TITANS OF NUCLEAR

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.

00:47 Q: What’s your original background?

A: Joshua Goldstein started out as an environmentalist, distrustful of technology and nuclear power, which he confused with nuclear weapons. Goldstein also had a background in political science and academia, and became focused on climate change with his son, a climate change activist elected to office in Massachusetts. Goldstein recognized that not all proposed solutions to climate change were comprehensible, and sought to find a practical solution. During his search, Goldstein discovered nuclear power and how countries such as Sweden, France, Canada, and South Korea built up nuclear power and dropped carbon emissions. This led Goldstein to co-author a book, A Bright Future, with Swedish nuclear engineer Staffan Qvist. He noticed that the word nuclear freaks people out, and wondered if it would be possible to present the nuclear energy solution without using the word nuclear up front in book. The book also studies some countries that have tried to decarbonize with renewables, but with limited success, such as Germany

07:34 Q: How did you work through the options of solving climate change and how did you arrive at nuclear power?

A: Joshua Goldstein started researching solutions for climate change with the amount of fossil fuels we use and how much energy society is going to use going forward, leading him to the nuclear power solution. While today’s grid is predominantly coal, China could drop coal energy and pick up nuclear power to drop world carbon emissions by 10%. Asian and Latin American countries are growing quickly, creating a huge surge for energy demand. Other causes of carbon emissions, such as transportation, industrial, and buildings, can be decarbonized, but will require a vast amount of energy. Goldstein started reading about the rates at which clean energy has been added in the past by different countries to determine a proven method of adding clean energy relative to GDP. Goldstein compared Sweden, Germany, France, and South Korea, among others. Sweden had success decades ago during the oil embargo, when they built up their nuclear power, and has proven the way to add clean electricity, along with France.

14:30 Q: Did you talk to social psychologists about the name of your book, A Bright Future?

A: Joshua Goldstein considered political communication when naming his book, A Bright Future, and determined that giving people hope is better than doom and gloom. Goldstein realized that if you want people to do something, such as mobilize governments, investment money, or change attitudes, there must be a hope that it’s really going to work. This will drive people to do it.

15:48 Q: The immediate response to Fukushima is to explain how it will never happen again. Instead, the appropriate response should be why it wasn’t a big deal. What is the science of convincing people of something to alleviate concern, such as the use of nuclear energy?

A: Joshua Goldstein’s research included how to provide the right emotional message about nuclear energy. He argues that we cannot promote nuclear energy with a sole focus on how safe it is, because people will think it must be dangerous and their are trying to be convinced otherwise. Instead, nuclear energy should be advertised as other fuels, each which has ups and downs and risks and benefits. Nuclear energy has immense benefits with relatively small risks. As with any energy source, sometimes things will go wrong and people might get hurt. Nuclear energy needs to be normalized. Goldstein compares the perception of coal, which had killed hundreds of thousands of people a year, compared to the number of people that died at Chernobyl, perhaps thousands at most. Another normalized energy source is methane, which still can blow up city blocks. Every fuel has its problems. Even hydroelectric fuel has risks, such as the broken dam in China that washed away a village and killed thousands. Advocates of nuclear energy cannot say nothing will never happen. Goldstein compares fuel sources to airplanes, which are convenient and have gotten safer over time. However, once a while, a plane plummets from the sky, but people don’t say planes will never crash or people will stop flying for good. Goldstein wants to promote nuclear energy by its risks and benefits.

20:26 Q: Do people intuitively understand that cheap energy should be prioritized over the externalities of producing that energy?

A: Joshua Goldstein’s research has included how to change people’s minds and get them over their fears, which includes the externalities of producing energy compared to the cost efficiency. He sees lots of cross-wired information in the public, such as nuclear weapons versus nuclear energy, and confusion about nuclear disasters such as Fukushima. By cranking out nuclear plants worldwide at a certain standard to a point at which they can produce cheap electricity may change people’s perception. In South Korea, nuclear energy is the cheapest energy source. The country has standardized design, multiple big reactors, and strong government support. A fictional film produced by Green Peace hyped up fears about nuclear energy and caused cross-wired information in the public.

25:58 Q: Walk me through the thesis of your book, A Bright Future.

A: Joshua Goldstein’s thesis in his book, A Bright Future, is this: if you’re serious about climate change, then you can’t dismiss nuclear power. People need to look at all options, instead of just the options they already feel comfortable with. Goldstein’s first chapter looks at how bad climate change could get and how fast; tipping points like a new ice age or a 20 foot sea level rise are game changers. Goldstein focuses on the need to be responsible with the world that we live in and will leave to the next generation, which means decarbonizing quickly. The Paris Agreement is not effective enough, focused on taking small steps first, but no one follows up with on the small steps they commit to.

28:47 Q: Looking at the Paris Agreement from an inspiration perspective, no one wants to rally around doing something small. Non-binding pledges should be centered around how to actually solve climate change and utilize scientists and researched options.

A: Joshua Goldstein recognizes that part of the problem about global agreements is weak global governance and there is no ambition behind the agreements. Climate scientists are very cautious about predictions, but more data over time shows that worst case scenarios turn out to be most likely. Goldstein promotes pushing the restart button to decarbonize the whole world economy, which is mostly fossil fuel, in thirty years. Goldstein promotes a focus on building an energy system for the world with nuclear energy as the backbone. It doesn’t make sense to have solar, wind, or hydroelectric as the backbone.

33:47 Q: Why is there trouble rallying people towards 100% nuclear energy, as opposed to 100% renewable energy?

A: Joshua Goldstein writes in his book, A Bright Future, about how France achieved 100% nuclear energy. In the 1970’s, that was the plan for the U.S. and if it had been followed through with, carbon emissions now would be much less. Public image sees 100% renewables as an ideology that they can rally around, and people are scared of nuclear power. The concept of true 100% renewable energy is misunderstood in the public, relative to daytime and nighttime energy. California has reduced carbon emissions by 40%, but imports lots of goods from China. California didn’t really decarbonize, but instead pushed carbon emissions to China, such as steel production produced internationally. California utilizes lots of renewable energy, but depends on natural gas, importing fossil fuel or nuclear at night.

38:18 Q: How does marketing change the perception of energy?

A: Joshua Goldstein recognizes marketing strategies, such as the use of the term natural gas versus methane, or the slogan clean coal, can change public perception. Communication about nuclear energy is terrible and needs to be rebranded. Goldstein also supports creating more beautiful nuclear plants.

42:39 Q: The book A Bright Future started with climate change and what Sweden did right. What’s next?

A: Joshua Goldstein’s book, A Bright Future, started with the story of Sweden and how they did it. Sweden did it quickly and and it was very normalized. Goldstein contrasts this situation with Germany, which focused on removing nuclear and adding renewables. Some of Goldstein’s chapters focus on energy demand issues, looking at methane gas, fossil fuels, and alternatives for how to get all that energy. Goldstein also has a breaking down why people don’t like nuclear energy and changing those perceptions, such as how do we deal with waste and what the true risks are. There is also a chapter on international development, such as in Russia, China, and India. All of Goldstein’s chapters are centered around how to reframe climate change debate from avoiding a focus on sacrifices and burdens, but instead rethinking how we are actually doing it. Goldstein argues that climate change can’t be solved by being more efficient, but instead by creating a common purpose and smarter economy, through nuclear energy.

47:14 Q: What should people do after they read the book, A Bright Future?

A: Joshua Goldstein suggests first reading his book, A Bright Future, then getting a copy for someone they know. There is a lot of bipartisan support for nuclear energy development, but the term climate change causes people to take sides and is very polarizing. Goldstein instead encourages conversations about solutions, such as wind power for Kansas. Overall, the country can focus on American innovation and design, which creates jobs and strength for economy, getting the bipartisan support, and also helps with climate change. Goldstein encourages conversation with others about nuclear energy and getting in touch with the congresspeople.

50:30 Q: What else do you see exciting on the verge of taking off in the nuclear power industry?

A: Joshua Goldstein believes fourth generation reactors are ten years away from taking off, due to tight regulations that are hard to get through. Companies are trying to get licenses, but it is very difficult and other countries have better licensing systems. Bill Gates took TerraPower to China for this reason, and will be moving to another country to pursue the project further. Nuclear technology needs to be prototyped, then tested out, to see if it works in practice versus on paper. Third generation reactors have a confidence factor, such as the AP1000 reactors in China and the APR1400 reactors in South Korea. However, these reactors are not necessarily cost effective to build in the U.S. Standardized designs overseas with central manufacturing, such as in a shipyard or factories, and ship to sites, can make a difference economically. Gen 3 reactors could be manufactured and shipped out as export product. Licensing a new reactor design costs about a billion dollars and a decade of development before shovels hit the ground. The Nuclear Energy Modernization Act was put forth to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on board to license new reactors.

58:18 Q: Will the U.S. be subject to China if they focus on manufacturing reactors?

A: Joshua Goldstein encourages China to pick a reactor design to roll out, such as AP1000, and completely take coal off the grid. This would prove the concept that a big economy can rely on nuclear energy and be produced cheaply with minimal risks. The rest of the world will follow. The U.S. might not be subject to China, but that success would spur America to catch up.

Top 8 Bullets
- Joshua Goldstein’s background as an environmentalist and politician - Sweden’s successful build-up of nuclear power and lessons learned from Germany’s build-up of renewable power - How to normalize nuclear energy by educating the public on its risks and benefits - Future global energy demand and the necessity of nuclear energy - Promotion of global decarbonization with a nuclear power backbone - Impacts of marketing in developing public perceptions of different energy sources - Creating a smarter economy to solve climate change - Goals of the Nuclear Energy Modernization Act for future reactor licensing.

Javier’s early career (0:32)
0:32-4:13 (Javier shares his first steps in professional career)
Q. You spent all your career in nuclear, but you studied naval engineering. How did it happen
that you decided to work in our sector?
A. Javier felt like an engineer since his youngest years. When he was starting his studies, Spain
was a very strong player in naval industry. However it degraded severely in the coming years. It
was the opposite with nuclear – it flourished at that time.
Javier felt that he could develop his engineering skills in nuclear because it’s an industry
focused on technology. He started his career in Tecnatom and he could tell that this is where
his future lies. Indeed, he’s still there, now as CEO of the company.
Tecnatom (4:13)
4:13-9:00 (Javier lists Tecnatom’s points of focus at the time when he joined the company)
Q. What did Tecnatom do at the moment when you started?
A. Tecnatom was created in 1957 and Javier joined the company in 1986. The company was
only working for the Spanish market. Tecnatom was focused in training of staff and inspection.
These activities require high level of specialization and Tecnatome brought these skills for the
country. Javier started in the in-service inspection. Tecnatom’s expertise is to show the NPPs
‘how to operate a power plant’ – deriving from the experiences of all the energy sectors. One of
the examples of Tecnatom’s creations are full-scope simulators of control rooms. Javier tells a
story that some time ago, when computers were not so popular, people could not believe that
the simulators are not hard-wired with a reactor, but with a computer. At some point Tecnatom
used the most powerful computer in Spain to simulate the reactor.

Long Term Operation LTO
9:00-14:50 (Javier explains the details of Long Term Operation of power plants)
Q. Long Term operation – on one side the NPPs turn out to be operable for longer than initially
expected, on the other – the technologies become obsolete. What do you think about this? Are
the plants that are being built now going to serve for longer? Are the plants currently operating
capable to serve for longer?
A. The new power plants that are being built now are scheduled to serve 60 years. The currently
operating units were designed decades ago, with almost no computer-aided engineering.
However, even now, most of the designs of the heavy components of a NPP remain unchanged
even by now. But the experience on how to operate the power plant is growing, which makes
the operation of an NPP safer with time – with the lessons from accidents, but also smallest
incidents that happen on site all over the world. We develop safety culture and we renovate the
plants all the time, using better components than the ones originally installed. Efficiency is also
being improved – operation factors are being increased close to 90% globally – before it could
go to as low as 70%. Looking at the economics, safety and environment – the LTO of 60-80
years is a very good choice. There is no reason for closing the plants prematurely, like
Germany did. German reactors are very well designed and they could serve for longer.
LTO in Spain (14:50)
14:50-17:43 (Javier explains the situation of Spanish NPPs)
Q. Is Spain entering LTO with its fleet?
A. In Spain LTO is a very political question. Average age of the reactors is 47 years. The
energy transition plan in Spain appears very expensive – 240 bn euros spent up to 2030. Javier
that the pandemic crisis Spain may experience financial issues in realizing such an investment.
Spain should fix the priorities – climate change and lowering the emissions, biodiversity etc. The
plants existing now should be reviewed for LTO. The plan established now was based on
politics, communication issues and environment, but not on the economics and security of
supply, now it is time to reconsider it.
In-service inspection (17:43)
17:43-21:30 (Javier describes the details of in-service inspection)
Q. Jumping back to the in-service inspection, can you tell me which parts of power plant can be
inspected in-service and why not the others?
A. Javier started working in the in-service inspection of Steam Generators (SG) – it’s one of the
most important components in a PWR system. There is a lot of engineering work before
deciding what to inspect in-service and what not, but the key objective is to prove the
functioning of all the boundaries isolating primary and secondary circuit, and not dispersing
radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere. The methods like using ultrasonic or eddy current are
being developed to demonstrate it. The problem in a NPP is that the access to some area is
restricted because of the radiation level – robotic tools, underwater devices are designed and

used for these particular activities. Professionals from fields of electronics, robotics, non-
destructive material testing are working together in these projects. Over the years, the number
of staff required and the radiation doses were reduced dramatically.
The future of in-service inspection (21:30)
21:30-25:24 (Javier gives his insight on the developments of in-service inspection)
Q. In-service inspection means that means that it is performed during the fuel campaign. Do you
think that the scope of services will change for the new reactors?
A. For the new NPPs there are 2 important topics: first is materials, which are much better now.
The need for inspection of the new plants is lower because we expect less problems. Another
topic is on-line inspection. Using them you are able to inspect the devices throughout all the
operation of the plant, which help reduce number of tests performed during the outage.
Tecnatom works both in online monitoring and automatization of the process, reducing number
of staff performing the operations. For example, Steam Generator makes up to around 200km of
tubing. Thanks to optimization of work, Tecnatom is able to test all the tubes in very short time.
R&D (25:24)
25:24-28:06 (Javier points to some of Tecnatom’s projects in R&D field)
Q. Tecnatom also has an R&D department, that you were a head of. Do you have your favorite
project that you were leading or supervising?
A. Javier was working on automatics aimed at data analysis for the Steam Generator
inspections and to automatize the data acquisition. Javier also enjoys robotics. At that time
Tecnatom was also developing projects for aeronautics, and right now they are a leading
company running inspections of carbon composites for the aeronautic industry. All the expertise
useful for aeronautics Tecnatom drew from nuclear.
Final remarks (50:58)
50:58-56:32 (Javier gives his remarks about the role of nuclear power now and in the future)
Q. As we are wrapping up, I want to give you the floor to talk about something that is exciting to
you
A. Javier thinks that Tecnatom has wonderful employees. He thinks that nuclear sector
demonstrated its excellence during the crisis. Spanish power plants were able to run smoothly,
including 3 outages at the same time. There is one important lesson to be learned from the
crisis. The politicians were saying that they were following the advice of specialists, people who
know about the problem. Javier would like to have politicians listening to the experts in energy,
about closing of NPPs and replacing it with combustion fuels. In Europe, if we want to be an
important part of the world, i think that we should keep the nuclear option open, because this
technology will be necessary in the future. It’s being developed and improved a lot so in the 30s
we will see many more countries going nuclear. Even in aerospatial industry, nuclear is crucial,
soon there will be reactors adapted to space. Leaving nuclear would be a strategic problem for
Europe.

00:34 Q: How did you get involved in NASA?
A: Rex Geveden’s background in engineering physics led to his first interest in national missile defense systems, eventually leading to his involvement in NASA. Rex joined Teledyne Brown Engineering and moved to Huntsville, Alabama, working on physics-based modeling of missile defense systems. Huntsville was also home the Marshall Space Flight Center, where he spent 17 years total.
1:54 Q: How did you rise to the top of the NASA?
A: Rex Geveden started as a payload engineer at NASA, worked into a chief engineer position, and then was promoted to Associate Administrator, similar to a COO position. Rex was involved in all mission areas, including the space shuttle, space station, haleophysics, and aeronatics. Rex held the top non-political position at NASA.
5:28 Q: What were you doing in your next senior leadership position at Teledyne?
A: Rex Geveden left NASA to hold a senior leadership position at Teledyne Technologies, the parent company to Teledyne Brown Engineering where he had previously worked. While Rex was at NASA, he met the CEO of Teledyne Technologies and was invited back as President of Teledyne Brown Engineering. Rex moved on to become Executive Vice-President of Teledyne Technologies, putting him in charge of two of four operation centers, including 11 Teledyne companies.
8:08 Q: How did you come to the nuclear industry?
A: Rex Geveden has been interested in physics since middle school. Rex found a book on special relativity in 8th grade and became enamored on the paradox of the twins and space attraction, leading to his interest in physics. When Rex left NASA for Teledyne, he discovered the company had nuclear manufacturing credentials that were dormant. Rex set Teledyne up to restart nuclear manufacturing.. Rex wanted to get involved in the nuclear renaissance. Teledyne’s biggest markets at the time were space and defense, while nuclear was more a market on the edge of their focus. Rex spent 8 years total at Teledyne. Rex got a cold call from a BWXT recruiter, which was a company produced from the split of Babcock and Wilcox. BWXT became the nuclear portion of the business. Rex was hired on as COO, with plans to be a CEO successor.
11:27 Q: When you took a senior leadership position at BWXT, what kind of vision did you sell in order for the company to hire you?
A: Rex Geveden sold his vision for the company based on two primary objectives. The first objective was to protect the Navy business, since BWXT is the sole provider for most nuclear equipment used on U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers. The Navy business provides up to 80% of business in sales for BWXT and is a sole source business with heavy backlog. The second objective was to think about how to manage the cash the company had generated in new areas for growth.
15:52 Q: What are some of the areas in which you thought to innovate?
A: Rex Geveden focused some of his innovation on market-based strategy, and others were driven more by technology. Rex saw one market-based opportunity in that BWXT was underexposed to the Canadian reactor market, which are going under a big expansion and refurbishment project. On the technical innovation side, Rex was interested in medical radioisotopes. BWXT was experienced in the radiochemical process and had idea an idea of how to make an isotope in a much less expensive way, with no complex waste stream and with continuity of supply, which had not yet been available. BWXT bought a radioisotope manufacturer as a way of managing risk in this innovation field.
19:14 Q: It takes a lot of confidence to buy a company and grow them in ways they hadn’t before. How do you buy a business?
A: Rex Geveden led BWXT’s acquisition of a radioisotope manufacturer, focused on cost and strategic synergies. BWXT had the technology to put in the existing manufacturing plant filled with skilled workers with knowledge of regulatory requirements. Rex’s strategy was to buy a workforce capable of taking BWXT’s technologies.
24:44 Q: Electricity demand in traditional markets has leveled off. Are there other international markets that are attractive?
A: Rex Geveden is attracted to international markets such as Canada, but also recognizes the unattractive sides of state-owned enterprises such as China. These enterprises only want the technology and one generation of help from the company. BWXT concentrates mostly on the promising nuclear renaissance in Western markets. Advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, combined with a nuclear need creates a nuclear revolution. Rex sees that making incremental changes is too expensive and takes too long. Classic architecture, especially pressurized water reactors, are not the solution for this nuclear renaissance.
30:15 Q: What else is under your scope?
A: Rex Geveden leads BWXT in many areas of scope, such as nuclear thermocompulsion with NASA, manufacturing with NuScale, and advanced manufacturing and technology work with the DOE for complex fuel forms.
32:09 Q: Is the industry looking into nuclear-powered rockets as possible technology?
A: Rex Geveden does not see a nuclear-powered rockets in the future, due to the high thrust requirement. Nuclear engines have high efficiency and high speed, but chemical rocket engines provide the thrust needed.
35:00 Q: What’s next for the company and the industry?
A: Rex Geveden will focus BWXT on investing heavily in the Navy business, which has been high demand for 50 years, due to all nuclear propulsion for subs and aircraft carriers. Rex sees interest from NASA, DOD, Army, and DARPA, among others, to invest in nuclear as the best and only solution for some problems. BWXT is well positioned for that in order to build another franchise platform. The combination of advanced technologies and changing economics, springboards the industry into commercial power generation.
Top 8 Bullet Points
- Rex Geveden’s background in engineering physics & career at NASA - Rex Geveden’s work in the space and defense markets at Teledyne Technologies - Role of nuclear manufacturing in the energy and defense markets - Development of nuclear propulsion technology for Navy submarines and aircraft carriers - BWXT’s market expansion into Canadian nuclear reactors - BWXT’s innovations in medical radioisotope production - Industrial collaboration between manufacturers and NASA, NuScale, and the Department of Energy - Interest from government agencies in advanced nuclear technologies.

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

Q: You’re the first congressperson on the show and have served ten terms in Congress.

Q: You were born in Baltimore, but grew up in Indiana. What made your family move to Indiana?

A: Philip Sharp’s father was stationed at the proving grounds north of Baltimore during the Second World War. Sharp’s mother followed her husband there, where Philip was born. The family then moved back to their homeland of Indiana.

Q: What is it like growing up in Indiana?

A: Philip Sharp grew up in a small town with a population of about 8,000 people. His mother was a teacher and his father was a lawyer. Sharp also had a older brother.

Q: You grew up in the town of Elmwood. Did your future career revolving around energy come from Indiana’s history with the energy industry?

A: Philip Sharp was elected in 1974, shortly following the energy crisis of 1973. The Energy in Congress Committee had just been reorganized and Sharp signed up for the committee with no prior background or knowledge or the energy industry.

Q: What brought you into politics?

A: Philip Sharp had an intense focus on politics starting in his hometown and attended the Georgetown Foreign Service School. Sharp worked part time for the Indiana Senator’s office during his time in Washington, which led to his return home to teach and run for office. Sharp achieved a PhD in Government due to his deep general interest in the topic.

Q: What was your first run for office like?

A: In 1970, Philip Sharp ran for his first office as a Democrat in a Republican district. Republicans viewed Sharp as open-minded and he spent a lot of time cultivating his relationship with his constituents and focusing on dealing honestly about issues.

Q: What was it like to prove yourself to a Red District every two years?

A: Philip Sharp’s races were always competitive, but he struggled more in the presidential years versus the non-presidential years.

Q: Early on, you established energy as one of your areas of competency. What is it like to be on the Energy Committee and how do you get up to speed?

A: Philip Sharp spent a lot of time attending the committee hearings and specialized in energy issues, which were very prominent in the 1970’s. Sharp also joined the Interior Committee, but mainly due to its jurisdiction of lands for energy purposes.

Q: Energy was prominent throughout the 1970’s due to the oil crisis. Different countries responded in different ways. What was it in the US after the oil crisis?

A: The Carter administration was focused on developing nuclear and coal as the chief domesticate energy source, but Philip Sharp got involved in the oil industry related to transportation. The CAFE standards were first adopted in the US during Sharp’s first year in Congress.

Q: In the 1970’s, what made people confident that you could set energy standards higher and that people would comply with the CAFE standards?

A: The CAFE standards were set in the law for the first ten years, and then they could be increased but were not at that time; Philip Sharp was interested in both the utility and US automobile industries which were perceived as very sluggish and almost non-competitive. Auto companies overseas were achieving better fuel economy differently, such as building smaller cars, and Americans were viewed as unwilling to change. The design of the CAFE standards was structured around the industry that existed at the time, but was not inclusive to DOT trucks. Sharp realized the difficulty of creating standards that work over time and how they must be adjusted and changed.

Q: Groups of people advertise that most Americans are afraid of nuclear energy. Are people actually afraid of nuclear energy?

A: Philip Sharp noticed, in his time researching the perception of nuclear energy, that locals who lived near the nuclear plants were not necessarily afraid. The renaissance of construction in the early 2000’s was thought to be a big political success due to proposed extensions of existing projects where the public already understood the technology and the threats, and made a lot of money from it. Taxes for the school system, jobs that were created, and connections with local universities provided many benefits to the communities.

Q: What do you remember about the energy industry transitioning from the 70’s, which were booming, to the 80’s, which were in decline?

A: Right when Philip Sharp took office in the 1970’s, electricity demand was growing, but cost to the consumer was generally going down. One change in the 1970’s was the increase of rates when new energy plants were built; this happened at the same time as the oil crisis. Plants were very expensive to built, were not built on schedule, and were not operated well. Some nuclear plants were only operated at 60% capacity due to management’s lack of disciplining the system. In 1979, the Three Mile Island accident happened and was the first time that it was threatened that people would have to evacuate Harrisburg, PA on an emergency basis.

Q: Did energy not seem as relevant in the 1980’s?

A: In 1986, Philip Sharp watched investors pump money into private and government sector oil that was expected to rise, but the price of world oil dropped dramatically. President Reagan also did not want to regulate and intervene in the industry as much. Historically, political interventions in the energy industry have followed a huge increase in the price of oil.

Q: Tell me about the Clean Air Act.

A: For more than a decade, Philip Sharp was involved in efforts to make changes to the Clean Air Act, especially related to acid rain. When the proposal to update the Clean Air Act was approved in 1990, it was the most significant change to the Act since its inception. One of the political ironies was that everyone in the electric utility industry, private and public, was united against the tight ceiling regulations and no amendments were offered or up for vote, even as it was the top lobbied concern. Changes got tougher on many different standards, but there was also a loosening of deadlines as recognition of the trade-offs that were required.

Q: What were your highlights and proudest moments from your time in Congress?

A: Philip Sharp is proud of the work involved in the removal of price controls off of natural gas. In 1954, a Supreme Court decision, the old Federal Power Commission, set how much you could pay to buy out of a field, known as the wellhead price, and could not be changed without the approval of commissioners. Interstate business complicated the market and created a problem of different markets and regulations. In 1978 the perception was that there was a very limited natural gas resource in the US and price control was a big source of conflict. A complex compromise called the NGA was reached, which allowed price increase of newly discovered natural gas or deep gas, which at the time was unreachable. As chairman of the subcommittee, Sharp removed all the price controls on natural gas. Environmental regulation is important, but economic regulation can cause problems.

Q: After you served your 20 years in office, what happened next?

A: Philip Sharp announced in January 1994 that he would not run for office again that year, but was recruited by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, to teach. Sharp taught at Harvard for seven years and was then recruited to the Institute of Politics.

Q: What do people seek your expertise for?

A: Philip Sharp created and taught a course at the school about the politics of policy-making and restructuring the electric utility industry. In 1992, Sharp was involved in the Energy and Policy Act, which helped facilitate the development of competition in the electric utility industry. A number of states took the competitive wholesale market into the retail market for the electric utility industry, based on historical jurisdictional differences.

Q: Tell me about clearing out inefficiencies in the electric utility market.

A: Historically, utilities made more money based on the more investments they made; Sharp realized that added cost during expansions led to many of the challenges.

Q: How did you get involved in Researches for the Future?

A: Philip Sharp was nominated to the organization. Resources for the Future (RFF) was created by the Ford Foundation, but was inspired by a report done for President Truman after World War II reporting the concern about a lack of physical resources for the military and industrial needs. The report recommended the creation of an independent research organization. Over time, major resources were defined as air, water, and land and helped develop the subeconomics field of resource economics, or environmental economics. The group looks at public policy issues and regulatory systems based on cost on budget, as well as define determination of trade-offs and methodology of research. One recent focus has been the social cost of carbon.

Q: How does the average person think about the social cost of carbon?

A: Philip Sharp’s research work identifies many uncertainties in the determination of calculated damages and the costs to mitigate those damages. This analysis is a useful input in determining areas of importance, but is not useful for making decisions based strictly on the data. Climate is a challenging topic, but there need to be multiple options for success. Also, due to the extended timeframe of climate change, having a regular reassessment plan is very important. This means figuring out current risks, mitigating them, and then reassessing to repeat the cycle.

Q: In 2005, you took charge of Resources for the Future. At this time, climate change entered the public discourse on a regular basis. What has changed during your time there?

A: RFF, led by Philip Sharp, is very academically-oriented and responds more to expert research than to public discourse. The RIO Summit, attended by President George Bush, led to current meetings on the topic. In the 1990’s, the US adopted an internal climate assessment report. After increased documentation, the data has increased, allowing researchers to focus in on specific areas and impacts. In 2005, RFF already had a team completing analysis on the cap-and-trade system, which was used successfully for acid rain, and determining whether it could be utilized it for carbon.

Q: How do we think about implementation of a policy structure in the US based on its impact to the rest of the world?

A: The Kyoto Treaty was one method of orchestrating a global effort, and encouraged the US to step up to get more involved; Philip Sharp credits the Obama administration for working closely with China to get the conversation on the table. The US cannot leave the current climate agreement until 2020, but the current administration is advertising the future strategy of what they want to accomplish. The US Government must be involved on the international scene in a positive manner. RFF was involved in research related to Trade Sensitive Industries related to rates of carbon.

Q: In many countries, people would rather have cheap, dirty energy rather than no energy. Do we expect every country to impose limitations on themselves when it comes to energy, at the cost of providing cheaper goods and services to people in poverty?

A: Philip Sharp and RFF has completed long-term research on carbon-dollar tax, but has realized that the long-term adjustments would be miniscule. Pollution in Dehli and Beijing has become a massive political problem. Some countries have been massively subsidizing development of wind and solar energy. Solar energy in America has become dramatically cheaper by mimicking the subsidizations abroad. Accelerated changes have associated cost, so the cost of switching to cleaner energy now versus the cost of rebuilding infrastructure later can be compared. A co-benefit is the personal health aspect.

Q: Might we abandon a city on the cost if the climate changes come quicker than we can reinforce infrastructure? What is the cost of that?

A: Over the last decade, Philip Sharp and other researchers has seen that accelerated changes on a larger scale are happening. One of the arguments next year, in the infrastructure legislation, will be comparing the standard design for levees and updating the design for future risks related to climate change.

Q: You’ve been a long proponent of nuclear. People need cheap, clean, and abundant energy. Does nuclear energy do that? Why is nuclear energy not at the forefront of all climate conversations?

A: As a component policy, or option, Philip Sharp believes that we need to invest in it and have available, but is not convinced that it is cheap. Sharp served on the board for Duke Energy and observed two factors: the demand for electricity is not increasing, and the cheap cost of natural gas without the massive investment for a nuclear plant.

Q: Why can’t nuclear energy compete with coal on an economic level? Can we dissociate the potential of nuclear energy technology from the current technological options?

A: Philip Sharp supports the argument of promoting the potential of nuclear energy. Recent political developments include California’s aim to reach 100% clean energy, which includes nuclear energy and carbon-capture storage (CCS) with natural gas. Congress passed a research bill that uses an existing site facility to test new technologies and advance that research.

Q: Are there other countries that want to be a leader in climate change and promote abundant clean energy that nationalized electric infrastructure to build nuclear plants?

A: Philip Sharp recognizes that China, India, and several other places are currently building nuclear plants, but feels that the US needs to promote the high standard of safety developed domestically in new projects on foreign soil. Lack of safety regulation and oversight can create an accident and hurt nuclear energy politics around the world.

Q: What happened in the 1980’s when other countries decided to go nuclear? Was there a concern about getting the US involved in the process?

A: The US was active through Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace and monitoring the non-proliferation issues; Philip Sharp’s time on the board with Duke Energy realized the importance and influence of self-regulation feedback.

Q: Should one of the requirements for the next generation of nuclear energy be an unmanned battery dropped underground?

A: The Federal Government has been investing in small modular reactors (SMR’s), but Philip Sharp has identified that economics require multiple sites to start out due to the cost of the manufacturing process. The Federal Government has provided massive subsidizations to nuclear energy and maintained their investments. In France, the government owned the electric utility and built the plants. In the US, private sector can propose a design that meets regulations, but some State involvement is limited. Across the board, safety performance must be a high performance, and there must be economic performance. This requires management by trained people and different standards of design. An MIT study Sharp was involved in looks at ways to minimize the cost of construction through strict contract management. Safety incidents cause the plant to lose economically.

Q: What insight can you leave us with? Where should we go from here?

A: Philip Sharp places the highest value of development in transforming the energy system and agriculture where greenhouse gases come from. This cannot happen overnight, but politicians must be asked what they are doing to support this development. Sharp believes there is no one silver bullet and all energy resources need to be looked at and developed. Having a portfolio of technologies and policies, including but not limited to pricing, and keep re-examining the developments going forward. Having politicians that roll with the punches is valuable in this process.

8 Bullets for Website
- Philip Sharp’s background as a Congressman and participation in the Energy in Congress Committee - Impacts of oil crisis and implementation of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards - Lessons learned from economic regulation of natural gas - How price controls of natural gas were removed by Congress - Harvard’s Institute of Politics and energy policy-making - Resources For the Future and the social cost of carbon - Philip Sharp’s research with Resources For the Future on carbon-dollar tax - The importance of a portfolio of energy resources, technologies, and policies.

Q: Tell me about yourself.

A: Stephen Burns is currently a Nuclear Sector Manager at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL). He was born in Manchester, in Northwest England. In that same year, in Northwest England, the first electron made its way from a nuclear power plant to an electric grid.

Q: What is the nuclear significance to that area?

A: Burns’ homeland in Northwest England has a deep nuclear energy history. In the 18th century, John Dalton was the first person in the modern era to come up with the idea of atoms and how it might explain chemical behavior. In 1911, the University of Manchester discovered the nuclear nature of atoms by way of Rutherford’s famous gold foil experiment. This was the first discovery that atoms have a nuclear nature; most of it is empty space, with a kernel in the middle called a nucleus.

Q: Was this a topic you were always interested in?

A: Burns studied physics at Imperial College in London, then returned to Manchester to complete a PHD in theoretical physics. He specialized in the field of quantum gravity, working to quantize the gravitational field. Burns completed research at the University of Manchester studying this topic. The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) brought in people from specialized disciplines and taught them useful skills. Through this program, Burns learned probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).

Q: What is the UKAEA? Is there a comparable institution in the US?

A: The UKAEA that Burns worked for at the time doesn’t exist anymore, as it has been supplanted by other organizations. It served both the regulator and the industry. A US National Lab is a somewhat parallel organization, as they serve industry, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Q: How did that lead to your exploration of PRA?

A: Burns’ motivation for pursuing PRA was based on the state of current UK technology. All the reactors in the UK were gas reactors, carbon dioxide cooled and graphite moderated. Light water reactor (LWR) technology, created in the US, had become the dominant international technology. The UK wanted to benefit from all the insights coming research and development (R&D). UK built its first LWR pressurized water reactor in Eastern England at at site called Sizewell. In the late 1970’s, a new wave of PRA methods was developed called the WASH-1400, or the Reactor Safety Study. Burns learned about those new methods in order to apply them to Sizewell.

Q: Was the WASH-1400 used to predict the impact of a nuclear accident on the surrounding population?

A: WASH-1400 was a true risk study that Burns implemented in his studies. Risk takes into account the consequences, but also the probability of it happening; this is the key ingredient to a PRA. The design-basis accidents that NRC had been using were a large break LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident). After the risk study was done, the large break LOCA was not risk dominant due to the low probability of it happening. Other accidents were smaller in consequence, but larger in probability.

Q: Has there been a large break LOCA at a commercial facility?

A: No, Burns’ research in PRA shows this is viewed as highly unlikely. Small break LOCA’s were dominating the risk, as well as other risks such as loss of offsite power. Even though it wasn’t as severe from an impact perspective, it was more likely to happen. The PRA calculated what events could occur initially, how the plant would respond to it, how the safety systems would respond, and ultimately, if everything went wrong - with the incredibly low probability of that happening - what the consequences might be in the plant and beyond the fenceline. Burns was asked to become the Technical Attaché. The NRC funded a program in which they assigned persons from UKAEA and to a lab so they could share insights between UK and US. Burns was assigned to Sandia National Labs for a couple years to update the WASH-1400 study by adding more reactors.

Q: Did the WASH-1400 lower the risk from previous studies?

A: No risk assessment had been done on nuclear power plants before, so the WASH-1400 study formalized that process and allowed Burns to implement in his research across energy sectors. Risk perception and risk assessment are very different fields, but work hand-in-hand. Dread factor and knowledge of exposure are factors for risk perception. People do not understand nuclear energy and the technology associated with it, especially with the development of nuclear weapons.

Q: Can the perception change?

A: Burns is looking at ways to make them even safer via inherent safety. Conventional nuclear power plants have many safeguards, multiple redundancies. This creates low probability. Inherent safety relies less on engineered features, but take advantage of the laws of physics. This could change public perception.

Q: Were you at Sandia when you authored the NUREG-1150 paper?

A: Burns was part of the analysis team at Sandia, and then moved to Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio where he was involved in actually writing the document. It was published in 1990.

Q: What were the conclusions of NUREG-1150?

A: Burns had to analyze a large quantity of research between WASH 1400 and NUREG-1150. One insight was that some uncertainty bounds got a wider, but overall, concluded that risks were lower. The paper validated the conclusion that nuclear power is extraordinarily safe.

Q: Battelle has a relationship with the labs; is that how you found your way to PNNL?

A: After working at Battelle, Burns worked for SAIC doing PRA, and diversified beyond nuclear into oil and gas. Burns then set up his own company based in Columbus doing risk assessment for the private sector. Burns got recruited by PNNL at this point.

Q: What topics did you discover at PNNL?

A: Burns appreciated the wide portfolio of types of projects at the lab; nuclear was a large portion of this work. Risk is about defining scenarios, probability of them happening, and consequences of that happening. Risk analysts want a bit of diversity, which was offered at PNNL.

Q: In the nuclear sector here, what projects are you engaged in?

A: Burns oversees all nuclear energy work. He works with the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, commercial organizations, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licensing and regulation is one of the biggest concerns in the industry. NRC is working to develop a different approach towards licensing for different reactor technologies. Burns’ group advises the NRC on these changes.

Q: How do you assist the NRC?

A: Burns’ group provides a technical, understanding of materials and how a material behaves once it is exposed to harsh environments. This affects how facilities are licensed and regulated. The NRC is becoming increasingly focused on risk informed approach as opposed to deterministic approach.

Q: Do other regulatory bodies use risk informed principles?

A: Burns’ international experience allows him to compare different principles of approaching risk in different countries. Burns helps NRC to review amendment requests utilizing the PRA. His group also advises the NRC on non-destructive examinations, especially in nuclear power plants as they age. PNNL has Category 2 nuclear facilities capable of doing post-irradiation testing.

Q: What is a Category 2 facility?

A: Facility category depends on what types of materials you can handle; Burn’s facilities can handle spent fuel and irradiated materials, and has a radiochemical processing lab.

Q: What DOE work are you involved in?

A: Burns completes work for the DOE across the entire fuel cycle. On the front end of the cycle, his group is currently examining the viability of extracting uranium from seawater, working in conjunction with Oak Ridge National Lab. PNNL has a Marine Sciences Lab that is used for this study. Burns’ group also works on reactor technology, radiochemistry, and material science on the back end of the fuel cycle.

Q: What was your relationship with the Hanford site?

A: Hanford was part of the Manhattan Project where plutonium was produced, and Burns was part of the technical authority to shut down some of the reactors and how to conduct clean up.

Q: What about the science behind clean up for spent fuel from commercial cells?

A: Burns’ group was involved in Yucca Mountain, and is looking to be involved in the future, due to their expertise in spent fuel. Risks analyzed include transportation and long-term storage. They are also working on how to instrument existing reactors. This merges PRA technology with materials technology. The US currently has a national policy against reprocessing spent fuel, due to proliferation. Modifying reprocessing methodologies to discourage proliferation could allowing the US to reprocess in the future.

Q: What are you most proud of? What’s next?

A: Burns is proud to be an important player with NRC getting design certification for the Vogtle plant. Working with the DOE and the Idaho labs were also beneficial to filling the niches that Burns group specialized in. Burns is confident that the golden age of nuclear energy is ahead of us and has untapped potential benefits.