| Notes | 'host’s parents worked for Los Alamos on nuclear weapons\n2018: all of UN pathways that keep warming below 1.5 have big increase in nuclear energy\nep 366 on molten salt reactors, alt designs for fission plants\nep 376 is nuclear power worth the risks? do we need it to reduce carbon emissions?\n[look into Mark Jacobson’s all-renewables argument?]\n1st guest: madison hilly, exec dir of Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal: need mining for any energy. nuclear is great on mining, extracting, milling front because it is so energy dense. also uranium is very highly regulated and documented because part of the nuclear fuel cycle. “hyper safety regulation culture” in nuclear energy industry because of stigma of nuclear [talk to Misria about this]. Enrichment process has depleted uranium as side-product. “Material flow is very very small” [true, but is its toxicity/danger also highly concentrated?] “all of the waste from commercial nuclear energy, the entire history in the US, could fit on a football field stacked about 50’ high.” fast reactors need more enrichment which creates more proliferation risk, so in 50s chose not to go with fast reactors, and instead go with slow reactors, light water (which slows neutrons). casks are virtually indestructible, “perfect safety record.” attempt at yucca mtn reaffirms fears. perfectly safe, perfect safety record, above ground, so does nothing. “trying to solve a social concern with a technological fix, which is kind of the main theme of the nuclear energy over its existence, at least in the US.” perfect safety record: bad perception because of heritage weapons facilities. Finnish “had the comfortability [sic] with nuclear first, and the repository came next” [but if it is perfectly safe above ground, and they’re comfortable, then why put it under ground?].\nGreenpeace & NRDC: Yan Haverkamp (sp?) senior expert in nuclear at Greenpeace: 57:30 lots of incidents in the reprocessing industry, i.e. Tokimura (sp?) incident, and le hagen in France, etc. renewable development has slowed down in countries that have embraced nuclear.\nJeffery Fettis (sp?) NRDC senior attorney for nuclear, climate, and clean energy, former AG of NM. Blue Ribbon Commission, 3 main things and one thing missing: 1) need repository or repositories to store and eventually dispose permanently, 2) reprocessing isn’t going to solve things in our lifetime, 3) need consent-based siting. NRDC agrees. missing: HOW to get consent. how do we arrive at consent and what does it look like? Nevada will never give consent. they were chosen based on political weakness, not on the technical merits of the site [like John Oliver ep on Env Racism and rep blatantly saying they chose pipeline route because it was the “path of least resistance,” not the usual PR move of “least overall effect on communities.”] Bedrock environmental laws don’t apply to nuclear waste. right now 2 efforts to site consolidated interim storage sites are in NM and TX. both governors, as dif as they could be, have expressed ferocious non-consent. we’re going to keep ending up in this cul-de-sac until we deal with consent, and figure out how it really works. we think congress should pass a law removing exemption of nuclear waste from bedrock environmental waste. then EPA could set nation-wide standards, states could set their own limits/terms. then could move much faster on siting. because power dynamics would be so different. this is still a major /technical/ challenge, not just a social one. \n\n - Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn'
|
