Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap
Mother Nature Doesn’t Give a Crap - She really doesn’t. She could care less about our timelines or our targets. She’ll happily continue throwing hurricanes, burning forests and melting her ice caps. Unless we do something. Join us as we tackle the climate crisis though interviews with leaders in the environmental movement and experts in the field. Each episode will explore the policies, technology and human factors that will help you understand this global crisis and what you can do to help solve it. Mother Nature Doesn’t Give a Crap, so we have to.
Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap
Debunking Common Myths About Nuclear Energy
On this episode of Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap, Geoff Sheffrin and Peter Reynolds are joined by Professional Engineer Matthew Mairinger, Vice President of NAYGN (North American Young Generation in Nuclear ) and board member with the Canadian Nuclear Association. They discuss the misconceptions surrounding nuclear power, demonstrate how it can be a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy and how it should be part of the solution to environmental issues.
Geoff also discusses his new role as Chair of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers' Climate Crisis Task Force and why it's important for all levels of government to consult engineers when making policy decisions.
Subscribe on your favourite podcast app and don’t miss an episode!
Also available on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTMDHlF8N8lVIWzyPl4yhw?sub_confirmation=1
Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100087081536326
Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mothernature_podcast/
[Start of recorded material 00:00:00]
Peter Reynolds:
Hi I'm Peter Reynolds and welcome to Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap with Geoff Sheffrin. In today's episode we're going to be talking about some of the most common myths surrounding nuclear energy and exploring [00:00:30] how technology can actually be used to help the environment.
Despite what some might believe, nuclear is not a dangerous or dirty source of energy but a safe, clean and reliable one. We'll be diving into the facts and figures to show you why nuclear energy should be considered as part of the solution to our energy and environmental challenges.
Joining me as always is professional engineer, environmental activist and provocateur, Geoff [00:01:00] Sheffrin. Geoff, welcome back to the podcast.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Peter think you so much. I'm delighted that we've got Matthew Mairinger on today. I'm delighted to that and we'll get to that in just a couple of minutes.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, I'm excited for the episode too because nuclear energy definitely gets a bad rap. You know, why do you think that is?
Geoff Sheffrin:
I think an awful lot of misconceptions, and when you get things like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, they get all the publicity. When [00:01:30] in the larger picture, they contribute virtually nothing to the hazard nature of nuclear power generation. And the other part of the equation is, what the hell do we do with spent fuel? Well I think we – it's an essential piece, but we over-dwell on that and we forget all of the benefits that nuclear in terms of CO2 generation is as clean as hydro, solar and wind. And stop fretting about it. Let's bloody get on with it because we don't have enough [world? 00:01:58] capacity. Sorry [00:02:00] Peter.
Peter Reynolds:
That's OK, Geoff. That is what you're here for so no problem at all. I definitely want to get – I'm excited to bring Matt into the conversation, but first I hear we have some news from OSPE.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Well a few things are developing. As you know I'm the chair of the Climate Crisis Task Force, and we've had the first couple of meetings, so that's moving along nicely. And what's interesting is OSPE has an annual public event with the [00:02:30] ministers of the provincial government here in Toronto in Queen's Park. That's happening towards the end of the month. And OSPE has asked me to meet with Mr. [Shrider? 00:02:40] who is the head of the Green Party. And quite – I don't quite know what the OSPE agenda is for that, but I'm sure Sandra from OSPE will update me well before the meeting so I know if I have to be polite, or whether I can be a little more provocative, or whether I can be downright pushy.
Peter Reynolds:
What [00:03:00] do you think the ultimate goal is for the meeting? What are your thoughts on OSPE's policies –
Geoff Sheffrin:
I think it's really a question of keeping the ministers up to date on OSPE's mandates regarding a whole slew of activities. And of course in my area we're concerned about EVs, we're concerned about infrastructure, we're concerned about sustainability. So we have a shopping list of OSPE mandates that we push in order to try and ensure that the government pays attention, and we also try to [00:03:30] get them off the page, like building he highway and developing on greenbelt. So you know, it's always an opportunity for an interesting dialogue, is what I would suggest.
Peter Reynolds:
Do you think governments utilize the expertise of engineers enough in their policy making decisions?
Geoff Sheffrin:
I can oversimplify that answer by saying, no, not enough. But they do listen. After all, you know, we're 20,000 OSPE members, 85,000 professional engineers in [00:04:00] Ontario, 170,000 in Canada. They can't just ignore us, because we are the ones that are most equipped to help fix these problems.
Peter Reynolds:
Absolute. Absolutely. Anything else you'd like to chat about before – and any other updates?
Geoff Sheffrin:
No, I've got a hundred things I want to chat about, but I think it's much more important we get Matthew Mairinger on the schedule because Matt has a lot of information for us including his visit to COP 27, and the various things to do with nuclear, nuclear [00:04:30] safety, nuclear generation, nuclear opportunities, and – shut up Geoff, let's introduce Matt.
Peter Reynolds:
Well I think that was a great introduction in and of itself. So let's bring Matt into the conversation. Matthew Mairinger is a professional engineer with 10 years' experience working at Ontario Power Generation at both the Darlington and Pickering nuclear generating plants. He's also vice president of NAYGN – I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. The North American Young Generation in Nuclear. [00:05:00] He's a young energy professional memorable with Energy Council of Canada, and a board member with the Canadian Nuclear Association. It's amazing he has time to come and talk with us today.
Matthew, welcome to the podcast.
Matthew Mairinger:
And thank you for having me. And yeah, N-A-Y-G-N, NAYGN, any way you say it, it's the right way. So it's just an acronym.
Peter Reynolds:
So I know that Geoff is chomping at the bit to talk to you the nuclear [00:05:30] industry. I'll get you to push your microphone back just slightly again, Matthew just because it's a touch loud. And I'll edit that sound out.
But Matthew, before we begin I'd love to hear a little bit more about NAYGN and what brought you there.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, so, as a young professional I entered the workforce, and fresh out of university I took nuclear engineering. I started with OPG and I wanted to get to know other people. [00:06:00] And I really wanted to have a purpose for m you work. You come into the office every day, but you want to have something bigger. So I looked for opportunities like that and I found N-A-Y-G-N, and N-A-Y-G-N is such a broad organization. So there's four different pillars. There's professional development, there's public information, there's networking and community service. So if you want to help out your community do Habitat build days or soup kitchen visits you can do that. If you want to develop yourself professionally and work with toastmasters, go to conferences, [00:06:30] you can do that as well. If you want to get more politically active and you want to champion climate change and nuclear awareness, if you want to go to schools – like there's all these different avenues.
So the more I got involved the more I wanted to keep getting involved and I just got deeper and deeper into the rabbit's hole. So I've worked there for seven years as a volunteer, and I look forward to many more years in the future.
Peter Reynolds:
Yeah, just checking out the website you can see sort of the [00:07:00] width and breath of the things that they're doing. Tell me a little bit more about the advocacy work and sort of you know, the stuff that you're doing with children, because I thought that was really interesting.
Matthew Mairinger:
So in N-A-Y-G-N for public information we have children's books that we've made, I can see a little bit at the top there. So we have three different children's books. One is focused on nuclear, one is focused on energy, and one is focused on climate change. So we have these – and we have 120 chapters, [00:07:30] 15,000 members all across the continent. So we empower local chapters in different areas to take these books into schools, to do school readings.
We also have a drawing contest every year as well. So we have a different topic every year, so you have the school-aged children in elementary school just think about something like nuclear and medicine, or nuclear and space exploration, nuclear and agriculture. And you get them to draw that and just think about that, and they can discuss with their parents.
At high school level we have an [00:08:00] essay contest as well. And really the focus of this one is just I want high school students to just think about nuclear for a couple of minutes, do some independent research, and largely they're going to come away more in favour of nuclear than they entered. So. We have all these different opportunities – but it's really all about breaking the misconceptions, and just letting kids have exposure to meet someone that's in the nuclear industries, and really also to encourage more people to get into STEM field. So diversity, equity and inclusion, and [00:08:30] especially more women in engineering as well.
Peter Reynolds:
That's terrific.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Great sale pitch, Matt, I love it.
Peter Reynolds:
Well I can see that Geoff is chomping at the bit to jump into the conversation. So Geoff, what's your first question for Matthew?
Geoff Sheffrin:
Well, I think you've covered some of the grounds that I wanted to start with in terms of your advocacy role and the breadth of it, etcetera. So I think that is terrific. But talk a little bit about nuclear in general. Because [00:09:00] you know, the misconceptions that exist about its safety as an industry and as a green generating source. But then behind the scenes, separate question probably is the waste management side of it. But maybe that's a part 2 of the question.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, so I think there are a lot of misconceptions around nuclear, and you see this with the Three Mile miniseries, the Chernobyl miniseries, and people have these kind of buzzwords that they just attack us with. They're like, oh Chernobyl, Fukishima. But they don't [00:09:30] look at the other consequences from other energy sources on the same level. So when you look at it – it's called the Death Footprint. So it looks at the worst case Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island incidents together. And it says, how many people using worst case scenarios, have died or been impacted from this, and let's compare it to the effects of fossil fuels and air pollution. Let's compare it to some of the dams that have broken in developing countries in the past – like one dam failure killed 100,000 people.
Let's look at [00:10:00] all these together, and it's called the Death Footprint, and what you actually find is nuclear is the safest form of energy generation. And again this is hard for people because they look after a plane crash and said, I'm not flying anymore. Planes are dangerous. But the most dangerous thing of air travel is driving to the airport. The car that you maybe haven't maintained, you're distracted, you're speeding. Versus an airline industry that uses best practices, they have [00:10:30] professional pilots, they have regular maintenance, they have the FAA. They have all these oversights.
But again, that's not how risk prescription works for people. They hear about an incident and they say this is dangerous and I don't want it. And that's what happened to our industry. We had some of these disasters. They were kind of kept hidden. People didn't do follow-up research. We have these shows that come out that sensationalize it. And media likes to sensationalize these as well.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Oh, absolutely.
Matthew Mairinger:
And people look at other energy forms when [00:11:00] working in the nuclear sector – like, even holding the handrails is part of the initial training. They're worried about you slipping and tripping outside, climbing stair cases. They're not worried about you getting lethal doses of radiation at work. They're worried that you're going to slip on the ice walking to the office building. Like that is, to be honest, their top concern. Because it's these low-level safety that if you can get the lowest level of safety then you won't have these higher level incidents. [00:11:30]
Geoff Sheffrin:
To me it's interesting. I think – it's one of the things I've struggled with and mentioned in the previous podcast when I talked about the relative death rates of coal, oil, and gas, in comparison to nuclear. You know, because nuclear, wind and solar and hydroelectric, except for that one major catastrophe decades ago in China, you know, all four of those have an incredibly low death rate attached to them. And people just don't accept the nuclear fits into that very low category. And I [00:12:00] find that very frustrating.
Peter Reynolds:
Yeah, and – you know, we were talking about this off-camera, Matthew, but this idea of – that even if you're living near the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant, you're receiving these iodine pills in the mail. And you know, obviously how many people are doing any kind of research on how needed they are. All they're thinking is, if they're sending them to me there's [00:12:30] obviously a risk. But that's also a misconception.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, and just to expand on that as well, so, where this really came from was after the Chernobyl disaster, first off, it was a terrible design, operated terribly, they kept it a secret. This was during the Cold War era as well. But in the plume of radiation what happens is you have radioactive cesium, you have radioactive iodine. They also had poor nutrition in those day in those surrounding areas. So [00:13:00] the children actually had an iodine deficiency. And so when you have an iodine deficiency you don't have enough normal iodine in your diet, then your body takes in this radioactive plume and it saturates in your thyroid. So these potassium iodide pills are especially effective, after a nuclear disaster you take them and they saturate your thyroid with normal iodine and potassium so the radioactive plume doesn't accumulate the radioactive particles in your body.
So that is [00:13:30] what they send – I can show the box here. It's called rad block. And what used to happen was they had these at pharmacies around the nuclear stations because really the accident scenario, especially I North America CANDU is you'd have something go wrong, you'd have all these backup cooling systems. You'd have these independent shut down systems. You'd have this other interface [ties? 00:13:52] now from Fukushima so rapid hook up tie connections. And they have these standby diesel trucks and water [00:14:00] carrying devices. We also have a negative pressure vacuum building. So when you look at how long it would take for all these barriers to break down, you would have several days when you find out about something happening and the initial release of radiation.
So it made sense that if we had this, people in their nearby pharmacies they could go, they could pick up these, if the government or the facility told them to. At one of the licence hearings, one of the interveners, anti-nuclear interveners, they said, well why aren't you [00:14:30] sending these to people's houses? And the regulator said, OK, that makes sense. So they said, OK, OPG and other utilities you have to send these to people's houses. And then the problem is once you break down that barrier then they came back another time and they said you should be doing it to 50 kilometres. And they're just expanding this radius.
And just like you said, if I got this in the mail and it says, prepare to be safe. So if you did no other research you're like, am I not safe? Why do I need these? Do [00:15:00] I need to take them now? And it starts to ring alarm bells. When really as a Western diet we have enough iodized salt and we have enough potassium in our diet, so this doesn't even really make a difference. But again, this is just one of the tactics of fear and some of the unnecessary things that, in my opinion, that we're doing which is defeating our industry's good that it's helping humanity with.
Geoff Sheffrin:
I agree with you, Matt. I have a feeling that sending those around to a [00:15:30] 20-kilometre radius or a 50-kilometre radius I think just sets off alarm bells, because I'll guarantee you that 95 percent of those people don't have a clue. And as you suggest, they pick up this package with all of these disclaimers on it, etcetera, and think, oh shit, I've got a problem. Because it's out of context. And I agree it's got to be available. I would hope that the best before date on all of these has expired a number of times over and we've had hundreds of millions of these tablets scrapped because they're [00:16:00] out of date code and having to issue new ones, which just creates more alarm.
I'm sorry, Matt, if you're saying – I'm – I don't think [unintelligible 00:16:10] good choice. Let me shut up.
Peter Reynolds:
No, I would agree that you know, that it definitely – it definitely creates fear which is, you know, going to change people's voting habits and obviously is going to have an impact on [00:16:30] the industry. But it looks like through the organizations that you belong to they seem to be trying to combat this, you know, at the grassroots level. I'm wondering is it, you know, in terms of the economic benefit, or this idea of, you know, in the independence, you know, that we can gain, the communities can gain, you know, from taking control of their energy needs. Is that part of sort of [00:17:00] the pitch in terms of talking about the value of nuclear energy?
Matthew Mairinger:
Definitely. And especially we saw with the war of Ukraine, you are subject to energy independence. So if you have nuclear, especially in Canada, we get most of our uranium from Saskatchewan. So we mine it, we mill it, we manufacture it here, and we produce our own power. So it's all within our own country that we have this independence. And [00:17:30] the thing about nuclear is most of the cost – actually 50 percent of the cost of nuclear is financing. So if you get financing models, if you start to get it recognized as a renewable or green source of energy, and you get some of the tax breaks, this is how we could really bring down the cost of nuclear.
And I keep seeing everyone saying that solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper. It's like, yes, it's economies of scale. If you produce a billion solar panels, you're going to get them cheaper. If you do it like they're doing in the States, you're building [00:18:00] one massive nuclear reactor after not building one for 20 years, it's going to be plagued with costs overruns. So just recently the federal government came out and they said for nuclear, every dollar invested, 95 percent within the next 20 years would be returned back to the government. And that's a great thing about a company like Ontario Power Generation is our costs of electricity are set by the Ontario Energy Board, the OEB, so if we want to increase the rates we have to demonstrate why and they can say no. And the [00:18:30] profits go back to the province. So they keep the prices low for electricity, and the profits are returned to the tax payers as well.
Especially with small modular reactors are coming out. So this is going to make huge breakthroughs because now what you're doing is you're going to the factory setting. You are modularizing the design and the components. And again you can add them in different levels. So let's say you're a smaller community, you're not sure how much nuclear or how much community electricity you need, yeah build [00:19:00] one, then if your community expands as a module design you can add a second reactor or a third reactor or a fourth reactor. So it's really going to help for financing for these smaller communities because again, it's not these massive reactors, it's a much more smaller design.
But yeah, financing is actually one of the benefits of nuclear. And just one other point for that is, wind and solar, they're usually only good for about 20 to 30 years, then you need to replace the panels, you need to replace [00:19:30] the turbine blades. For nuclear in the Stats, like they're licenced up to 80 years. In Canada here we're going through refurbishment, so they're going to be good for another 30 years. So you have to look at that timescale and you have to look at that as well.
And the crazy thing is, when we're paying for electricity, the cost of decommissioning, dismantling, everything for nuclear is build up front into the cost of electricity, where other forms of energy don't have that included. So if you're disposing of these [00:20:00] solar panels, if you're trying to recycle them, that is an unforeseen cost that’s going to hit the taxpayers, and it's going to hit us all of a sudden when all of these are at the end of life. Where with nuclear it's built up front, it's already there, so when they do get decommissioned it already has a slush fund there.
Peter Reynolds:
That's really interesting. I want – and I know, Geoff, you want to talk more about SMRs. I'd like sort of – perhaps Matthew can define what a small [00:20:30] modular reactor exactly is.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, so it's exactly what it sounds like. It's a small modular reactor. So what used to happen in the nuclear field was reactors were getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And the reason for this is when you have a nuclear vessel you have some leakage of neutrons. And the neutrons when they're escaping they're not involved in splitting more uranium atoms, so they're not making power. So if you make a bigger vessel you get more [00:21:00] economies of neutrons. So you get more power for the size of it. If you go bigger and bigger and bigger it actually makes more sense.
This is how the nuclear sector was going, was they had major countries like France and the United States and they have huge populations, huge population centers. So it made sense to keep designing them bigger and bigger. The problem with that is if you have smaller communities, if you have mining sites, if you have indigenous communities. They can't afford to have this massive reactor here. Like if [00:21:30] you're looking at Saskatchewan, a couple of CANDUs is more than the entire province uses.
So now what's happening is the industry is looking at making them smaller. Making them modular. So cutting down the cost, looking at next generation technologies. So now if the nuclear reactor isn't using it for electricity can it be used for desalinization? Can it be used for district heating? Can it be used for hydrogen production? And that's really where the industry is getting more flexible now, is [00:22:00] realizing that there's all these communities, there's all these isolated sites that are based on fossil fuels, especially the remote indigenous sites and northern sites in Canada. They're relying on diesel. And they have to ship their diesel a year ahead of time, they have to store it, and they're burning all this diesel, when a smaller reactor in their community could be perfect. It just sits there for a number of years. It can help back with the community with energy independence and energy stability. [00:22:30]
So this is a really exciting thing and we're seeing countries like Poland, Estonia, nations that have never had nuclear power, and even provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta, they're chomping at the bit to get this to decarbonize their sectors.
Geoff Sheffrin:
I think the other thing to bear in mind as you just pointed out, if we go the size of Canada, [while? 00:22:51] so much of it is in a 200-kilometre wide strip from east to west. There's a lot of communities north. And when you look at the electrical grid structure [00:23:00] we are generally not well serviced. And you talk about, you know, bringing diesel fuel in to the northern communities, which can only be done in the winter months on the ice roads. And if we have small modular up there, then the challenge of not having to extend the grid from the more developed part of southern Canada, all the way to the North, that challenge goes away because now we can place modular reactors in several places and create a grid infrastructure around a number of local communities. There's just so many upsides to this. [00:23:30]
Peter Reynolds:
I wanted to address this idea – because of course we've touched on – the whole podcast started with this statement that nuclear energy is green. And I'm wondering if, Matthew, you could address that person listening today that when they hear nuclear energy being green and they think radiation and the think, you know, getting rid of spent rods and it does not sound green. [00:24:00] So I'm wondering if you could talk directly to that person.
Matthew Mairinger: That's a perfect example. And I really like to use the word green or clean. Because renewables only exclude one clean energy source, and that is nuclear. So clean and green is how I refer to it. And there's so many reasons.
So I'll start with the amount of area that it actually takes per unit energy. So nuclear actually uses the least amount of land for equivalent energy compared to other sources. So [00:24:30] when we're looking at wind and solar – and again people think about this at the local scale. Right? So oh, I have a solar panel on my house. But when you're looking at grid scale it really does matter how much are you're taking up for this. And so nuclear uses around 360 times less land than wind and solar. So again that's less areas that we're clearcutting forests, that's less areas that we're disturbing. And again that's part of why I consider it green.
It also uses the least amount of [00:25:00] materials. So again nuclear – and again I have – I'm just showing up here just a little mock fuel pellet here. And that's what it looks like. It's this little solid ceramic piece of chalk, and an equivalent little – it's about the size of the knuckle of my pinky, that's equivalent to just over 1,500 kilos of coal, or 600 litres of petrol, or over 1,000 kilos of wood. So when we're looking at the amount of materials, especially wind and solar and [00:25:30] all these others, they need a lot of rare earth metals. They need a lot of natural research. So the energy source that uses the least amount of natural resources means the least amount of waste, it means the least amount of mining. And again this is why I consider it clean.
When you talk about spent fuel, and again I think people have this idea from the Simpsons that it's these barrels of green goo that are just dumped into the lake somewhere – and the Simpsons kills me, because like that is [00:26:00] what I watched as a kid as well, and now as nuclear engineer it eats at my soul. Because what it is, is that same black piece of chalk comes out looking like a black piece of chalk. It's not fun. It's not cool. They physical look of spent fuel is the same as un-irradiated fuel. Because again, at the subatomic level you're splitting the atom, but it's not actually changing what that looks like. It's still a solid when it comes out. [00:26:30]
What happens is we put it in a – basically a swimming pool for 10 years to get rid of a lot of the radiation and cool it down. And then what we do is we move it into these concrete cast. And all the fuel that's stored on site at nuclear reactors right now around the world, and they're stored in these casks, and if I stood next to a cask for a year I get less radiation than a flight to Europe. So again there's very low amounts of radiation outside of these. And people walk by all the time and they do these inspections. [00:27:00]
All of the spent fuel from Canada over our 60 years of generation, I think it's a hockey rink about 40 feet high or something like that. So it's a very low amount of volume. And especially now with small modular reactors, there are new technologies coming out, for example Bill Gates is working on TeraPower. They're looking at using spent fuel and continuously using it for further fuel purposes. Because when [00:27:30] we call it spent, it still has 95 percent useful energy in it. It's just uranium is so cheap relative to how much power we're getting out of it, that it didn't make sense with the reactors right now to keep in in the reactor any longer. So it's just, you keep it in there for about a year for CANDU. You pull them out. And it was great. It was very economical.
But now when people start looking and raising these concerns about nuclear spent fuel, OK, well now there are [00:28:00] new designs coming out that can extract further amounts of energy from it. So when people talk about the issues of spent fuel I talk about coal, which is releasing 85 different toxic substances into the environment, which is causing climate change, which is leading to the acidification of the ocean, which has spent tailing ponds that nobody even cares about, and a hurricane comes in and sweeps that into the ocean.
So if we're being serious about fighting climate change we need to look at the [00:28:30] downsides and the waste from all of the forms of energy. And anyone that looks into this will find that radiation is very easy to deal with. We know can detect it, we can shield it, and we can deal with this. It's a very contained built-in source of problems that we have solutions for.
Geoff Sheffrin:
And you're absolutely right, Matthew. If you look at solar, getting rid of solar panels at the end of their life is a really big problem. And nobody ever looks at the cradle to grave and [now? 00:28:59] there's [00:29:00] manufacturing solar panels is a manufacturing process which has CO2 implications. Disposing of them is the same. With wind turbines we are just beginning to get to the stage where they're actually starting to fabricate wind turbine blades that don't have to go into landfills. They can actually be recycled. We've only started doing this in the last couple of years and there's only a couple of companies in the world doing it at the moment.
So there's all of this absent information that we're dealing with, and it's all [00:29:30] focused on the problems that nuclear fuel is a spent fuel hazard. And you know, it just – it's just out of context. People just don't think that far. And again, it's the way the media covers things, particular when we have a disaster.
Peter Reynolds:
Yeah, it's interesting – I come at this really from the layman and it's fascinating just to see all the different technologies that are out there. Plus, you know, that people [00:30:00] are actually working on making it even more efficient and – can you talk a little bit about extending nuclear plant life in Canada?
Geoff Sheffrin:
That's been a bit controversial in the last little while, Matt. So it would be helpful to get a bit of a perspective on that.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, so the way the CANDU reactors work is we have horizontal core. So all the tubes carrying the fuel and the cooling tubes, it's horizontal in nature. [00:30:30] After being exposed to radiation fields for a number of years, the tubes start to sag and hydrogen starts to build up in these tubes. So this is something that's just inherent in the CANDU reactors, they're only good for a certain number of years, and then you have to do what's called a refurbishment. Basically you go into that core, you take out these tubes, you cut them, you put in brand new tubes, and that extends the life of the reactor for about 30 years. And this has just always been known for the reactor, that's how it works. [00:31:00]
Again, different reactor designs have different ways of operating, and they use different properties, I won't get into that. It's another discussion. But yes, what happens is the government has invested at refurbishing Bruce Power's reactors, refurbishing Darlington's four unit, and right now, which is really exciting, is they're re-looking at the refurbishment of Pickering. So for Pickering right now there's six units in operation. Two are going to come down in [00:31:30] 2024. They're looking at extending the other four reactors for one more year. But again they have to show the safety case to the regulator, and the regulator has to approve that it's safe to operate for another year. Right now what's happened is the federal – or the provincial government has said that based on the energy projections, they would like Pickering to operate for another year if it is safe to do so.
What they've also looked at is looking at extending Pickering. So refurbishing [00:32:00] Pickering for another 30 years. So right now OPG is looking at the business case for that. Does it make sense? They're looking at the safety aspects. What would they need to do? But if this is approved, what would happen is those four units at Pickering would be extended for another 30 years, there would be this refurbishment going on to bring it up to the standards. But again, this makes a lot of economic sense because right now what we're doing is we're 60 percent nuclear in Ontario. We have one [00:32:30] of the cleanest grids in the world. And if we shut down Pickering it's most likely going to be replaced by fossil fuels. It's going to most likely be replaced by gas.
Geoff Sheffrin: [Cross talking 00:32:41]
Matthew Mairinger:
And they don't want to lose all of this progress we've made, so that's really what they're looking at.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Which is one of the reasons why on the OSPE platform we're really trying to encourage the provincial government to think logically about the need to make sure clean and green is part of the investment process, and that [00:33:00] says we've got to find ways of safely continuing nuclear because it just makes commercial sense.
Peter Reynolds:
Yeah, I was thinking about – we were touching just on the war in Ukraine and you know, the issues in Europe. And you know, if – looking at Germany as an example. You know, and the challenges that they're facing, with their nuclear – or lack of nuclear energy. Can [00:33:30] you touch on that, Matthew?
Matthew Mairinger: Yeah, so nuclear in Germany is a perfect case study of what happens when you start to phase out nuclear. So nuclear was phased out of Germany at a political reason following Fukushima. The Green Party was in power and they said, we're going to get rid of nuclear, we're going to phase it out, and we're going to invest hundreds billions of dollars into Energiewende, and that is going to be – we're going to be all renewable. That [00:34:00] was their main goal.
What's actually happened is as they're shutting down nuclear stations their carbon emissions are rising and they're building new coal plants. And they're not just using coal, they're using lignite coal, which is the dirtiest form of coal in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. And so they're mining the Earth, they're building these terrible things, they're building these gas pipelines to Russia. And again we saw when Russia started their war with Ukraine, all [00:34:30] of a sudden now Germany is at their mercy. Because if they continue to buy gas from Russia they're supporting a war.
And the emissions keep rising from Germany, so they're stubbornly still shutting down nuclear and they keep on this path and we keep seeing that the emissions are rising. When if you look at the world that has decarbonized, you look at Sweden, you look at France, you look at Ontario all of the – and there's this great website. It's called Electricity Maps. And it [00:35:00] shows you a graphical interface of the carbon intensity by colour, and you can look five years back, one year back, one hour back, at where people are getting the electricity from in countries, where the imports/exports are coming from, and you'll very quickly see that the ones that are green on the map have some form of hydro and nuclear together and usually complemented with wind and solar. That is how you build a very stable low carbon grid. Because hydro and nuclear are great for the base bone – [00:35:30] the baseload that you need, and variable intermittents, like wind and solar are good to complement that for the peaks, and you can do load shutting with hydro.
But it's really nuclear and hydro that are the main ways that you decarbonize rapidly.
Geoff Sheffrin:
And I think, Peter, it would be helpful if we create some links in the podcast. That's one of them that Matthew just mentioned. But there's a few others too as we've gone through this discussion. I think it would be great to give [00:36:00] people the opportunity to do a little bit more of their own digging if they're so inclined. Because I think it's important to do that.
Peter Reynolds:
Yeah, 100 percent, 100 percent. We'll include all those links on the screen and as well as in the description so people can do their own research and find out more information here.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Matt, I'd love to have another dozen questions, but we don't have another hour and a half in the podcast. So let me just move off on another topic which I'd love to get a teeny bit of insight from. You [00:36:30] were at COP 27. We had 40,000 delegates. We had 6,000 from the fossil fuel industries, and I think I understood from you perhaps less than a hundred from the nuclear industry? Never mind. Let me shut up and let you explain what you saw at COP 27.
Matthew Mairinger:
So for those that aren't aware it's the United Nations F Triple C. Every year they have this climate summit, and it's really to hold accountable for what the commitments are going to be. So it's a crazy two weeks. You [00:37:00] can't pay to get there. You either have to be invited by a government delegate, like the party, you either have to be a registered non-profit an intergovernmental organization.
So for our non-profit a few years ago we applied. We have now official observer's status, so we can send a couple of people every year to be there. COP 25 was the first one that I went to, and it shocked me. This is supposed to be talking about climate change and clean energy. And the nuclear industry was represented by, I think, like a dozen of us, right? [00:37:30] So I was the only one from North America there. We had very little presence. And it just shocked us.
So what we did at the grassroots level was we put together a nuclear delivery team for COP 26 in the UK, and for the first time ever we had 84 delegates from all around the world. And we were just very passionate, energetic young people that are in the nuclear industry, and we have a lot in common with these environmentalists there. We could share our perspective and say, I'm here because I believe in climate change and [00:38:00] because I believe in nuclear as one of the solutions. And we has so much common ground there.
So we did flash mob dances. We were on, like, the New York Times. We were doing interviews there. But just really talking to people on a common, humanizing aspect. And for COP 27 it was very good this year. So the IEA for the first time ever – that's the international atomic energy agency. At the UN organization they had a pavilion there. We had a – what's [00:38:30] called Nuclear for Climate, which is a collection of various non-profits around the world in nuclear – we had flash mobs. We had – yeah, just lots of people to share their perspectives. Sometimes we'd dress up as bananas handing out bananas with a sticker on it. People were very confused. But if you eat one banana you get more radiation from that one banana than you do living next to a nuclear reactor for an entire year.
And this just blew people's minds. Is this a radioactive banana? Why is this – and it's starting [00:39:00] that conversation in kind of a fun way. Right?
Geoff Sheffrin:
Yes, love it.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yes, well bananas have potassium, there's this radioactive isotope of potassium, you get very low doses from this, but radiation – like if you take a flight you get more radiation, if you're in a basement you get more radon – like, radiation has always been around us. So just to have these conversations – I'm even holding up a sticker here which says, OK Boomer, nuclear [00:39:30] power is actually great.
So we can be a little bit more rash, a little bit more abrasive than maybe some of the nuclear industry itself.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Edgy and pushy.
Matthew Mairinger:
But yeah. Like I said, we'd hand out these mock fuel pellets to show people energy density. We have this little [advocacy? 00:39:45] toolkit, which again goes over some of the points I was making about land use and what nuclear fuel looks like, what the storage casks look like. And the safety aspects. Because [00:40:00] we always get these same questions from people. Everyone thinks they're asking a very unique question. Oh, what about nuclear waste? What about Chernobyl? I've heard these so many times that – but these are the people that are making the decisions. These are countries that are making the decision for their energy policy. These are climate activists, like Greta Thunberg and some of the others that if we can get them to understand that nuclear is part of the solution, they have such a following. So why would I go to the [00:40:30] street and try to convince Joe on the street that nuclear is great when I could go to collective that has all the key people related to climate change, and really start to shift opinions.
And that's really what we've been trying through N-A-Y-G-N and various other non-profit organizations. This year we're going to a couple of different renewable conferences, just to build allies and just to show them that it's not nuclear versus renewables. I am against coal. That is what I'm [00:41:00] trying to phase out. Coal is a baseload technology that's being built around the world. And renewables can work really nicely with nuclear, especially it's called, like, an integrated grid here when it's not windy or sunny, and when it is windy or sunny then nuclear could switch to maybe district heating, or hydrogen production, or desalinization. It could be used flexibility without load shedding for useful purposes. [00:41:30] These are the things I'm really excited about. And we have so much in common with a lot of people there. So it's just great to be there. Especially for young volunteer grassroots perspectives. Because they call me a shill. I'm like, well I'm volunteering – I was like, how did you get here? They're like, oh my company paid for me to be here. I was like, oh, OK.
Again, it's reimaging the shill and just trying to find those common friends out there.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Excellent. [00:42:00]
Peter Reynolds:
That's great. That's great.
Geoff Sheffrin:
There's a – sorry Peter.
Peter Reynolds:
No, go ahead Geoff.
Geoff Sheffrin:
I was going to say I think there's a host of things to cover. I feel given the length of the podcast we might – if you're willing we might have you back for a later episode. What I would love to do, because I know next episode we've got the gentleman who's the chief engineer of the OPG Pickering, Darlington SMR project. So that's coming up in the [00:42:30] next podcast. But I think a broadcast or two later than that, having you in to comment on that context, as well as some more things which I feel are outstanding on this one, you know, would be a delight if you're agreeable.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, absolute. This is my message is just to share my enthusiasm for nuclear. It's a [unintelligible 00:42:46]. And especially as an engineer, I break it down to the statistics. What is going to help with the environment? How can we get there? Because as an engineer I look at climate change as a problem. And as an engineer we [00:43:00] don't just walk away and say, oh that's unfixable. We say, what do we need to do? And we already have all these great things. We have the IPCC which gives us the reports that tells us what to do. We have the IEA which is saying to double or triple nuclear to meet our needs for net zero. And these same people that believe in climate change because the IPCC and the United Nations tells them about climate change, don't listen to the scientists that tell them we need to double or triple nuclear.
As an engineer, like, it just drives me nuts. [00:43:30] So to be here, to share some of the positives and relay to work together I think is really key.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Well that’s also the message that Peter and I are trying to give out that – we're not short of the technologies in the world. Are they all fully developed? No. I might need $40, $80 trillion in order to get things moving. But you know, we have what we need if we chose to invest in it. We have the technological leadership resources to make it happen. What we don't have is the bloody political will because those people are too [00:44:00] busy sitting on their asses waiting for the next election cycle or trying to run autocratic country. So. You know, that's where we're falling down.
Peter Reynolds:
We saw what happened with COVID. Right? The world can rapidly shift if it needs to.
Geoff Sheffrin:
Twenty trillion dollars.
Peter Reynolds:
Yeah so we have the capability –
Geoff Sheffrin:
And it didn't come out of the bloody piggy bank. We made it happen because it was a necessity. Which is why I keep saying, 2030? Mother Nature doesn't give a shit. She's going to beat us over the head. By 2030 it's too [00:44:30] damned late. And suddenly we wake up and say, how much did you say we need, Geoff, 40 trillion? Maybe it's 80 trillion. Let's get on with it.
Peter Reynolds:
Matthew I would love to get your and Geoff's reaction as we wrap up the podcast to a couple of things I've been reading, you know, new technologies, things that people are looking at to maybe alternative ways of combating climate change. In a [00:45:00] new segment we're calling, What Could Possibly Go Wrong. So the first was from a CNBC report of a start-up that's looking to use balloons to release sulphur dioxide to cool the Earth, and essentially to duplicate volcanic activity. And other US [00:45:30] scientists are looking to do the same thing with Moon dust, and they're basically talking about it would take about 10 billion kilograms of Moon dust to reduce the Sun's light by 1.8 percent.
What's your initial reaction to this idea of solar geoengineering?
Matthew Mairinger:
So I think these are drastic measures and again, may have unintended consequences. [00:46:00] So it's a way of scapegoating without actually fixing the problem to have those Band-Aid solution, because by shielding the amount of solar incidence that we have isn't going to fix the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. It's going to maybe buy us a couple of years, but that carbon dioxide concentration is still in the atmosphere. So it's almost like we're just doing a Band-Aid solution without addressing the real problems. And again this may help down the road once we've hit net zero, [00:46:30] you know, one we've gotten to where we need to be maybe this should be a mitigating factor.
But we should be looking at reducing the carbon emissions now. Direct air capture, carbon capture, low carbon sources, that should be our primary focus. And mitigation and adaption as well. So that is my main focus. You can look at this on the side, but I just worry about getting complacent, and I worry about unintended consequences from shading the Earth. [00:47:00]
Geoff Sheffrin:
I agree with you totally on that. Having read a little bit about those things too, Peter. I agree with Matt totally. This is un-researched, unquantified intentions. To my mind they fix the effect, they don't fix the cause. And if the cause hasn't gone away we've still got 2,400 coal fired generating plants around the world. They are the single biggest source of carbon dioxide in the world. You talk about planes, you talk about vehicles and transport. [00:47:30] Yes all of these contribute. But those coal generating stations contribute disproportionally more than anything else to the carbon dioxide [unintelligible 00:47:39] that we've got.
So don't give me sun shielding and all of that. To me that's just a distraction which is not going to help because we're tackling the effect, we aren't tackling the cause. So get off your freakin' ass and tackle the bloody causes. We know what to do.
Matthew Mairinger:
I just want to add one point here as well about coal. The World [00:48:00] Health Organization shows that over seven and a half million people die prematurely from the effects of fossil fuels. So even if we did shield the Earth we are still getting the consequences from fossil fuels. Ocean acidification. The toxic materials that are being released.
So again, it's not just climate change that we want phase out fossil fuels for. We want to stop burning carbon for other reasons. And really we don't see these effects again, [00:48:30] it's mostly in developing nations, it's a slower cause like respiratory issues. But this is killing people. And again this is about the safety, when people attack nuclear. Nuclear isotopes are saving lives. Coal is killing them. When it's operating normally. People always say, like, oh if a nuclear accident happens people could be harmed. I was like, well coal is killing people right now and it's operating exactly as it should be. So that's what we should be trying to get rid of.
Peter Reynolds:
That's a really [00:49:00] interesting point, the idea of acting the way it's designed, the way it should, it's killing people. And let alone in accidents. That's a really interesting point, Matt.
Can I throw another one at you guys? So – and it's interesting because it's almost this – we were talking in earlier episodes, Matthew, about, you know, greenwashing and this idea of, if you've got something you're trying to do and you use the word [00:49:30] green or clean or you give it some sort of environmental angle. You know that that's going to get it on the front page of the newspaper.
So there's a biotech start-up and they're planning to reintroduce mammoth elephant hybrids to the arctic. And OK, sounds – you know, people are going to do that. Fine. That's a whole story in and of itself. But what I just read from Discover magazine [00:50:00] this month, was according to the company they will – doing this will decelerate the melting of the arctic permafrost, preventing the emission of greenhouse gasses trapped within the permafrost and revert over shrubbed forest back to natural arctic grasslands, fostering an ecosystem that could maintain its own defences against climate change. Who knew making mammoths would help with climate change? Your thoughts, Geoff, maybe start with you. [00:50:30]
Geoff Sheffrin:
Well I'm out of touch with the world because I'm not quite sure that this actually has a viable endpoint given what is being talked about there. And to be truthful I've not done the research. I'm fearful it's another distraction, but either way, I don't know, Matt I'm sure you have a view on it too.
Matthew Mairinger:
Yeah, I believe there's a film called Jurassic Park where they tried to reintroduce things. So – again as humans we never know about the downstream impacts. I love one country, they [00:51:00] have a pest control problem so they import a predator of that pest, and then that becomes rampant, destroys the ecosystem and now they can't get rid of two things. So again, have they looked at the methane emissions from mammoths?
Geoff Sheffrin:
[Cross talking 00:51:14]
Matthew Mairinger: Have they looked at all these other – every time we try and mess with nature we don't know the unintended consequences. So to me this seems like one of these crazy things that a research scientist came up with, [00:51:30] sensationalized news, maybe they could get a research grant.
But again, we need to really look at how we can decarbonize, right? What are the top sectors, transportation, steel industry, energy, focus on real things that we have right now and let's really get serious, because like I said, these are distractions, largely. These are largely distractions. So let's really focus on the real issues and let's get serious about it. [00:52:00]
Peter Reynolds:
A hundred percent. A hundred percent. I think you're right on the money in terms of distractions. And people looking for the sexy story. And you know, when – you know, the solution might not be sexy but it's absolutely needed. And something that we need to figure out a way get ourselves off coal. I didn't actually know that Germany was building [00:52:30] more coal plants. I never – it shocked me.
Geoff Sheffrin:
So is India and so is China.
Peter Reynolds:
It's unbelievable when nuclear is right there. The –
Matthew Mairinger:
This is why I love [grass? 00:51:14] and interfaces that let you see real-time carbon emissions. Because a lot of people I met at COP 27 were German. They said, you know, we're leading the way. I said, you're not. And I just showed them –
Geoff Sheffrin: [Cross talking 00:52:59]
Matthew Mairinger:
– [00:53:00] right and it's because like you're almost in an echo chamber when you surround yourself with people that just keep saying the same thing. And so that's what's happening in Germany is they've been just greenwashed. And that's a perfect term, is to just think that they're investing all this money in renewables, they're doing all this, but what is it actually doing to the carbon emissions? Is that the best use of funding? And in a lot of times it isn't.
Geoff Sheffrin:
You're exactly right.
Matthew Mairinger: So that's – as an engineer, show me the [00:53:30] evidence. I don't care how much capacity you're building. I don't care how many panels you're building. How much is it? How long is it good for, and what is the life cycle impact of your change?
Peter Reynolds:
I think that's a great place to end it. Any final thoughts, Geoff?
Geoff Sheffrin:
No, I think this has been a wonderful session. I think it's been extremely useful. So I'm delighted that we go on and I would just like to close with usual to say, [00:54:00] movers make things happen. There rest of the world are spectators. So go out there and be a mover. And we'll see you at the next broadcast. Peter.
Peter Reynolds:
So Matthew, I wanted to thank you very much for joining us. Where can people who want to educate themselves, young people who might be – to volunteer and sort of follow in your footsteps. Where can they find out more information?
Matthew Mairinger:
Yes, they can on our website, naygn.org. And sign up for a member for free. You start to get our communications. [00:54:30] We also have a Get Involved section. And we also have a Take Action section as well. So if you're really serious about changing some of these bills out here and talking to your politicians, you click on the button, it pre-populates it. You can send it to your member of parliament based on your location.
So again, just small ways, but the politicians need to hear that these things matter. If you say plastic straws are your biggest concern, they will be changed. If you say you care about nuclear power, [00:55:00] to listen. So that's what I would plead with everyone, is just do a little bit of independent research. Go on our website. Just Google anything for a couple of minutes and just – you'll be amazed at what you find.
Geoff Sheffrin: [Cross talking 00:55:15]
Peter Reynolds:
What's that Geoff?
Geoff Sheffrin:
We'll put the links on the podcast.
Peter Reynolds:
Absolutely. Absolutely. Well we've been joined by Matthew Mairinger who is a professional engineer and a vice-president of N-A-Y-G-N, [00:55:30] the North American Young Generation in Nuclear. And he has joined us for this episode of Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap. A reminder to our listeners that you can also see us on YouTube. We have video versions of the podcast, as well as anywhere you get your podcast. And we would love to hear from you. Your questions, your comments. That helps generate the content and helps get us fantastic guests like Matthew on for [00:56:00] this and future podcast.
So I want to thank you so much for joining us. Matt, again, thank you, Geoff, again, thank you. And my name is Peter Reynolds and you've been listening to Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap. And we'll see you next time.
[End of recorded material 00:56:31]