Host of the famous Titans of Nuclear podcast and Managing Director of the Energy Impact Center, Bret Kugelmass joined me to talk about his background, the corruption of the American utility industry, nuclear deadlocks, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, regulation, and more!
Dec 30, 2021·edited Dec 31, 2021Liked by Emmet Penney
The interview was great but it only covers a fraction of his ideas that are in his YouTube lectures. Please invite him back and please challenge his ideas. I think that he is correct but we need to have a discussion. For some reason he has turned off comments on his YouTube lectures. His approach is the only approach that offers a complete and viable solution to climate change. Saving an NPP from closure is nice but we need to build 10,000 NPPs to solve climate change. We can only do that if we reform nuclear regulations.
Listening to the podcast Brett Kugelmass at around 28:40 he suggests a cool and physical thing to be associated with small local reactors. May I suggest that every new nuclear power station be built with a public swimming pool. In my mind this pool would be open to the air. For inspiration take a look at the hot spring pools like Glenwood Springs, Colorado and Blue Lagoon, Iceland.
MISSION Statement: "The NRC licenses and regulates the Nation's civilian use of radioactive materials to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security and to protect the environment " LNT is Wrong and NOT Science based. vs reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. REASONABLE? $$ 9 Billion Unnecessary "Safety" Equipment for a $1 Billion Reactor? The NRC caters to Anti's. Time to hold NRC to Their Mission Statement and Stand Up for Nuclear! at every NRC Public Meeting & public comment. https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html
This was the best podcast on the crux of nuclear energy failure to thrive in the USA and, maybe, the world. Not sure what the answer is, but Brett has certainly exposed the problem.
You guys have a good grasp of the public approach to nuclear. You are recognizing the real issues and what is happening currently. However, we need a new paradigm to change the attitude. Nothing interests people like recycling. When they find out that you can recycle slightly used nuclear fuel in fast reactors, the concept really changes their perspective. We can actually create 200 years of US electricity using only the existing DOMESTIC supply of material. It disposes of the "waste" while making 100% clean energy (no mining). The energy is on-line 95% of the time and can offer competition (the way we get cheaper energy) in the electricity market. There is much more to know (wastetoenergynow.org). I am happy to continue the conversation or answer any questions at scurtis261@gmail.com. It is very hypocritical that people who say they deathly fear CO2, yet are against the cheapest, most effective and efficient way to solve the problem. I just do not think they are really serious about their convictions.
The interview was great but it only covers a fraction of his ideas that are in his YouTube lectures. Please invite him back and please challenge his ideas. I think that he is correct but we need to have a discussion. For some reason he has turned off comments on his YouTube lectures. His approach is the only approach that offers a complete and viable solution to climate change. Saving an NPP from closure is nice but we need to build 10,000 NPPs to solve climate change. We can only do that if we reform nuclear regulations.
Here is a playlist of his lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQvOL_vVbtg&list=PLgTfjKxO_dTeFNOjWZXUCM0ghpDBVc2oO
Listening to the podcast Brett Kugelmass at around 28:40 he suggests a cool and physical thing to be associated with small local reactors. May I suggest that every new nuclear power station be built with a public swimming pool. In my mind this pool would be open to the air. For inspiration take a look at the hot spring pools like Glenwood Springs, Colorado and Blue Lagoon, Iceland.
MISSION Statement: "The NRC licenses and regulates the Nation's civilian use of radioactive materials to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security and to protect the environment " LNT is Wrong and NOT Science based. vs reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. REASONABLE? $$ 9 Billion Unnecessary "Safety" Equipment for a $1 Billion Reactor? The NRC caters to Anti's. Time to hold NRC to Their Mission Statement and Stand Up for Nuclear! at every NRC Public Meeting & public comment. https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html
This was the best podcast on the crux of nuclear energy failure to thrive in the USA and, maybe, the world. Not sure what the answer is, but Brett has certainly exposed the problem.
You guys have a good grasp of the public approach to nuclear. You are recognizing the real issues and what is happening currently. However, we need a new paradigm to change the attitude. Nothing interests people like recycling. When they find out that you can recycle slightly used nuclear fuel in fast reactors, the concept really changes their perspective. We can actually create 200 years of US electricity using only the existing DOMESTIC supply of material. It disposes of the "waste" while making 100% clean energy (no mining). The energy is on-line 95% of the time and can offer competition (the way we get cheaper energy) in the electricity market. There is much more to know (wastetoenergynow.org). I am happy to continue the conversation or answer any questions at scurtis261@gmail.com. It is very hypocritical that people who say they deathly fear CO2, yet are against the cheapest, most effective and efficient way to solve the problem. I just do not think they are really serious about their convictions.