AI Power Demands Are Rewriting Nuclear Safety with Peter Jones

In the face of new studies showing increased dangers of exposure to radiation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing the repeal of a 50 year old safety regulation known "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" or ALARA. This is being done to fast track small modular reactors (SMRs). A proposed new nuclear technology, SMRs are seen as a possible answer to the energy bottleneck for the expansion of data centers that feed artificial intelligence.

SMRs would be smaller but spread out in more communities. They would be less efficient and use a more dangerous nuclear fuel. All of this is being greenwash under the banner of a so-called nuclear renaissance by big tech corporations and some supporters, who claim that it is an answer to climate change. On this episode of Breaking Green, we will speak with Peter Jones.

Peter Jones is trained as a physicist and as a lawyer, and he is director of nuclear waste policy at the Samuel Lawrence Foundation.

We track how the NRC’s push to weaken long-standing radiation safeguards lines up with the rush to license small modular reactors marketed as climate solutions. We connect new research on low dose radiation risk to the unresolved nuclear waste crisis and the growing demand for electricity from AI data centers. 
• Why a “nuclear renaissance” narrative is gaining traction 
• How San Onofre illustrates the problem of stranded nuclear waste 
• The missing federal repository problem and the Yucca Mountain dead end 
• How NRC staffing pressure and rushed rulemaking change the regulatory landscape 
• Why data centers and AI are reshaping energy investment and political incentives 
• What recent studies suggest about low dose ionizing radiation and cancer risk 
• Why repealing Alara shifts risk onto workers and nearby communities 
• How SMRs can be less efficient and generate more waste per unit of energy 
• Liability limits, the Price Anderson Act, and gaps for newer reactor categories 
• HALEU fuel, higher enrichment, and increased non-proliferation concerns 
• The danger of reducing security requirements while using hotter fuel 
• Why nuclear contamination is difficult to contain, clean up, and reverse 

If you're enjoying this episode of Breaking Green, please subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts. Consider leaving a review and sharing it with friends and colleagues. You can find the full catalog of previous episodes and sign up to have future episodes delivered straight to your inbox at breakinggreen.org. 

To learn more about Global Justice Ecology Project, visit GlobalJusticeEcology.org. Breaking Green is made possible by tax-deductible donations by people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forest, defend human rights, and expose all solutions. Simply text GIVE to 716 257 4187. That's 1 716 257 4187. 

Transcript

Why Alara Is Under Threat

SPEAKER_02 0:00

Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by Global Justice Ecology Project. In the face of new studies showing increased dangers of exposure to radiation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing the repeal of a 50-year-old safety regulation known as as low as reasonably achievable, or Alara. This is being done to fast track small modular reactors, a proposed new nuclear technology. SMR reactors are seen as a possible answer to the energy bottleneck for the expansion of data centers that feed artificial intelligence. SMRs would be smaller, but spread out in more communities. They would be less efficient and use a more dangerous nuclear fuel. All of this is being greenwashed under the banner of a so-called nuclear renaissance by big tech corporations and some supporters who claim that it is an answer to climate change. On this episode of Breaking Green, we will speak with Peter Jones. Peter Jones is trained as a physicist and as a lawyer, and he is director of nuclear waste policy at the Samuel Lawrence Foundation. Peter Jones, welcome to Breaking Green.

SPEAKER_01 1:13

Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure being here.

SPEAKER_02 1:34

And currently there's a big push for a nuclear renaissance. And your president, Bart Ziegler, has written some op-eds that use that phrase, a nuclear renaissance. He talks about the dangers and the problems with having unresolved issues with nuclear waste. So could you tell us why you're uh uh concerned uh with this this push for uh small

San Onofre And Stranded Nuclear Waste

SPEAKER_02 2:02

uh modular nukes?

SPEAKER_01 2:04

So the Samuel Lawrence Foundation has a long and storied history after Bart saw the fallout from you know Fukushima, the Daiichi power plant, those disasters, and he started wondering, you know, how safe is the power plant in my backyard? And so the more he looked into it, the more concerns he had. The plant at San Onofre was had a particularly checkered past in terms of engineering and hundreds of uh seals being broken, and eventually it was decommissioned with the help of Bart's expert testimony and the people that he was able to bring in, experts, and so this really is not safe for the community. And so, you know, it was shut down by the consent of the operator. It wasn't even economical for them to operate. And then the concern of the foundation, in addition to arts and education, was that, well, now that the plant shut down, why is the nuclear waste still here? And it turns out that, you know, despite there being a congressional mandate to take care of the waste after the plant shuts down, there is no final solution. There's no someone who there's no resting place for this toxic, you know, highly corrosive radiative material. So we've been doing everything we can to work with people to try to get it off the beach. It's sandwiched between the Pacific Ocean and I-5, and neither of those are good places to store uh radiated materials, especially in between the two.

SPEAKER_02 3:34

What agency are you dealing with when it comes to this nuclear uh waste?

SPEAKER_01 3:38

So there's a host of state and federal agencies that have to weigh in the permits. Mostly it is the NRC.

SPEAKER_02 3:45

Nuclear regulatory commission, correct?

SPEAKER_01 3:47

That's correct. And the DOE, the uh Department of Energy, there's different state permits uh that have to be given by like the Coastal Commission and you know the the CEC, but it it's mostly the Nick Story Regulatory Commission.

SPEAKER_02 4:02

Why is there a need for so much public um organization around this? Are are they just wanting to leave the waste there? What's what's what's happening?

SPEAKER_01 4:12

Well, I'm sure both the NRC and Holtec and Southern Edison, California would love the waste not to be there. It's just that there is no long-term federal repository. They focus on originally in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, they focused on three sites, then just one with the amendments six years after it was passed. So in the 80s, you got three, late 80s, you got one. Just Yuca Mountain, and then political reasons they shut it down after doing decades of study. They're like, you know what? Now that we only have one option, let's take that off the table. And so all of these communities are left holding the bag. Like the promise was it would be in your neighborhood, and there were you know reasons to be concerned about that. A lot of mixed studies. But at the end of it, it's like, and then we'll take it and it will be gone. And that promise has not borne out.

SPEAKER_02 5:01

It is it's still there. There's no uh nuclear repository, one single place, there's no federal repository right now for nuclear waste.

SPEAKER_01 5:10

So yeah, there's no repository, there's no even site for a potential repository right now. There is a to get back to your initial question, you know, different people have different roles. And so the NRC is like a lot of federal agencies, they're you know, underfunded and they're trying to do good work, but they're they have a lot of political pressure right now. So not only have they had staffing cuts, but a lot of directives that are saying get this done, cut down overview, cut time to look at permits. Uh, the rules that are coming out, okay. For example, there's a rule that's due on Monday about micro reactors, and it is there's like 650 pages of material on how they plan to change these intricate details of how you package permits

No Federal Repository And Yucca Mountain

SPEAKER_01 6:04

for different micro reactor activities. Basically, it's insane. It's incredibly complex. Even the people that are for the new nuclear power renaissance are writing comments like, this is this is too much. You need to extend the comment period. We even want to see these things come in line, but we think this is reckless, how quickly you're doing things. So a lot of the directives right now that are coming out of the NRC are things that had been, you know, contemplated by reasonable people over time, but they're just being they're just shooting it out of a shotgun and doing it in like a quarter as much time with like half as much delicacy to, you know, to put it bluntly. Um so it's like even if you believed in the objective, the way that they're doing it, and the manner in which they're you know dealing with parties and kind of violating the law, like the APA, uh in another manner, it it's it's just kind of it's almost brazen. So a lot of communities didn't feel like the NRC was the best partner, but I always thought they were they were trying to do their best. But right now, they are just hurried, and a lot of top-down, really concerning uh kind of fire has been lit under them in a in a negative way. Because even people that are supportive of the industry think that this is just not the way to do it.

SPEAKER_02 7:16

W what what's causing this uh this this this this push, uh, especially for the smaller nuclear reactors?

SPEAKER_01 7:24

The push is coming from the fact it's kind of it's kind of dual purpose. The first is there are a lot of people where they care about averting the worst effects of climate change, and they see that we're gonna blow past the two degrees, that uh w we're in a rapidly warming clip and we're not at all meeting our targets, and they think that this will be part of the solution for some reason. So there's there's a democratic coalition that thinks we just need energy to meet the rising demand, and the demand is rising, on the other hand, because of data centers. And the I mean, I think the most recent studies or industry reports was that there'd be four trillion dollars of infrastructure investment in data centers at 2030. So not by 2030, but just that year. So you know, that's talking about power, transmission, batteries, racks, all these different things, and they think that energy is the bottleneck. So there is an incredible amount of money that's being infused into every type of energy. So gas turbines, the different components of the turbines have gone up 400%. You can't even buy ones if you want it right now with straight cash before like 2028. Uh they're looking at everything. And so there's there's just so much uh cash towards all these different solutions. So even if each one SMR probably has like a point, even in in like most people's estimations, even people that are bullish think there's like a 0.01% chance that this would be the one. But everyone's willing to bet money on that lottery ticket. Everyone's everyone's basically gambling that if they find the right energy energy technology that feeds the beast that is these data centers, that they will be enormously wealthy. And so pretty much everyone who's building any type of energy generation mean is seeing uh an incredible amount of investment.

SPEAKER_02 9:29

Aaron Powell Do you think this pressure from uh uh people wanting to invest uh for uh you know, we we some see some potential when it comes to data centers and artificial intelligence, that pressure, do you think that's influencing the regulatory environment right now?

SPEAKER_01 9:46

Aaron Powell Yeah, I mean 100%. They're they're getting their directives from the from the White House and from allies who think that we need a diversity of energy and they would prefer it to be things that they've invested in because there are you know there are an abundant amount of conflicts of interest, but nuclear right now has a lot of support because it has been able to influence it's it's got that chunk of modern Democrats who think the the bigger concern is climate change. We think this could be a potential answer to it. Um, they know that there are potential health and safety effects, although

NRC Fast Tracking New Reactor Rules

SPEAKER_01 10:30

you know there's kind of a mixed record, so they don't know what to think, even though the recent study by Awadi from the Harvard group should give everyone pause that maybe these aren't as safe as anyone thought, even reasonable minds, because these are robust studies.

SPEAKER_02 10:44

Yeah, let's talk about that a bit. Are there new studies? You I think you referred to one that shows that uh we really should be paying more attention or be more concerned uh uh about long-term health effects, even from low dose exposure to radiation.

SPEAKER_01 10:59

Yeah, so I mean that's that's almost uh two separate recent studies. So the the Harvard studies basically show that there is a robust signal of increased cancer deaths from three most prominent cancers, three most occurring cancers that that cause mortality in people that live near nuclear power facilities. And it you know, it drops off. You know, it's an inverse square law, it makes a lot of sense if there are different types of you know, radiating, uh, if there are different types of ionizing radiation in the environment that's getting to these population centers, it drops off exactly how you'd expect. The other thing is, and then they've kept pushing it back, but the NRC is hoping to repeal the Alara guidance for ionizing radiation, which is pretty much you know as long as low as is reasonably practical. So you you you balance the cost of the technology and the harm done to people. But the reason that repealing that doesn't make any sense is one, there are multiple studies that actually would lead you to believe that the lower doses of radiation, especially for certain populations like the immunocompromise or women or children, those first bits are almost the most dangerous because you're you know, the human body naturally has the ability to cleanse cancers at a very low rate. And sometimes your body can't deal with them in time that they and they reproduce such that you know they become a tumor, they metastasize, they keep sucking more energy. Uh, but if you're someone that can't readily deal with those, then just a few of those ionizing, well, not a few, because it's a quite a bit of ionizing radiation even at the lower doses, just a little of that can you know start that tumor process and make it that much more likely that you will ultimately succumb to some of these tumors to cancer. So the the studies, especially in conjunction, would, if anything, make you more worried about the ionizing radiation of nuclear energy, of nuclear power, of nuclear waste. So the NRC is moving in the wrong direction. Every signal, especially the most recent studies, high-quality studies, are saying this might be more dangerous than we thought. You know, reasonable minds could have disagreed before, but this is something that we really need to pay attention to. And the NRC is looking at it and saying, nah, it's probably not that bad.

SPEAKER_02 13:29

So we have these studies that show that that uh exposure to low doses of radiation could be more harmful even than, you know, uh, I guess maybe more acute exposures in in some ways. What's the NRC trying to do with its guidance and its device?

SPEAKER_01 13:46

So right now there's the assumption that if you can minimize the amount of radiation that you are exposed to, that's a good thing. So it people think that there's kind of a a linear curve. It's just like a straight line, more radiation the bad. You know, I think everyone agrees that ionizing radiation does increase the rate of certain cancers. And so there's plenty of work even from industry that's partnered with you know different labs so they can have these high-quality studies that I think are actually too conservative, which is why the new studies are alarming. And they basically said you want to minimize the amount that your workers are exposed to because each individual amount increases their rate of cancer. And so the NRC is wants to get rid of this lower end and says that you know, a little bit of radiation, that's fine, you know, even though

Data Centers Drive The Nuclear Pitch

SPEAKER_01 14:36

that might cause a tiny bit of cancer, it's it's too burdensome on industry. And what we could do is let people have a little more exposure, and then it would be much cheaper. And the the problem is the line is probably not just straight. It actually, you know, it it's not like a you're a mathematician. It doesn't have to be and it doesn't have to be a simple function either. It can it can actually you know be quite exponential in the beginning, and then there can be a saddle point, and then you know, it can taper off later. But it's it's not obvious that this protective rule, which if anything is too conservative, and if anything puts these workers and the general population in more harm than they should be, it's not at all obvious why they think they should lower the standard instead of raise it. I understand their economic concern, but in terms of you know their role as the safety regulator for the nuclear industry, it doesn't make any sense. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02 15:34

Well well, that's I mean, I uh you know, for someone as simple as me, I I would think that maybe the industry is pushing our regulators to remove barriers, you know, uh to to to make to make uh this proposed uh nuclear renaissance uh more financially viable and and uh less problematic and and and to not worry those living next to them because it it what's interesting to me about this, we want to go small. We want to have uh more smaller reactors, so more communities will be living with a reactor. I mean, I I I I find that kind of problematic, not only even from the health concerns, but if there is a problem, I don't think homeowners insurance even covers nuclear accidents. And and and then, you know, you have a proliferation of plants. I mean, with the the the world's changing with drones. How do you secure all those plants from maybe um people who want to damage them? Uh does uh your organization have any thoughts on that or any concerns about that type of uh situation?

SPEAKER_01 16:44

Aaron Powell Yeah, we have plenty of you know concerns that uh even people that are you know pro-industry have and share with us, which is one, if you scale down the size of the nuclear power plant to make it a small modular reactor, whatever, under 300 uh megawatts, it actually becomes less efficient. So you generate more waste for less energy. And they're again, it's kind of this wishful accounting that if they just find the right method, if they're able to build these on an assembly line, that that'll make up for the fact that they're less efficient and generate more waste. The other thing is you're right, homeowners insurance does not cover it. Uh the Price Anderson Act is meant to basically subsidize the industry. So if there's an accident, there's a you know, congressionally mandated fund where you can use it for disaster, but uh it actually doesn't even cover SMRs to the same extent because of a strange workaround in the Advance Act. So there's a lower liability threshold for something that's more gener the more dangerous, generates more waste, generates less electricity per waste. And some of these companies, you know, I think some of them are assuming that, you know, the industry will be weeded out of the 50 different companies that exist now and the 150 different SMR reactors that they're contemplating. But you really could be in a position where there's plenty of these reactors from an over-leved, over-leveraged, like kind of tech company, because some of these didn't exist before, uh, and they they just aren't responsible over the waste at all. So they're less responsible, less efficient than the plants that we already have that already don't make sense. And then there's a bunch of stranded nuclear waste in a bunch of different communities. And because it's smaller and less centralized, you know, maybe that'll generate cost savings, but also means there are many more hard targets for people to look at. And you know, it's in terms of non-prolifer proliferation, in terms of safety of the communities, in terms of the economics, the SMRs are worse in almost every conceivable way. So, you know, there's different types of nuclear power and different approaches. You know, there are thorium reactors that are just fuel breeders and the AP 1000s, and even though we know we talked about the one in Georgia that, you know, $7 billion over budget and you know, an extra uh no, $25 billion over budget seven years behind. Not a great track record, but at least it's you know, it's more covered by the Price Anderson Act. Uh, it's more centralized in terms of security, it's a technology that that we've dealt with. They they're issuing categorical exclusions for reactors that we don't know the fine details about. And we're just exposing these communities to pretty much untested technologies that we already don't have an end game for the fuel that we've already created. And the end game would be much worse for SMRs because with the different approaches, you know, that you have to handle the spent fuel differently. So it's just in more places, it's more complex to deal with. It'll, you know, if anything, it could be more costly than what we already have, and we already have isn't economical.

SPEAKER_02 19:51

This is your host, Steve Taylor, and we will be back right after this.

SPEAKER_00 19:56

If you're enjoying this episode of Breaking Green, please subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts. The interviews heard here are often ignored by mainstream media, and without your support, these stories would not be covered. Consider leaving a review and sharing it with friends and colleagues. You can find the full catalog of previous episodes and sign up to have future episodes delivered straight to your inbox at breakinggreen.org. You can't find freedom anywhere else.

SPEAKER_02 20:24

Welcome back to Breaking Green. So so we just started to hear about these SMRs, these small modular reactors, like this is an improvement. Oh, it's going to be safe. It's and I I guess maybe it's almost like, you know, well, it's smaller. But they're going to be all over the place. All over the place. You know, I I lived in Missouri for a while, and I remember driving through Callaway County, and oh, there's the nuclear reactor. And then, you know, for a certain radius, you know, everyone would get uh the pills for for uh, you know, let's say there was a release of release of radiation. There was a certain uh pill, I think it was an iodine tablet you could take

New Research On Low Dose Radiation

SPEAKER_02 21:05

to help preserve your thyroid from uptake of uh of uh radiation. Um and you know there was always a certain sense when you were around there, wow, we're in the zone. But if you make these smaller and all over the place, it's it's just it's it's you're spreading out the hazard in a way. Is that a wrong way of thinking, Peter?

SPEAKER_01 21:30

I mean, they could pull out a miracle, but no, it seems worse in every respect. They're trying to lower the not only the safety standards for the workers and population, but they're lowering the security standards. So there'll be more Okay, I gotta compose myself because they they not only want to use so most I don't want to get too nitty gritty, but most No, but you don't have to compose yourself, Peter.

SPEAKER_02 21:53

I mean, we're we're here to discuss we're we're here, we're this is a community of people who are concerned about such things.

SPEAKER_01 22:01

So most fuel uses this like 5% standard. And when you get to a bomb, that's much higher percent. A lot of these SMRs to kind of make up for being less efficient, being smaller, uh, they want to use a higher concentration, this halo fuel or this triso fuel that does not exist. There's no supply chain for it, but it is at 20% enrichment. And racing to a bomb or having some type of accident is much worse when you use more highly enriched uranium. Now they'd say that all there are passive safety features. And some of them are improvements, but I think they also underestimate that things happen and they completely dismiss seismicity. And some of these safety features don't work if there's at all any geological uplift. And since the you know, the nuclear regulatory committee doesn't think you need to do a full environmental assessment, then you those things won't even come out. So the the problem is SMRs are worse in almost every possible way, except kind of the fictitious that maybe they'll be cheaper in some realm, even though they're less efficient. But they have a more complex, more deadly fuel source that doesn't exist and we'll have to subsidize the supply chain. More non-proliferation concerns because you're closer to a nuclear bomb, and they'll be harder to dispose of, both because of the higher enrichment and burn level, and then B because presumably they'll all be different, because there are all these different approaches. So it'll be harder to keep people safe, it'll be harder to keep it secure, and there are just a thousand reasons why this doesn't make sense, especially to sprint towards it as a solution. Because again, there's a world where some of this works out if you spend another 10 or 15 years really thinking about it and choosing one approach and keeping it centralized. But it it in the context, it doesn't make sense. Like the time that it takes, even in the reckless, kind of haphazard way they're going about it, it won't come in time. And the longer period when you do it safely and responsibly, if that is even possible, that's another 15 years.

SPEAKER_02 24:13

So they're they're actually using fuel that's hotter. I mean that that that that's a higher concentration. Uh I think you mentioned halo fuels. What does that stand for? Halo.

SPEAKER_01 24:22

It's a high assay uranium fuel. It's a fuel that no reactor in the US currently burns, that pretty much almost no one in the world uses except for like two test reactors. And a lot of concerns are that the people that have already built these halo reactors are doing so so that they have more material for nuclear weapons because they're less efficient, it's more difficult to produce the material, it's more difficult to dispose of the material. So if the economic incentives aren't there, some of the countries that are more interested in it, they believe it's a way to have that material if you should need it.

SPEAKER_02 25:08

Did you say that they're going to reduce the security requirements around these?

SPEAKER_01 25:13

That's correct. The NRC thinks that their the security requirements for any type of fuel is too high, and that if we could cut down these regulatory burdens of like enhanced security for some of these facilities, that it would make the the plants more economical. They, you know, they state that the level of security is not commensurate with the actual risk. But that seems insane given the potential of you know, not even creating a nuclear weapon, but just creating like a dirty bomb or an accident. You don't need to enrich it to a higher level. And they're already come contemplating giving licenses to people that want to use more highly enriched material. So if anything, you would think because of the non-proliferation concerns, you would need enhanced security for this enhanced risk. It it's four times more enriched. You know, getting from five to twenty percent is harder than getting from twenty percent to sixty percent. So once you get once you get that first initial stage, you can sprint to a bomb so much more easily.

SPEAKER_02 26:22

Aaron Powell It's it's crazy. They want to reduce, reduce the security, but it is a more dangerous material that's being used. Aaron Powell That's 100% correct. So it really, what's the logical nexus that they're using just we want to do this? Is that is that the logical nexus? We want to build these, and that therefore we're going to do this. We're going to reduce security, we're going to deregulate the industry, and we're going to put these all around the community, and people can try different types, and we're just,

Alara Repeal And The Economics Argument

SPEAKER_02 26:54

you know, we're we're we're going to be easier on them, you know. Uh because I guess, you know, these communities that have to live with data centers now may have to live with a others may have to live with a nuclear reactor so we can have artificial intelligence. Am I, you know, being a little hyperbolic here? I don't know. I mean, that's what I'm hearing from you.

SPEAKER_01 27:15

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: No, that's correct. Although it is funny that data centers are so unpopular that most people would rather live near a nuclear plant. Uh but regardless You say that. Do you have polling? He HEMAP conducted polling. Um don't worry, it's extremely unfavorable. But that's that's the other thing. So there's there was just a long simmering period where after Fukushima, there was a you know a pause on building new reactors or a moratorium for the most part. And so it it wasn't a hot button issue. So most of the people that have grown up that are you know 20s or in their 30s or early 40s, even the majority of the time they've been thinking climate change, climate change, climate change, and they haven't been thinking, you know, Fukushima or Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. So in their mind, like the they think their relative risk of climate change is more, you know, more of a pressing issue. But the these recent studies and the tact that the NRC is taking means that that's not in touch with reality before. Like you could you could say, oh, you know, there are a lot of these old hippies that just you know have outdated information, but nuclear is safe. And you know, maybe people were more concerned than the evidence would have suggested before, but we have more evidence now, and people are much less concerned than they should be. So the relative risk is higher than we than we thought before. So not only is our legacy plants potentially more dangerous, probably more dangerous than we thought before, but these new approaches are radically more dangerous. And even the people that are pro-industry that wanted to see some of these, you know, reforms in the regulation think this is too much. Like half the comments that I see to the NRC are we support nuclear power, but we don't support the way you're doing this. This is this is insane. Your comment period is you know 30 days or 45 days for the most complex thing we've ever seen, and you're trying to package this all at once. Like even if you agree with your objective, this is this is insane. It's like you can make a case that the Iran regime was causing instability in the region. But this like this is the mo of the administration that's like, even if the objective can potentially make sense, they're gonna do it in the most haphazard, thoughtless way possible. And there are a lot of good people that work at the NRC, but they are being told you can't extend the period, don't extend the period, do it this way, make it a categorical exclusion. Don't take input. Like the they didn't even say, hey, we're proposing to make this change. For the categorical exclusion, they said, We made this change, you have 30 days to just leave a comment to tell us what you think about it. We're not going to do anything about it. The states that were pro-nuclear, that were getting rid of their moratoriums, wrote a joint comment to say, What are you doing? We still want this to be as safe as possible, and you are just kind of blowing through all these guardrails.

SPEAKER_02 30:17

So what you're saying, Peter, is is that even the people who are pro, let's just, you know, for even people who say, hey, this makes sense given, you know, we we're we're looking at climate change, we we think this is a worthwhile risk. I I don't agree with that, but but let's just say we think this is a this is a good approach. Under the current uh initiatives uh of the administration, there's push within the NRC to do this so haphazardly and so dangerously that even people who who maybe supported legacy projects in the past or or wanted to see uh some sort of uh use of uh nuclear energy or research or utilization of that that that energy uh are saying, hey, what what are you doing? There are inherent dangers that you're ignoring.

SPEAKER_01 31:08

Yeah. I mean, I I've I've I know people that were like, you know, the the the Chinese are building these, and what we need is just standardize the supply chain, get the institutional experience back, you know, build them uh responsibly in a centralized way so they're not kind of this like bespoke, extremely expensive thing. And they were appalled that SMRs with supply with fuel sources that don't exist and are much more harmful are getting the same type of credence from the administration and from capital that are just like, yeah, let's just do everything. It's like we know that's you know like insane. Why would we try to do everything when you know even what we've had before hasn't been safe enough?

SPEAKER_02 31:55

What's the chances of them succeeding in doing this? Uh deregulating, not necessarily having a successful program or industry, but deregulating.

SPEAKER_01 32:06

So I'm glad that you delineated because between those two questions. Uh, because even if they deregulate, you know, a lot of this is pie and sky and won't materialize, especially since there are plethora of approaches. On the first part, they already are deregulating and that there are ways that we can push back, and there are legal mechanisms where we have to prove that they didn't consider any of the relevant facts. Or you know, you just have to show that they didn't consider uh relative, you know, important facts, and then you can kind of challenge the rules that they have put out that the changes in regulations, and so there are avenues to stop it, but the likelihood of deregulation is pretty high. And I think the likelihood of of the SMRs actually coming online is much less likely, but still possible. And the worst of all the worst of all possible outcomes is that we make these less safe, higher cost, kind of one-off SMRs that are then liabilities in terms of the waste that they generate, and the fact that you know you can build a drone for two to ten thousand dollars that could make them a disaster, and that we invest a bunch of money

Why SMRs Mean More Waste

SPEAKER_01 33:24

into a solution that had a low probability when we could already invest it into batteries and infrastructure upgrades, like trans high, like direct current, uh high voltage transmission lines that we already know would would help. It's like there are things we can do now, and the worst possible thing is that we subsidize something that doesn't make any sense, makes communities and the nation less safe, and just siphons money away from the good things that we already know work.

SPEAKER_02 33:55

You talk about sacrifice zones. If if something does go wrong and and and you spread nuclear contamination, that's not uh toothpaste that can be put back in the tube very easily. As a physicist, could you talk a little bit just maybe about the unique nature of of of you know nuclear contamination? And I'm not just talking about the gamma or something, but let's just say, you know, stuff gets spread around a neighborhood. How difficult is that? What what what does that look like?

SPEAKER_01 34:28

There are known risks, which everyone would agree on, and then there are risks that are becoming more clear that are still unknown in terms of different pathways for this ionizing radiation to reach people and the kind of cone of being affected. So I think they're they're pretty robust and agreed upon harms of radiation, of ionizing radiation, and that it just increases the cancer incidence, different cancers. You can you can see that, and it has been represented. But there is a large slice that is coming into focus where it is being disseminated into communities either through titrated steam or titrated their groundwater, and it is affecting these communities, even those that thought they were safe.

SPEAKER_02 35:19

Nuclear is just there's so much with it, and and the problems, if there is a disaster, it's just so insidious and tenacious and intractable. These are the words that come to my mind when it comes to a problem. I I and and uh you know it's it's you know, it's a mysterious thing to some people. I think there's a lot more of a public understanding of what radiation is than in the 30s and 40s and 50s and maybe even the sixties. But but I it's interesting to me that that people, you know, uh you know, it's it's it's almost being sold as uh something green. And then that's like, you know, if you if you come at this at from a scientific perspective, there's less to fear than than than we used to. But I I just, you know, I I have a background in science as as you do, I uh and uh sometimes when you know enough about it, there's a lot to fear about radiation, especially if it's it's being deregulated and handled unsafely.

SPEAKER_01 36:23

Aaron Ross Powell There's the danger of ionizing radiation, and then there's the danger of a reckless regulator and reckless industry. And you can you can contain these systems more responsible way, a less responsible way. And what I worry is that if you deregulate the environment and you have 50 different kind of new tech companies that think they can make a billion dollars if they go fast enough, you know, they that they're gonna be the next CEPCO, that they think, you know, it'll probably be safe and probably is just not safe enough when it comes to nuclear. You can see them on camera trying not to say move quickly and break things because that's so much in their mind, and they have to hold themselves back. And that is just not the attitude you can have with something that is so dangerous.

SPEAKER_02 37:05

Peter Jones, thank you for joining us on Breaking Green. Pleasure to be here. You have been listening to Breaking Green, a Global Justice Ecology Project podcast. To learn more about Global Justice Ecology Project, visit Global JusticeEcology.org. Breaking Green is made possible by tax-deductible donations by people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forests, defend human rights, and expose false solutions. Simply text GIV GIVE2 1716 257 4187. That's 1716 257 4187.