This is the latest installment in
the blended research at the library

multi-disciplinary perspectives for
everyone.

Discussion series and
we have a good program here today.

I imagine and many of you
are know some of the speakers but

we have three good speakers for
a panel and only introduce them in just

a minute the nuclear debate
has always been a heated one.

How safe is it where the positive and
negative environmental effects of

nuclear energy when compared with
other energy sources the disastrous

effects in the Fukushima nuclear plant
in Japan following the earthquake and

tsunami have heightened concern over the
safety of nuclear energy as you can and

you'll tell or are three speakers are very
highly qualified to talk about this topic

and it will be quite interesting.

We're going to follow the format that
we've used in our previous blended

research at the Library series each of our
speakers will present Bill talk to us for

somewhere between fifteen
twenty minutes and

then after all of them are presented
we'll go ahead and have a question and

answer period where you can ask
questions and and they'll give us their

sage answers on that image tween
the first couple speakers because

will be switching off of the laptop
we're going to have our door prize then.

And so I hope everyone.

Intrade their ticket into the drawing and
will give out.

We have a book or some computer programs
that that you can get I'll go ahead and

introduce our speakers in the order that
they'll be present presenting to us.

First we'll hear from able he's a Ph D.

student in nuclear and radiological
engineering here at Georgia Tech.

He's pursuing and he's also pursuing
a graduate certificate in public policy.

He graduated from the University of
Wisconsin Madison in one thousand nine

hundred nine with a B.S. in him innocent
nuclear engineering kills primary reach.

Search interest is an identifying
problem areas in the macro economy

such as securing it to secure and
sustain energy supply and

creating integrated engine hearing
solutions addressing these problems within

the constraints of existing policy
infrastructure technology and finance

his Ph D. is is focused on adapting
solar thermal energy storage methods

to fourth generation nuclear reactors
as a way to limit regulatory boundary

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
without endangering the public.

Tim Cahill is a graduate student in
nuclear and radiological engineering.

Also here at Georgia Tech.

He's currently pursuing his master's
degree in nuclear engineering

under the direction of doctrinal and
hurdle he received his B.S.

in nuclear and radiological engineering
from Georgia Tech in two thousand and

ten in terms area of research
is radiation detection

with a particular focus on neutron
detection using banner spheres.

He has also participated
in research first.

And the Centers for Disease Control
involving the use of portal monitors and

devices determining internal can.

Contamination levels during a radiological
event such as the detonation of

a radiological dispersal of a device or
the release of vision products

from a nuclear reactor accident that the
information garnered from this research

was applied to assist in the relief
efforts at Fukushima Dai ichi in the days

following the reactor accident in our
concluding speaker file speaker will

be Dan Taylor Dr Taylor is an associate
professor emeritus of chemical and

biological engineering
here at Georgia Tech.

He's an also an adjunct faculty member
of the school in mechanical engineering

he retired from the school of chemical and
biological molecular engineering

in December of two thousand and
six from April of two thousand and

seven until March of two thousand and
eight he served.

At the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
in Rockville Maryland

as a senior chemical process engineer.

He attended Kenyon College and
received his

bachelor's a chemical engineering
from Georgia Institute of Technology.

He obtained is innocent.

PH degrees in chemical engineering from
the University of Wisconsin in Madison

where he's also a big U.W.
fellow go back years

prior to joining
the faculty at Georgia Tech

he was a staff engineer in
the chemical technology division of

Oak Ridge Oak Ridge National Laboratory
in Tennessee where he developed a managed

an experimental program to
demonstrate act act and I

partitioning flow sheets for radiological
waste management and advanced concepts for

reducing long term radio talk sides
of high level waste at Georgia Tech.

Dr Taylor had continued his research
in radioactive and chemical waste and

chemical waste management
advanced chemical separations and

process invention.

He holds seven patents and
has over seventy technical publications.

He was a senior series editor at the
radioactive waste management handbook and

former executive editor
of toxics toxic and

hazardous substance control in part of
the Journal of Environmental Science and

Health Care with no further if you will
go ahead and have a presentations.

Thank you so much.

I mean probably a title and
found a bit of the humor in there.

So why as a farm kid from
Wisconsin who when the first

time I saw a nuclear reactor.

I was scared my life I
thought I was going to die.

Remember seeing it and
I was really possessed by that fear and.

That fear motivated me to

pursue my degree in nuclear engineering
and as I learned more about nuclear power.

I came to appreciate what the real value
that nuclear energy has for this is for

our society.

So if there's one thing that you
take away from from this discussion.

Is Don't let your fears govern your life
address your fears with knowledge and

study and

effort and you can discover a whole nother
world that you didn't even know existed.

So my talk today is more on
our nation's energy supply.

So I'm going to be talking about
a good bit of politics some nuclear

weapons because you can't ever seem
to get away from those things and

of course the costs and
what a different power supply

options are we face a whole
series of problems in our world.

Most notably the emissions
of carbon dioxide.

We also import a significant portion
of our primary energy from overseas.

And this exposes us to
a significant amount of risk

to supply chain disruption is
a majority of the world's oil but

roughly a third of the world's oil
goes through the Straits of Hormuz.

And if you haven't been
watching the news our Iran or

the regime in Iran doesn't
particularly like us so.

They're also having a few building
nuclear weapons and delivery systems and

don't seem to have a tremendous
amount of respect for human life.

The combination of nuclear weapons and
a lack of respect for

human life is a dangerous
dangerous combination

all respect in our
country of human life is

what prevented us from using nuclear
weapons more in the Cold War And

I think is vital for the future of
our planet but more back to the Gulf.

This seems to be the hot bed of of modern
society and we have even more problems.

And there are like Saudi Arabia
overstating their oil reserves and

I was exposed to this Pekoe model and
by my own Evan Hakon.

I thought it was quite quite
taking what does it mean

being at peak oil and so I built a physics

model of what the world's oil supply and
integrated price with it and that's what

my who I was based off of in a text with
what the Energy Information Agency says

on their green line the high one which is
the high oil model and then the kind of

Ornish line is the reference case
scenario and this is your store data.

Well if you lived through
the one nine hundred seventy S.

And I sort of vaguely remember this
is the supply shortages that we

had during the Iranian revolution with
the gas lines and the last time that

we had gas lines I was deployed so my wife
was sure to tell me about that in and

the e-mails as I was out on
the other side of the world.

So we can't approach these problems
individually we have to look at these

problems more holistically and
understand what the real issues are and

to start that I looked at what
the costs of producing electricity

are this is a vocal unit three and
four being constructed it's going to

be coming in around ninety ish
dollars per megawatt hour.

And that's a good number for
to have in the back your mind for

what the level ice cost
of nuclear power is and

I thought things were going wonderful and
then this wonderful day in in March I

heard about this in Japan where
sixteen thousand people are dead and

four thousand people are still
missing nine months after the tsunami

and the impact that that had on
Fukushima Daiichi it was immense

the wall of water was over forty five
feet tall it inundated the facility.

It took up all power we rely
on electrical power whether

small offsider from diesel generators
to provide cooling for the reactors.

Well they basically lost cooling and
were unable to operate

any valves in sufficient amount of time
to prevent these events from happening.

So what was a loss of life
that occurred from this

zero most challenging beyond design
bases event that we could even

not even think about because in
resulted in the loss of their lives.

So as a result of this immense
demonstration of safety.

The German people are moving away from
nuclear power as a whole slew of other

countries and
that's placing stresses on other sources

like the price natural gas price natural
gas is skyrocketing around the world.

The only reason why it's so expensive here
is because we have hydraulic fracking and

seem to be getting a lot of it
from the ground at least for

the time being so natural gas.

When it comes to producing
electricity natural gas.

Even at its low bargain basement price
comes in about ninety eight dollars

from a go out from a watt hour for
advanced combined cycle plant.

So this is the best that natural gas can
do with the cheapest fuel fuel price

goes up price of electricity goes up but

we do have a lot of natural gas and ground
out thirty one terawatt years which gives

us about one hundred years at
current consumption levels and

fortune natural gas in how we produce
it at least with existing technology

produces twenty percent more
greenhouse gases than coal so

natural gas is not some
clean savior coming along.

It's another technology with its own
problems just like everything else.

Now as far as providing
energy security these dark

blue lines are how much natural
gas we import this is from MIT.

The report on the future of natural gas.

This is twenty twenty stone here about
two and then by two thousand and fifty.

It's up around fifteen.

So we go from the frying
pan into the fire.

If we rely on natural gas.

It's only a matter of time so

we need to demonstrate a little
bit more forethought in.

What we're doing with our
sources of energy wind.

Somebody might look at that number and

go you I know I don't why I
didn't include any subsidy costs.

So the numbers that you see up
here are just a straight numbers.

So no subsidies.

No incentives.

Because remember subsidies
have to be paid by somebody.

The cost of building these has to be paid
by somebody whether it's the people who is

buying electricity or whether it's
by taxpayers somebody paying for it.

So if we're going to look
at these this terms of what

the impact is on the economy.

Don't call it the subsidy.

The other thing that when
his is wind is fickle.

So you have to back up wind power.

So I backed up wind power my
model with natural gas and

that's reflected in this price
because our economy relies on having

electricity when we want to electricity
and the cost of having the lights go out.

When you don't want the lights
to go out is immense.

And then this this occurred to me when

I was in the Navy is all right we have
all these wonderful coal plants and

since nuclear power is only
a fancy way of boiling water.

What if we just changed
out the heat source.

We convert all these coal plants
that we have around the country.

To nuclear reactors by just
changing out the heat source and

tie the reactor in with the steam plant.

So we minimize and reuse and
actually continue using our existing

energy infrastructure then using this Rick
technology this is a General Electric's

prism designed to sodium fast reactor
it comes in about ninety dollars from

a go on our right on par with what you'd
see with existing nuclear power plants.

I chose this technology because
we operated a prototype for

a good number of years and

the main reason is that it had this
passive safety demonstration or inherent

safety demonstration they challenge
the reactor and ran an experiment on it.

The see what would happen with
really insane conditions and

the reactor was able to demonstrate that
it could protect itself for a week or

so week without any operator action and
a week without electrical power.

Keep in mind to restore power
to Fukushima took nine days.

So being able to keep the fuel completely
intact in the reactor intact after a week

to big deal is this a safe plan
the reason why I like it is it's hot.

But five hundred degree Celsius and
the technology is ready in about the next

decade and that's two for the combined
construction operation license.

So this is the most mature advanced
reactor technology that's available.

The reason I like is the fuel.

The fuel is very easy to make it's
actually made on site at last for

a long time.

It's very resilient fuel
wonderful stuff and

it's recyclable one hundred
percent recyclable.

And it's designed for
being recycled and the best part about

it all as that you get to use
nuclear weapons to make electricity.

I don't like nuclear weapons very much.

So any time I get to turn those
into electrons going down the wire

that makes me very happy that we do this

is a continuation of existing policy
with the Megatons to Megawatts.

So this is not a new idea.

The only reason why I like it is that
it's not big it's not a massive capital

investment it's not a thousand megawatt
plant it's about three hundred megawatts.

So it's smaller.

And the mission that we have before going
to these coal plants is a complex mission

all around the country we can repeat our
seventy five percent of the coal plants

using existing regulatory framework that's
a non-trivial number of plants and the.

Level of reusing our
existing infrastructure.

So we need a reactor that's resilient
we need technology that can adapt and

can operate in many different situations
because the work that we have to do.

Of closing this carbon dioxide emission
gap of the top one saying this is where

we're going and then this is seen this
is where we want to go way down there.

That's a big difference.

And we need something
that can tackle that.

So I looked at what conventional
wisdom was I looked at what we what

our power look like if we did
it with renewable energy and.

The top line up here.

This is with the carbon dioxide tax and

we do nothing to change
our energy infrastructure.

So this is we tax carbon dioxide and
sit on our hands and

see what happens then the next the green
line this is a renewable line.

So the price goes up and doesn't really
stop going up and then this white

line down here is if we do nothing which
is basically what we're doing right now.

So that's the bottom line right here
the other thing that I saw with

this is that your carbon dioxide emissions
from new a bull's eye go down and

then they start going back up and

the reason why they start going back up is
that we have to back up renewable power.

In order to maintain
the stability of our grid.

Think of maintaining stability of the grid
as maintaining stability of our economy.

It's important it's that important.

So renewables won't get you so far

they're not good enough and
this red line is the is the target and

this is eighteen eighteen percent or
twenty percent reduction.

Now renewables short a non-trivial amount
in our carbon dioxide emissions by

twenty fifty Not only that we was
a lot of land to the tune of the air.

The size of Minnesota.

So what about doing something different.

Well here is kind hard
to see this is coal and

you'll notice that coal is phased
out by about twenty thirty five.

We're not using coal that is like
Christine twenty thirty five and

we've done it by converting all those
coal plants around the country to nuclear

reactors and here's what happens
with the prices a little bit

more expensive initially but once you stop
having to build so many nuclear plants so

fast the cost of electricity falls and
by twenty fifty five.

It will be back to where we were if
we did nothing when US year that your

carbon dioxide emissions go down to
ten percent by twenty thirty five.

So we're well below the twenty
percent reduction by two thousand and

fifty line that was proposing legislation.

So this gives you a whole bunch of
credits to offer carbon dioxide offsets

to limit the overall cost the economy.

Now we all know that coal pollutes and

this is what the cost of coal is on
the economy is what I'm right here.

So the overall cost the economy by going
nuclear is less than what it is now.

Now the problem with coal is actually I
don't have a philosophical problem with

coal I actually kind of think it's a neat
neat chemical product it's fixed carbon

wonderful stuff that some people really
depend on it for their livelihoods.

So are all these obsolete is our entire
fossil fuel infrastructure obsolete and

we've got about one point three trillion
dollars invested in our fossil fuel and

infrastructure we don't have enough money

to be able to walk away from that
investment if we're going to do and

take meaningful action in reducing
our carbon dioxide emissions.

We have to find a way of
reusing this infrastructure.

Of continuing the use of armed minds
fifty billion dollars invested and

that's not even counting the value
to the economy of the employment and

in Appalachian in Wyoming.

I understand why the president
is advocating pushing

offshore drilling exploring up
in ANWAR look at who has the oil

the what's the risk that we expose
ourselves to this is last year.

Well almost two years ago now that this
is the spill from the Deepwater Horizon.

We do have other options like Keystone
X.L. But what's the environmental damage

that those are going to inflict
up in Canada or North Dakota.

But what's the cost of doing nothing.

What's the risk that we in we in tail or

incur if we do nothing
do to address peak oil.

There's another way of doing this and
of continuing the use and

that's to convert coal
into liquid fuels and

how the very model in World War two was
able to get the lift off up in the air.

It was how South Africa was able to get
through the oil embargo in the one nine

hundred eighty S.
The process is officially process.

There's a lot of different
ways of doing it.

That's one of them.

So we take the coal at some he
turn it into diesel and gasoline.

So we continue using of our existing
fossil fuel transport transportation

infrastructure both coal and liquid.

And get to keep our cars we
continue use of our coal mines.

We even get to continue the use of
all the coal handling facilities and

all those coal plants that we were
powered because we're going to use

some of the heat from the nuclear
reactor to liquefy that coal.

So we're going to turn our
coal plants into power plants.

Not only power.

As for electricity power plants for
transportation infrastructure and

because we're using the prism design which
is based off the Integral Fast Reactor

we open ourselves up to
a massive supply of fuel.

These are uranium hexafluoride casts
of depleted uranium in think there's

a to do go into and we've also got a whole
mess of them up in Piketon think somewhere

in the world of one hundred thousand and
this room would be filled by four of them.

So think about that for the size of these
as far as how much energy we have in here

is a lot we don't even
have to dig in the ground.

We have so much of this waste a lot of
waste spent fuel is perfectly good fuel

we recycle this fuel we reduce the waste
volume by ninety five percent.

We put that those act nice enough
plutonium back in the reactor and

use those perfectly good fuel
perfectly good fuel we reduce our

nuclear waste liability from hundreds of
thousands of years to three hundred years

good fuel why throw it away.

So back to carbon dioxide emissions one
of the first things that got me started

on this if we replace
baseload power with nuclear.

Maybe ten percent twenty percent.

If we replace load following or
an immediate load with nuclear power

nuclear process eat if we shift
our industry to nuclear power

where we got the hotter reactors now
we cut our carbon dioxide almost in

half the coal to liquids
actually reduces our

carbon dioxide footprint might seem
like it doesn't but it actually does

because we're adding energy on per mass of
the coal from the heat from the reactor.

So we're fixing carbon
free heat in the coal.

And that actually reduce our
overall carbon dioxide emissions.

So far here.

We've increased our primary
energy consumption and

reduced our carbon dioxide footprint.

So to get to the eighty percent reduction
in two thousand and five levels.

The only place where we have left
to look is to improve vehicle

efficiency because the only place that
we're using carbon in our economy

in case you've been missing the news or
close your eyes every time you want or

drive by the gas station or
pump gas which I do actually

I don't want to look at it any more
because it's pretty depressing.

It's now this is not a esoteric
intellectual concept

the problem is now which means that we
have to find and develop solutions.

Now we need energy and
lots of it and coal liquids and

repairing those coal plants with nuclear
reactors is an efficient and fast way of

reusing our entire infrastructure so
targeted capital investment big bang for

the buck and we need everything in

everything including the kitchen sink just
be smart about what technologies we pick.

Thank you.

All right.

Good afternoon everybody.

My name is Tim Cahill and
I'm here on behalf of the nuclear and

radiological engineering
department sort of that.

Forgive me if I have to pause during the
presentation I'm kind of recovering from

a little bit of a sickness.

So bear with me and
I want to start off by saying that

my approach to the future
of nuclear power is

as our other panelists I'm sure to
attest to based on my experience and

as such I don't have a very broad
experience yet in the nuclear industry.

So I'm going to speak on what I
know about which is education.

Having been near lifelong student.

So I believe education is very
important in nuclear power which is why

I chose this title a brighter future and
I did intend a little bit of a pun there

in general I think the future for nuclear
power is very bright how bright that

future is I believe depends
very much on education.

So where do we stand currently
in the world when concerning

energy and energy usage.

Well just some very general numbers
here we've got approximately one

point three billion people in the world
who live day to day without electricity.

That's twenty percent of
the world's population and

this is a map it's kind of hard to see but
this is a map of the world that night

you can kind of clearly make up
the US there Europe parts of

Asia Japan especially some parts of China
pretty much Africa is completely dark.

That's where the majority of that
population lives Africa actually is

the second most populous continent on
the planet and so you know there's a lot

that needs to be done to ensure
energy equality on a global scale.

It's interesting things to note you
know we've been going through this

economic depression it's worldwide
recession excuse me not oppression.

I don't think we're there but
a global economic downturn.

If you will.

What's interesting to note about this
is that last year from two thousand and

nine to two thousand and ten energy demand
actually increased by over five percent

that's good news and bad news in a sense
good news is that you know energy

is still growing bad news is our

economics aren't such that it's becoming
more and more difficult to contain.

To supply that demand.

You'll notice here that
the majority of the growth.

I don't know about is playing.

OK majority of the growth is
occurring in Latin American countries

as well as Asia and China
specifically is making huge leaps and

bounds in deploying new sources of energy

at the same time energy intensity
works and again thank you.

Spencer one of my research team mates.

This is energy intensity you can think
of this as a measure of a fish and

see how efficient.

Are we with our energy as
a measure of a part of our G.D.P.

So we're actually becoming
less efficient the majority

of the world is becoming less efficient
in its use of energy per G.D.P.

The exceptions again are Asia here
Africa I would say there is so

little use of power there that it's
very difficult to determine that.

But Asia.

What's going on here is China is having
this positive effect on efficiency

because of their deployment of so
many nuclear new nuclear power plants so

that that affects you know
Asia's rate ratings there.

So what does this mean what's in store for
us here in the next.

Let's say twenty twenty five years.

Well it's not a very pretty picture.

According to one of the latest
reports released this was released by

the International Energy Agency.

It was the world energy outlook for
two thousand and

eleven this report actually was
really released on November ninth so

last week there was a big article
in The New York Times about it and

they're heading there pretty negative
outlook here on our radar viciously

more expensive energy and
that was a major address.

Addressing point in this was because
of the lack of nuclear power because of

the predicted decreased support and
implementation of nuclear power.

So what happens in twenty
thirty five according to

the Energy Information Agency.

Well energy demand is going to increase by

nearly a third of what it is today that
would be in other words that would be

essentially like adding two more United
States to the world in terms of demand.

So imagine three times

what our demand is right now being added
to the world in twenty five years.

That's a lot.

We are the second largest consumer
of primary energy in the country or

in the world right behind
China at this point.

So it's a lot that we're going
to have to accommodate here.

C O two emissions from energy
are going to go up by twenty percent.

I think wherever you stand on
the global warming debate.

I think we can all agree that this
in general isn't a good thing.

Regardless and the the I believe that this

is going to lead to global temperature
rises of three and a half degrees Celsius.

So all of this spells not
a very pretty picture for

things to come makes it more difficult for
us to grow economically

as Cal mentioned as been that's being you
know one of these fundamental things that

we as a global community
need to achieve and

I want to say that this
this model that the I I.

The a scuse me implements implements

a seventy percent growth
in nuclear capacity.

So there is a significant
growth in nuclear power.

But what's the problem
then why why why are we

still having these problems or
to ask it another way.

Why aren't we.

Implementing nuclear given all of a.

Benefits that have been previously
discussed why aren't we.

Implementing this you know
why is this such a big deal.

Well summarize it and

also get a chance to practice Spanish
no comparable I do not comprehend it.

I think that really describes the problem
in a nutshell the majority of

the public at large just simply does
not understand what nuclear science and

technology is all about.

They don't understand how
a nuclear power plant works.

What radiation is how we use radiation
the fact that radiation exists.

Naturally it's not some human monster that
we've created it's always been here and

always will be here.

Those are our numerous kinds of points
that really need to be addressed

in order for nuclear to be
a considerable part of the future

and to kind of give a reason why I think

this becomes a problem is that as
commented earlier fear of the unknown.

It's a very real thing and it's something
that isn't just unique to the nuclear

industry it's been a problem
throughout human history and

in a lot of cases it's led to
a lot of very destructive and

the things within society the body
remember Salem Witch Trials

fear of magic let that burning
at the stake of many people.

Luckily as far as I know no nuclear
scientists or engineers have been

burned at the stake yet so I don't
think we're quite at that level but

given the consequences and
given the projections of the future.

I'd say the costs are pretty great.

And we need to address that.

So what's the solution.

Well to borrow a Latin maxim
science potentia not knowledge

is power and I mean this in more than
one way you know beyond just you know.

Powering electricity informing people and

giving them knowledge empowers them
to make logical decisions to fight

off fear of the unknown and
to really come to solid conclusions

that benefit society as a whole so

to kind of go into why I think education
is the solution I mean it kind of sounds.

I don't know a little little silly right.

The key to manage created
public is to educate them.

Well there's some reasons why I think
this is the case and one particular

that I would like to kind of point out is
a study that was done in two thousand and

nine by this county research about
public support of nuclear energy.

The survey was done kind of in
two parts the first part was

discussing public support of nuclear
energy on the whole of the U.S. So

hey here's a random sampling of the U.S.
and we're going to ask you some questions.

You know do you think it's important for
future you think we should renew licenses

at current plants do you
favor nuclear energy.

These are all kind of yes or no like or

dislike questions do you think we
should build new nuclear reactors and

if we if you do think that would you be
happy with that being built at the site

closest to you in this case
the numbers were pretty positive.

This may have changed after Fukushima in
fact they've suspect it does but the point

that I'm trying to make with this is
actually present in the next slide and

that was the second part of
this survey the second part

was to survey a group of people
called nuclear power plant neighbors.

These are people within very close
proximity of nuclear facilities.

These are people that directly
see the impact of nuclear power

nuclear energy on their daily lives they
see it driving back and forth to work.

They may work there.

They may know friends of
people that work there.

They see the impact directly in their day
to day lives and in every single case.

The support of nuclear energy was greater
for all of these questions asked for

people that lived in close proximity that
had an understanding at least cursory

of what nuclear power is so the point I'm
trying to make here is that education does

indeed I believe but lead to a better
understanding and therefore greater

support of a technological technology
that has so many great potentials.

So a little bit about my personal
experience and maybe some possible

insights on how to actually go about
educating I'm twenty three years

old and I am happy to say that I have
been employed in the same industry for

nearly twenty years and
it guesses on what that is a student.

I've been an education for
nearly all my life.

It's what I know and it's what I
plan to speak your today about.

So one of these goals in the last five or
six years that I've kind of

found as I've worked with various groups
the American Nuclear Society students on

campus whatnot and a variety of outreach
programs is that when you're trying

to educate people you need to figure
out number one what your audiences and

to do this is officially as possible.

You want to target the largest
audience that you can and

at the same time deliver information
in the most efficient method possible.

The second part's a little tricky because

you as has been witnessed
in the nuclear industry.

We've had some trouble
relaying information in a way

that makes sense in a way that
that truly benefits the public

a lot of our major
incidents in the nuclear

industry those crunch times you know
where we really need to do well on this.

We haven't done so hot.

So it's very difficult to find a way
to present information that isn't

too over the top over everyone's head and
at the same time make sure the information

isn't condescending to somebody that
they aren't going to be turned off.

Whatever with it but I think I've kind of
found a way around this to an extent and

that's by really selecting
carefully who your audience is and

in my case my experience
has been to select kids.

Number one they're WAY smarter than
most people give them credit for

as I've come to find we've done numerous
outreach activities through N.-S.

This Is Us at Earth Day here at
Georgia Tech as well as a few

the the complementary or
cursory glamour shot there of me

at the Fernbank Museum during a boy and
girl scout day.

And we've we've targeted
kids from five and

six year old students all the way up to
high school physics A.P. physics students.

I think this is the best audience target
number one there's a lot of kids globally.

It's actually one of the largest
groups of people currently existing

on this planet are between the ages
of fourteen and twenty one.

So that's a huge huge audience and
the bonus about this audience

to get parents to I didn't think about
this when we first started this but

this is what's really key is that
I was amazed at how much kids knew

already about nuclear science and
technology and at the same time I was

amazed at how little some of the parents
know what's great about picking kids as

your target audience is that you pick
an an age level where disseminating very

simple topics in very
simple concepts is easier.

It's very if you can explain
something to a five year old child.

You can explain it to anybody but
what's great about this

is that an environment where you
have your actively engaging children

is that their parents participate or
should participate in that experience.

So while you're targeting children
parents learn to in an environment

that isn't condescending to them because
it's for the benefit of their child.

So I think that's a great way to overcome.

This idea of well we don't want to
talk over everybody's heads but

at the same time we don't want to make
it sound condescending to an audience.

So this is a very large target audience

something issues I think we
need to target with education.

Number one tear down the black
box get people to understand

what a nuclear reactor is it is my
personal view that a nuclear reactor

should be no more difficult to
explain how it works than how a car.

It's right.

You have fuel called gasoline.

I put it in the car.

It goes in the engine that makes
energy and that energy gets to

take into the wheels and turns the wheels
and that lets me drive my car.

Wherever I want right.

Same thing with a nuclear power plant.

I've got fuel.

It's called uranium.

I can put it in this pressure vessel that
makes energy that energy boils water

which turns a turban which then turns
a generator and makes electricity.

So when I go home I can turn on my X.
box and put in Wally and

watch while the on my high definition T.V.
It's that simple.

You know kids kids can understand
that everyone can understand that and

it really should be more difficult than
that to explain the second one and

probably the biggest is to
defeat the radiation bogeyman.

This goes back to this whole idea of
fearing the unknown fearing the unseen

humans are woefully inadequate radiation
detectors we can see four hundred but

four hundred nanometers to seven
hundred animators that's visible light.

Right.
That's the only radiation that

our bodies really can detect and so

it's no surprise that people fear this but
the biggest things we need to do here is

make sure that people understand
what radiation is how we use it.

The fact that not just nuclear power but
all of the other ways that it's already

benefited society and
will continue to in the future.

This is one of our biggest challenges and
finally I would be a bad son if

I didn't listen to my mother when she told
me that there's no such thing as a free.

This concept.

Again not just for
Nuclear Engineering and nuclear power.

This is a light concept that I think goes

understated in considering
alternatives and options.

The idea that there is some sort of a
thing that will provide everything we want

for free is just false.

You really need to
understand as a society.

What the challenges
are what the costs are for

the benefits that we're going to
accrue from a certain technology and

it's my personal belief that the costs of
nuclear are far outweighed by the benefits

that it provides relative to all of
these other choices that we have I'm

not claiming any sort of groundbreaking
idea here I think this is something

that other people have recognized in fact
this was a book recently released called

nuclear power how a nuclear power plant
works by a million from it's a great

book that illustrates just how nuclear
power plant works designed for children.

So there's other people catching on
to this there's work being made.

I think we have a lot more waste a lot
more work to do and ways to go but

it is my assertion that education
is not only important for

the future of nuclear power but for the
future of the global community at large.

So that being said I'd like to thank
everyone here and will get to talk

a little bit later with
the panel thank you thank you.

Student loans was so I'm sensitive to your

I'm also talk of persons here
might get the visuals and

that's true but

the passages say things and proves it.

So two areas of interest.

First of all that you know
there's really no safe

or about how explain what
I mean by that the second

second mitigation of fire an explosion
of facts that mocks the mixed

oxide fuel fabrication
facility using sand filters

so I don't reactor safety is affected by
decay heat can you turn off your car and

walk away.

Can you turn off your new can walk away.

Well not really.

If you're in your car if you have a if
your if you lose a radiator hose in

the car overheats you've got to
stop get off the road right.

Let it cool off to start the engine
you stop burning gasoline.

It begins a cool down because you're
not putting more heat into the system

a nuclear reactor.

If it has a sustained loss of coolant
once it has a loss of coolant

it's essentially eighty
a Batek you drop your control.

Raji shut down the fissioning reactions
but you still have the decay reactions

going on from the K. products that are
already been produced in the reactor and

that's a significant energy source and

sense that Sadia Batek There's
no he transfer those conditions

the reactor temperature necessarily
goes up and that's a problem.

So you can't just turn it off and
walk away from you drop the control rods

you can't walk away because it
took a heat is going to continue

to elevate the temperature of
the reactor and bad things will happen.

So the reactor safety is
definitely affected by the.

K. heat and it must be continuously
removed at the reactor is

shut down if it's not being removed
that reactor temperature is going up

failure to remove decay heat results
in higher reactor temperatures

because the system is essentially eighty
Batek if you have a loss of coolant

and higher temperatures may result in
Serco new oxidation also in hydrogen

production and hydrogen production
comes out and fires and explosions.

So let's think about it.

We had Sure noble first of all we say what
was a graphite reactor so is different.

That's true it is different but it also
has or can you manage it has or Connie and

fires about Three Mile Island
Three Mile Island had a reactor

that overheated developed hydrogen
bubble in the reactor and had explosion.

Fortunately it did not rupture the reactor
or the containment vessel certainly So

the radiation was contained in Japan

we had how many explosions at least
four maybe five definitely four.

One was a spent fuel storage pool I
think it was from I think we all.

Yes he was OK but
it still had an explosion.

So it overheated something overheated

you produce hydrogen by the reaction with
your calling him either with with well

the reaction of obscene water in zirconium
and you produce hydrogen had an explosion

because once you have a combustible
mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.

If you're above the the detonation
temperature is going to go.

So this is a this is

something that happens when I whenever
we have a sustained loss of cooling.

In a reactor.

I think it's a significant safety issue
and you know I don't have to continue to

see reactors exploding over and over again
to convince myself that there's a problem.

You know it's happened enough with in
my lifetime that it's clear there's

a problem there.

So I mean something needs to be changed.

Now this is of a figure It was
developed by origin print out

by Benjamin at all as a study
spent if you will heat

up following laws of water during stories
they're just looking at spent fuel.

It's a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
report was done in May

of one thousand nine hundred seventy
nine is what was published and

what we have here on the origin it is
a take a power divided by the operating

power and
down here below we have decay time and

we say OK after ten days
we were we're somewhere.

Well we're not quite ten to the minus
three but we're we're getting

close attended the minus three
which should be out here somewhere.

Twenty or thirty days.

So ten of the minus three is
a tenth of a percent of the heat

that's actually produced by the reactor
when it's operating seems pretty small but

if you're talking about a one gigawatt
reactor a one point one gigawatt reactor.

That's one point one
megawatts of heat that has to

be dumped which is a lot of heat and

you've got to cool it to get
out here over all the thousand

days to get down to ten to the minus
fifty which is still in a kilowatt range.

So you can't just heat.

You can't just run the reactor drop
the control rods and and not maintain it.

You've got to keep the cooling
going to remove the decay heat for

an extended period of time and the.

This is true for
spent fuel it's in the reactor is true for

spent fuel it's in the storage pools and

as we continue to store more and more
spent fuel in the storage pools the risk

of producing undesirable
effects increases.

So what is the issue Well the issue
is the reactions or Kone I'm which is

a metal that used in cladding to fuel
it's a terrific metal because it

has wonderful properties from
the standpoint of the nuclear reactor.

But from the standpoint of
stability this it could.

It's not the best choice.

It's just not the best choice.

Particularly when you look at this
a fact that there were these are calling

will react to water and

as you elevate the temperature at some
point it's going to begin to react.

Now there's your call.

You know also undergoes face
transformation defamation bubbling

Crystal defamation and destruction
which destroys the physical properties

of the cladding So the basic message is
is that which we detailed in this report.

I had here is a by Benjamin
all the same report is

that when you heat the spent fuel beyond
the temperatures that was designed for

he destroyed the physical
properties of his or colony I'm.

Eventually lead to oxidation of those
are calling him which converts it

into a powder and so what happens to
the fuel policy end up in a little pile

in the bottom of the reactor vessel and

this is happened repeatedly It
happened three mile island and

it's happened at Japan I'm
sure repeatedly.

Now the actual temperature
certainly by the time that

you're up here around nine hundred
resign a great juror well into.

The range where you're going to have
pretty significant oxidation reactions

going on but according to this figure as
low as around six hundred fifty degrees

Centigrade you start to have problems
where you have oxidation effects going on.

They're looking at a lot
of different cases.

This is the maximum peak clad
temperature as the ordinary sis's

educate time again in
this time in days and

they looked at a lot of different cases
because they were looking at spent fuel

storage and they were looking at different
configurations and you basically have

radiation that you can use to remove
heat and you have natural convection.

So even if you don't have the force
convection of the system is different.

Designed to operate under you still
can have natural convection radiation

that will control the temperature to
a certain extent but there is a problem.

Israel obviousness figure in this was
known since one nine hundred seventy nine.

It's actually Nuclear Regulatory
Commission report the work done at Sandia

the N.R.C. even in two thousand and

one in there in our in new regs seven
hundred thirty eight is saying the results

of the study any Kate that the risk
of spent fuel pools is low and

well within the commission's quarantine
quantitative health objectives this

risk is low because of the very low
likelihood of his or causing a fire even

though the consequences of his or
cornea fire could be serious.

I don't know where they get that because
if you have if the reactor overheats

you're going to have as a fire and
you're kidding yourself to think otherwise

they go on to say the probability is
about one in a million per pool year.

OK So that means to have five of them
occurring at the same time assuming

an independent events that's going to
be one chance in ten to the thirty.

OK So that's it doesn't something
like that doesn't happen.

Obviously the probabilities are wrong.

That's actually the take home message
here is the probabilities are wrong.

The N.R.C.
is being way too optimistic about

the safety of the reactors because you're
only talking if you go back and look here.

What temperature the operator the reactors
no number operate properly that

what three hundred right three hundred
degrees centigrade somewhere down here.

If they get up another three
hundred fifty degrees.

They're in the danger zone for sure.

As far as a safe operation is concerned
and keeping the things under control.

So the only issue is how
fast it's going to heat up.

So in my opinion reactor and
spent fuel saving and

spent fuel storage should be modified and
the safety can be improved.

I believe using the following steps.

First of all eliminate combustibles or
cornea Miss fuel cladding now the maybe

some other zirconium compounds that would
be more stable that could be used that

would have acceptable properties from the
standpoint of the new Tronics I don't know

I know other people that are working
on that trying to find alternatives or

phoneme cladding I think it's a really
key issue that needs to be looked at very

carefully A second possibility is to
build and operate smaller reactors and

one of our earlier speakers was talking
about that matching up with coal so

that would be consistent
here a smaller reactors or

you have you have a smaller temperature
rise of the smaller reactor

reduce the fuel densities
in the reactor cores and

spent fuel storage pools because
of the need for story space.

We've gone the opposite direction in
the spent fuel storage pools where

we're increasing the density.

Of the the class.

Fuel rods and fuel assemblies
in these storage pools that has

a desirable effect as long as
the pool is kept well cool.

But if there's a loss of coolant acts in
a sustained loss of coolant in a storage

pool then what's going to happen is the
temperature is going to go up drastically

and we're going to have reactions
of zirconium with oxygen and

water production of hydrogen fires and
explosions.

So one way to counter that is
to reduce the fuel densities in

the reactor cores in the spent fuel
storage pools and possibly by going to

air cooling if you can get a nuff
convective he transport and

rate radiative heat transport
to keep it cool enough but

in the in the reactors looking and
other possibilities look at

providing more heat transfer by and
by natural convection radiation.

It's more difficult in
the reactor vessel itself.

And that's a major modification to the
reactor design the way we have a right now

five I think we should be designing
to mitigate the consequences.

The N.R.C.

is saying it's only a one chance in
a million this is going to happen.

Well it's happened at least five
times already that I'm aware of and

probably more how many

times does have to happen before we
realize there is a significant issue.

Just to say there's not a problem.

I think really begs the question.

So I think we should be designing
to mitigate the consequences

not just assuming that they're and
they're not going to happen.

We should be working to make the reactors
fail safe which we're not doing

now you might ask why.

Why is that the the N.R.C. is not jumping
on the bandwagon with this will remember.

The N.R.C. has licensed all
the reactors in North America.

They've already said they're safe.

So now if for them to go back and say that
we can't use or Conan cladding means that

they're going to have to admit
that the reactors are not safe.

The way they are right now they're
not going to do that because in R.C.

is a political institution it's
not going to to to change what

it's already said we say well

gosh we haven't had a tsunami
there's not a single army

challenging this these reactors and
so what's the problem

there is a possibility that a mega
tsunami could he hit the U.S. East Coast.

Dr Simon de University College London

is predicting the possibility
of a two hundred foot high

mega tsunami approaching the East Coast
at five hundred miles per hour and

where hits the shore washing as far
as twenty miles inland say Whoa.

And there are a lot of reactors along the
East Coast here that would be at risk and

possibly those in Texas and
in Louisiana too because

of the what if the tsunami
wave ricochets off of Cuba and

has north up into so many I you

can imagine if this is something like this
happens we won't just have one reactor.

We'll have many reactors in trouble and
it will be somewhat mind

boggling his specific prediction is
the next Maggot's tsunami may begin

on one of the Canary Islands off the coast
of North Africa where a wall of water or

across the Atlantic to hit the U.S.
East Coast the Caribbean and Brazil.

Places guys at University College London
he's talking about a part

of an actual volcano the coombe or a.

V B L.

How do you mean via the well Kaino.

On the island of law Palma in
the Canaries is unstable and

according to Dr de it could plunge into
the plunge into the ocean during that all

came as next eruption so pleasant
thought there historically there have

been volcanoes I mean there have been
tsunamis actually larger than this.

So this is not a something new.

It's just something we
haven't seen in recent times.

And remember where you heard
about it the next oxide plant.

I think there are safety issues there too.

I worked on that briefly in
the review of that they had

to chemical to senior chemical engineers
working on the mixed oxide plant.

Alex Murray who is still with the N.R.C.
was working on it before I was they took

him off and they put me on they
didn't like be either because neither

one of us was willing to say we thought
what they were doing was a good thing.

We both had similar problems.

The idea I'm very
enthusiastic about the idea.

It kind of ties in with what cow was
talking about earlier using up weapons

grade plutonium to make a mixed oxide fuel
and put it into reactors and burn it is

a good way of getting rid of the Potomac
problems with They've had this practical

problems they've had a lot of delays cost
overruns and now the utilities are not

really interested they say in trying
to use a new fuel in their reactors.

So it's not sure where that project
is going in the meantime the building

a plant your tax dollars at work
course a little bit of a cost overrun.

But we won't worry about that right.

We're only talking billions of dollars.

We're not talking trillions.

So it shouldn't be that much of an issue.

And here's a picture of the plant is
under construction is further along now.

But the reviewers expressed
concern because the N.R.C.

is taking shortcuts on safety review
to avoid construction delays and

some of the questions that are not
well answered in my opinion really

chemical issues most of the dangers
of chemical explosions and vapors.

They have a rather interesting
notion that they should only

review the use of chemicals after they've
been exposed to radioactive materials.

So the cold chemical area where they
have chemical storage going to be

used in the plant is beyond the purview
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

which doesn't make any sense at all
to me as an as a chemical engineer.

Because when I come on a plant site I'm
response as as a chemical engineer I'm

responsible for every area that
involves any kind of chemicals at all.

Doesn't matter where
the radioactive are or not.

So I was not happy ventilation

monitoring flow controls are lacking they
they have and there's in their safety.

Now as they say they're going to keep
everything below fifty percent of

the lower combustion limit but they never
explain how they're going to do that.

I don't explain how they're
going to measure it either.

So it's just kind of a promise but there's
no indication how they're going to keep

that promise no indication about
ventilation monitoring flow

controls regular nuclear retention by
the filters is the standard way to go.

My concern is that the there

are a lot of different ways
that they can run into trouble.

Particularly with the chemistry
that would lead to explosions and

shock waves and what would happen with the
heat of filters they would get blown out.

How this happened Iraq Efe.

Lats the government had a similar
facility Rocky Flats in Colorado there

and plutonium has been detected at
Rocky Flats as far as five main five miles

away from the plant and they had fires and
explosions at Rocky Flats and

they blew out heap of filters so my
concern is that this is there be a similar

problem that at the mock facility.

They also have issues that I
think were distressing about

the lack of definition how they're
going to suppose of certain ways for

example they produce a solvent waste and

I kept saying Well where is that
where is that waste going to go and

he said well it goes back to D.O.B. and

once it goes to Dia we don't we're
not concerned about it anymore.

OK.

When I was working at Oakridge we
were working on fuel cycle issues

working in action.

I partitioning we're looking at
the partitioning of actinides from all

of the fuel cycle wastes not just the ones
that are at a certain location and

excluding the others you have to look at
a comprehensive enter graded system and

an R.C. is not requiring
the applicant to even define.

All of their waste disposal systems much
less explain what's going to happen.

But I finally found out for
example that the solvent waste.

The plan was to give it back to deal we in
deal he was in going to ship this liquid

solvent waste and I soon these plans are
still in effect to Oakridge Where is be

solidified in the solidified material
be sent to the end of a test site so.

The N.R.C.
in my opinion is not doing a good

job of looking at the overall picture
on a comprehensive any greater basis.

And they didn't even have adequate
material energy bounces to describe

the process which was another
issue that the well I told

my supervisor that if students in my
design classes here at Georgia Tech

had turned in resigned reports
that show the same level of detail

as far as material balances are concerned
I would not give them a passing grade.

They were exactly thrilled.

But I'm sorry that's just the way
it is chemical explosions may blow

out heap of filters the red oil formation
is an issue has been kind of slide over

hydrogen methane formation is another
possible path primarily from realises

solvent radiologists can be an issue
with and having adequate ventilation.

They don't provide for continuous
monitoring of her combustible gases and

they have a new feedback
loop taken in recent years.

Suppose your combustible gas limit begins
to elevate what are you going to do

they have not provided
any specific actions

that they can take to to
mitigate that circumstance.

So looking at the MOX plan I
think I think that the review

should be expanded to provide any
greatest say to review of all streams and

ways I think they should provide for sand
filters in addition of the heap of filters

to ideal with a heap of filter blowout
situation there are a lot of ways that

you can lead to explosions in the mocks
plant that could blow out heap of

filters all of these can be dealt with in
my opinion satisfactorily by protecting

the HIPPA filters with sand filters where
you set up a sand filter in series with

a heap of filter you have then a shockwave
that has to go through the sand filter

first before it gets to the heap of filter
and then attenuation the shock wave.

So that when it gets through this.

Sanjay alter the doesn't
blow out the heap of filter

sand filters would cover a myriad of sins.

I think would be a single thing
that they could do that would make

the planet significantly safer but for

whatever reason they have
decided not to go that way and

it seems most strange to me because
historically Savannah River has had sand

filters on all of their reprocessing
facilities and they have had fires and

explosions that say at Savannah River and
the sand filters did their job and

protected the HIPPA filter so they don't
have to Tony Moeller the environment.

In contrast to Rocky Flats to
not have sand filters and does

have did have a petroleum contamination
problem with their neighbors.

So the sand filters I
think is a big thing.

Eliminating a shipment of autonomy to me
liquid waste on public highways I think is

an outrage in R.C. says it's not it's
not part of their problem because it's

not they won't be leaving the plant it
will be leaving from Indio east side and

therefore it's not their problem which
is utterly in my view begs the question

I think they should be in our state should
be not only licensing the MOX plant they

should be licensing the disposal of all
the wastes including the solvent waste and

what I would like to know what
kind of waste form is proposed or

maybe an except for waste war may
be perfectly fine but right now

it's it's not being licensed and so N.R.C.
is only looking at part of the picture.

So I think this public should demand say
for nukes eliminate combustibles or Kani.

Design reactors for
a fail safe shutdown designed reactors to

mitigate the heat decay impacts and

licensing a fuel cycle facilities such
as much to consider the total says.

Some of the disposition
of all the waste and

they should use sand filters in
series with the help of filters to

mitigate the effects of potential
explosions and mocks which right now

is not being planned this is a small
change of course I was expected.

Well I'm sure they will say they will cost
billions of dollars to make that change.

But again the be taking
advantage of the taxpayer.

So that's all my good news.

I have for today.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Appreciate all those presentations
that were quite informative.

So we have time now that we can
have some questions and answers so

if you have any questions.

He'd like to ask the panelists now's
your time and the questions and

I think you dollars for the people that
they go to great rate that leave early and

you'll just like yourself that

ninety dollars or you're talking
about the whole you're already

talking about my story
accidently You seem to be OK.

The Because you're there you see

there's the construction costs
into the machine costs and

this is then you'll see
those costs new on that and

you'll see that I don't normally like it
and I fully funded the study five percent.

Well this is going.

We just both are going to also
talk asked to meet with the pipes

that are better ways and
that's what attacking or.

I mean you know you just need
structured framework by for a way.

You disclose all of that
that this has to now.

Cost you just very cost what you

are certified it was then financing
I mean it is then that cost is

what utilities looking at or
what we have to charge for

the rate here to be in the rear deck and
to be either best or is the best.

So I'm using the cost

of the deal we are still trying
to get my head straight but as

you know you need it seems like
it's a broken system there's no

evaluating that's off the cuff there's
a news reader ladies in the job.

It seems like there's
a problem to her server right

to the river to the river
supposedly to bring us

to here is this verse three
hundred hundred federal government

just bring in the Parliamentary Secretary
for Jesus when the president

says sure the other sectors

which is the president
when he made a call.

That just getting I guess
the most I feel like he and

then there was a show trial and
I love all we really are funny.

There you go all the details like that in
a bit but I see these are a living will

almost all love part for the most but
do these I was busy a bit more but

he's part of the old lady he
was the let's go wild card.

I would bet a whole.

You mean that really is that
our little mole in here

that I deleted it or
they did go eat the child

he's part of it you are bit but
yes that was

good for that Lovey the Gulf oil or

all that he's getting is
just part of using the oil.

Let us go while there's
a little bit more political

issues to this where we go
way back in your first news.

How are we any Tom Tom can wish

death a vote during
the ninety's not nice here and

we saw our policy there violent conflict
of interest because you were responsible

for promoting your power and
bravely and so

the hands of the time guaranteed mission
us when we formed you better wages is one

of the partners he was trying
to target with our Morning

nuclear energy along with a whole
whole slew of technologies and

the do the regulatory commission push for

the regulation of the original
operation new power

plants nuclear fuels facilities earthing
of your fuel cell in the United States.

Now the Department of Energy retain
a hand in the your own program so

when when I was in the Navy we answer
through the nation and to the partners.

That's where we had our
relations coming here we are so

it is a political message
all the time to do

anything as we've all last occasion
is not going to resign resign.

Triac stopped all regulated
by the partner's family and

he heard this now she said the story
you suddenly feel besides for you.

For this family deal we went to
the shapes to look it is all

it's harmony with because
you're selling fuel to Tilly's

that's really energy so
related issues with the department.

You know we're a mess it is a mess for

us we like about the expansion of
nuclear power but it's probably for

the US just I mean how do you build on
this is that there is such a thing as what

you say is the problems and
you see yourself in the same side

and I know I was in Bruno I would say
that you saw the growing number getting

nobody's community joy that I was you know
we're going to grow as a country with

that with our low low low low low low
life is here with the public life.

So this is a busy busy case.

OK you know that was really you with that

was part of it here but
they're going to be such a good girl.

You're either going to get your good

Nuclear Waste Policy Act Federal
Government is responsible for

the disposal.

You're going to hear is legally
obligated kind of just goes like

this when you're you know
the utility responsible for

their fuel is your own fuel up until
point that for the government itself.

Can you believe for
once it is basically just.

We're just supposed to feel

that's where the three lie that
the original number by the way was

just to show you that that you know the SO

is another big hot button
issue of the field and

again I know this or that it's not
an issue it's a political issue.

And there's a variety of things that play
this is a really you know the great going

by you figure see how that actually comes
about how do you become an interstate you.

There's a lot of things that they go
into that decision making process so

if you're interested.

That would be what I think where you
would love to see the historical

viewpoint on you know you're going to

go there.

All your life.

There are some

ceramics I'm not really an expert on what

the little one by my side has a different.

This is higher temperature or

someone here actually I feel
pretty sure it's not a temperature

that the client gets to that's what I'm
trying to triac to do exactly that and

that because indication rate is
sufficiently low laugh about it

that way you know that very
small there's another report.

And I don't want to
know what the research.

It was more like

a very you know you're

here I was here in town right

through here this time I'm sure it's

because we're this plays
a role in terms of a

job like this.

And so what we have doesn't even want to

go you know just to just
say it hasn't happened yet.

Therefore we are worried are we talking to

myself the nobility that will.

That's why you know what

I'm saying is the problem really is
on her where I was when I was up.

My daughters were born where they were or
you were I how you just went through

all this and now it's just like you
powerlessness when you test drive you

suppose the red line is so

easy you sites all these probabilities
are good things like now bad things

course probably because these
are something out to you is a high risk.

So I think what you're

saying we're not aware of the problem
because probability is my son.

This is the way we should
be saying why are we.

Why have after you have her here
in Michigan does something.

Why have our why what is
the series of steps where I was to

ask what is miss the rights of
the officer we don't have to worry about

what's going to happen because it probably
would have river levels this way.

So here's here's the good man who
made it is beyond signing basis and

the facts six out where you do react and

that's what you deserve the regime
the day the operators were not

able to initiate really any action until
after all the explosions occurred.

So we blew up three reactors and
didn't kill a person.

We're like well we blew out three
reactors resulting in a way

out of the minus five hundred my
six probably didn't kill anybody

being blocked off probability it
works both ways you can get to lead.

Now and then you can also do
love to we didn't kill anybody

result as an the operators
were effectively we removed

pictures because of the devastation and
heard from the tsunami.

So I honestly do not understand when
you say that our ready to react

to you when I say I sail with

you when you're when you have a sustained
loss of good reactors going to work.

Yes you want to have some point you're
going to have our stories are going

my story for
you are some are just more both yes and

I'm happy you're going to hire
a lawyer to do it you know with a lot

of the high street lads who knew that
the first book in this case we didn't.

Mike Myers we was really slow and

the result is we sprinted down
if you crossed your history and

closed a little which
he counted plain wrong.

Your people knew this was much more
efficient than we are you supposed to

lose the most hostile to true
two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because this town somewhere
off the tongue resign damnation.

It's not radiation our bodies have no
distinguishing between British vision and

relational Hirshman around
British British it is

all that I thought boy.

If you look at the way
this will get there.

I guess by this is a definite
he's there with the say so

here I think also there is nothing there
in the gap between the oversight of

our last four cars where they lay for
and why they get on

that need it is what you believe
will there be there you go.

It was in his own car so
you get the word love of life and

your girl was doing was getting
ever thought he would get

a song to enjoy your life would be like
you know you love our lead with it and

we just end up staying for that other
thing and in the end be there either.

In other words or
there are fears that it will leave us

a while how why should that
losing the heart of it.

What are you know.

Or why it was you or I love us the harder
we really use it and that's all.

Whether I think the letter with the.

Measured in that will go for
our little maker house to then

he is the leader and
you look at the small business now

all this is all more visible a lot of
is lot of it will reduce again but

they did get as they all need that these
sources a part of a few of them would

be less Rather they would
actually I saw it which is our

goal for those jet car people.

I saw your estimates for us but

essentially as Westerners
boy roll it may be ready.

How's this very year two
hundred out of this year.

So you may need a longer view
however you get a lot more

people heal without any angst and

that on a regular basis and
it and it was good for you.

It is here and
yes in your chair that one in the years

go on days with a vegetarian chili was

a piece on that was not the lady
of the day we're told it was

a liver good question with leaving
it science or losing at it.

There are so many years out.

It is something that people claim
over the news easier exulting

additional world are the answer or
we won't do that and

we need to go here and mind you
there's a lot of people put it in and

he needs and
I think while if I did move I thought

I just never so say that we should
just say we don't want you to say

the sound of the guns of a zero zero zero
zero zero zero zero zero S. in his eyes.

You did it to get our
officer was there with his.

What is more stable was that there
was only did they know the laws

because they already know we don't really
know we'll leave getting is a bit.

Do you really know that it
was born here by the Pope it.

Our belief or that he's not
a particle our legally thought that

he is either less powerful than
the other they were more that he was in

that life easily bendable
they are both good.

That's what I have to say
there was a damn deal with

the earthquake and Japan and
then feeling killed the people

we used I do all the time there's
risks associated with Danny ha

ha through thousands of cubic
meters of water blah blah stored

not enough using risk everything and

do we have to understand what the
consequences of our risks are the reaction

that we take for what they were

military was just you
can't win in eight years.

I get you over emphasize the risk
of something more than what it is

that will be kill you know get somebody
off the issues and my wrists are.

Well I would rather you receive all that
I know this is an interesting topic and

I think we have people that
still want to discuss things but

it is the time that we have allotted for
the event.

Imagine that the panelists may be open for
questions afterwards or

something like that but we want to
thank everyone for coming especially

want to thank our panelists you did a
wonderful job pre-show your presentation.