C everybody, good morning. Welcome to the Wilson Center. I am jane harman the president and ceo. Im a recovering politician, happy to be a recovering politician but its not an easy job. This place leverages Woodrow Wilson from president s to passions which were scholarship and policy and thats the intersection of the book we are going to talk about today. Its my pleasure to introduce a friend of many of ours,. I will explain why it is called him a and that is because there is the movie, has everyone seen the movie they open john movie . Dan and i sat next to each other recently a failed and john movie which is great. I recommend it. Dance that i want to come to the Wilson Center and talk about the book so is here and he will talk about this book. Has Everybody Knows he has to cheat sheet. You all memorized it with a nice picture of him. Hes the ceo of centrist energy corp. Hes a former deputy secretary and many of us worked with him in that job at the department of energy. Worked at the National Security council. He spent 10 years with brands across one of the elegant beautiful brilliant best people who have ever served in government in my lifetime and he is here to describe his book and to be interviewed by Robert Litwak. Hes the Senior Vice President s at the Wilson Center. He has been here for a number of decades. He worked as the National Security council as well a resident expert and he basically oversees the programs here and he was ponemans roommate. Where was that . Harvard. Youve all heard of harvard . I am here to learn just like the rest of you and this is what we do here. We are the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars. We are the living memorial to our only ph. D. President as you know. How many of you knew that . Most of you . Thats why we have such smart people here and we celebrate the connection between scholarship and policy which is why is here today and i think i just introduced him and now hes going to be embarrassed. I think its up to you dan to describe and do a few slides about this very important new addition to the literature as it says combating Nuclear Terror and Climate Change. Welcome Daniel Poneman. [applause] thank you jane. The rocket man movie did ignite two of my great passions which are talking to smart people like jane harman and rock n roll so was a great pleasure. I have to acknowledge jane and your incredible record of Public Service in the congress and its always the pleasure to work with you and now on this critically important time in the place which is where great dots on policy unite in practical efforts to confront our greatest challenges and i have to add a personal note. I guess i have known Robert Litwak for 40 years or so. Not only were we roommate at harvard we were at london and the International Force for human studies and when he was working with me at the National Security council rob played a Critical Role in getting the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty extended in 1995 without which we would not have the book that we are about to describe in terms of stopping it. Because i do have a day job which is not my scholarly job i am compelled to put up, im not compelled to read out loud but all this about forwardlooking statements. The real question presented is why are we all here today and what are the greatest challenges facing humanity . It could be in another lifetime but this is the challenge folks. There are a lot of projections with a lot of projections show a doubling of electricity consumption by midcentury mainly in the asian and african regions by the doubling of requirement for electricity but if you look at any of the studies we have 2d carbonite the planet and the place to start is to let the city sector and if we have a prayer of getting to the twodegree centigrade climate target for temperature rise we have to basically d carbonite the electrical sector by 2050. How do you increase consumption by 100 and reduce emissions by 100 of their many ways to get there. Lets move ahead. Just to show this is not some theoretical issue. One small case in point not so small actually look at the coral reefs on the planet. Two degrees centigrade which is the punitive climate target in paris we will lose according to the panel on Climate Change 99 , 99 of the worlds coral reef by 2015. Look what happened in the course of a few months in american samoa. This is happening all over the planet. There episodes in the Great Barrier reef and a swath of the Great Barrier reef the distance from the state of maine to washington d. C. The worlds coral cannot recover at the paste these episodes are not happening so this is a real dominant and present danger. How did he get there . If you took all of the 187 places that formed the back of the paris climate agreement and assume that all of those pledges to build all that solar and wind power and all that grief for station and all those measures and implement up 100 of their measures which governments dont do and they are already off track you dont get to two degrees centigrade and we might reduce it by four to five degrees depending on what study you are looking at. The only way to close the gap that i have seen is by significant expansion of Nuclear Power. Dont ask me, this is what youll find in the analogies of the International Energy agency and observers. We are probably going to overshoot the twodegree target and we will have to go to negative missions. Lets go to carryon. Fortunately there has been tremendous progress made in the area for nobles and my former colleague david clauss is here. At the department of energy we are proud in the 2009 and 2010 period to put out 30 billion of Loan Guarantees which launched the Solar Photovoltaic in this country with zero photovoltaic and that the time the u. S. Department of energy supported for the first time in the commercial markets took over. Solar was great and its had remarkable market penetration. Its really great when the sun is shining and when its a hot summer day its not so good in the dead of winter when the sun doesnt shine or at nighttime so how we deal with this challenge . What youll see is we have reduced cost dramatically for solar. The challenge is with intermittent c. If you keep getting more electricity at a time when you dont need more because you have already maxed out you are just paying a lot of extra costs for energy you cannot use. How many ice cream cones can you use in a desert . Lets go through this quickly. The more youve got you cant use unless you have some why it storing it in storage could help u. N. Solar space especially over the course of a couple of hours and not so good over couple of weeks over a couple of months are overseas. The challenge is in this is not just my view this as is the view of the people who have thought deeply about Solar Photovoltaic is how the balance those intermittent sources of supply which nuclear can supply. Where are we on nuclear . Its a mixed picture. On the one hand we have seen a slow expansion of Nuclear Power around the world. Their reactors being built around the world today. Basically it doubles the fleet but it at least its moving in a positive direction. Slowly you have reactors coming back on line we have a lot of exciting Design Capabilities for new Generation Technology that are smaller, faster Better Business models that can deploy on the serial basis so a lot of good things that are happening. In the United States we are still the global leader. We have 98 reactors here and we have 94 operating. We did have the dramatic experience of westinghouse going through bankruptcy and is now emerged through tank reps and they are the construction of two units in georgia, to probably the last thirdgeneration Nuclear Reactors. Its over budget and its behind schedule and the interesting thing and jayna spent so much time in congress we are still seeing a lot of white partisan support on this issue in particular. Two bills supporting Nuclear Energy that congress signed into law last session. On the other hand everyone here knows the impact remains profound. Basically europe took a very dim view of it in germany is getting out of nuclear and nuclear is deeply challenged. Spain and belgium and some of the other countries in the uks been trying to get a reaction to build up there as well and of course in the United States we have been losing well operating reactors for a number of anomalies will talk about in the q a so down from 148 reactors in their many more at risk. This is something not a lot of people understand that the United States has lost its global leadership. We were basically the elf and the omega. The United States invaded this technology and it was invented in the context of world war ii in the Manhattan Project and continued through the Atomic Energy commission. United states dominated the world in reactor construction dominate the world and Nuclear Fuels which brought us the Nuclear Weapons portion and the enrichment of uranium which is a process that can raise the concentration of the isotopes during 235 from a state of 0. 7 and when uranium is mined out of the ground up to 45 and that would be good enough to support a Nuclear Reactor to generate electricity but the same process can take you up to 90 at which point you can make Nuclear Weapons. This is what the situation was in 1985. 27 million with the measurement of and rusher with 3000 separate work units in terms of capacity and france sort of in the middle. Whats happened since 1985 in terms of the west compared to competitors . Lets take a look. Oh dear. Thats not russia unless the United States is down to zero. We have zero indigenous reduction of enriched uranium in the United States. The only u. S. Production is under Foreign Ownership in those of the hashmark capacities you seen the center of the slide. Theres another way to look at this slide and here you see it. Unless you see in richmond and you probably read about the uranium mining cases that are now in under consideration before the administration you see whats happened in the mining of natural uranium as well. Its a story in decline. Whats going on on the reactor front . You have to realize when you export a Nuclear Reactor you are talking about a 100 years strategic relationship between the planning of the construction the operation and ultimately the decommissioning and decontamination is a relationship which has many aspects which goes beyond the four corners of the project. Most countries that are in the Nuclear Export game view it in this way. The United States used to be the dominant player when he came to nuclear jars. Hows it going now . The United States did finish for units in china. All of the other reactors around the world the United States is not the prime contract and so the influence that goes along with that is something that we are losing. If you look at the order books to russia order book for Nuclear Power plants is roughly 130 billion in the u. S. Is zero. This is where we come back to the proliferation question. Theres a possibility in the 1970s the end present it in a safe facing a world in which 25 patients may have been a clear weapon. If Nuclear Energy is a factor in the world and we have reactors around the world one thing we can all agree on his behalf to have the strongest nonproliferation standards possible and the United States has the strongest standards possible so those other spies are allowed to continue in terms of the trends they apply the falling out of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle falling out of the Nuclear Reactor export business we are going to have a global influence we need to continue to implement strong nonproliferation standards standards. What do we do about that . Historically the United States has played a leading role in the greatest Nuclear Probe for a challenge before us. Lets take a look historically the world the United States is played within the country. India and pakistan although they have tried hard for a long time to stop both of them from Going Nuclear day attended publicly in 1998 and still very important to get them restrained but that was one that basically got away from us. And the other hand your member from the bush 41 administration some very diligent diplomatic efforts resulting in the concern that many people had of more Nuclear Weapons states emerging from the soviet union winding up with only one, russia having a Nuclear Weapon and the other ukraine and kazakhstan in belorussia giving up stairs and it was in schmidt on that. South africa and taiwan we were able to convince them not to go nuclear. Argentina brazil and sought the responsibility of United States to pursue its nonproliferation policy was such a metal and for example i was in the office of tony lake the National Security advisers to president clinton when the foreign minister of argentina at the time may he rest in peace that im presiding from the movement. So the United States played a Critical Role in many of these countries as well. Who else . Libya and iraq. They played Critical Roles in the denuclearization and charlies hear who played a Critical Role and thank you for your Service Charlie and and your personal leadership is critical and of course we have the remaining issues before us of iran and north korea. It comes back to the fuel supply because the reactors themselves are less of a proliferation threat than a fuel going into the reactor in the plutonium coming out of the reactor and going back. Verizon howardson the fundamental tenet of the policy that we should be reliable suppliers of nuclear fuel to put on the supply of those fuels strong safeguards and protections. The question is can we get that leadership that we frankly lost . There are some exciting developments. There is a set of whole new design so for generation reactors which have intrinsically safe fuel forms and the tara power reaction which before you can use fuel from existing reactor which creates a indefinite source of fuel and has the benefit of running down the used fuel that creates longterm radiation so its sort of a doubly virtuous approach. Theres a lot of interesting work going on in terms of space propulsion through Nuclear Power and ultimately the dream of many people is fusion which would be potentially they always say 30 years from now away to get massive amounts of carbon free electricity. Lets carry on. Im going to and im unspecific topic tickets at the place where you think the United States can really get his groove back socalled high acetate lowing urged uranium. I spoke about three to 5 in the uranium 235 isotope industry need for commercial Nuclear Power plants. We are familiar with that. On the far righthand side highlyenriched uranium 90 purity is what you need for your reactor fuel but theres a new interest in high assay of lowenriched uranium between five and 19. 75 . One way to look at us like this. High assay would be your vintage port in between. How do we deal with this challenge . We have a classic chicken and egg situation. Its very hard to him told the plan if you dont know what the demand is and its hard to finance a plan if you dont have a guaranteed cash flow. On the other hand the reactor people say its a hard sell. At the great new reactor but i wish i knew how to feel it so how do we break this conundrum . Is a lawyer might say youve done this before and it goes back to the history of the nuclear navy. Without a great Government Investment in the support of president eisenhower implemented through the legendary work we would not have the whitewater reactors. We made the basic design of the naval reactor developed through the submarine program converted to use for Domestic Energy production. We can do that again. The United States in the form of dod is interested possibly in developing microreactors to use as low enriched uranium. That would jumpstart this industry and that would become available for the advanced generation reactors. I could say more but i want to leave time for questions. The book is up there and they say a pictures worth a thousand words. We will see about that but in any event its an issue that has consumed my energy and attention for as long as ive been working in this business since 1975. How can we at least the benefits of atomic without the tears of a nuclear holocaust. The book has more on that. Thank you i look forward to my conversation with bob and the rest of you. Thank you. [applause] thank you dan. Ive like to welcome all of you to todays meeting as well as those viewing by cspans booktv. Todays event is in the Wilson Center sweet spot. We have an active Nonproliferation Program and the global resilience program. The nexus that you will engage their europe luck double jeopardy is a central on the Public Policy agenda in this world but also accordingly of the Wilson Center. The founder of the Wilson Center was the late Daniel Patrick moynihan which exemplified the wilson idea with bridging the academy of Public Policy but im paraphrasing how you think about the world is what you will have left in the world where thats the privatesector Public Policy and the conceptualization of the problem can have terrific downstream consequences. I come act, we all come at issues from where we have come and in some respects and i discuss with colleagues they can view our current dilemma as a deterrence. Back in the cold war when there was consensus about the soviet threat we wrote basically a blank check to keep a small probability event of high consequence low for Nuclear Deterrence and now we are addressing a high probability high consequence event in a society where we cant get our act together to address it in a compelling way. Two degrees centigrade is horrific but the other end of that range you start getting into are the human species able to exist in the biosphere at that point in striking the disconnect between the nuclear era and where we are at right now. You are an essential position to diverting government and the other and id like you to talk a bit just to nail the point in there is a climate skeptic and they are able there is a computational political front in generating the collective will to act for deporting government any work in the air. You talk about the relationship between government and the private sector on what we can do we all walk around the smartphones in the technologies of the private sector driven more by whats going on with Dynamic Companies like google apple etc. Produced a their hope in terms of what the private sector is doing or how does this partnership with government how can we said it right and how do you advocate in your book . A great question rob. I would make two points. Number one i am a believer in the power of markets the most efficient way to allocate resources. Therefore i think there is a strong role for the private sector in terms of supporting the future of Nuclear Power if the markets operate well. The problem for nuclear in free markets has been number one those markets dont recognize some of the unique values to nuclear. Our markets are set up to value the fact that no carping comes out of it even though it brings material benefits in terms of reduced lung cancer because there are no emissions etc. Etc. Nor do they recognize the value of its always on virtue where you have hurricanes or whatever and coal plants and gas plants shut down. People would literally die without Nuclear Power to stay warm so a if you could use the market to recognize that thats one piece. There is virtually no energy form that has the benefit. Not fossil and not renewable and not and in this particular instance where we are trying to pivot from Third Generation to fourth generation i believe the government has a Critical Role in investing at the front end as governments have traditionally done investing in the front and of the Technology Development stream so that these things can come to market. The one other thing on the government side as you mentioned we have still a blank check but a massive investment in our Nuclear Deterrence. We still have a responsibility to deter our adversaries and to support our allies treaty wise to benefit from the Nuclear Deterrent as well. We dont have a viable commercial industry to support the overall deterrent that we need to sustain our Nuclear Capacity in terms of our weapons and are our naval reactors in the whole system could collapse and you wont able to attract people to the nuclear navy so theres a general public requirement for Nuclear Energy so that would justify in and of itself is significant investment in Nuclear Energy and leverage that National Security requirement to support the commercial side through some governmental efforts to repair these broken markets. Thats the kind of private partnership we need. Back in world war ii they talk to president roosevelt about the need to develop nuclear pivot he and world war ii fighting adolf hitler you get 44 of your gdp to the war. Some of the smartest people in the world with significant resources. We dont have that einstein moment on climate. You would think the u. N. Report would be enough but in the society we are not galvanize. There are the skeptics piece of it if you will but theres also another head went, political headwind back to rock n roll and nuclear proliferation. After the three mile island Bruce Springsteen Jackson Brown and others. Chernobyl happen to be in math moscow during the chernobyl event and most recently fukushima which i take it basically prompted the German Government to check out Nuclear Energy. So you have these aspects and you make a compelling case as have others about the role of nuclear, thank you. We need illumination on this issue so thank you. That nuclear is an important essential scalable source of lowcarbon energy. We have these headwind on the global front including the hbo chernobyl thing. You are reaching a broad audience on booktv. How should we think about the issue of a showstopper and what you were talking about . Another great question rob. Safety is critical to all forms of energy. Theres a lot of misunderstanding and i think it goes back to the invisibility of radiation and some of us remember movies like godzilla and the 50foot woman and all these things that basically injected public consciousness view of nuclear. There is a predisposition to anxiety. He got tied up a lot with concern in the 60s about Nuclear Weapons generally did for this all got tangled up in every time it seems the mainstream is about to get out from under that rock something happens. There have been zeroed death although chernobyl was obviously an accident in fukushima while 18,000 people tragically died often people dont revise that was basically from the tsunami and the consequences of that in their first radiation tallies were taken recently. The same time fossil fuel people every year die in substantial numbers. Thats not to excuse anything in terms of being less than ideally safe but we have to recognize live is full of tradeoffs and if by the way our ecosystem by 2015 if we are cooking the oceans thats going to collapse entire ecosystems the coral reefs and the fish that support data and the fish that provide protein to feed the world. We have to compare the worlds risks. When he collectively to do a better job explaining these risks and the tradeoffs. I think in particular this new generation of reactors which have some very different attributes in terms of safety to help us get there one tiny literal tiny example is theres a thing called the dry cell particle of bb sized particle of fuel enhanced with ceramic coating around the nuclear fuel that insiders of this little need cannot melt. Its just too small of an item and then you can have the whole react or by this trice of particles not prone to loss of cooling accidents that happen before. These are the new generation tech allergies that are being developed so a you need the technology and v we have to do a much better job of explaining what they are and why they are safe and in c people have to put things in context of relative risk and its not a coincidence that the union of concerned scientists at the Nature Conservancy and environmental organizations are now as they did once before before fukushima coming round to the view that nuclear is an indispensable part of a longterm equation required to make this a safer planet. I have one last question and then well move over to the audience. We have a break croupier so think of your questions or comments. My last question picks up on the issue of nuclear fuel and its relation to proliferation and what the former National Security adviser called the long pole in the tent for their member talking to the smart friend who is yourself who has the phrase that this is not esoteric technology. The long pole in the tent is super Stephen Heather called it is the fuel so to maintain proper control over that is critical to mitigating the proliferation threat. Can you flesh out a bit youre thinking about how this ramping up of nuclear can be done consonant with taking proliferation equities into account in minimizing that nuclear fuel would be stolen or diverted to nefarious use by a state or nonstate actor . Yeah so two quick comments on this. There are two places in the fuel cycle that are dangerous. We take the fuel out of the reactor and irradiated a lot of plutonium is produced. That is a problem that has some shortterm natural consequence because its hard to get that to tony and separated out but over time you have the fuel cooling down and youll need to have a very strong physical protection around the tony and to prevent its diversion for weapons purposes. The moment there is no commercial market for plutonium and this goes back to the gerald ford study on generic mixed dockside fuels the basically uranium is so cheap now that theres no economic case to be made for separating the plutonium. Fissile protection of plutonium over the longterm is still quite viable. The more dangerous areas on the front end of the fuel where you something if you have too many players making enriched uranium it doesnt have a natural Radiation Protection of spent fuel does and if we do have a problem something that actually was proposed in 2004 that i think is a good idea to address that problem what you want to do is put together some kind of assured Nuclear Fuel Service initiative so any country that wants to build Nuclear Reactors does not have to worry about securing a supply of fuel. Whos going to build a 5 billiondollar react if they cant assure they will get nuclear fuel on the front end so thats the justification that many countries and had to use to build their own Enrichment Technology and an economic matter is not a good idea to build basically a 5 billiondollar plan to enrich uranium unless you have 25 reactors and basically very few countries are going to get there. Therefore if you can put existing capacity which is right now in overabundance in the service of supplying any new player who wants to develop Nuclear Power so they dont need to build enrichment facilities and they have got no reasonable just to vacation to do so thats a way you can constrain that threat and the last thing ill say on that a dedicated proliferator if iran says i know you could give it to me in an assured basis but im still building my own thats not going to stop a dedicated proliferator from doing the wrong thing but theres no motive to allow the world to say but that doesnt make sense and we are going to push back very hard against that. A large Uranium Enrichment Program for reactors that dont even exist. We will open it to you for your comments and questions. Please use the microphone and identify yourself your identification and we have 15 minutes for comments. Yes, paul. Paul with Energy Reform project. I am 110 with the case that you are making but im wondering if you see in the Nuclear Industry competition between the past model for generating Nuclear Power and some of the exciting new things that you have alluded to in the smaller react years . I dont see a big competition there. I think we need to do both. We need to protect the existing fleet and prevent the premature closure of very while operating plants that are spewing out Nuclear Weapons with this singulargram of carbon and thats a big effort of the industry. I believe that others have said including i dont think we are going to see more of those being built. They still interest in the Nuclear Genie industry and the new generation of paul i think there is in fact a place where you are going to need a significant government roles because i dont see publicly owned utilities being willing to make longterm investments so its not so much the competition i see between them as the insufficiency of the economic case now for the longterm plan which is a simple statistic. Nowadays if you look at it gentry planet you are talking about 10 or 15 years to build it and upwards of 20 billion where the market may be 25 billion or Something Like that. Thats not going to work. Somehow if the other is interested in making the next generation more has to be done to the costs and some of that work has to come on the back of a Public Investment to help get the materials to help get those costs reduced. The microphone here please. Thank you rob. Thank you for your lifetime of Public Service. Thank you for taking on the greatest global challenges of our era. You and i, all three of us went to the Cold War Nuclear era. I do think we could be at an Inflection Point where the Climate Crisis has reached the opportunity to create a broader coalition to support new Nuclear Power and im sure youll are taking various efforts undertake that on your own. A couple of questions. One is on the existing fleet of Nuclear Power plants they need to be climate proofed to withstand changing operating conditions of higher temperatures in warmer waters and extreme weather events. I know they have already become undertaking some measures but could you share with us the extent to how well you think the industry would do that and i think part of the environmental and other communities that could become greater supporters of nuclear will also be in tune to climb approving the existing fleet. On the new fuel requirement the pork rind port wine so to speak. Is that the fuel for the Small Modular Reactors and then finally the comparison to the naval Nuclear Reactors. What in your view would be similar to how naval reactors were authorized and appropriated what is different in the model that you are proposing . Okay i will take them in that order. On the first one i would say it to work in progress because the Nuclear Industry which as you know after 9 11 and after fukushima we have taken another a number of steps and now its turning exactly as you say the timber grading of the cooling waters and so forth and mark who has spent a lifetime in the service area knows more about this than anyone on the planet. Its a work in progress and we will need to continue. The second thing sherry and i want to thank you for your kind words and your record of distinguished Public Service and its been great working with you for many years. Advanced reactors come in different flavors so what is commonly called a Small Modular Reactor the first generation of those designs are based on light water technology. For example the new scale design is based on light water technology. That does not require the advanced fuel we are talking about here. The ones that do are more commonly characterized as socalled fourthgeneration which many of them use fast spectrum neutrons to allow higher burn. They benefit a lot economically from having a more concentrated fuel source and its really that class of reactors and polls have been done among developers of those react years. Almost all of them along this high and lowenriched uranium and what was the third question again . I think its actually less commanding this time around than the first time. The first time around with eisenhower you basically had creating from scratch a whole new industry to support the development of reactors for submarines and now carriers as you know as well so now its a question of sustaining and perpetuating that mission. The way in which that partnership in the given example now which is less commanding to the tax. He took for example Resilient Energy supply is crippling in a National Security sense and the department of energy sites where for example continuous power of Super Computers are also missioncritical and you procure six to eight small react jars be they classic light water design or advanced generation then you have an ability to test the fitness model of the snood generation of reactors which are converting the economy of scale for having more than built and therefore the price decline that happens when you build a lot of the same thing. Number one you can have these reactors feed not only the pentagon and the energy backed up by power purchasing agreements. [inaudible] but yes essentially that kind of model and back at work and we could even have the last thing there is still a lot of unexpended Loan Guarantee Authority Available for Nuclear Power that could further reduce your borrowing costs there are ways to releverage the public and private interest in that kind of setting. With that about proliferation and materials being diverted into proliferation purposes. The flip side is the terrorism peace and we know isis for example have reactors and france. We talk about the ramping up of the new capabilities that may come on line smaller etc. And how does the physical security piece about play out . Its absolutely critical and again in terms of these new generation reactors some of them will have very longlived chords and therefore the most vulnerable aspect and the operation of Nuclear Plant is obviously wind you are feeling or defueling because thats when you have potential accidents and thats why people for a long time word about the socalled candy design where you could refuel on a continuous basis. Some of these new designs are buried and not accessible to people basically waltzing in and marching off with it and some of them have much longer potentially many years without refueling. Those requirements are going to be critical but at the same time there isnt going to be a any classic effort to stop terrorism in terms of classic security measures making sure you have proper armed guards and so you are going to need a combination of safer and proliferation resistant design but you will still have to have tough intelligence work and so forth. The last question. We will take the last two and that we will conclude. Hang on one second. Theres a microphone coming to you. Identify yourself please. [inaudible] a great question. The question was how about Renewable Energy and how does that affect the overall argument in the equation . Renewable is critical. We need as much of it as we can get. My point is i believe in all of the above and that means all of the solar you can get all of the wind you can get all of the geothermal all the bio all of the efficiency gains but if you did all of that he would still fall way short of where we need to be on climate and thats where the nuclear part comes in. You could i think gets to 30 or 40 renewables. If we could get nuclear which is down to 11 up to 70 17 that would be a great contribution but does natural gas and coal are going to continue whatever else we say we are going to need Carbon Capture and sequestration so they will have to be part of the equation as well. Last question. Im from the partnership for a secure america and i wanted to go back to your comment about assured Nuclear Facilities and limit the number of uranium in richmond with two Different Countries and how you want to deal with the spent fuel by increased uranium production at those countries with assured Nuclear Burden would carry repositories . A great question. This is an idea that we had that has not been implemented. In its purest perfect form its absolutely recovering and upward for many years in different settings ways to do that. The backend of the fuel cycle is an area in which there are clear Technical Solutions and he mentioned one yourself. Youre going to need longterm geologic disposal. The place you have seen a carryout most successfully is as im sure you know Northern Europe and we just crossed the milestone in sweden. These countries youve had pounds competing for the opportunity to host a repository once you put this used for spent fuel into the canisters to go down into the salt formation it is quite stable for a long period of time if you do it right and. Your sites carefully. Ideally the assured Nuclear Fuel Services initiative would cover backend of the fuel cycle as well as the front and and it would be highly attractive to countries that are developing Nuclear Power. As you know in korea taiwan and japan does abandon considerable challenges that we can address that challenge it would not only help Nuclear Energy but help stop proliferation as well. Thank you dan for the book double jeopardy available for purchase for those here or outside of the sermon for those at home you can find it on line. It addresses the two existential threats facing this planet. Its a cogent analysis of our Current Situation and practical steps that would bridge the gaps even though we are talking about physics people can disagree on aspects of this and the nature of the Public Policy debate. Dan is engaged in this current activity on the nuclear commercial side to address these twin existential threats. I thank all of you for being here today and thank you for those watching at home. Please join me in thanking Daniel Poneman for his superb presentation today. [applause] starting in just a minute on book tv Julie Salamon reports on the killing of Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 an advice columnist e. J. Carol will discuss Sexual Assault including her on alleged assault by donald trump in the mid1990s. At 9 00 p. M. Eastern from last weeks libertarian conference freedom fest john lott will talk about gun control in america and Richard Clarke will discuss how to make cyberspace less dangerous. We wrap apart primetime programming at 11. Now here is Julie Salamon on the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer. Good evening everyone and thank you so much for coming. Please plan to join us upstairs afterwards. Welcome to the free library of philadelphia. I am the director of author events. Tonight we look back more than 30 years to the brutal
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.