Nuclear Now (2022) - full transcript

We've been trained
from the very beginning

to fear nuclear power

and with it
our terror of radiation.

It was in our subconsciousness.

There was the original sin
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It became a collective trauma.

With schoolchildren responding
to nuclear alerts

and the need for fallout
shelters.

Having been told more
than once that civilization

could be destroyed
in a few moments with little,

if any, warning.



There are movies in the 1950s

already picturing the doom
of man

from radiated sea monsters,

and all kinds
of genetically mutated

creatures.

No doubt,
it was the outcome for us

who were severing Mother
Nature from human nature

with our technology.

It was a horrible vision.

Bigger than any child's basic
fear of death.

It was a death of everyone
and everything.

The end of the world
almost happened

in October 1962 during
the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But President Kennedy
and Premier Nikita Khrushchev



of the Soviet Union
mercifully backed down.

Young people
began protesting the system

that produced cruel wars
and nuclear weapons.

Along with various injustices
and the destruction of nature.

A counterculture emerged
offering a broad critique

of American society.

Industrial capitalism
and corporate America

were seen as the enemy.

Earth Day 1970
marked a visible shift

in global consciousness,

drawing huge crowds
who became a key rallying

point for environmentalism
and the counterculture.

It created broad public support

for anti-pollution measures,

and within this atmosphere,
the government's push

for nuclear energy
was suddenly suspect.

Licensing and construction
of nuclear reactors

was ramping up,

and the fear
of nuclear energy plants

in your own backyard merged
into an army

of other pollutions fouling
the earth.

- We realize that when these
multinational corporations,

we are going
to have uranium mining

and uranium milling.

We're going to have
possibly nuclear power plants,

we're going
to possibly have high level

nuclear waste disposal.

No one in the world
wants nuclear waste.

We have
to have either oil or coal

or whatever,
but certainly not nuclear.

And as with all
emerging technologies,

there were setbacks.

It was the first step

in a nuclear nightmare.

As far as we know at this hour,
no worse than that.

Three Mile Island
was the only famous

nuclear accident
in the United States ever.

fifty thousand
gallons of radioactive water

escaped into the reactor
building...

Yet no one was harmed.

But the public was shaken.

And the breathless news coverage

with no acknowledgment
of the lack of casualties.

Officials of Metropolitan Edison

conceded some workers
may have been contaminated.

Stoked their fears
into a sense of urgency

and even panic.

But in a twist
of history, it happened

just as a fictional nuclear
power disaster movie

was in theaters.

Barney,
give me feedwater! Goddamn it!

No please,
let me ask a question.

Tell us what happened inside.

Misinformation about
nuclear's true potential

and safety spread rampant.

If there's one accident,

it could just devastate an area
like southern New York State

Nuclear power would produce

over 32,000 cancer deaths
per year in the United States.

People don't think well

when they're scared.

Fear is a mind killer.

And all these fears
traumatized young people.

And as momentum built
towards anti-nuclear sentiment,

a second potentially avoidable
disaster struck.

We were recently
stricken by a disaster,

the Chernobyl nuclear power
accident.

It deeply affected
the Soviet people

and disturbed world opinion.

I too, once believed
the environmentalists

were right
and that nuclear power

was dangerous.

We were in our way
terribly miseducated,

subconsciously cross-wiring
nuclear war with nuclear power.

And then as nuclear energy
was being quietly shunted

to the side as an aberration
in our scientific development,

another physical revolution
snowballed into

the public consciousness.

Completely eclipsing
the nuclear controversy.

Climate change.

It was as bad or even worse
to the imagination

as nuclear extinction had been.

Which in a way
we had accustomed ourselves to.

But here now is a monster
that could, in fact,

deliver the end of the world.

Climate scientists
were now warning us that humans

were destabilizing
the world's ecological systems.

In 1988,
the congressional testimony

of Dr. James Hansen,
a leading climate scientist,

rang the alarm
loudly and clearly.

- We have already reached
one tipping point,

and we are going to lose
all of the sea ice

in the Arctic in the summer
season.

Among others,
he clarified they were burning

more and more fossil fuels
and dumping too much carbon

into the atmosphere.

Mostly gases like
carbon dioxide and methane.

These gases were raising
global temperatures

and beginning
to change the climate.

An outspoken minority reacted
with sarcasm and anger.

- You know what this is?
It's a snowball.

And that's just
from outside here.

So it's very, very cold out,
very unseasonal.

So, Mr. President, catch this.

They thought
the notion highly exaggerated

and overblown,
while on the other side,

many others reacted with alarm,
demanding radical change.

Hope is taking action.

We can still turn this around.

It will take drastic
annual emission cuts

unlike anything
the world has ever seen.

In 2021, the IPCC stated

that if we didn't cut carbon
emissions by nearly 100%

in less than 30 years,
by 2050 the world would suffer

serious damage to ecosystems
and economies

because we are still depending
on fossil fuels for one

of our most basic needs.

Electricity.

Most of our power
still comes from burning gas

and coal, and the amount
is going up not down.

The resulting volume
of carbon free electricity

needed over the next 30 years
is almost unimaginable.

Realistic estimates range
from two to four times

the electricity
we currently use.

This is an even bigger problem
than we thought.

How can we create
even more electricity

and still cut down
on carbon dioxide emissions

to halt the climate crisis?

We've run out of time
to be afraid.

It's time to look again
at a proven source of energy.

It's time
to look again at nuclear.

Because this incredible power,
the very thing that we fear

is what may save us.

An estimated five billion years
ago,

our sun and solar system

were formed in the aftermath
of an exploding star.

Scientists call this kind
of explosion a supernova.

Light, x-rays and radio waves

pour out in every direction

and immense shock waves
with unimaginable energy

fling matter
across great distances.

A bit of that matter collided

and became Earth.

Hidden below the surface
of this newly formed planet

are many elements
that were created

in that supernova,

including those we extract
from the earth like tin,

copper, gold and many others.

One of these elements
is the element of uranium.

Packed with energy
from its creation

in a supernova.

It's a natural energy source
that has been there

connecting us to our galaxy
for billions of years.

The presence of this star power
throughout the planet,

radiating energy
has kept the earth warm

since before life began,
and still does.

In 1896, five thousand years
into our recorded history,

the Polish born Marie Curie
and her French scientist

husband, Pierre Curie,
along with French engineer

Henri Becquerel,

discovered
the energy releasing property

of certain elements
like uranium.

It's there.

They knew then
that the whole conception

of matter would be changed.

That there indeed
existed a unique form of matter

that was not inert,
that was alive

with a superpower.

Marie Curie named
it radioactivity.

They could only imagine
what this volatile matter

could become or later achieve.

For this,
one of the greatest gifts

nature has ever given us -
energy in a new form -

they received the Nobel Prize.

Then, just a few years later,
in 1905,

independently working
in Zurich, Switzerland,

the theoretical physicist,
Albert Einstein,

discovered the astounding truth
that in its simplest form,

matter is energy waiting

to happen and that
the earth contains more energy

than we ever imagined.

Liberating energy from matter
was now the new challenge.

Scientists then discovered
that particles colliding

with the uranium atoms
sometimes split

the uranium
into smaller fragments

with a large
and rapid release of energy.

They named this process
fission, which could access

the stored energy quickly
instead of in a slow trickle,

as does radioactivity.

The physics of fission were
first explained

by the Austrian, Lise Meitner,
in 1938.

But unfortunately that year,
through a coincidence

of history, came on the eve
of the biggest war ever.

And the first thing people did
with this scientific

breakthrough was make a bomb.

And use it.

America's Manhattan Project,
born out of World War Two,

created the knowledge
and fuel to build such a bomb.

By packing uranium
together densely enough,

scientists learned
to create a chain reaction.

Enrico Fermi and his team,
in 1942, created the first

controlled nuclear chain
reaction

in a squash court under the
University of Chicago Stadium.

The stadium did not blow up,
nor the university.

They had built a simple device
in which a pile of graphite

and uranium
was filled with cadmium rods

that slowed the chain reaction.

As the rods were removed
one by one,

the uranium fission
chain reaction began.

Remove more rods
and the energy increased.

Put some rods back
in place and it decreased.

Thus if a chain
reaction could be sustained

and accelerated,

it would result
in a powerful explosion.

The good news was
that uranium's energy

could be controlled.

As Fermi had done in Chicago.

If controlled, the potential
of this new discovery

for the benefit of society
was beyond measure.

The first productive use
of that energy was

to run submarines and ships.

Admiral Hyman Rickover was
a poor Jewish immigrant

who once admitted to the Naval
Academy, never left the Navy.

He had the mind of an engineer
who seeing the goal clearer

than anyone, cut through time

and space to make it happen.

The idea of solving a problem,
building something,

creating something
drove him all his life.

This is
the reactor or the atomic pile.

There's uranium in here.

Rickover built
the first nuclear reactor

that fit into a submarine hull.

The USS Nautilus was inspired
in part by Jules Verne's

classic 19th century fable

Twenty Thousand Leagues
Under the Sea.

Exploring our original home
in the sea.

Nautilus was, in its own way,
a fantasy underwater vehicle

designed and built
by Rickover in just three years

between 1952 and '54.

It was a magnificent achievement

and over the next three
decades, Rickover supervised

the building
of hundreds of reactors

all quickly and successfully.

The Navy still has one hundred
of them operating now.

More than sixty years later,
the Navy has run this fleet

of small floating reactors
for a combined six thousand

reactor years without a single
major nuclear related incident.

An aircraft carrier
is a 100,000 ton,

six thousand person city
of steel moving

at 35 miles an hour.

It's an awesome piece
of technology

that's being powered
by supernova energy.

In other words,

a mere two reactors so compact

that they could fit
into a large living room.

With just one of these reactors,

the submarine
can stay submerged for months

and thousands of miles.

It doesn't need
refueling for 25 years.

- A fuel pellet the size
of my tip of my pinky

has as much energy
as a ton of coal.

The uranium to make
that pellet costs a buck or two.

A ton of coal costs somewhere
in the neighborhood of $100.

Huge difference.

And nuclear operates so cleanly
you can do it underwater

with 150 people sealed
up in a ship and having

their power plant running.

Now imagine trying
to operate even just

a small gasoline engine

in a sealed building.
It wouldn't take very long

before you'd kill everybody.

After I went on board
submarines,

I recognized that all the things
that excited me

were still there.

And technically it was so easy.

The secret that nobody wants
to tell you,

from who serves in the Navy is,
the easiest job in the Navy

Is being a reactor operator
on a submarine.

Really?

- You don't have to do anything,

you're sitting there
and everything works

and you just sit there.

In a major address
at the United Nations in front

of 3500 delegates from most
of the countries of the world,

President Eisenhower
shared his vision

for nuclear technology.

This
greatest of destructive forces

can be developed
into a great boon

for the benefit of all mankind.

Eisenhower proposed
that the only way to overcome

international conflict was
to use nuclear power

to produce cheap
and massive amounts

of electricity.

- Experts would be mobilized
to apply atomic energy

to the needs of agriculture,
medicine

and other peaceful activities.

A special purpose would be
to provide abundant

electrical energy
in the power starved areas

of the world.

Thus, the contributing powers
would be dedicating

some of their strength
to serve the needs

rather than the fears
of mankind.

He went on to make
probably the most

optimistic statement
of his eight years in office.

The United States
pledges before you to devote

its entire heart and mind
to find the way

by which
the miraculous inventiveness

of man shall not be dedicated
to his death,

but consecrated to his life.

The entire assembly of delegates

from around the world,
including the Soviet Union,

responded with warm
and sustained applause.

Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace
program was born here.

This was a most
promising moment for mankind.

Fulfilling his pledge
to the world and turning

to his proven team,
Eisenhower asked

Admiral Rickover and the Navy
to build a nuclear reactor

that could generate
civilian electricity.

Adapting his submarine design,

Rickover went at it
in his usual way

and in Shippingport,
Pennsylvania,

broke ground in 1954
and began generating in 1958.

But here
is truly the most wonderful

and exciting thing I've ever
had the chance to talk about.

It's the Westinghouse
Total Electric Home,

a home where electricity does
everything, heats, cools,

preserves
and prepares foods, entertains.

The Cold War
was a period of prosperity.

The plan was that
by the 21st century,

the American economy would be
mostly nuclear powered

with little, if any,
air pollution.

No climate gases
and grids of plentiful,

clean electricity criss-
crossing the country.

New York City was going
to be powered by nuclear

reactors, the first of which
was being built upriver

at Indian Point.

Carbon emission
would drop substantially.

You would be
in the process of electrifying

our entire country.

Futurists imagine modern,
all-electric cities

with electric heat, light
and air conditioning

in our homes and buildings.

Electric trains would
replace diesel

and new transportation systems
would evolve.

Westinghouse and
General Electric followed

in Rickover's tracks
and from the late 1960s

to the '80s, built almost 100
large reactors.

Other countries followed.

France embracing
the vision of its president,

Charles de Gaulle,
opened its first

nuclear power plant
in 1964, at Chinon.

And then from 1975 to '90,
in response

to the escalating price of oil
in the crisis of 1973,

built 56 reactors in 15 years.

Sweden built a dozen reactors
on four sites

in the '70s and '80s.

Six of those plants continue
to operate today,

producing 30% of Sweden's
electricity and most

of the rest coming from hydro,
wind and biofuels.

Sweden during this time cut
its carbon emissions by 50%.

And contrary to what
many critics claimed

would be a disaster
for its economy,

electricity generation more
than doubled and its economy

actually expanded by 50%.

The same is true for Canada,
which built 19 reactors

of Canadian design,

mostly in the industrial
heartland of Ontario province,

which in those years
switched off coal

and reduced emissions by 90%.

West Germany launched
its first commercial reactor

in 1969, and by 2010,

22% of the electricity

of a reunited Germany
came from nuclear.

Japan, which imported
its first commercial reactor

from England in 1966,
had five operating reactors

going by 1973
and was expanding construction

with a major program.

By the end of the '70s Japan
had become an expert

in standardized designs
and exporting nuclear

to other countries in Asia.

But the world's first
nuclear power plant

to ever produce
clean electricity

was actually built back in 1954
by the Soviets.

The atomic power
station has become one

of the operating industrial
plants of the USSR.

The Obninsk Nuclear
Power Plant today stands

as a museum and a monument
to clean energy

and the power of the atom.

The process
of uranium nuclear fission

releasing atomic energy
takes place in this reactor.

Many important
world figures visited the plant

in operation,

including three high level
American delegations

curious about its usages
for industrial production,

as well as any signals
for use in war.

They could find none.

But it was a signal
from the Soviet Union

in the middle of the Cold War,
a demonstration of their

peaceful intentions.

Especially after
Eisenhower's speech asking

for a shared nuclear knowhow
for the benefit of all mankind.

Atoms are working for peace.

This mid-century
dream of a fuel efficient world

run by clean atomic energy,
without fossil fuels.

It was all within our grasp.

So what happened
to this promising moment?

Eisenhower's 1953 vision
of Atoms for Peace

was a mortal threat to the rich
and powerful coal

and oil industries,

and they were ready
to challenge nuclear energy

from the beginning.

The giant oil companies
nicknamed the Seven Sisters

straddling all the world's
markets since early

in the century,
spent a great deal of money

to present themselves
as necessary to our prosperity.

America's iconic oil family,
the Rockefellers,

through their foundation,
set about promoting the idea

that low level
radiation harms human health.

And so they set up
a committee to study

the biological effects
of atomic radiation and kind

of put their thumb on the scale
for what the committee's results

would be.

And then they took one
of the directors

from the Rockefeller Foundation,
a guy named Warren Weaver,

was put in charge
of this genetics committee.

And, not surprising to me,
the report from

the Genetics Committee came out
on June 12th, 1956,

and said radiation
all the way down

to a single gamma ray
was hazardous to your health.

The Rockefeller Foundation
included the publisher

of The New York Times,
Arthur Sulzberger.

So if they wanted
to help sway public opinion,

they didn't need
to buy ads necessarily.

They just helped
get a particular point

of view published.

The resulting fear
of low level radiation,

which has never garnered
evidence to justify it,

began to erode the optimism
around this new industry.

The Sierra Club
promoted nuclear power

before it opposed it.

The club was an old
organization founded in 1892,

primarily devoted to hiking,
climbing and exploring nature.

Will Siri,
a biophysicist from Berkeley,

an experienced mountaineer
and a veteran of Oppenheimer's

Manhattan Project,
had been influential

in conserving
the California redwoods

and the Grand Canyon.

Like many early
conservationists,

he strongly favored
nuclear energy and arranged

for the club's blessing
to the opening

of California's Diablo Canyon
reactor in San Luis Obispo,

in 1966.

Twice the club membership voted
to support the action.

Siri said at the time:

- Nuclear power is one
of the chief long term

hopes for conservation.

Ansel Adams,
the club's legendary

photographer and board member,
said nuclear was

the only practical alternative
that we have

to destroying the environment
with oil and coal.

They spent a lot of time
in their early years fighting

against dams that would fill up
valleys full of water.

The Sierra Club used
to have a campaign

called Atoms, not Dams! under
David Brower.

And then David Brower
left the Sierra Club

in a huff and founded
Friends of the Earth.

And I'd known
Friends of the Earth was

a big anti-nuclear organization,
but then I found out

where David Brower
got his first check,

$200,000 from Robert Anderson,
who was the CEO of Arco.

He wrote the first check
to David Brower,

who was founding
a environmentalist organization

specifically
to fight nuclear energy.

So why would an oil guy
fund Friends of the Earth?

Makes sense to me.

And it's not conspiracy,
it's simply business.

Soon Brouwer's faction regained

power in the Sierra Club
and switched its position.

Other groups sprang up as well,
notably Greenpeace in 1971,

in Vancouver, Canada.

Along with issues
like saving the whales,

it fuzed a peace position
on nuclear disarmament

with an environmental position
on opposing nuclear energy.

- We lumped nuclear energy
in with nuclear weapons

as if all things nuclear
were evil.

This was a mistake.

We got a lot of things right,

stop the bombs, save the whales,
stop toxic waste, etcetera.

But we made
that one serious error.

The new battleground
was Ohio, where new reactors

were to be built
instead of coal plants.

The environmental groups
hired lobbyists

and filed lawsuits.

The young attorney,
Ralph Nader, who gained

the public's trust
in the mid '60s

with his criticism of the
safety of American cars,

joined the cause
and now helped turn the public

against nuclear power.

If we stop
nuclear power, or shall we say

when we stop nuclear power,
we will usher in

throughout the United States
and the world,

a new energy alternative.
The sun.

The sun, which Exxon
doesn't like because it's free,

it's abundant,
it can bypass Exxon.

Stopping atomic energy
is saving this country.

He wildly exaggerated
the dangers from radioactivity,

saying a nuclear accident
could wipe out Cleveland

and the survivors
would envy the dead.

Six of the eight Ohio
reactors planned were closed,

including one canceled in 1975
when it was 97% complete.

It was then turned
into a coal plant.

To this day,
two thirds of Ohio electricity

is powered by dirty coal,

which alone kills
about half a million people

worldwide per year
and sickens millions more

with horrible effects
such as cancer, emphysema

and heart disease.

- If you want to accuse us
of having raised the cost

of building new nuclear plants
by demanding more regulation,

I plead guilty.

In 1979,
there were 72 commercial

reactors in the US.

Early this morning
at a nuclear power plant

in Pennsylvania...

But then came Three Mile Island.

The reactor overheated
and partially melted down.

But the containment structure
prevented radiation

from affecting the surroundings.

There was no
apparent serious contamination

of workers.

But the accident
in 1979 was a gift

to the anti-nuclear movement

that would lead
to a halt in the building

of any more nuclear reactors.

Later that year,
a star studded cast

of musicians put on five nights
of No Nukes concerts

at Madison Square Garden.

Followed by a rally
on Battery Park landfill

attended by 200,000 people.

Along with Ralph Nader
and other stars,

Jane Fonda spoke.

The money that
is being raised is going

to support all of the local
anti-nuclear groups

around the country and I want
to express my gratitude

and I know you feel
the same way.

She followed up
with a 32 day, 50 city tour

to spread the gospel
and raise a good deal of money

For the environmental groups,
stopping nuclear power

was now glamorous, virtuous
and lucrative all at once.

And they had a friend
in President Jimmy Carter,

who promoted energy conservation

and installed solar panels
on the White House

while downgrading
nuclear energy below coal

on his list of priorities.

It does now
seem likely that sometime

in the last couple of days
there's been perhaps

the worst accident
in the short history

of the world's nuclear power
industry.

But the fact that they have had
to reveal it and admit

that there are casualties
suggests they're deeply

worried about the scale of it.

When Chernobyl in the Ukraine,

part of the Soviet Union,
struck, it deeply shook

the public's faith in nuclear.

It was just what
the environmentalists

had feared and predicted.

But what happened exactly?

There's no question
the reactor was poorly designed

and lacked
a containment structure

to keep radiation from leaking
out into the environment.

The operators carried
out a risky experiment that led

to a meltdown

which was very badly handled

by the bureaucracy of what was
then an empire in decay,

the Soviet Union,
which tried to keep it secret.

This allowed low level
radiation to spread across

northern Europe

before the government
finally admitted the problem.

They sent in first responders
with inadequate protective gear

to get the fire under control.

These men were exposed
to massive doses of radiation.

Vladimir Asmolov
was a scientist in charge

of the investigation.

As he spoke,
I saw he was haunted

by the event.

Yeah,
it was a big responsibility,

but you're not responsible
for the explosion.

You were
in charge of the cleanup.

He thought the highly successful

HBO series was a fiction,

that the real scientists
were professional

and that there was no conflict
with the government

or the International
Atomic Energy Agency.

According to the United Nations

and World Health Organization,

about 50 people died

from radiation at the reactor.

And possibly 4000
from cancers over the long term

in areas downwind.

That's a small fraction
of the hundreds of thousands

of deaths every year
from generating electricity

with coal.

Chernobyl,
the world's worst nuclear power

accident in history,

was far less deadly
than many industrial tragedies.

In 1984, a Union Carbide
accident in Bhopal, India,

where a chemical gas leaked,
killed 15 to 20 thousand people

and injured half a million more.

The 1975 collapse of a
hydroelectric dam in China

killed roughly
200 thousand people.

Outdoor air pollution kills

an estimated four million
people a year.

Industrial accidents
and disease,

roughly two million.

Nuclear's death toll,
all from Chernobyl is at most

in the low thousands,
which is a very tiny fraction

of fossil fuel deaths.

By the early '90s,
activist anti-nuclear groups

were on fire,
calling for no compromise

on the bottom line
that nuclear power

must be eliminated
and that any amount

of radiation, even if below
the normal background levels,

had to be treated
as a risk to human health.

Every new
nuclear related project,

from mining to transport to
construction operation

and decommissioning,
was now facing a series

of legal, political
and economic obstacles

that would stall
any further progress.

The supposed death knell
for the industry finally

happened 25 years after
Chernobyl

in Fukushima, Japan in 2011.

It was the second largest
accident in nuclear history.

It happened
when the biggest earthquake

Japan ever suffered

created a tsunami
one hundred feet tall.

The earthquake
and the tsunami killed about

18,000 people,
but it had nothing to do

with nuclear power.

All the nuclear plants
in the tsunami's path,

with one exception,
avoided serious damage.

But the plant at Fukushima,
like Chernobyl's,

was poorly designed.

Not the reactor
but the site design.

It had too low a seawall,
less than twenty feet

and all back up generators
were located on low ground

where they flooded.

The plant lost electricity.
The core melted down.

Hydrogen gas built up
and exploded inside

the building and radiation
was released into the air.

But the authorities,
unlike at Chernobyl,

did not send in unprotected
people to fight

the highly radioactive fire,

and the public never received
more than low level

harmless radiation.

Fukushima might be
the only disaster

in history widely called
a nuclear disaster

by almost everyone
with a death toll of zero

from nuclear.

More than six hundred died
from the badly managed

forced evacuation

such as when patients
were abruptly yanked

out of hospitals.

But the actual disaster
was the tsunami

with its 18,000 victims.

Nonetheless,
Japan reacted in panic,

closing down all
its nuclear plants,

whether affected
by the earthquake or not

and the country
remained frozen with doubt.

In 2021, ten years
after the accident,

only ten of Japan's 33
operable reactors were in use.

Imported fossil fuels
replaced the rest.

The negativity of world opinion
resulting from both Chernobyl

and Fukushima
now reached a critical mass.

Germany took the most
severe course

and under significant
political pressure

from the Green Party

began phasing out all 17
of its nuclear reactors.

While continuing
to rely on coal plants.

Even in Sweden,
winds were blowing

against nuclear.

The new government
that included the Green Party

dramatically raised
anti-nuclear taxes,

which led
to the premature retirement

of four reactors.

South Korea had a well trained
generation of engineers

and scientists
and a standardized design

and had been generating
electricity at a very low price

when it decided to pull back.

The heavily publicized
2016 feature, Pandora,

which pictured
an accident far worse

than the actual Fukushima,

grabbed and swayed
public opinion against nuclear

and the government stopped
construction on new plants.

The trend
of politicians around most

developed countries
of shutting down

well working nuclear reactors
met little political

opposition.

And it became far easier
to approve a new methane gas

power plant

or a new coal plant.

And without forward movement,
the US nuclear industry

was slowly declining as well.

With existing plants
being shut down early,

including Indian Point,
which supplied 25%

of New York City's electricity
for many years.

And the planned closing
of Diablo Canyon,

California's last remaining
nuclear power plant.

Although in 2022,
this was reversed

after a fierce battle.

- I now believe
that nuclear is vital

to our future on this planet,

and I've helped start a group
called Mothers for Nuclear

to help explain why.

These reactors
have operated safely

and reliably for decades,

producing about 9%
of California's electricity

in recent years.

There are still a number
of nuclear reactors working

in the United States today.

These legacy reactors,
more than 30 or 40 years later,

still supply 20%
of US electricity.

Working 24/7 without oil spills,

gas leaks or coal pollution.

They have become so uneventful,

it's easy to forget
they even exist.

Many people to this day
still think that these plants

are capable of blowing up
like a nuclear bomb.

But that's physically
impossible because

their uranium
is not sufficiently enriched

in any way close
to the necessary amount.

The idea that low levels
of radiation are dangerous

right down to near zero
is a contamination phobia.

Which when you think it through,

is kind of ridiculous.

We've evolved,
after all, on a planet filled

with uranium and bombarded by
both sunlight and cosmic rays.

Our bodies are built by nature
and evolution to handle

small amounts of radiation.

Medical procedures
such as dentistry

account for about one third
of the radiation

from which humans are exposed.

The other two thirds being
natural background radiation.

This low level background
radiation doubles

if you live at altitude
in Denver, Colorado.

Or triples if you work
on a long distance airline crew

or if you smoke
a pack of cigarettes each day.

The FDA sets
a radiation dose limit

for diagnostic procedures.

Radioactive iodine treatment
of thyroid cancer

delivers one hundred thousand
millisieverts to the thyroid

and 200 millisieverts
as a whole body dose.

Granite contains some uranium
and you get extra radiation

if you live near a mountain
or work in a building

like the US Capitol.

And it's far higher
in Ramsar, Iran

with its radium hot springs

or the black sand beaches
of Brazil

where people bury themselves
in the sand to get

what they consider a healthy
dose.

High levels of radiation
are dangerous for sure.

People died and got very sick
from exposure in Hiroshima

and Nagasaki, and at Chernobyl.

But there is no basis
for the public perception

that the offspring
from these survivors

had an increased
rate of genetic defects.

Massive and careful long
term studies do not

support these conceptions.

Fears of passing down
horrible mutations

like the three eyed fish
in The Simpsons

are without foundation.

So what kind
of audience do you get

and what kind of feedback?

- On Tik Tok it's mostly 18
to 25 year old females,

which is unheard of
for science communicators.

A single one of my videos
can get something like

500,000 views,
and that's 500,000 people

that didn't know anything
about nuclear power,

but now do and might have
changed their minds.

- What are some
of the things young girls say?

- Some things like,
I used to think that millions

of people died
when Chernobyl happened,

so there are a lot of people
changing their minds around that

and nuclear waste as well.

The nuclear industry
is the only energy generating

industry that's actually
responsible for its waste

because it is radioactive,

and so as soon as it comes
out of the plant,

it's handled by the industry.

- We have
a highly rigorous process

to manage the waste
coming from a nuclear plant,

and we can tell you exactly
where every bit of waste

is from every nuclear plant
that is operated.

It's contained, it's located
on sites that are protected.

We can't say the same
for many other energy resources

where waste goes up in the air
or we have piles of tailings

from those materials.

And I hesitate to call it waste
a lot of times

because
it's really just used fuel.

- Not a single person anywhere
in the world

has ever been harmed
by used nuclear fuel.

What many don't know
is that if we brought together

all of America's spent fuel
from sixty years

of powering 20%
of our electricity,

it would be the size
of a Walmart.

Sixty years,
20% of our electricity

would be the size of a Walmart.

There is nothing
uniquely dangerous

about radioactive materials.

They're just one
of many industrial materials

that can be toxic
and must be handled carefully.

The US solution for now
is dry cask cylinders 18ft high

made of concrete and steel
that keep radiation contained

and are not damaged
by things like earthquakes.

Concrete absorbs radiation.

The government hopes
to use the spent fuel someday

to power new reactor types.

Or it can, like their military

has been doing for years,

safely bury
the waste underground

because radioactive materials
actually lose potency

over time.

Finland is already building
a permanent storage site

for spent fuel
in bedrock deep underground,

sealed in copper canisters
and backfilled with clay.

Sweden plans
to use the same design.

Two billion years ago
in Gabon, in Africa,

there were natural nuclear
reactors,

meaning in these uranium mines
in Africa,

water would pull around
the uranium

and that would
create a chain reaction.

And so these reactors
operated for hundreds

of thousands of years,
and they left behind

what we call nuclear waste
fission products.

And just by analyzing
where these fission products are

in the area, scientists
actually know that nuclear waste

doesn't move very far,
even in a scale of hundreds

of thousands of years,
or in this case,

two billion years.

Hey guys, so a lot of you
have been asking

about my makeup routine.
The most important thing

is to make sure you wash
your face really well,

because we want those pores
as clean as we want

our electricity.

And the best way to get that
is to use this cleanser

called Stop Shutting Down
Nuclear Plants,

for Christ's Sake.

It's carbon free, emission free,
pollution free electricity.

The answer
to solving climate change

is very straightforward.

We have the solutions.

We just have to implement them.

You know, the first question is,

But isn't it too dangerous?
What about the waste?

Nuclear waste is nothing
compared to climate change.

In 2006,
the film An Inconvenient Truth,

produced by former
Vice President Al Gore,

dramatized vividly the dangers
of carbon emissions

and overheating the planet.

Look how far above
the natural cycle this is,

and we've done that.

And the Oscar
goes to An Inconvenient Truth.

It opened
with a worldwide impact

and won a Nobel Prize
and an Oscar.

In the years that followed,
the issue of climate change

became even more polarized,
with conservatives holding

on to their position
that this was not

an extraordinary event
created by mankind.

- Climate change is not science.

It's religion.

In 2017, President Trump,

despising tree huggers
and liberals,

pulled the United States
out of the Paris Climate Accord

and called climate change
a hoax.

At the other extreme,
environmentalists and activists

were folding the issue
of climate change

into a wider agenda of ending
capitalism and globalization,

bringing to the forefront
inequality.

We are in the beginning

of a mass extinction
and all you can talk about

is money and fairytales
of eternal economic growth.

How dare you?

But most people
were in the middle,

confused by the claims
but scared by the changes

they were seeing so vividly
in the weather, oceans

and animal kingdom.

People wanted not partizan
or ideological solutions,

but practical ones.

One solution
that gained momentum

during this time
was clean energy

in the form of renewables.

Global investment in renewables
reached close

to three trillion dollars.

Costs dropped by 80% for solar
and 50% for wind.

A giant step.

Together wind and solar grew
from about 2% to 10%

of world electricity generation.

Hydroelectric power,
the biggest of the renewables,

expanded across Southeast Asia
and elsewhere.

But despite the massive effort
and the optimism,

the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, the IPCC,

stated in 2018 and again
more strongly in 2021

that if we didn't cut
carbon emissions by nearly 100%

in less than 30 years,

by 2050, the world would suffer

serious damage
to ecosystems and economies.

There'd be mega changes
like the melting

of polar ice sheets,
the sea level rise.

Coastal cities
might become uninhabitable.

There'd be an increase
in frequency and size

of extreme weather events,
forest fires, droughts,

terrible heat waves,
and unusually strong

hurricanes.

Ominously,
the predictions from the 1980s

are proving to be accurate
because we're still depending

on fossil fuels and we're
in the same place we were

at the turn of the century.

How can that be?

We have put such effort
and money into renewables,

yet we burn more fossil fuels
than ever.

To understand how this happened,

Germany is a good case in point.

No nation has done more
to promote green power

in the last 20 years
and received a great deal

of favorable publicity.

Germany made
the fateful decision

to phase out nuclear power
by 2022.

We won't support
even a one second extension

for an energy form
that we can't fully control.

Replacing it with
roughly the same amount

of electricity using
renewable power instead.

How did that work out?

Germany's largest solar plant
with 465 thousand panels,

was built on 500 acres.

The nuclear plant,
which was recently closed,

was built on about 100 acres.

It operated
around the clock, all seasons,

all weather, on average,
producing at near 90%

of its peak.

The average for the solar plant
has been about 11%

of its peak because most
of the time it's either night,

winter or cloudy.

So the reality is
that a nuclear plant produces

almost 100 times
the electricity per year

as a solar plant and can do so

on one fifth the land.

Germany also built
about thirty thousand

wind turbines,
some of the newer ones

almost as tall
as the Eiffel Tower.

Wind has worked for Germany,
producing twice

as much electricity as solar.

But it still averages less
than a quarter

of its peak capacity.

To equal the same amount
of nuclear power

would require four thousand
giant turbines spread

over many square kilometers

and would still depend
on the weather.

One way to make wind
and solar more efficient

when weather is a factor is
to store some of their power

in batteries.

Their prices are dropping
quickly and there's

an intense race going on.

China at this point is far
in a lead, producing more

than 70% of all battery cells.

Still, despite the promise of
bigger and better batteries,

Bill Gates, who's invested
one billion dollars

in renewables, has said
there's no battery technology

that's even close
to allowing us to take all

of our energy from renewables.

It'll be a lot of renewables.

And either a storage miracle
or are quite a bit of nuclear.

The problem is scale.

What works for a phone
or a car doesn't work

for a city or a continent.

Germany doesn't have
the natural hydroelectric

potential like Norway
or New Zealand,

and most of the great hydro
sites in the world

are already dammed,

leaving little upside
in development.

And geothermal energy,
such as it exists in Iceland

is unproven outside
of limited volcanic locations.

Which leaves biomass

the burning of organic material.

Germany cuts down and burns
forests in Europe

and North America
with a similar result

as fossil fuel pollution.

And yet it's called
renewable energy,

because in theory,

new trees grow back
when you cut the old ones down.

But it takes decades
for the new trees to grow back.

The mathematics
simply do not add up.

All of these renewables
combined are not enough

to provide Germany's demand
for energy,

so it still has to burn coal.

A more economical solution
is natural gas,

also known as methane gas.

Which is widely available,
especially since

the fracking revolution.

Is this a solution?

- Methane gas is less polluting
than coal, that's true.

Half the CO2.

But that's still putting CO2 in

and every time
you light a methane fire,

you're putting CO2
into the atmosphere,

and then the dirty secret
of it is it leaks out

all along the line.

Although
it's invisible to the eye,

methane can be seen
by infrared cameras,

which reveal that it severely
pollutes the atmosphere

when it leaks
and escapes unburned.

- If you take a methane gas
detector and go around,

you'll find that
there's gas pipelines everywhere

under our streets,
your gas stove,

you turn it on goes,
click, click, click

and then it lights.
That's unburned methane.

And when that stuff gets
into the atmosphere,

it's 80 times worse
for global warming than CO2.

And it doesn't last
as long as CO2

but in the immediate,
the next few decades,

it's a major problem.

Methane levels are going way up

in the atmosphere
and it's definitely contributing

a lot to climate change.

It's no wonder that publicly oil

and gas companies
fully support renewables

and lobby for subsidies.

They tell us natural gas
is the perfect partner

for renewables,
but it's a false solution.

In the last 30 years,
renewables have been going

in on top of fossil fuels,
not replacing them.

And that's why
the overall proportion

of clean, renewable energy
hasn't changed.

Sadly, more than 80%
of energy use

is still fossil fuel.

Altogether Germany has spent
over $200 billion on renewables

since 2013.

But within Europe,
Germany has the highest

electricity prices
and their carbon emissions

are among the highest.

This energy indecision
is not just

a European phenomenon,
but is something

that is affecting many
countries on a global scale.

India with well
over a billion people,

represents
another crucial participant

in our world community.

Demand for air conditioning
alone in India

and other hot countries is
projected to triple

by 2050 worldwide.

India has made tremendous gains
in solar power

and is planning to build
at large scale very cheaply.

It is a new technology trained
workforce.

Its solar power has become
cheaper than coal,

and wind
has become cost competitive.

Both energies
are still weather dependent.

India has ventured
into nuclear power

with 23 reactors on line

seven under construction
and more planned.

And Indian consumers sick
of the deadly pollution

in their cities
may well push the government

to accelerate these kinds
of clean energy initiatives.

But India is a democracy,
and if you don't give people

what they want,
which is cheap electricity,

you'll be voted out of office.

So the Indian government

says that
for the foreseeable future,

75% of their electricity
will be from coal.

In Russia,
there is also some indecision

about their energy future.

It has a lot
of cheap methane gas,

which can supply electricity
and can be exported

successfully to other countries,

though at the cost
of accelerating climate change.

But Russia has
a significant nuclear program

as their government agency,
Rosatom, employs some

quarter million engineers,
researchers and employees.

Global warming,
which is caused by CO2 emission,

is something which
is very painfully felt here

in Russia because a big chunk
of Russia's territory

is located closer to the north.

This is why we actually feel
all these variations

in temperature.

So I'll give you an example,
Mr. Stone.

Currently in the world
there is 490 gigawatts

of installed nuclear capacity.

If we replace this with gas
or oil power generation,

that would cause emission
of more than two billion tons

of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So nuclear industry
is in fact an extra lung

that our world has.

Well said.
An extra lung.

When it joined
the World Trade Organization

on favorable terms in 2001,

China became
the world's workshop.

Incomes rose for hundreds
of millions of people.

And with agricultural
and computer progress,

the expectations of people
in general brightened.

But the worm in the apple
was that as the West moved

much of its
manufacturing to China,

more and more coal was burned.

Half of the world's coal
is now burned in China.

The poster child
of this shift was

the San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge built by China.

Its pieces then shipped over
and put together

in the Bay Area in 2013.

California brags
that it doesn't burn coal.

It's a nice and clean state,

when China burns the coal
for California.

China has a major decision
to make which will impact

all our futures.

Does it modernize
or does it continue

down the path of coal?

China's emissions combined
with the United States

make up almost half
of the world's total.

The key to decarbonization lies
in these two countries

who ideally should be partners
in this global issue.

What's scary is not
the same as what's dangerous.

Coal is dangerous.

It kills millions
of people every year.

More people die from coal
in a couple of weeks

than have ever died
from nuclear,

which is all from the one
accident in Chernobyl.

People are scared of flying
because it's dramatic.

If a plane crashes,
you know you're going to die.

I'd say severe turbulence,

definitely severe turbulence.

And they can't get
that image out of their mind,

But actually,
driving is far more dangerous

than flying.

And in the same way,
a nuclear accident

because of all this hype
around nuclear power

scares people.

But actually it's orders
of magnitude safer

than fossil fuel,
especially coal.

It's as though you're
on a bridge and a train

is coming onto the bridge.

Train!

And the train coming
at you is climate change.

Shit.

And what we're doing
is trying to run off the bridge

away from the train,
but we don't have time

to get off the bridge.

That's our renewables,

that's our personal
carbon footprint,

all the little things
that we're supposed to do.

But it's not working
and the thing that we have

that we know works is
to jump off the bridge

into the water below,
and that's nuclear power.

The jump is scary,
but it's the train that's going

to kill you.

Many in the West's
post-industrial lifestyle

feel they're taking steps
in the right direction.

And they are.

People preach the green gospel.

They recycle,
they install solar panels

and look for sustainability
in their consumer brands.

Turn out the lights,
drive more efficient cars,

reduce your carbon footprint.

We do things
that are politically doable,

affordable, convenient,
and make us feel good

about being virtuous,
better citizens.

And we all hope somewhat blindly

that these things will add up.

But they don't.

So what do we need to do?

How do we solve this problem
in a better way

than just trying to add up
things that don't get

to a solution?

The answer is
to think objectively,

top down from the future,

Back to now and be very honest.

Where do we actually need
to be in 2050

to solve carbon emissions?

And working backwards
from there,

what steps can we take
to get to that solution?

One place to start
is to include everyone

in our thinking,
not only the billion people

living in the richer parts
of the world

but the 7 billion who don't.

And are now producing two
thirds of carbon emissions.

Seven hundred million of whom
don't have any access

to electricity.

Did the West think
the populations of China,

Africa, India, South America
and the Middle East

wouldn't want what we have?

Electricity in their homes,
cars, computers,

air conditioners,
modernized agriculture?

Or at a more basic level,
if your destiny is

to grind sugarcane
by hand in India,

that destiny
can be hugely transformed

by an electric grinder.

That's why poorer countries
are building electricity

generation as fast as they can,
and they're using the cheapest,

fastest, simplest technology
they can find.

Coal.

Can the West now seriously
tell billions of people

they can't enjoy
a life changing event

like electricity?

Because we've already
burned up most of the carbon

the planet can afford?

Did we think
these populations would use

less energy than we did?

And the truth be fully known,

it's not just
electricity we need.

That's only a third
of the total,

because two thirds
of the energy related

carbon dioxide emissions come
from non-electric sources.

That is most transportation,
including cars, trucks,

trains, ships and planes.

Secondly,
industries such as steel,

cement and fertilizer.

And thirdly,
the heating of homes, offices

and all buildings
which are not yet electrified.

And just to get these sectors
off the coal, oil and gas

they depend on,
they need to be electrified,

which will enormously multiply
demand for clean electricity.

The resulting volume
of carbon free electricity

needed over
the next thirty years

is almost unimaginable.

It depends on several factors,
but realistic estimates

range from two to four times
the electricity

we currently use.

The world is not standing still
as this is going on.

All these economies are growing
fast month by month,

year by year.

We're going to need
a gigantic amount

of clean electricity by 2050.
Two, three, maybe four times

all the electricity we use now.

And it has to be cheap enough
to outcompete coal and gas

and also scalable,
able to be built

in large quantities
and at quicker speed.

Realism dictates
that renewables aren't going

to be able
to bridge this energy gap.

And we don't have much time
till 2050 to switch

over an extremely large system.

So it becomes apparent
for the sake of humanity

that we must seriously
reconsider nuclear energy.

At present,
more than four hundred reactors

are producing over 10%
of the world's electricity.

Dozens of countries
are building more right now,

about fifty reactors
in 16 countries,

notably in China
India and Russia.

And another hundred
are on order.

Most of these in Eurasia,
with its rapidly

rising electricity demand.

Turkey, Bangladesh
and the United Arab Emirates

are newcomers to the game.

President Xi Jinping
surprisingly suddenly announced

in 2020 to the United Nations
that China intended

to drop its carbon emissions
to zero by 2060.

This is a huge commitment.

But can China deliver?

They have 37 nuclear reactors
and are building 19 more,

which is faster
than anyone else.

They hook a new reactor
to the grid every two

to three months.

Having adapted American,
Russian, Canadian

and French designs
over the years,

the Chinese now have
their own design.

The Hualong One,
which took about five years

to build
and is now in operation.

These are inexpensive,
heavy workhorse reactors

that can be built by the tens,
maybe by the hundreds.

China also is building
the Linglong One,

a low cost small modular
reactor called an SMR,

a technology first deployed by
the Russians.

It's about one third the size
of the Hualong One

and can be built in a factory
and either sited on land

or barged to locations around
the world and plugged in.

Whether China's standardizes

and replicates
its big reactors or small ones,

we will be investing deeply
in the future of this century.

These reactors are going
to last fifty to eighty years

or more.

There's no question the cost
of building nuclear plants,

though dropping, is still huge.

The positive side is they're
inexpensive to operate.

And once the pattern
of building is established

successfully,
reactors could conceivably

be built like airliners
or giant turbines

on a factory scale
at a central location.

The first fully functional SMR
has already been successfully

deployed in Russia in a remote
but important Arctic port town,

Pevek.

Built in the Saint Petersburg
shipyards,

the plant was barged to the
Arctic.

Greenpeace called
it a nuclear Titanic.

But it dodged the icebergs,
arrived in a new home,

plugged into both the grid
and the district heating system

for the town's buildings,
and in 2020 was powering

the town without a problem.

Similar to the United States,

Russia is operating 35 reactors

accounting for almost
20% of its electricity.

But unlike the United States,
Russia is building

a new reactor each year
to replace retirements

and raise the nuclear share
of electricity

to what they plan,
if they stick to it,

50% by mid-century
and 75% by century's end.

Russia with 60% of the market
is the world's leader

in exporting larger reactors

specializing in turnkey plants
that it designs, builds

and operates.

Dozens of projects are under way

in India, China, Bangladesh,
Turkey and elsewhere.

The most ambitious development
in Russia is its fast

breeder reactors,
which we visited close

to the foot
of the Ural Mountains.

Beloyarsk is a unique facility.

It's the only industrial scale
fast reactor in the world.

In a conventional reactor,
uranium fuel gradually degrades,

whereas in fast neutron reactor
it becomes higher

and higher grade.

Then you have a capability
to recycle the same fuel

multiple times.

So we operate using the waste

from other reactor types.

We don't extract resources
from the earth.

And why do you call
it Fast Breeder?

- Because we breed,

we produce more fuel
than we burn.

This is the most advanced
nuclear reactor in the world.

With breeder reactors,

no one yet knows
if this technology

will be cheap enough
to standardize

and be the complete
breakthrough technology.

Or perhaps it'll
be the model for the next stage

and so on.

Like any science,
nuclear keeps adapting

and renewing itself.

In 2021, Europe split into pro
and anti nuclear camps.

The United Kingdom has begun
to build again

with multiple reactors planned.

The Netherlands, Poland and much

of Eastern Europe all intend
to build new plants

in the coming decades.

But with its 56 nuclear
reactors and more promised,

France continues
to be the true world leader

in clean energy.

And when they look at it,
they see that the end price

for corporations
and for households

is significantly less
in France than it is

in all
the neighboring countries.

We believe that in 2050
mankind has the ability

to be a net zero planet
or very close to net zero

in order for global warming
to stop.

We need global warming to stop.

We believe electricity
is the key success factor

in managing
global warming issues,

and we believe there is,
there are a lot of solutions

and nuclear is a key part
of these solutions.

Voila.

Welcome to the swimming pool.

The water is hot, clear

France still
to this day, runs a clean grid

with one third
of the carbon emissions

per person of the United States.

Truly a major accomplishment.

This brings us around
to the United States

still dependent on fossil
fuels. 40% gas, 20% coal.

Despite tripling output
in the last decade,

wind power only supplies 8%
of the nation's electricity.

And solar power,
despite its highly publicized

fast growth
generates only 2 to 3%.

But public support
for nuclear energy has grown,

in fact, to 60% in 2021.

I was reading the book
about the Wright brothers.

You know, they started
this as bicycle mechanics,

but they wanted to fly
and they kept doing it

and doing it and doing it.
It took forever.

They flew twenty feet,
thirty feet a minute.

It was a long haul,
eight, nine years,

but they did it
and they were the best fliers.

Well, it just shows you
that tenacity

in scientific matters
is crucial.

And certainly
the nuclear industry

in the United States has done
that as it keeps

being counted out.

- Counted out
for debt in the United States.

Never in the world.

- That's right.

Too good to let it die off.
- Yeah.

It's too good to let it die off.

- Yeah.

The spirit of
innovation has always defined

America's character.

And now 50 or more new companies

have entered the energy field

with creative new designs
for nuclear reactors

with a focus on SMRs.

These new reactors are small,
taking up a fraction

of the footprint needed
for traditional nuclear power

reactors.

They're modular,
making it possible

for these designs
to be scaled up

and factory assembled,
and their reactors utilizing

the same reliable
nuclear fission technology

to generate heat
to produce electricity.

There's two
fairly significant projects

that are going
to be built by the end of 2028.

First of all, the partnership

between Bill Gates' TerraPower
and General Hitachi.

It's called
the Natrium Facility,

and it's going to heat a set
of molten salt tanks.

The other one of these
advanced reactor demonstration

projects is by a company
called X-energy,

initially funded
by an entrepreneur

from the space program.

So we're actually
building stuff.

And bigger American companies

like General Electric
are also building new reactors

in partnership
with Hitachi of Japan.

They've designed
a most promising,

low cost, workhorse,
boiling water reactor

built in a factory
and dropped into a hole

on site.

The SMR is scheduled for
completion by 2028

and then it can be built
as a fleet.

There are high hopes
and demand from the utilities

for this potentially
breakthrough reactor.

China and Russia seem
to be the leading explorers

in this field.

Absolutely.

If General Electric's
got this kind of thing

with a Japanese company
called Hitachi,

why are we not going
all out on this?

- Part of the problem
is that General Electric

has a, it's a very large company
with a very small

nuclear division.

General Electric
has a huge business

in wind turbines, gas turbines
and natural gas

drilling equipment.

Their priority is a little low
in the nuclear range.

So perhaps there's
an advantage to these new,

smaller energy companies.

They comprise a whole
new generation of young people

who are focused
primarily on nuclear.

And the Department of Energy
is working with several

of these startups
to build prototypes

at America's first
nuclear test lab,

the Idaho National Laboratory.

Located on the outskirts
of Atomic City, Idaho,

and established in 1949,

this facility,
known as The Site,

has provided the space
for several organizations

to build
over 50 reactors to date,

including Admiral Rickover's
groundbreaking engine

for the USS Nautilus.

Today, the lab is the epicenter
for the next generation

of reactors.

And you work for the government,
right?

- So I'm the director
of the National Reactor

Innovation Center,

and that's also called NRIC
for short.

Enric is charged
with accelerating

the demonstration
of advanced reactor

technologies in partnership
with private industry.

So what are we going
to do about the climate?

What's the best solution
in your mind?

- I think that it's
straightforward to get

to the first 30% renewables
and then probably 50

and even greater.

But when we get
to higher levels of

deep decarbonization,

we really find
that we need firm,

low carbon resources to have
the most affordable

decarbonization.

- And that would be?
- Largely nuclear.

Where the United States
excels most is in innovation.

And the Department of Energy
has made an enormous investment

in advanced reactor
demonstration projects.

And my organization
is working closely

with the companies
who are pursuing those designs.

Our vision is that we help

demonstrate at least two
advanced reactors

by the end of 2025.

We need nuclear energy
to address climate change,

and nuclear energy
is one of the safest forms

of energy that we have.

- On Capitol Hill,
do they care about that?

- There is growing
bipartisan support

for advanced nuclear.

More so than there has been for
the traditional technologies.

But there's a large audience
that we haven't reached yet.

And my view is that
we need advanced technologies

because if we're going
to have nuclear meaningfully

addressing climate change,
it needs to scale globally

in a really big way.

I mean, in the United States,
our electricity demand

is fairly stagnant,
but that is not true globally.

Globally, it's skyrocketing

and we have to provide clean,
affordable energy

to the world.

- That's a good point.
India, China.

- Africa and the Middle East.
- Africa.

- Yeah.
All growing very rapidly.

The other thing
that we can look at is

what is the alternative?

And if the alternative
is climate change,

that is
a much more serious risk.

- We need
to do nuclear differently.

And this is where we're going

to build our first reactor.

You're going
to build the reactor here?

- We're going
to build the reactor here.

- Do you know where?
- Yeah.

Basically out in there.
Pretty neat, right?

Because this is the first
advanced reactor that's going

to be a commercial plant
that gets built

in the United States.

And it's a micro reactor,
which is different.

You know, it's a lot smaller
than what we have today.

It starts at one
and a half megawatts electric.

- So that's going
to light up how many homes?

- It's like a thousand homes.

- A thousand homes?
- Yeah.

Really well suited for,
you know, small towns,

small communities.

- But you're going to build
a micro reactor and it's going

to give you 1.5MW?

That's nothing compared
to some of the SMRs.

- Exactly.

- You know, if we start
with something so small,

then we can really meet
the regulations,

but do it efficiently
and quickly.

A big problem with nuclear
is maybe it takes a decade

and billions of dollars.

We want to show
that it can take a couple

of years and less money
while still meeting

the same regulations.

- Is it your money
or how does that work?

- We're a privately
funded company.

It is our money.

- Can I ask you roughly
how much you've spent?

- Yeah, less than
ten million dollars to date.

- So you've raised ten million,
less than ten million?

- It's like Shark Tank.
- Yeah, kind of.

- We've talked a lot
about how we're starting small,

and so that's
where the aurora comes in

at one and one half megawatts.

And that provides a platform
on which we can scale,

because what's next for us
is something that's on the order

of about 15 megawatts

And from that we can go
all the way up,

potentially up to a hundred
or more.

And you would run the plant?

- We'll run it.
By making it sort

of a simpler process
where we're selling the power

and the heat
and not the reactors,

that makes it easier to buy.

- So the utility company
you'd cut out?

How does that work?

- We see the utilities
mostly evolving

to wanting to run distribution
and transmission.

We act as
an independent power producer

and we just sell the power
to the local utilities

or into the market,
and then they can then

distribute it to the customers.

- Yeah, we're excited
about how that could

allow communities
to basically opt in

instead of feeling
like a huge plant

is being stuck
in their backyard.

- Do you sometimes
feel frustrated

that, you know all this,
it just goes so slow

and you're getting older?

- Yeah.
- Absolutely.

- Timescales are just so long
in nuclear and too slow.

We're doing everything we can
to change that.

I think another way
of looking at it,

if nuclear was just discovered,
like in the last 15 years,

people would have become a lot
more familiar with

and comfortable
with the technology

because then
once you understand it,

people have a better sense
of not being afraid

and they see the benefits.

We would probably have
a thousand nuclear power plants

built around the world.

That's a good point.

- One of the last
public speeches JFK even gave

was saying we need
to use fission

to help with conservation
and for clean power

for various reasons.
And it was overshadowed

by the weapons.

And I think
we're looking at it anew

because of the imperative
climate change.

- Younger people seem
more open to it.

- I think so, yeah.
- They're smarter.

- I think
for the younger generations,

climate change
is more of an imperative

- than worrying about nuclear war.
- Exactly, yeah.

Well Jake, Caroline,
I wish you all the freaking luck

in the world, I really do.

Really, and the wind
at your back.

- Thank you so much.
- Thank you.

- Thank you, appreciate that.

If micro reactors
work the way Jake

and Caroline say,

the industry would gather
momentum quickly in the 2030s.

And it's not hard
to imagine micro reactors

in the future having the high
end cachet of a nuclear battery

buried away in the basement
of a smart home.

Putting out the power
to run lights, heat,

water purification,
as well as perhaps

a small hydroponic indoor farm,
all with zero emission.

And not much maintenance
required for twenty years,

after which the reactor
is replaced

with a fresh battery.

- When you have nuclear fission,

the primary output is heat.

- Thermal energy.
- Right.

- We typically convert
that to electricity.

We could use that heat
for water purification.

We might look at desalination
producing clean potable water

from seawater
or brackish groundwater.

Metals, refining,
fertilizer production,

cement production.

Those require a lot of heat.

And that heat comes
off our reactors, for example,

almost for free because it's
heat that we can't

convert into electricity.

So instead of just dumping
it to the air,

we could use that
in district heating

or industrial heating
or different things like,

for example, heating a campus,
right, or heating a hospital

or heating
a big commercial district.

You could have reactors
heating the district heating

that we have in New York City
and it'd be completely clean.

This is where
we're using high temperature

steam electrolysis.

That means simply
breaking down water molecules.

Hydrogen is a highly versatile
energy carrier

that can also be used
to produce synthetic fuels.

We take that hydrogen
from a clean process,

and we combine that
with carbon dioxide

that maybe has been captured
from a fossil plant,

an ethanol plant,
or even directly from the air.

And we can combine
that carbon dioxide

with the hydrogen to produce
liquid transportation fuels

that are clean burning.

- To fly a plane?
- Yes.

So now we have a pathway of
using clean non emitting

nuclear energy
to produce hydrogen

that goes all the way
to liquid fuels for your car,

for heavy transport vehicles
or even aviation.

- Wow.

Shannon went on
to explain how hydrogen is

the beginning pathway
to many other solutions.

Scientists at the Idaho lab
are also working

on fusion energy,
an even more powerful way

of harnessing energy
from matter.

Fusion, which is created
when two lightweight atoms

are forced together,

can produce immense
amounts of energy.

It is the same process
that powers our sun.

Its fuel source,
hydrogen and lithium

are plentiful,

and after decades of research,
the goal is closer

but still elusive.

Several start ups think
they can reach commercial scale

fusion faster
and smaller within a decade,

and they've raised billions
of dollars in investment

in 2021.

If humanity ever makes
fusion practical

and economical,
it could power the world

of the future,

maybe even in the second half
of this century.

Now,
we've done some really fantastic

development here at this site.

Are you moving fast enough?

I think that energy in general,

we need to move faster.

Why do we do this?
We do this for our families.

We do this for our kids
and those generations.

It's so important that we look
to our energy resources

and use them wisely.

We're leaving a legacy,
and I hope it's a positive one.

As I left the lab,
it became clearer than ever

to me that to hit
the needed levels

of clean energy,
we need to think big.

Among other things,
we will shortly need

to stamp nuclear reactors
off assembly lines on the scale

of world jetliner production.

This would mean creating
a significant new worldwide

industry, redeploying hundreds
of thousands

of people of all skills.

It would mean in the first
years, 2020 to 2030,

building factories around
the world, then scaling up

in the middle years 2030
to 2040 as electrification

takes over across the world
and multiplies the demand

for electricity.
And then going all out

with everything we have in the
remaining years

of 2040 to 2050.

To do that,
we need to rekindle the spirit

of Hyman Rickover
with the urgency he had

to quickly build new things.

How much faster could
it go if we also imagine

a world where countries
cooperate to do this?

One partnership here on Earth.

A United Nations
of clean energy.

No question the world
is changing and far faster

than I ever imagined.

The future is coming.

And I thought, wow,
as little as I know,

I know there's no real limit
to where clean energy

can take us.

But
the other part of conservation

is the newer part.

And that is to use science
and technology

to achieve
significant breakthroughs

as we are doing today,
and in that way,

to conserve the resources
which ten or 20 or 30 years ago

may have been wholly unknown.

So we use nuclear power
for peaceful purposes and power.

A formidable energy
gave birth to our planet

and that energy,
through centuries of war,

peace cataclysms, the price of
potatoes and stocks.

All the history, blunders,
tragic comedies,

and the occasional triumphs.

That energy E equals MC squared
was always there for us

all along.

And it's still there,
like an inner voice.

Our most faithful companion.

Why are we not using that power?

If this buildout were to occur,
can we imagine a world

in which human beings
are not terrified

by climate change but are smart
and confident enough

to solve it?

Together, collectively,
we're combating viruses.

Exploring inner worlds,
oceans and fellow travelers.

We're traveling through space
and for that matter,

just building bullet trains,
housing,

deep underground tunnels
and giant aeropolises.

We can do most anything
with our mind.

Human ingenuity,
the workings of the mind

can get us out
of our climate predicament.

Unless we dull it with fear,

the mind is the most powerful
tool we know.

It is more imaginative than
any computer will ever be.

There is no force,
no energy that can contain

or stop human consciousness.

We may have come to a point
in time when Earth

is asking us,

do you know what you're doing?

And there's no going back
or forward from this moment.

Time stops now.

Or maybe I'm being melodramatic,

but I think as a race,

we're more informed
and conscious

than we've ever been.

And many of us
are thinking the same thing.

We're thinking not just
about ourselves,

but of the entire world
as we know it

and how we can fix it.

And that's a hell of a lot
of consciousness for many,

many people.

And for that reason,
let's make something of it.

If we human beings can get
this right,

if we can create clean
electricity fast enough

to decarbonize the world
and we can.

The effects would be incredible.

People would know.

They would sense the changes
right away and it would

energize the world anew.

Imagine that.

Imagine that there is a
tomorrow and it can be better.

If we overcome our fears
and embrace

the primordial star power
in the nucleus of the atom,

and in doing so,

give us all, all living beings
what is our birthright.

A future
that we can look forward to.

We are all time travelers.

Turning together
into the future.

But let us work together
to make that future

a place we want to visit.

Be brave, Be determined.
Overcome the odds.

It can be done.

It can be done.