and confidence by issuing statements explaining clear nuclear goals. It is key that governments stick by these statements as backtracking on nuclear can further harm the industry. Governments must also financially support infrastructure construction and maintenance. This lays the groundwork for successful projects, leading the nuclear industry as a whole to succeed.

Post interview question to be moved here:
Improving the UK’s nuclear regulator (59:18)
59:18-1:05:40 (Tim explains the UK’s nuclear regulator review and how the regulator has since improved.)

Q. What was your review for the nuclear regulator like and what did you determine?
A. (57:14) Tim looked at the effectiveness of the regulator as an organization with the goal of exploring how the organization could work better. The review resulted in making the regulator more independent from the governmental department from which it came. The attitudes of the regulators have since shifted to focus on outcomes and consequences of their work. They also focus on how to decommission faster and safer with lower cost. The UK regulator focuses on outcomes, whereas the US’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) focuses on processes. The UK’s strategy fosters creativity and flexibility. They do this by eliminating unnecessary constraints with the belief that more constraints produce worse outcomes. Tim believes the regulator is now one of the best in the world and has a stronger relationship with the industry than they did in the past.

The Hinkley project (40:38)
40:38-45:08 (Tim explains why he is most excited by the Hinkley project.)

Q. What do you think is the most promising project or the one you are most excited about?
A. (38:34) The Hinkley project is Tim’s most exciting project because it is making great progress. Projects that are underway excite Tim more than new designs because they are on the way to providing the trust and confidence the industry needs. Hinkley is an existing nuclear site in Somerset with a reactor due to be decommissioned. A new large reactor is being built in an adjacent location, known as Hinkley Point C, and is the first new facility to be built in the UK. The next project will be at Sizewell and will be located in East Anglia. The two sites will provide the framework for other new large reactor projects in the UK. Tim is also excited to see a small or advanced reactor be built in the UK within the next 4 or 5 years. The EDF teams are providing the inspiration and determination to reinvigorate the UK’s industry.

The UK’s net zero by 2050 goal (45:09)
45:09-51:27 (Tim explains the UK’s net zero by 2050 goal and the need for government funded infrastructure changes to support this. He also discusses how energy consumption education begins with children.)

Q. The UK just had a new goal implemented for an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, correct?
A. (43:05) The UK’s Committee on Climate Change was created as an independent organization to advise the government on climate change strategy. In 2008, the UK was the first country to put legislature in place to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. The Committee then made a statement that the UK should adopt the net zero carbon target by 2050, encouraging the Prime Minister to put this into law. This requires restructuring the UK’s energy industry, including heating and public and private transportation infrastructure. Tim forsees a rise in autonomous private vehicle sharing within the next decade. The government must then ensure the energy infrastructure is in place to meet the demand for electricity. Additionally, the energy infrastructure of homes must be updated to support high heating demands as well as private electric vehicle charging.

The Nuclear Industry (NI) Association is looking into helping schools increase energy education. This will catalyze public discussion as children go home to speak with their parents about what they learn. Sparking discussion is important because many people do not think about where electricity comes from because they are able to rely on power without understanding it.

The future energy portfolio (51:28)
51:28-58:45 (Tim discusses the future energy portfolio. He also explains the challenges of reaching a net zero or net negative carbon goal in the UK.)

Q. What should the energy portfolio look like in the next 10, 20 or 30 years?
A. (49:25) Reaching the net zero carbon target on time requires nuclear to be deployed alongside renewables and carbon capture technology. Changing the energy portfolio is a monumental task and requires each low carbon, low cost option to be used together. Nuclear power must be developed to produce enough power to sustain the UK.

Both wind and solar should be used where resources are plentiful. For the UK, wind power facilities can be developed offshore. The UK’s weather, however, places limitations on solar development. Additionally, there is a limit to the amount of energy that can be captured from the sun. Nuclear energy is 400 times more efficient that renewables when considering the amount of energy produced in a set space. Because the UK is much smaller than the US, the economical use of land is of concern, making nuclear the most efficient energy option for the UK.

Tim hopes that it is possible to reach a net zero or net negative carbon goal, but achieving this will be difficult. Reaching these goals depends on how people live. In the UK, many houses are old and thermally inefficient, some of which are historically protected and have building upgrade restrictions. New builds, however, can be extremely energy efficient but present the challenge of building enough of these homes to support the population. Determination is needed to make the innovative ideas about how to reduce everyday energy consumption come to life.

Tom’s journey towards model simulation (0:38)
0:38-9:37 (Tom describes the journey he took to end up modeling simulations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.)

Q. Are you from Tennessee originally?
(0:54) A. Tom Evans grew up in Pennsylvania. He went to school at Haverford College in Philadelphia before attending Georgia Tech for graduate school. From there, Tom moved to New Mexico to work at Los Alamos National Laboratories, where he worked for 10 years. He is now Research & Development Staff at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

As an undergraduate, Tom was a physics and astronomy double major. He then planned to study mechanical engineering in graduate school, but became involved in the nuclear engineering department. His PhD focused on radiation detection and simulated responses. In Los Alamos, Tom focused on computational radiation dynamics, which involves the processes that power stars. When Tom joined the lab, simulations took the place of physical tests, increasing the development of supercomputers. At Oak Ridge, Tom works more on the nuclear engineering side of things where he leads a team working on modeling simulation codes that are used to help design nuclear reactors.

Single to coupled physics simulations (9:38)
9:38-14:49 (Tom describes how an increase in computational power have improved simulations. This improvement, however, comes with challenges of complexity.)

Q. Do you ever look back and wonder how we were able to make decisions based on the old way of modeling?
(10:04) A. Tom believes that the modeling methods used now were originally thought of in the past, but we did not have the means to develop them back then. Despite this, researchers were still able to create ways to approximate effects from low resolution models. Now, we have more computing power, meaning researchers can do more direct simulation of physical models.

This does, however, come with challenges. Physics traditionally had theorists and experimentalists. Computation has since grown out of the theory side and developed into its own branch of physics. When computational physics first began, people focused on single physics simulations that only looked at one thing. Now, computational physics models multiple things at once, becoming known as coupled physics simulations. This complexity means it’s harder to solve bigger problems.

The Exascale Computing Project (14:50)
14:50-20:08 (Tom describes the Exascale Computing Project and the increased computational power of the new Frontier supercomputer.)

Q. What are some of the big projects that you are working on right now?
(15:05) A. Tom’s team is currently focused on the Department of Energy’s (DoE) Exascale Computing Project. This is a 7 year $2 billion project that includes 17 national laboratories and many universities to develop the next generation of supercomputers. In 2023, Oak Ridge will launch the Frontier supercomputer, which will be capable of performing 1.4 exaflops of calculation. An exaflop can perform 1015 floating point operations per second. The more calculations a computer can solve in one second, the more computational power it has. Currently, Oak Ridge has the Summit supercomputer, which is the most powerful computer in the world and runs at about 200 petaflops. The Frontier supercomputer will be 7 times more powerful than Summit. To prepare for the launch of the new computer, 24 specific application simulations spanning from molecular dynamics to carbon capture to astrophysics are being produced.

Tom’s team is focusing on creating the nuclear reactor simulation application. Each application is built around a challenge problem so improvements in computational ability can be tested. For Tom, this means modeling small modular reactors (SMRs).

The challenges of modeling new reactor technology (20:09)
20:09-27:33 (Tom explains the difficulty in modeling new technology. He also describes the reason why simulations have replaced experimentation.)

Q. Is it easier to model new technology or has this been a challenge?
(20:28) A. The short answer is, it’s complicated. Simple nuclear reactor models of existing designs are run on laptops by vendors and utilities to optimize and understand operating conditions. These are then correlated with the operational and experimental data collected from facilities around the US throughout time. These correlations are used to finetune simple models.

With a new design, there is no historical experimental or operational data for comparison. The models then requires a higher degree of confidence in the physics and calculations used. The difficulty of this depends on what the design is. An existing PWR900 design may be difficult to simulate such things as departure for nuclear boiling because the reactor is so large, requiring a high degree of computation. The new SMR designs are about a quarter of the size of a PWR model, meaning simulations require a smaller number of computational equations. But because the system is smaller, there are features that can increase the difficulty of modeling, such as natural circulation. These designs require no pump to drive coolant through the core of the reactor and is instead driven by natural circulation, meaning Tom’s team must accurately predict the fluid flow effects as well as the interaction between the fuel and the flow.

All new designs lack operational data and there are no experimental testing facilities for these designs, forcing researchers to fill in the data gaps with high-resolution modeling rather than experiments. Simulations and modeling have replaced experiments because experiments today are much more expensive to run that they were 50 or 60 years ago.

Optimizing designs and reducing costs with modeling (27:34)
27:34-36:20 (Tom explains that modeling and simulations are used to optimize designs and ultimately reduce costs. He uses the CRUD example to explain this point.)

Q. Why do we need models and simulations?
(27:58) A. There is a strong safety and regulatory component. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must first certify a design before a facility can become licensed and operational. Modeling also extends the collective knowledge base. Engineering science is focused on understanding and optimizing the design process. Engineers what to run higher resolution simulations faster and more accurately to understand what happens under different constraints and scenarios.

CRUD, Chalk River Unidentified Deposits, is an example of where modeling and simulation has helped the nuclear industry. Chemical buildup forms outside the clad of a reactor, impacting the fuel performance of a fuel cycle. Fuel cycles originally had highly conservative margins, operating only for 9-12 months. The Castle Project was the original energy innovation hub and a DoE project in 2012. As part of this project, Tom’s team worked to understand if coupled chemistry, neutronics and flow calculations could be used to model and predict the chemical process that forms CRUD deposits. The more we learn about fuel cycles, the more we can reduce safety margins, meaning reactors can safely operate for longer, reducing costs.

Replacing experiments with simulations (36:21)
36:21-42:24 (Tom explains that Oak Ridge focuses on providing simulated data to design firms to replace the need for experimentation.)

Q. Do you ever model what a plant could do if safety regulations were not in place?
(37:04) A. When developing high performance tools for validation, Tom’s team must be careful to balance what they are doing inside of the regulatory frameworks in place. This is because the NRC could require each design simulation presented to the NRC to be run on the supercomputer, of which there is only one in the US. Tom’s team therefore works to ensure that designs can be certified in a way that does not depend on Oak Ridge’s supercomputer. The goal of simulation is to replace experiments and provide data to design firms, enabling them to benchmark their own work flows in the absence of experimental data. While the computational power of Oak Ridge is much higher than industry computers, Tom states that today’s supercomputers are tomorrow’s desktops, meaning the technology will be widely available in a few years, enabling design firms to run their own simulations in the not too distant future.

Restrictions of modeling SMR designs (42:25)
42:25-49:29 (Tom explains the legal restrictions facing Oak Ridge when it comes to modeling SMR designs. He also explains the need for more industry-lab partnerships.)

Q. Why can’t SMR models be submitted to regulators without needing a physical test to acquire a license to build?
(43:16) A. As a national laboratory, Oak Ridge is not building reactors and must avoid conflicts of interest. They are therefore not included in a company’s design process. They are helping industry, however, and are working with companies that are designing advanced reactors by helping them with calculations and models. There are many legal and proprietary hurdles that Tom’s team must overcome, such as not being able to access the exact SMR designs. Because Oak Ridge is an open science lab, all work is made public, meaning intellectual property rights could be accessed by a design firm’s competitor. Additionally, Tom’s team is trying to push what is possible. Companies sometimes try to incorporate Oak Ridge’s new findings into designs, but should instead be working with what already exists. This is because the NRC would require designs that include these new findings to be simulated on Summit, which requires a proposal and is a highly competitive process.

Oak Ridge is trying to establish a more looser coupling with industry partners to help improve designs. Oak Ridge does occasionally obtain specific industry data to create direct models, but this is not a regular occurrence. Tom believes this should occur more frequently in the nuclear sector. He gives the example of how the aerospace industry has embraced high performance computing and has adopted computational iteration to do develop new designs. Tom hopes to see more informal partnerships between labs and industry to push the entire nuclear industry forward.

A future of SMRs (49:30)
49:30-52:45 (Tom describes the future he would like to see for the nuclear industry, focusing on SMRs to reduce cost.)

Q. What do you see as the future of nuclear?
(50:02) A. Tom sees a continued emphasis on smaller, more portable reactor designs. With SMRs, one site could handle the building, safety and capital costs of core construction. The core could then be transferred to and installed in an existing plant. Tom believes this prefabrication approach works best because capital costs are a major problem in the nuclear industry. Tom would also like to see smaller, more agile cores in new reactor designs. This also means more modeling simulations can be used to increase confidence in the operating parameters and constraints.

Inspired by the Atoms for Peace exhibition (11:23)
11:23-15:46 (Wade explains what sparked his interest in science and his views on the nuclear industry today.)

Q. Where did you grow up and how did you get into the nuclear space to begin with?
(7:32 Part 1) A. At 13, Wade Allison and his family went on holiday to Geneva and saw the Atoms for Peace exhibition. The exhibition, brought about by Eisenhower and other leaders at the time, aimed to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power after WWII. This first sparked Wade’s interest in science. Wade studied science at Cambridge University and then went on to pursue a Doctorate degree at the University of Oxford. He then moved to Geneva to teach at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, where he spent time understanding how the universe works. He is now an Emeritus Professor of Physics at Oxford University.

Wade was born before the first nuclear reactor was built and has seen the industry evolve. He believes in the importance of nuclear energy, but sees the industry as a current mess that must be fixed.

Solving nuclear problems through education (15:47)
15:47-23:37 (Wade explains that a lack of education and an undue focus on safety are the reasons behind the problems the nuclear industry faces today.)

Q. Where do you think we went wrong and how do you think we can change it?
(12:00 Part 1) A. Wade does not believe the problem in the nuclear industry is technical, but rather a lack of understanding by the public and the media. For instance, people were taught about the safety of bringing fire into the home, but this has yet to happen for nuclear power. The industry is focused on building reactors rather than teaching children about the industry. The media has not helped, as it focuses on chasing exciting stories that bring about a fear of nuclear energy. Wade points out that nobody has been killed during a nuclear accident other than Chernobyl, nor within the civil nuclear industry since it began. Hydroelectric dam accidents, on the other hand, have caused the loss of life for hundreds of thousands of people.

Wade agrees with others that the nuclear industry should focus less on speaking about safety. Wade notes that Malcolm Grimston, a UK nuclear power advocate, says that a restaurant does not celebrate being rat-free for 18 months as this does not make the public more likely to support the restaurant. Wade is also concerned that there is an entire industry dedicated to nuclear safety. Those with jobs focusing on radiation safety will not agree to lowering radiation safety requirements because their livelihoods depend on the existence of a radiation problem. Additionally, Wade sees fault in the United Nations speaking on the topic of nuclear radiation while ignoring ultraviolet radiation, which poses a much greater risk to the public. Wade believes a change to the social side of nuclear power is needed, and it begins with educating the younger generation.

Changing minds with Why Theater (23:38)
23:38-27:06 (Wade notes one promising new program that he believes will bring nuclear education to a wider audience.)

Q. How do we educate the younger generation?
(20:05 Part 1) A. Wade says he keeps his ears and eyes open for promising educational strategies. Six months ago, Wade received an email from two people who had read his book, Radiation and Reason. They explained to Wade that they wanted to include the discussion on nuclear radiation in their new theater program, Why Theater. The goal is to influence a change of mind by asking questions in a theater context.

Wade has high hopes for these types of projects. Wade notes that the people already living in communities powered by nuclear energy are not afraid of radiation. It is, however, the people living outside of these communities who are fearful and raise objections to nuclear power. Wade believes educating those currently separated from nuclear power is important to reaching wider nuclear acceptance.

Education as a means to nuclear success (27:07)
27:07-33:51 (Wade explains how building more nuclear facilities increases nuclear acceptance in communities. He also discusses the importance of building both small and large reactors and for newcomer countries to begin their nuclear education programs as soon as possible.)

Q. How do we get nuclear in more communities and have it be more accepted?
(23:15 Part 1) A. Wade’s personal view is that small nuclear reactors should be built in cities with populations of about 50,000 to 100,000 people. He states the main reason for this is so local children can tour the facility. This would enable children to understand where their own electricity comes from, creating an identity for the city inclusive of nuclear energy. This would also eliminate the need to import electricity from other countries, and therefore decrease the potential for international turmoil. Nuclear power also removes any problems associated with renewable energy, such as intermittency issues.

The UK is currently building a large reactor and Wade hopes to see more old designs built with time. He also believes in the need for building both small and large reactors simultaneously to ensure the future of nuclear power. Small reactors enable mass production because building modular reactors in factories does not require a work force to be moved to a new location.

Wade also notes that reactors must be built for the rest of the world, not just for the UK and the US. To do this, newcomer countries must prepare themselves by learning how to build, operate and maintain reactors prior to taking on a project. This viewpoint stems from the problems Wade saw when Korea built reactors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He believes the problems stemmed from not spending enough time educating the local people on how to run a facility on their own. Wade recommends countries that foresee adopting a nuclear program within the next 5 years begin working now with suppliers to educate themselves, as is currently happening between Indonesia and ThorCon, a US nuclear engineering company.

Nuclear power and climate change (33:52)
33:52-40:57 (Wade explains the need for nuclear power to provide such things as clean drinking water and low impact food production in the wake of climate change in the coming century.)

Q. How have you seen the different generations and the different people in the nuclear industry respond to climate change?
(30:59 Part 1) A. Until 20 years ago, Wade did not see the ties between the nuclear industry and climate change. Because scientists do not know the full extent of climate change impacts today, Wade believes we must build both large and small nuclear reactors. This is because nuclear power will be needed as the effects of climate change become more dire. For instance, Chennai, India has run out of clean drinking water. Wade predicts one of the primary uses for nuclear energy in the next century will be desalinating water to provide clean drinking water to various parts of the world. Additionally, nuclear power will enable the future of agriculture, where food is grown under lights in buildings. This will allow the rewilding of nature by enabling food to be grown anywhere at anytime of the year with a low environmental impact.

Inspiring the next generation (40:58)
40:58-46:13 (Wade discusses the next steps needed to inspire the next generation of nuclear energy leaders.)

Q. Where did your specific interest in nuclear start and what is your game plan for inspiring the next generation of leaders in the nuclear energy space?
(4:02 Part 2) A. Wade has never worked in the nuclear industry but has always been interested in physics and understanding how the world works. Wade says that inspiring young people through education is more effective than simply showing them what is useful when it comes to recruiting the next generation of nuclear energy leaders.

Moving forwards, Wade would like to persuade the medical industry to let go of their concern about litigation and the regulations of nuclear radiation. He believes, however, that speaking to children is more effective because they do not hold any preconceived notions. The question is therefore: How can we present nuclear stories to young people without including scientific and legal details? Wade believes the new attitude towards climate action present in the younger generation is a good sign. Currently, many young people see renewables as the only alternative to fossil fuels, so the nuclear industry must educate this generation about the benefits of nuclear energy. Wade also notes that the media approach must change. He believes getting information out there is a good first start.

Growing up in anti-nuclear Australia (2:47)
2:47-8:22 (Ben discusses how growing up in Australia shaped his views on nuclear energy from an early age. He also speaks about following his passion to work on a climate change team.)

Q. Tell me where it all began for you.
A. Ben held an anti-nuclear viewpoint while growing up in Australia. Because Australia never adopted nuclear power, Ben had no positive point of reference for nuclear energy nor did he know much about it. Additionally, Ben’s Catholic community was active in the Peace Movement, which increased his exposure to anti-nuclear content. During this time, Britain tested nuclear weapons on Aboriginal land, which strengthened Australia’s general anti-nuclear position. As a teenager, Ben supported his growing interest in environmental ethics by donating money to GreenPeace, which in turn provided him with more anti-nuclear information. Ben’s anti-nuclear position stuck with him through his 30s. Because Ben’s views on nuclear power were so ingrained, he was not ready to change his position when he began hearing pro-nuclear facts.

After working in occupational therapy, Ben changed careers to pursue his passion for environmental sustainability. He joined an engineering consulting company and worked with the climate change team. Here, Ben worked on climate change adaptation and mitigation work, helping Australian capital cities understand what it means to become carbon neutral. One project Ben worked on was a carbon neutral desalination plant in Victoria.

Desalination as a catalyst for exploring nuclear energy (13:07)
13:07-18:24 (Ben discusses Australian attitudes towards water conservation and how working on the desalination project prompted his initial consideration of nuclear energy.)

Q. How do water restrictions during drought affect people’s daily lives?
A. Because Australia had been plagued by drought, people were water conscious. Taking short showers and decreasing the amount of water spent on lawns was common. Even after restrictions were lifted, the behavior change that occurred stuck around.

After the drought, desalination plants were built. Desalinated water takes a lot of energy to produce so the Victorian desalination plant project focused on carbon neutrality. When calculating the amount of energy needed to power the plant, Ben realized that wind and solar solutions were inadequate. It became clear that Ben needed to explore an alternate solution and began looking into nuclear energy.

Adopting a pro-nuclear identity (18:25)
18:25-25:59 (Ben discusses his slow progress towards adopting a pro-nuclear identity. He mentions the importance of taking a gentle approach when attempting to change someone’s identity.)

Q. Did you explore what colleagues thought of using nuclear to power the desalination plant?
A. Not really. Ben spent the following year listening but not talking much about nuclear power. Ben notes a colleague at the Victorian Department of Sustainability & Environment had once suggested nuclear as a solution, but Ben remembers finding the process of talking about nuclear to be uncomfortable.

Ben points out that the process of getting people to support nuclear requires more than just a change of mind, but a change in identity. This can be challenging, because it requires people to change how they view themselves. This notion applies to any concept where we have created a strong paradigm in our minds, including climate change. People often define themselves by what they believe and how they view the world. For example, being environmentally conscious is often a large part of someone’s identity.

Attempting to change someone’s identity requires understanding identitarian politics, or the alliances someone builds based on their identity. Rather than engaging in measured conversations where people are open to letting go of their opinions, people are reluctant to change. Approaching conversations of this type requires people to be gentle and truly understand what they are asking of the other person.

Following Barry Brook’s Brave New Climate blog was critical in changing Ben’s identity. Barry focused on tackling climate change deniers but also wrote pro-nuclear energy articles. Barry showed Ben that believing in climate change and being pro-nuclear were not mutually exclusive, enabling Ben to begin altering his identity. Attending a nuclear debate cemented Ben’s position on nuclear energy when he preferred to align his identity to the measured arguments of the pro-nuclear speakers rather than the cherry picking behavior of the anti-nuclear activists.

The gentle approach to changing identity (26:00)
26:00-36:30 (Ben discusses the importance of value alignment prior to presenting facts when helping someone be open to a change of mind. Ben also discusses the challenges of scaling his actions.)

Q. In order to convince someone of something, value alignment is more important than getting facts in front of them, right?
A. Facts and information matter, but only when people are ready to hear them. No one has the ability to change someone’s mind. The only thing someone can do is help somebody reach the position where they are open to having a change of mine. This can be achieved through behavioral and value alignment.

Ben aims to condense his multi-year pro-nuclear journey into 45minute talks with the goal of accelerating this journey for others. Scaling this approach requires a strong team with the resources to support this kind of activity. Unfortunately, Ben has been unable to secure the funds to take on this task full-time.

Unlike in the US, Australian billionaire philanthropists that support identity change actions are not high profile. Those that support climate action quietly fund activities, but climate action has become synonymous with the renewable energy lobby in Australia. Unfortunately, those that are pro-nuclear tend to be climate change deniers, making it difficult for the pro-nuclear community to accept their support. However, Ben has seen conservative people who traditionally oppose climate action begin to alter opinions when engaging in nuclear power discussions. His goal is to gently nudge conservatives towards the middle, increasing their willingness to change.

Centering the nuclear argument (36:31)
36:31-45:59 (Ben notes the difficulty in engaging in the nuclear discussion. He also discusses the importance of avoiding conflict to achieve nuclear goals.)

Q. The real climate change conversation comes down to conservative values versus nonconservative values. Do you find this to be true in nuclear conversations?
A. We have to be forgiving of people because what comes out of our mouths is a smokescreen for the real thought process. The nuclear and climate conversations are difficult and it is easy for people to believe something is a hoax because they do not want to identify with the person on the other side.

It is also important to remember that nuclear is not everyone’s mission. Some people are just minimally motivated by the climate and energy discussions and focus on other issues in the world instead. This means that the nuclear conversation relies on those in the know to consistently bring the argument back to the center.

Conflict is a winning tactic for the anti-nuclear community because it deters people from joining a conversation. It is therefore important for nuclear proponents to avoid engaging in this conflict to ensure people stay in the conversation. The goal is not to make somebody lose, but to achieve a vision of sustainable clean energy. Ben recommends a careful approach to Twitter when discussing nuclear power.

Dramatizing nuclear reporting (46:40)
46:40-57:11 (Ben discusses nuclear reporting in Australia and his experience on 60 Minutes.)

Q. Can you speak about the opportunities you’ve had to scale your message across broader audiences?
A. Nuclear power for Australia was the focus of a 60 Minutes episode. While Australian media tends not to focus on nuclear power because the onenote story of discussing if Australia will overturn the ban is repetitive, the 60 Minutes producer took a pragmatic view on nuclear as a solution to climate change.

The episode includes a discussion on Fukushima, which involved filming inside damaged Reactor 2 for 15 minutes, exposing the crew to a high radiation dose rate. This created a sense of drama, but the time limit was actually based on regulation constraints, including risk of dehydration from the personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by the crew. Ben acknowledges that the sense of urgency created good television, but was also keen to comply with the time limit to ensure the future possibility of filming inside the reactor.

Accepting the true risk of radiation (57:12)
57:12-1:10:30 (Ben states that he believes radiation risk has been overinflated. He discusses the steps that must be taken to reduce the money spent on minimizing radiation exposure and why this may be a slow process.)

Q. What are your thoughts on the way nuclear radiation risk is presented?
A. While Ben would love to see the presentation of nuclear radiation risk undergo a reform, he thinks this process would be slow. People are reluctant to deviate from the accepted truth despite existing evidence. Additionally, the nuclear industry is insular and does not participate in safety conversations that occur in other industries. This lack of diversity in opinion has created the idea that radiation requires more attention that it actually needs. Part of the problem stems from the detectability of radiation, meaning people want to control radiation exposure to the same degree of detection. Another problem stems from the jobs, careers and research directions that would be at risk if the true risk of radiation exposure was lowered.

Changing the acceptance of radiation risk begins with academia through research and publications. Organizations must then understand how much value has been gained from the money spent on safety. This will require comparisons outside the nuclear industry, such as looking into the value gained from gun safety initiatives or medical research. We must keep in mind that the primary goal of nuclear power is to reach a stable climate and therefore requires an understanding of the most cost efficient way to achieve this goal. Moving in this direction, however, requires the public to ask why so much money is spent on radiation safety. This question is difficult to answer and adopting a new approach to radiation requires a change in identity.

Changing identities at the leadership level (1:10:31)
1:10:31-1:14:39 (Ben reiterates the issue of a lack of resources when approaching members of Parliament.)

Q. Have you considered approaching members of Parliament to generate more nuclear acceptance?
A. Ben has considered approaching members of the Australian Parliament to influence a change of mind at the leadership level. However, Ben reiterates the need for financial support in this type of activity, which is hard to secure in Australia. He focuses instead on capitalizing on the high value opportunities that arise, such as the Titans of Nuclear podcast.

Where did you grow up? 0:14
Zabrina Johal is the director for business development and General Atomics. She grew up in Billings, Montana where there was a lot of farming and agriculture and very little science, technology or engineering. Billings isn’t a high income area, most local own their own small businesses. But one thing Zabria had a lot of growing up was wilderness exploration in the forest that was her backyard.

Where did you go to college? 2:11
Zabrina had only applied to two colleges during high school, and decided she would attend whichever she got into. That’s how she ended up attending Santa Clara University, a small university in Silicon Valley. She was initially a pre-med student, taking physics, biology and chemistry classes. During her senior year, Zabrina studied abroad and it opened her world view and increased her patriotic views toward America. Upon returning, she was recruited into the US Navy Nuclear Power Program. It changed the course of her life.

What was one of the most challenging parts of school? 5:40
School hadn’t felt challenging for Zabrina and she was drawn to the Navy’s Nuclear Power Program because she wanted a challenge. Before getting accepted into the program, Zabrina interviewed with three scientists at nuclear bases in DC, and after passing those interviews she spoke with Admiral Skip Bowman. During the process, none of the people interviewing her were other women. Zabrina said it was a time honored tradition for the admiral of the Nuclear Navy to interview every officer that was accepted into the program. The founder of the program, Admiral Hyman Rickover, knew that one accident could put the entire program at risk. At the end of her interview, Admiral Bowman told her she was accepted into the program.

How did your parents feel about your new career path? 11:22
Zabrina spoke with her parents frequently during the recruitment process. But the biggest surprise came after she was accepted into the program when she found out she would be spending the next six years on a ship instead of stashed away in a bunker somewhere in the States running physics codes. Zabrina was specifically recruited because of her background in physics and chemistry. Within three months Zabrina was at Officer Candidate School (OCS) and three days in, they had her head shaved.
At the time Zabrina graduated OCS as Officer of the Deck there was a collision with an Iranian tug. Thankfully, the captain was there and she was able to observe instead of assume responsibility. The military has a rule on ships that if something bad happens you go to battle stations, which means the people best suited for navigating the boat or manning the weapons systems goes and does that job. Zabrina said it created a loss of situational awareness as people scattered to their jobs around the ship.

What happened next? 17:05
After spending six months at sea, Zabrina’s ship was supposed to return. But the end of her first six months coincide with the one year anniversary of 9/11. The admiral of the fleet had ordered the ship back to the Gulf to fire tomahawk missiles and her captain wanted her, his tomahawk strike officer, to stay for the mission. During that first six months, Zabrina had felt very isolated due to the significant disparity between the number of men and women onboard, she’d already shipped her belongings homes and she’d trained her replacement; Zabrina felt as if it would be better for her to continue onto Nuclear Power School and Prototype School, so she got off in Australia and the ship continued on for 10 more months.
Next, Zabrina ended up on a ship with a crew made up of 20% women, the USS Carl Vinson, an aircraft carrier. She said it was a much friendlier environment, likely because women were integrated much sooner. Aircraft carrier hold 5,000 people on one ship and up to 70 aircrafts. 3,000 of those people are dedicated to the ship itself, and the other 2,000 or dedicated to flying the aircrafts. She was on the USS Carl Vinson for two years.

How much did you know about nuclear power at that point? 21:15
But before she was sent to the USS Carl Vinson, Zabrina had attended the year long Nuclear Power School and Prototype School program. The first six months were spent in the classroom on book based learning in the Nuclear Power School. She learned reactor physics, reactor dynamics, and so much more. It was essentially a master’s degree in the course of a year. The next six months were Protype School, where everything was based on your raking from Nuclear Power School. Zabrina scored well enough to be able to pick her Prototype School, so she chose upstate New York where she was the class leader of her cohort. There was a real submarine reactor and cruiser engine room. For those six months she operated the reactor for 12 hours shifts.
The only frightening part was when they ran casualty drills. Meaning, Zabrina would have to remember all of the steps to lead her team through casualty drills.

When did you realize the importance of nuclear power? 25:11
Zabrina operated the reactors on the USS Carl Vinson for two years, during that time she came to realize how important nuclear power for national security, which is an ongoing personal passion of hers. Zabrina left the Navy in 2006 and went to General Atomics for the active fission program. In 2008, the owner of General Atomics challenged Zabrina and the team to come up with a design for a reactor that was cost effective, because reactors at that time were losing market place; fuel and operating costs are elevated for reactors built in the 70s and 80s. New plants are not competing in the marketplace and are being shut down early.

How do you change peoples’ opinions on the way they value nuclear? 27:50
Zabrina thinks change needs to happen at a state level, instead of a federal levels. Other people, like herself, have seen the benefits of nuclear for national security. But she says it’s also important to have a civilization reactor fleet. This is worrisome because China is working with several developing nations to build reactors in-country, meaning those countries are now in 100 year relationship with China for the duration of the plants. Zabrina asks, how is the US going to enter that playing field if there is little government support, unlike China where the reactors are state supported.
There are seven billion people in this world, 1.1 billion of them don’t have access to electricity, and electricity equals prosperity. Zabrina says that the only way to meet the growing population needs is getting into power density, the nuclears of the atom. That’s why General Atomics is working in fission and fusion. Fission is splitting an atom into two; fusion is taking two atoms and making them into one. In magnetic fusion energy, you take the lightest element on earth, isotopes of hydrogen, and combine it to make helium and an energetic nucron comes off and the energy from that neutron can be put into a cycle to create electricity.

10) So you’re pro-fission and pro-fusion? 45:57
You need both fission and fusion. We need fission today until we can realize fusion. The US Department of Energy is assembling a fusion, energy, science advisory committee. There will be a report out at the end of 2020. The US needs a diverse set of technology working together. Policy needs to help develop each of those sources. For example, for clean energy, for every nuclear plant that gets shut down, a natural gas plant starts up. You lose a lot of money decommissioning nuclear and spend a lot of money to build a natural gas plant.

11) How do you get people outside of the nuclear community to believe in nuclear? 50:07
The nuclear community is really good about talking to other members of the nuclear community, not so much with sharing outside of the nuclear field. Zabrina says they need to learn to get better at that. Because of the technical nature of fission and fusion, we leave it up to scientists and engineers to have those conversations and it’s not resonating with other people outside of the nuclear field. Zabrina is working with the Nuclear Energy Institute, an organization that is doing a lot on better sharing the story of nuclear by involving communicators to establish the messaging. Right now, Zabrina is trying to establish a Fusion Communicators Council, drawing for a variety of US nuclear entities to collaborate and spread the message of nuclear through broader publics.

12) What do you hope for the future of nuclear 54:13
Zabrina would like to see the US shift the strategies of funding advanced reactor technologies so at least two are selected and materials and fuel are tested. She would also like more recognition for the benefits of nuclear plants to prevent further premature closers.

The Titans of Nuclear podcast (0:48)
0:48-10:15 (Naomi discusses the Energy Impact Center and the Titans of Nuclear podcast. She explains her role and the listener base.)

Q. What is the Energy Impact Center and the relationship to Titans of Nuclear?
A. The Energy Impact Center is a Washington DC based think tank with the primary goal of addressing climate change through deep decarbonization. More specifically, the Energy Impact Center is focused on reducing carbon emissions by 2030 and having 10 gigawatts of nuclear energy produced by 2040. Titans of Nuclear arose from the idea that gaining insights into the field can best be done through interviewing experts. With more than 170 episodes, the podcast attracts a broad audience with varying knowledge and interest in both nuclear energy and climate change. Titans of Nuclear is just one branch of the Energy Impact Center. This think tank hosts the Nuclear X Prize to motivate the discovery of new nuclear solutions and also conducts research, such as climate change impacts on drought.

As the Media Operations Manager of the Energy Impact Center and co-host of Titans of Nuclear, Naomi hopes to interview as many experts as she can. Because she does not come from a nuclear background, she was unsure of the types of questions to ask, what things had been challenged and what still needed to be explored. She therefore took on the approach of asking anything and challenging everything. While Naomi has learned a lot about the nuclear industry, she acknowledges that she has only skimmed the surface. This is because there are many perspectives within the nuclear industry as well as a wide range of uses for nuclear power. This greatly benefits the podcast, enabling Naomi to challenge experts to think about nuclear from a different angle, ultimately sparking new excitement and pushing the industry forward.

Titans of Nuclear attracts 125,000 unique listeners from 108 different countries. Nuclear is a global issue and it is important to reflect on the different changes that are occurring around the world. Naomi has been surprised by the listeners in very small countries as well as the growing listener base in the Middle East.

How Naomi joined Titans of Nuclear (10:16)
10:16-15:48 (Naomi explains her background and how she became the co-host of Titans of Nuclear.)

Q. How did you end up here?
A. Naomi is from Maryland and went to the University of Florida to study environmental engineering and fisheries. Her research focused on saltwater intrusion, which is an important issue in Florida where water quality and scarcity are of concern. Naomi worked on understanding how to make desalination feasible. This brought climate change to Naomi’s attention and introduced her to the idea of using nuclear energy to power desalination plants.

These interests align with the Energy Impact Center but Naomi had no experience in nuclear or media. However, this was a great benefit because it presented the opportunity to introduce new thinking to the nuclear industry.

What’s next for Naomi (15:49)
15:49-19:37 (Naomi explains that she will be pursuing a PhD to study the spread of antibiotic resistance through drinking water.)

Q. What are you going to do in graduate school?
A. Naomi will pursue a PhD in Rice University’s Environmental Engineering department. She will research the potential threat of spreading antibiotic resistance through drinking water. There are not many universities that study antibiotic resistance in an environmental context because this is an emerging issue. It is not yet known if antibiotic resistance is a fleeting issue, but Naomi will discover the degree of urgency that this issue presents.

Antibiotics exit the body in urine which is then treated at waste treatment plants. Treated water then enters a water body that will be used to supply drinking water, however antibiotics are not removed during the treatment process. A constant supply of antibiotics in drinking water causes the bacteria in your body to consistently be fighting antibiotics, meaning bacteria is becoming resistant. While scientists are studying how to remove antibiotics during the water treatment process, the wide variety of antibiotics creates a high cost for implementation.

Three common interview themes (19:38)
19:38-26:37 (Naomi explains the three common themes that have emerged during her time as a co-host.)

Q. What has surprised you during these interviews?
A. Naomi has noted three common themes that have arisen during her time as a co-host. The first is the limited window of time to address climate change and the need to build the support for nuclear now to ensure this window is not missed. The second involves the need to focus on the economics of nuclear. Plant development is often over budget and schedule, diminishing the ability for the nuclear industry to emerge. The third is nuclear as a national security issue. The US is falling behind in the nuclear sector and needs to catch up to China and Russia to ensure the US does not need to rely on another country for energy in the future.

Nuclear X Prize and future Titans (26:38)
26:38-32:28 (Naomi explains the Nuclear X Prize and her views on who else should be interviewed.)

Q. What is the goal of the Nuclear X Prize and in which areas do we need to interview more Titans?
A. The goal is to reach 10 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2040. The only way to achieve this goal is to attract investment and excite people who have new and different ideas about how to efficiently construct nuclear plants. The X Prize provides an innovation and financing hub to support and bring together interdisciplinary teams. These minds can reimagine construction together, which is needed to deploy great reactor ideas.

Naomi sees a need for regulators to be more excited about the industry. Naomi believes more regulators need to be interviewed to share how regulations are being pushed forward. She also sees a need to speak with more people from Congress who can speak on nuclear as a national issue. Seth Moultan, a democratic presidential candidate, has been interviewed on Titans of Nuclear. His staff has become excited and kept in touch with Naomi and the team. She sees Titans as a great opportunity to create a platform for politicians to share their views on nuclear with a broad audience.

The Fastest Path to Zero workshop (32:29)
32:29-36:19 (Naomi explains the Fastest Path to Zero workshop and her experience there.)

Q. What did you think about the Fastest Path to Zero workshop?
A. The two day event had panels and speakers as well as break out groups to discuss how nuclear can play a role in addressing climate change. This was the first time Naomi represented Titans of Nuclear and her first time attending a climate change conference. She notes the high level of excitement and strong community that had been built between people of different industries. The conference forced Naomi to think outside of the nuclear space and explore how nuclear can be integrated with other solutions, such as electric vehicles and city planning, to reach zero carbon emissions. The point of the conference was to share how the technological advancements of nuclear must be looked at from an interdisciplinary perspective. This is critical in understanding how to make nuclear economically viable and in understanding how nuclear can be applied in other contexts, such as in public policy. The conference enabled many professions to question each other in the same room, turning conversations into plans and pushing attendees to think about new topics and merge ideas.

The future of Titans of Nuclear (36:20)
36:20-44:40 (Naomi discusses what she sees for the future of Titans of Nuclear.)

Q. What is the long term plan for Titans of Nuclear?
A. Naomi is unsure of the exact direction in which Titans of Nuclear will evolve. Many interviewees feel strongly that nuclear is a climate change and national defense issue but there are many other applications for nuclear which are just as important. Naomi sees the podcast moving more towards becoming either a climate change discussion podcast or becoming focused on how nuclear is used in different fields. In the past, Titans of Nuclear evolved to regain a broader perspective on the importance of nuclear when Naomi joined as co-host.

Naomi hopes the Energy Impact Center grows. She hopes to see the X Prize create new nuclear by 2040. Naomi is unsure if Titans of Nuclear will scale because issues can change in the future. However, she hopes that it does scale so that more people can explore the role of nuclear in climate change and how it can add richness to a lifestyle dependent on energy.

Working with nuclear in 5 countries (2:10)
2:10-14:47 (Federico discusses his educational background and how he came to work with nuclear in 5 countries.)

Q. How many countries have you lived in?
A. (0:11) Federico has worked, lived and studied in 5 countries: Mexico, Spain, Germany, Sweden and the US. Federico’s interest in nuclear drives his movements around the globe.

When Federico was a teenager, he moved with his mother from Mexico to Houston, Texas. Federico focused his Master’s on Sustainable Energy Engineering with an emphasis on Nuclear Power Technology. Federico wanted to work first before pursuing a PhD at Penn State, so after finishing his Master’s thesis at Westinghouse in Sweden, he moved to Spain to provide services to the nuclear power plant. This provided him with a good understanding of what actually happens within a nuclear power plant, moving his knowledge beyond the theory. Federico chose Penn State for his PhD because it offered him the opportunity to become involved in a nuclear project in Germany with Areva, a competitor of Westinghouse.

Federico was grateful to work with Westinghouse and Areva during his graduate education. After his Master’s taught classes, Federico applied and was accepted to do his thesis project with Westinghouse Sweden. He then stayed in Sweden because, at the time, Sweden’s electricity was split evenly between nuclear and hydropower. Prior to his Master’s, Federico studied both economics and mechanical and electrical engineering simultaneously at different universities in Mexico. He focuses on sustainability and believes nuclear can complement renewable energies to provide for the high demand for clean energy. Federico is now an International Nuclear expert and Professor at Technologico de Monterrey.

Nuclear as part of the solution (14:48)
12:48-23:19 (Federico explains why he chose to enter the nuclear industry rather than focus on battery storage. He also discusses the importance of including nuclear in clean energy strategies.)

Q. What made you go into nuclear rather than battery storage?
A. (12:47) Federico was impressed with nuclear. No other energy source can produce as much electricity per unit of fuel. Nuclear is a clean energy, generating no greenhouse gases during production. While the capital investment is high, the variable costs are low, meaning nuclear is an economically sound electricity source. Additionally, nuclear does not depend on weather conditions and can continue producing electricity during difficult weather conditions. Nuclear can be used as a baseload alongside renewables.

Battery storage makes sense in small grids, but in large grids, the grid distributes energy directly to where it is needed. Nuclear-produced electricity can follow this grid, creating efficient electricity flow. Batteries can be a part of the solution, but the overall energy solution requires developing a strategic solution that combines a mix of different electricity sources. Achieving climate goals requires including nuclear power in energy talks and in the renewable energy team. It is no longer enough to only solve the climate problem, but we must also reverse it. Nuclear power can help us achieve this.

Federico’s interest in sustainability (23:20)
23:20-27:24 (Federico discusses how he became interested in sustainability.)

Q. What first got you thinking about sustainability?
A. (21:18) Studying both economics and engineering during school enabled Federico to view problems in a different way. He began focusing on efficiency, which he gained different perspectives on from his time in the US and Europe. He then became interested in how to be effective and efficient within sustainability and how to extend the macroeconomics and the importance of sustainability to society.

Nuclear from an economic perspective (27:25)
27:25-32:32 (Federico explains how he views nuclear from an economic perspective.)

Q. How do you see the nuclear industry from an economic perspective?
A. (25:25) From an economic perspective, nuclear projects must be on time and on budget. Federico has worked in private nuclear companies as well as in technical research for government, giving him a variety of viewpoints on the topic. Federico sees the need for a mechanism to be established by the market or government to help raise capital investment. Because of the changing nuclear policy landscape, private capital investment is risky, creating the need for governments to lower risk or provide subsidies.

Creating public acceptance (32:33)
32:33-41:47 (Federico explains how public acceptance is needed for governments to support nuclear power.)

Q. How do we convince governments to subsidise or include nuclear in policy?
A. (30:31) Infrastructure must first be considered from both a financial and regulatory perspective. While the government must make decisions based on fact, there is also sometimes a political cost. Politicians can be afraid that nuclear is not popular because the public is not informed about the benefits of nuclear. Public acceptance is a huge barrier, so the industry must transmit the benefits to the public.

Federico stresses the importance of educating the next generation about how nuclear can be used alongside renewables. Creating acceptance requires educating the public about the facts of nuclear in an objective manner and for the industry to be informers instead of promoters. Federico believes one of the best ways of doing this is by using the United Nations’ (UN) 17 Sustainable Development Goals. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nine of the 17 can be benefited by the adoption of nuclear.

When we talk about energy, we talk about quantity and quality. We must provide huge amounts of energy to provide for growing populations and to avoid energy poverty, which is the absence of access to modern energy services. In terms of quality, energy must be clean, reliable, affordable and flexible. Nuclear can cover each of these requirements.

Transferring nuclear knowledge (41:58)
41:58-46:47 (Federico explains how newcomer countries can be supported by the IAEA and experienced countries.)

Q. How do you transfer knowledge from countries that are succeeding to countries that are falling behind?
A. (39:57) The IAEA is doing an amazing job with this transfer of knowledge. They provide guidance, guidelines and recommendations. They are internationally accepted and are reviewed by experts. Newcomer countries interested in nuclear power approach the IAEA and the Nuclear Energy Agency, who create a networking platform to share advice. The experienced countries also have the responsibility of taking the bigger steps. There are also internationally accepted tools and methodologies in place to help newcomer countries understand the facts about nuclear.

Federico’s nuclear energy future (46:48)
46:48-52:59 (Federico explains what he is currently focused on within the nuclear industry. He also discusses what needs to happen to establish nuclear as a global energy solution.)

Q. What are you focusing on right now and what are you trying to push in the nuclear field?
A. (44:47) Federico primarily focuses on the economics and the legal and regulatory frameworks of nuclear infrastructure. In his prior positions, Federico was the Director of the Scientific Research Division of the National Institute for Nuclear Research and a Distribution Manager at GRS in Germany. In these positions, he learned about the successful elements of a nuclear project. He designed a strategy to bring external funding to the National Institute and established interdisciplinary groups to create well written proposals. He also works in capacity building in academia and overall focuses on economics, management, funding and finance.

Establishing nuclear as a global solution is a complex, difficult challenge. It requires us to understand that there is no one unique solution that can be applied to every country. Some countries can support large nuclear power plants while other countries can only support small reactors because of the available grid infrastructure in place. Federico is also excited to see young generations working on new designs. He sees the need for a common goal for sustainable development, meaning the requirement to better communicate the benefits of nuclear energy to the public.

Becoming a nuclear plant chemist (1:54)
1:54-10:02 (Reuben explains how he first became interested in chemistry and how he came to enter the nuclear sector.)

Q. Did you grow up in the UK?
A. Reuben Holmes was born in Yorkshire County in the UK. Reuben studied medicinal chemistry in school and focused on novel organocatalysis during his master’s. He always thought he would enter the pharmaceuticals industry and worked at a pharmaceutical manufacturing site where he provided analytical support and quality assurance. Reuben did similar work for British Sugar. During his year at the sugar factory, Reuben was figuring out what he wanted to do, but nuclear was not yet on his mind. One day, Reuben’s mother told him that the Sellafield nuclear facility had a chemistry graduate program and applied just three days before the application closed. Reuben is now a Nuclear Plant Chemist at the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL).

Sellafield (10:02)
10:02-18:27 (Reuben describes the UK’s Sellafield nuclear facility.)

Q. What is the Sellafield site?
A. Sellafield is equivalent to the US Hanford site, but is only about 1.5 to 2 square miles large. Sellafield was the start of the UK’s nuclear sector, becoming the world’s first commercial scale nuclear site. It is now the site of the processing plants which recycle nuclear fuel and where the nuclear waste is stored from all the nuclear facilities in the UK. Sellafield is coming to the end of its reprocessing life, meaning there is no fuel left to process and it does not have an operating nuclear power plant.

The UK used to recycle fuel but no longer does due to the decreased uranium prices. The Magnox plant reprocesses all of the fuel from the UK’s first generation fleet and will be decommissioned starting in about 2022. The Thorp reprocessing plant processes fuel from the UK’s second generation fleet and from overseas customers. Both plants were built in the 1970s and 1980s when uranium was more expensive than it is today. The siting process to store waste after Sellafield is decommissioned was launched in 2018. It creates a timeline to finding a community that is willing to host a waste facility. This process could take about 15 years because it will be designated on a volunteer basis.

The Sellafield Graduate Program (18:28)
18:28-29:51 (Reuben describes Sellafield’s graduate program and some of the projects he worked on during the program.)

Q. What was the graduate program like and what did you get to do?
A. Reuben enjoyed the Sellafield graduate program. The program is 2 years long with a cohort of about 25 people. It provides on the job experience and Reuben joined the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant technical team. This team focused on providing operational and technical support for the plant. Reuben found this quite different from sugar and pharmaceutical manufacturing because he was unable to see what was happening with his own eyes. In nuclear, he had to trust drawings of the systems to be true and could only understand what was happening from the chemistry data he was collecting.

One of Reuben’s roles was looking at trends and reviewing flowsheets to know how much material was present during each stage of reprocessing. Sellafield needed to maintain an understanding of how much material was extracted from the uranium during each stage of the process. The program gave Reuben the opportunity to learn these methodologies in a team alongside some of the people who had designed the plant.

Another aspect of the graduate program was focused on research and development. This allowed Reuben to join the NNL, enabling him to explore what a nuclear laboratory does to help the industry operate better. His first NNL project focused on a plant that was slowed by a faulty nozzle. Reuben and the team worked to create a better nozzle using a 3D printer. This showed Reuben how the NNL is linked to academia, allowing Reuben to draw from the academic literature and apply those learnings to an industry project. The team partnered with University College London to use the university’s bespoke x-ray imaging facility. This allowed the team to see inside the opaque test reactor to view the formation of the air bubbles from the nozzles, which could then be quantified to select the best new nozzle designs. This experience motivated Reuben to join the NNL as a plant chemist after the graduate program ended.

Developing the UK’s nuclear expertise (29:52)
29:52-34:55 (Reuben explains the NNL’s strategy and his own funded research project.)

Q. What kind of projects do you work on at the NNL?
A. The NNL operates on a commercial model and makes a profit. Because the NNL is owned by the UK government, this profit is then reinvested in NNL and is put towards training staff and developing the strategic nuclear expertise for the UK through funded research projects. Reuben leads a project focusing on hot water chemistry corrosion. Because the UK has many options for different kinds of reactors in the future, Reuben’s project focuses on developing expertise in corrosion of different designs. This includes pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors, but also small modular reactors, advanced designs and fusion.

Anti-corrosion chemistry (34:56)
34:56-43:17 (Reuben explains the various ways to minimize corrosion in reactors.)

Q. How do you study how to minimize corrosion?
A. Different reactor designs have different methods to decrease corrosion. For pressurized water reactors, hydrogen gas can be injected to absorb the corrosive molecules that exist in water. As the water flows through the reactor core, the water splits into hydrogen and oxygen, and the oxygen is often corrosive. The added hydrogen bonds with the oxygen to reform water. An alternative to this is to inject zinc into the reactor to modify the protective layer on the reactor’s surfaces, making them thicker and more resistant to corrosion.

Boiling water reactors use a different technique. Too much added hydrogen will increase the dose rates, creating a safety issue. Instead, platinum is injected into the reactor. The platinum forms nanoparticles that spread through the cooling system’s surfaces and act as a catalyst for the reformation of water from the hydrogen and oxygen molecules.

An advanced boiling water reactor is currently on hold to be built in Wales. The NNL has begun looking at the chemistry for this plant, including hydrogen, zinc and platinum approaches. This plant will be unique, because unlike other plants, it will use this anti-corrosion chemistry from the beginning of operation. The project was halted due to funding model issues between the UK and Japan, but fortunately, Reuben was able to work with the fusion lab to continue the research. His project now focuses on what a cooling circuit will look like for the Demo fusion facility. This gives NNL the opportunity to transfer their knowledge from fission reactors to fusion reactors, which are still being designed.

Corrosion in fusion reactors (43:18)
43:18-48:50 (Reuben explains the difference in corrosion between fusion and fission reactors.)

Q. How is fusion different from fission?
A. Fusion reactors have high-energy neutrons which fission reactors do not have. The high-energy neutrons impact the reactor’s materials by knocking atoms out of place, leading to cracking. Fusion reactors also have a magnetic field. The NNL is beginning to study if the magnetic field will weaken or strengthen the protective layer on the reactor surfaces. This can be studied in the lab using samples and a magnetic field in a high temperature water loop to create a mini fusion system. We have yet to see if a new type of anti-corrosion chemistry is needed to ensure the materials can withstand this environment.

The Young Generation Network (48:51)
48:51-56:26 (Reuben describes his role in the Young Generation Network.)

Q. What was your inspiration to start working with the Young Generation Network?
A. When Reuben joined the NNL, he received an email informing him about a Young Generation Network issue of the Nuclear Future Journal produced by the Nuclear Institute. The email asked if he had any projects that could be submitted to the journal as a paper. Reuben submitted the nozzle project and it was published six months later. Reuben was then invited to attend the Nuclear Institute’s annual dinner and was awarded the Pinkerton Prize for submitting the best journal paper of the year. This led to Reuben joining the editorial committee of the Nuclear Future Journal where he now coordinates input from the Young Generation Network.

Reuben saw this as an opportunity to put together a strategy to increase participation and engagement with the journal. He created surveys to share the Young Generations’ views on various topics within the nuclear industry. Reuben also works to celebrate success by writing Q&A articles focused on the young people behind the novel work that pushes the sector forwards. Reuben also aims to create effective communicators through his nuclear myth busting section. Finally, Reuben has created “Imagination.” This enables young industry workers to share their own ideas about the sector with the community.

Improving nuclear engagement (56:27)
56:27-1:04:17 (Reuben discusses the need for better public engagement in the nuclear industry and how the NNL is improving this.)

Q. What do you hope for the future of nuclear?
A. Reuben believes public engagement is one of the biggest challenges for the nuclear sector. Reuben leads the NNL’s public engagement program where they research the best ways to engage the public. The team sits down with members of the public to understand how they want to engage with the nuclear sector. This is then used to develop more effective communication and the methodologies to do this. The NNL has been working with Manchester University’s Nuclear and Social Science Research Network to bring social science thinking into nuclear practice. This not only builds trust but also creates local ownership of facilities. Reuben believes getting communication and engagement right is key to the future of the nuclear sector.

4 Bullet Points
(1) Why the UK’s Sellafield nuclear site will soon be decommissioned and how their graduate program moved Reuben into the nuclear sector
(2) How the Nuclear National Laboratory is researching the anti-corrosion chemistries of different nuclear reactor designs including fusion reactors
(3) Reuben’s involvement in the Young Generation Network and how he is working to share the next generation’s insights and accomplishments
(4) Researching how to engage the public better will improve nuclear acceptance and secure the future of the industry

2 Quotes
(1) 42:46-43:15 “We’ve got a really nice program of work now looking at transferring that knowledge, that experience in water chemistry corrosion from fission plants, so boiling water reactors, pressurized water reactors, to these coolant circuits that they’re still designing for the Demo fusion plant and it’s so cool (...) there’s so much going on, there’s so many funky conditions going on in that fusion coolant circuit.”
(2) 1:01:20-1:01:50 “The aim is rather than that community feeling like the nuclear industry is doing this to us, putting this small modular reactor in our community, it’s more about the community shaping that small modular reactor, shaping how it looks, how it operates and everything around it so that it’s their facility, so that they have ownership of it and they’re proud of it.”