>> WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFERING MORE THAN $8 BILLION TO JUMP-START THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY?

WE'LL ASK ITS DIRECTOR.

STAY TUNED.

"DIALOGUE" IS NEXT.

>> HELLO, I'M JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US HERE ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION ON THE WORLDWIDE WEB, AND ON PUBLIC RADIO STATIONS.

>>> THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY IS THE STATE'S THIRD LARGEST EMPLOYER WITH MORE THAN 4100 EMPLOYEES.

AND WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S LATEST PUSH FOR NUCLEAR POWER, THE INL FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT.

BUT THIS RESEARCH LABORATORY IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST NUCLEAR ENERGY.

BIOFIEWSTLES, NEXT GENERATION BATTERIES, EVEN HOMELAND SECURITY ARE ALL PART OF THE INL MIX.

THE DIRECTOR, JOHN GROSSENBACHER, JOINS ME NOW TO TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE INL AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR IDAHO.

OF COURSE WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

GIVE US A CALL, TOLL-FREE AT 1-800-973-9800.

LET'S START OFF THE TOP.

THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY GOING INTO A PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

>> IT IS.

>> WILL THERE BE BENEFITS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THAT MONEY GOES FOR LOAN GUARANTEES AND IT WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL RISK OF BUILDING NEW POWER PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY'RE STARTING PRIMARILY IN THE SOUTHEAST, WHERE THERE ARE EXISTING PLANTS AND APPROVED SITES.

BUT WHAT IT WILL MEAN IS THE FIELDING OF NEW TECHNOLOGY, AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THOSE KIND OF TECHNOLOGIES.

SO IT WILL MEAN MORE WORK FOR US, AND IT'S GOOD FOR I THINK AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE.

>> WHY?

>> BECAUSE I THINK NUCLEAR ENERGY IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ENERGY SOURCE.

TODAY IT'S ABOUT 20% OF OUR ELECTRICITY IN THE U.S., I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE USING NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

WE NEED RENEWABLES, WE NEED AN EMPHASIS ON EFFICIENCY, AND WE NEED FOSSIL FUELS FOR THE RIGHT KINDS OF THINGS, LIKE TRANSPORTATION FUELS.

IT'S HARD TO BEAT LIQUID TRANSPORTATION FUELS FOR HEAVY TRANSPORT.

BATTERIES ARE PROBABLY OK FOR LIGHT TRANSPORT, BUT NUCLEAR ENERGY TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY, AND TO MAKE PROCESSED HEAT FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES IN PARTICULAR.

SO WE'RE NOT USING NATURAL GAS AND THOSE KIND OF VERY VALUABLE LIMITED FOSSIL FUELS FOR THAT APPLICATION.

>> ARE THE -- THE NEXT GENERAL IT'S REE EABLGHTORS, HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN THE PAST?

HOW IS IT DIFFERENT?

>> WELL, IN GENERAL, I THINK THEY'RE MORE SOPHISTICATED, AND THEY'RE DESIGNED ALLOWING THEM TO BE SIMPLER.

>> THAT'S A -- >> WHEN THE DESIGNS ARE LESS SOPHISTICATED, I THINK IT'S EASIER TO ADD ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, AND IF SAFEGUARDS, AND THINGS THAT YOU THINK YOU MIGHT NEED BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SO SURE.

BUT I THINK WE'RE VERY SURE, THERE'S LOTS OF PERFORMANCE HISTORY, LOTS OF MAINTENANCE HISTORY, SO WE KNOW HOW THESE MACHINES WORK, AND WE KNOW WHEN PIECES AND PARTS OF THEM BREAK, YOU KNOW HOW TO 401(K)'S THEM.

THAT'S ALLOWED US TO REDESIGN THEM, MAKE THEM EVEN MORE RELIABLE, EVEN SAFER.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE NEW PLANTS WILL LOOK LIKE.

AND THEY'LL BE HIGHER PERFORMANCE, MORE RELIABLE, GREATER MARGINS TO SAFETY.

SO I THINK -- WHEN WE BUILD ONE TODAY, YOU SHOULD REASONABLY EXPECT TO HAVE IT FOR ABOUT 100 YEARS.

AND THE ONES WE HAVE TODAY WE BUILD AND LICENSE FOR 40 YEARS, WE'RE EXTENDING MOST OF THEM TO 60.

IT'S LIKELY WE'LL EXTEND SOME NUMBER TO 80, AND MAYBE EVEN A CENTURY.

THE NEW ONES WE BUILD WE'LL BUILD WITH THE EXPECTATION WE'LL HAVE THEM AROUND FOR A CENTURY.

SOHAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> IN TERMS OF THE MIXTURE, WHERE DOES NUCLEAR POWER FIT IN THE IDEA OF GREEN ENERGY?

SOME ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE BUCKING THE TREND AND SAYING, WE NEED TO GO WITH THIS BECAUSE OF -- BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

>> I HAVE TO REACT TO THE TERM GREEN ENERGY, BECAUSE I THINK IT BOTHERS ME, WHEN WE TRY TO CHARACTERIZE ENERGY SOURCES THAT WAY, BECAUSE I THINK IN THE END, ALL ENERGY SOURCES HAVE COSTS, RISKS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

THERE'S NO FREE LAUNCH.

IF YOU WANT A LOT OF ENERGY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE COSTS, RISKS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

SO I THINK NUCLEAR -- IF IT'S ALLOWED TO COMPETE, I THINK IN MY OPINION, I THINK NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS BEEN DEMONIZED FOR TOO LONG A TIME.

BUT IF IT'S ALLOWED TO COMPETE ON THAT BASIS, COST, RISKS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IT WILL COMPETE VERY WELL.

PRIMARILY IN THE RECENT INTERESTS AND EMPHASIS IS BECAUSE YOU CAN GENERATE ELECTRICITY WITHOUT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

AND IN THE U.S., 50% OF OUR ELECTRICITY COMES FROM COAL, IT'S CURRENTLY FASHIONABLE TO DEMONIZE COAL.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER SUBSTANTIAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WERE IT.

SO NUCLEAR OFFERS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S ATTRACT THE THE ATTENTION OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS, PLUS I THINK PEOPLE ARE TAKING A MORE PRACTICAL APPROACH TO WHAT OUR ENERGY CHOICES ARE.

AGAIN, THERE'S NO FREE LAUNCH.

AND IT'S NOT JUST AN AMERICAN PROBLEM.

WE LOOK AT OURSELVES AND SAY, WELL, IF WE JUST GOT MORE EFFICIENT AND MAXIMIZED OUR USE OF RENEWABLES, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO PROVIDE BASE LOAD POWER FOR CITIES AND MANUFACTURING PLANTS.

>> IS THAT THE BASE LOAD, AND PERHAPS YOU SHOULD DEFINE BASE LOAD, IS THAT WHY WE CAN'T JUST HAVE SOLAR AND WIND?

THERES HAS SOMEBODY SOMETHING -- TO BE SOMEBODY ELSE?

>> COST RISKS -- RENEWABLES LIKE SOLAR, THEY'RE INTERMITT ACCIDENT BY AND LARGE, LIKE WIND, THEY HAVE TO BE DISTRIBUTED.

SO HAVE YOU SMALL ENERGY SOURCES, AND A LOT OF THEM, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO COLLECT ALL THAT WITH -- IF IT'S ELECTRICITY, WITH DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.

SO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, OF COURSE IT DOESN'T -- IT'S LARGE, IT'S CONCENTRATED, AND IT'S NOT INTERMITTENT.

YOU WANT TO USE IT -- WHEN WE SAY BASE LOAD POWER, YOU LEAVE IT RUNNING ALL THE TIME.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW ELECTRICITY WORKS.

PEOPLE WAKE UP IN THE DAY AND THEY TURN EVERYTHING ON, ELECTRICITY PEAKSES, AND THEN THEY GO TO BED AND IT GOES DOWN TO SOME OTHER LEVEL.

IF YOU GENERATE ELECTRICITY, MEETING THOSE PEAK DEMANDS COSTS YOU A LOT OF MONEY, WITH GAS TURBINES OR HOWEVER YOU MEET IT.

WHICH IS A STEADY, VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OF POWER TO PROVIDE WHATEVER YOU NEED 24 HOURS A DAY.

IN GENERAL, THAT'S THE WAY NUCLEAR ENERGY IS USED TODAY.

>> WE HAVE A NUMBER OF EMAIL QUESTIONS.

ONE FROM TRAVIS, WHO WANTED TO KNOW, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NOW THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS WITHDRAWN SUPPORT FOR STORM AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN?

>> THERE'S A COUPLE ISSUES ASSOCIATE THE WITH THAT.

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY BROADLY, THERE'S DISAPPOINTMENT IN THAT THERE WAS A PATH FOR DISPOSITION OF USED FUEL, AND IT WAS A REPOSITORY, AND NOW WE SAID, OK, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

SO THERE'S SOME DISAPPOINTMENT I THINK BECAUSE NOW WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

WE'VE CREATED A COMMISSION TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO STEP BACK FOR A SECOND, AWAY FROM WHAT I WOULD CALL THE -- A LOT OF THE ADRENALINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN ISSUE AND REEVALUATE WHAT OUR CHOICES ARE.

AND WE HAVE CHOICES, OTHER THAN WHAT WE CALL A ONCE-THROUGH FUEL CYCLE, TAKE IT OUT OF THE REACTOR AND BURY IT UNDERGROUND.

THAT'S ONE ISSUE.

WE GET THE CHANCE TO, AGAIN, THINK LONG-TERM, HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

IT'S NOT JUST THIS FUEL CYCLE THAT WE HAVE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLES.

I THINK IN THOSE TERMS ABOUT OUR CHOICES.

THE OTHER THING OF CONCERN IS THERE ARE 70,000 METRIC TONS OF USED FUEL IN THE UNITED STATES, MOST OF IT IS AT THE MARSHALL REACT OR SITES WHERE THE USED FUEL WAS CREATED.

AND -- IN IDAHO WE HAVE ABOUT 300 METRIC TONS OF USED FUEL, AND THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO YUCK YOW MOUNTAIN.

NOW WHAT?

I WILL SAY THAT AS A -- IN TERMS OF PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND RELATIVE TO ITS ENVIRONMENTAL RISK, USED NUCLEAR FUEL IS HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE STUFF.

BUT IT'S IMPROPERLY DESIGNED CONTAINERS AND IT'S PROPERLY MANAGE THE, IT'S CONCRETE AND STAINLESS STEEL, AND IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FROM USED FUEL IF YOU JUST CONTAIN IT PROPERLY.

AND CERTAINLY THE 300 METRIC TONS IN IDAHO I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT IS OF NO THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY BECAUSE WE MANAGE IT PROPERLY.

>> LET'S GET TO OUR FIRST CALLER.

STEVE UNTIL IDAHO FALLS.

>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY PHONE CALL.

JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION.

WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE INL'S INVOLVEMENT WITH NUCLEAR POWER.

BUT WHAT SORT OF ALTERNATIVE POWER SOURCES IS THE SITE CURRENTLY WORKING ON, AND WILL WE BE DOING ANYTHING MORE WITH SPACE BATTERIES FOR DEEP PROBES FOR NASA?

AND I'LL LISTEN TO THE ANSWER.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, STEVE.

THE SPACE BATTERY WORK AT THE LAB CONTINUES.

WE PROVIDE HEAT SOURCES, AND ELECTRICITY SOURCES FOR DEEP SPACE PROBES, BECAUSE THE SUNLIGHT ISN'T INTENSE ENOUGH.

AND ALSO FOR SOME MANNED APPLICATIONS, BECAUSE YOU NEED THE RELIABILITY.

AND THE LAB ASEPTEMBERBLES AND TESTS THOSE DEVICES AND TAKES THEM TO CAPE KENNEDY AND TURNS THEM OVER TO NASA.

SO THAT WORK IS CONTINUING.

IN TERMS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, THERE'S LOTS OF WORK THAT GOES ON AT THE LAB.

WE'VE GOT A LONG HISTORY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN GEOTHERMAL, AND THE RAFT RIVER PLANT IN IDAHO, THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE ON THAT DESIGN, AND -- AT THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY.

WE DO SOME WORK IN WIND.

IT'S MOSTLY WIND SURVEYS AND HOW YOU WOULD SITE WIND DEVICES.

WE'RE SURROUNDED BY ENORMOUS WHEAT AND BARLEY FIELDS, AND ETHANOL, HOW YOU CAN TAKE -- TODAY WE TREAT AS WASTE, WHICH IS WHEAT AND BARLEY STRAW, AND CONVERTED IT INTO A USEFUL PRODUCT, ETHANOL IS APP VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF OUR WORK.

WORK.PGHWE WORK PRIMARILY IN THE FEED STOCK AREA, AND IT SOUNDS KIND OF MUNDANE AND EASY, BUT IT ISN'T.

I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT TO PROCESS ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF THIS STUFF, AND YOU CAN'T DO IT IN BALES.

SO HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

AND HOW DO YOU CONTROL THE MOISTURE CONDISPENT ALL THOSE THINGS TO MAKE IT AN ECONOMIC CALL AND SUCCESSFUL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE?

AND BEYOND THAT, THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY ON, GOOD USE OF THE WORD, LATELY IS WHAT WE CALL HYBRID ENERGY SYSTEMS.

WE THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THINK OF HOW YOU CAN COMBINE FOSSIL, NUCLR, RENEWABLE SYSTEMS TOLL PRODUCE AN OUTPUT.

THE OUTPUT COULD BE ENERGY, IT COULD BE PRODUCTS, PETRO CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, WHETHER THAT'S DIESEL FUEL OR THE FEED STOCK FOR PLASTICS.

HOW CAN YOU TAKE -- WE'VE ALWAYS KNOWN HOW TO TAKE COAL AND TURN IT INTO LIQUID FUELS.

BUT THE COST, AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT HASN'T BEEN SATISFACTORY.

WELL, WE THINK BY COMBINING ENERGY SYSTEMS, YOU CAN MAKE THOSE PROCESSES MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE, AND WE THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF APPLICATION FOR THE FUTURE.

>> IS THIS THE HYBRID ENERGY ISLAND CONCEPT?

>> YEAH.

YEAH.

A GOOD EXAMPLE IS ONE OF THE ATTRACT OF THE THINGS ABOUT NUCLEAR IN THAT APPLICATION, IS IF YOU CAN FIND A CARBON-FREE SOURCE OF HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN THROUGH THE WONDERS OF CHEMISTRY, YOU CAN TAKE ALMOST ANY CARBON SOURCE, WHETHER IT'S BIOLOGICALLY BASED COAL, AND WHAT DO YOU WANT?

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE WITH THE RIGHT CATALYST AND RIGHT CONDITIONS?

AND TODAY THE WAY WE GET INDUSTRIAL HYDROGEN IS WE USE A PROCESS THAT'S CALLED A STEAM REFORMATION AND NATURAL GAS, SO IT CONSUMES NATURAL GAS.

THE OTHER THING IT DOES IS CREATES CARBON MONOXIDE.

WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY, YOU CAN DISASSOCIATE WATER.

YOU CAN TAKE WATER AND BREAK IT INTO WITH THE HEAT AND ELECTRICITY, YOU CAN BREAK IT INTO HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN, AND NOW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO FEED THESE OTHER CHEMICAL PROCESSES IN A VERY CLEAN AND WE THINK VERY ATTRACTIVE WAY.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE WORK YOU'RE DOING FOR HOMELAND SECURITY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT MOST PEOPLE MIGHT NOT KNOW GOES ON OUT AT THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY.

WHAT CAN YOU TELL US?

>> WE DO A LOT OF WORK ON CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.

IT'S REALLY AS A RESULT OF THE STRUCTURE, THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF THE LAB.

I TELL PEOPLE IF YOU FLY OVER THE LAB, AT 40,000 FEET, IT LOOKS LIKE A SMALL COUNTRY.

900 SQUARE MILES, HAVE YOU THESE INDUSTRIAL CITIES OUT THERE.

WELL, THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS THOSE CITIES, PARTICULARLY THE ELECTRIC KAT CALL DISTRIBUTION, IS A GREAT LABORATORY IN ITSELF.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS OF CONCERN TODAY IS HOW PEOPLE COULD ATTACK WITH CYBERWEAPONS, ATTACK ELECTRIC GRID CONTROLS.

MOST OF THE INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD, NOT JUST IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY, AND THAT'S SUER SYSTEMS, ELECTRICAL SYSMS, FACTORIES, ARE COMPUTER CONTROLLED.

AND THOSE INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS WERE DESIGNED AT A TIME WHEN NOBODY COULD SPELL CYBERSECURITY, LET ALONE -- SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO, HOW COULD SOMEONE WHO MEANS USES ILL DON'T MEAN US WELL, HOW COULD THEY ATTACK ONE OF THESE PIECES OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE?

SO CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PROTECTION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR WORK.

WE ALSO DO A LOT OF VERY QUIET ELECTROMAGNETIC ENVIRONMENT.

DWOA A LOT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TESTING, AND THERE'S SOME CONNECTIONS BETWEEN WIRELESS SYSTEMS AND INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS.

AND SOME VULNERABILITIES AASSOCIATED WITH THOSE.

SO THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF IT IS FOCUSED.

BECAUSE WE MANUFACTURE THE ARMOR FOR THE ARMY AND ARMY TANKS, WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPLOSIVES AND ARMOR EXPERTISE, SO WORK ON DIFFERENT EXPLOSIVE DEVICES AND HOW TO PROTECT FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURES FROM THEM.

WE DO A LOT IN THAT AREA.

>> SO REALLY ABOUT -- WHAT'S THE SPLIT BETWEEN THE MONEY THAT COMES FROM THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY VERSUS OTHER SOURCES OF CONTRACTS?

IS THAT 60/40?

>> THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT.

THAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH.

THERE'S OTHER OFFICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

WE GET SOME MONEY FROM THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR OUR FUSION WORK.

>> RIGHT.

>> WE DO SOME WORK THAT'S RELATIVE FOR THENATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR NOWAK NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

OUR WORK ISN'T WEAPONS RELATED BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE INVOLVES MATERIALS AND PROCESSES THAT ARE RELATED TO OR IN SOME CASES, IN SOME CASES, CAN BE USED FOR A COUNTRY TO MOVE TOWARDS A NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES BUILT.

WE WORK ON WHAT WE CALL NONPROLIFERATION.

HOW CAN WE DESIGN THOSE PROCESSES, MATERIALS SO THAT WE CAN MINIMIZE THE RISK OF PEOPLE MISUSING MATERIALS AROUND THE WORLD?

SO DIFFERENT OFFIS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, SOME PRIVATE SECTOR WORKS AS WELL.

>> AND HAVE YOU OVER A BILLION DOLLARS.

>> A BILLION DOLLARS THIS YEAR.

WE'RE GLAD TO SEE THAT.

WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER THE LABORATORY, THE NEW IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY IN '05, IT WAS A LITTLE OVER A $500 MILLION BUSINESS.

AND IN THIS TIME OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF ECONOMIC STRAIN AND HARDSHIP, IT'S GREAT TO SEE THE BUSINESS CONTINUE TO GROW.

IT'S CLEAR THAT WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT WORK.

IN THE END, THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO.

PERCEIVE THE LONG-TERM NEEDS OF THE COUNTRY, AND GET CAPABILITIES AND THAT MEANS PEOPLE FIRST, ALSO MACHINES AND BUILDINGS, BUT PEOPLE FIRST WHO CAN ONLY -- WHO WORK ON THE REALLY HARD PROBLEMS.

THE REALLY DIFFICULT ONES.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE CAN ADD VALUE.

AND IT'S OBVIOUS THAT WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICES IN TERMS OF THOSE CAPABILITIES.

>> LET'S TALK AB THE PEOPLE WHO WORK OUT OF THE NATIONAL LABORATORY.

THERE ARE ABOUT 4100, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS ABOUT HALF OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE COMING UP ON RETIREMENT AGE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO START DEALING WITH THE TURNOVER, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE STATE OF FUNDING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION?

>> IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE.

I THINK THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO THE ADVANCESMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE U.S.

IS THE HUMAN CAPITAL CHALLENGE, NOT JUST INSTITUTIONS LIKE OURS IN LABORATORIES, BUT IN THE INDUSTRY AS WELL.

IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

WE TAKE OUR SKILL SETS, WHATEVER IT IS, TAKE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT PROVIDE SOME SET OF SKILLS AND LOOK AT THE MOGRAPHICS AND SAY, WHAT ARE OUR CHOICES HERE?

CAN WE KEEP SOME OF THESE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO RETIRE, CAN WE KEEP THEM PART-TIME?

AND HIRE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE AND HAVE THEM TRAIN AND MENTOR SO THAT WE CAN TRANSITION?

BECAUSE EXPERIENCE IS JUST SO IMPORTANT.

AND REDEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT OF TECHNOLOGY.

SO IT DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR SKILL SET.

BUT WE LOOK AT EACH GROUP AND SAY, OK, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

IN SOME CASES WE NEED TO RETAIN THAT CAPABILITY.

CAN WE HIRE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE?

CAN WE BUY IT?

OR DO WE HAVE TO HAVE IT HERE?

OR DO WE NEED TO OWN IT, GROW IT, AND THEN HOW DO WE DO IT?

AND EACH GROUP IS DIFFERENT IN ITS DEMOGRAPHICS.

BUT IT'S A SERIOUS CHALLENGE, AND IT OF COURSE SPURS OUR INTEREST AND OUR ACTIVITIES, IN HIGHER EDUCATION, AND K-12, AND SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, MATH, EDUCATION.

BECAUSE WE NEED THOSE PEOPLE.

THE 61 GOING NEED THOSE PEOPLE.

>> DOES IT CONCERN YOU, THE STATE OF FUNDING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN IDAHO?

>> WELL, I THINK THE SPECIFICS OF THE FUNDING OF HIGHER EDUCATION I THINK UNTIL THE TECHNICAL AREAS AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE KERN A CONCERN TO ME.

AND IT'S -- I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY TO A LARGE EXTENT, WE HAVE THE INDUSTRIAL -- DEINDUSTRIALIZED THE COUNTRY.

SO THERE HASN'T BEEN A DEMAND SIGNAL FOR A LOT OF THESE SKILL SETS, A LOT OF THE HARD-CORE ENGINEERING PHYSICAL SCIENCES SKILL SETS.

THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE.

BUT I THINK IT'S A PRODUCT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAINLY THE ISSUE OF HOW MUCH AND STATE SCHOOLS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATES AND COMMUNITIES CAN AFFORD TO SUPPORT IT.

BUT THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE OF WHAT ARE THE PROGRAMS THAT THOSE SCHOOLS, AND DO THEY SUPPORT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE NECESSARY.

AND I THINK THE REAL ISSUE THERE HAS BEEN THE DEMAND SIGNAL HASN'T BEEN THERE.

WE'RE SEEING THAT CHANGE.

I THINK THE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO THERE WERE IN THE TENSE IN TERMS OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MAJORS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO, AND THE THREE UNIVERSITIES.

NOW I THINK IT'S ABOUT TO 250.

AND THAT'S NOT BECAUSE WE'RE -- THAT'S BECAUSE THEY SEE JOBS.

AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN THE ISSUE.

>> THERE WAS A GROWTH IN THE -- AS THE INDUSTRY BEGAN, AFTER WORLD WAR II, THERE WAS THIS PUSH FOR MORE PEOPLE GOING INTO SCIENCE.

IS THAT WHAT WE NEED?

DO WE NEED A NATIONAL CALL TO ARMS TO GET KIDS TO GET INTO SCIENCE?

>> I THINK SO.

I THINK SCIENCE, ENGINEERING -- >> OR IS IT ECONOMICS, YOU'RE GOING TO GO INTO IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY?

>> IT'S BOTH.

I THINK IT'S ONLY SUSTAINABLE IF THE JOBS ARE THERE.

BUT THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO HAVE INDUSTRIAL-SCALE ACTIVITIES THAT PRODUCE ENERGY, THAT PRODUCE VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS THAT THIS COUNTRY AND THE REST OF THE WORLD WANT TO BUY.

SO -- AND WE NEED TO COMPETE.

IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN DO IT IN ISOLATION FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD.

AND I DON'T THINK WE AMERICANS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF COMPETITION.

BUT IT'S NOT EASY.

THERE ARE A LOT OF COUNTRIES WORKING VERY, VERY HARD, AND PUT A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON EDUCATION, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO SEE THAT, SEE HOW -- WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR ECONOMIC FUTURE, AND FACE UP TO THAT AND TIME'S UP, LET'S GET ON WITH IT.

LET'S GET IT GLOOG LET'S GO BACK TO THE FOINS.

DOUG IN MERIDIAN.

DOUG?

>> Caller: HI, THANKS FOR TAKING MY CALL.

I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.

WHAT PLANS IF ANY DOES THE U.S.

HAVE FOR REPROCESSING USED NUCLEAR FUEL?

BASICALLY MOVE AWAY FROM THE ONCE-THROUGH POLL ANY.

>> THANK YOU, DOUG.

AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN DECISION, PREVIOUSLY THE POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES WAS ONCE-THROUGH FUEL CYCLE, PUT IT IN THE REACTOR, PULL IT OUT AND DISPOSES OSU OF IT UNDERGROWFNLTD ONE OF THE CHOICES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO REPROCESS FRANCE, THE UNITED KINGDOM JARKS PAN, RUSSIA, ALL REPROCESS.

THEY USE VARIANTS ON TECHNOLOGY THAT WERE FIRST DEVELOPED IN THE UNITED STATES, SO WE COULD DO THAT.

WE COULD DO SOME MORE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SAY S. IN A BETTER WAY TO REPROCESS SO THAT YOU GET MORE ENERGY OUT OF THE URANIUM THAT YOU DUG OUT OF THE GROUND, SO WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED, THE MATERIAL THAT YOU HAVE, THAT HAVE YOU NO USE FOR AND HAVE TO DISPOSE OF THAT'S RADIOACTIVE, IS MUCH LE ONEROUS IN TERMS OF HOW LONG IT LASTS, AND HOW RADIOACTIVE IT IS.

AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE ON THAT, BUT PROVING THOSE TECHNOLOGIES AND SCALING THEM UP,-TO-AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE IS NO SMALL CHALLENGE.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION HAS THE CHARTER TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING.

AND IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY AND THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE.

SO REPROCESSING IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE MAY DO.

>> LET'S GO TO GLEN.

GLEN.

>> Caller: YES.

HI.

I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT DID YOU DO FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, IS IT GOING TO BE CLEAN, IS IT GOING TO BE PUT TO GOOD USE, AND AM THAT?

I'M GOING TO GO TO MY T.V.

WHEN I HIT THE MUTE BUT YORNTION I'LL LISTEN TO THE ANSWER.

>> OK.

THANKS.

>> THANKS, GLEN.

I'LL GO BACK TO SOME COMMENT I MADE EARLIER.

I THINK ALL LARGE-SCALE FORMS OF ENERGY GENERATION HAVE COST RISKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

AND I THINK IF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS COMPARED FAIRLY WITH THE OTHER CHOICESES, THEY DO COMPETE WELL.

IT TENDS TO BE COSTLY UP FRONT, THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS VERY BIG.

BUT THE FUEL COSTS ARE RELATIVELY -- RELATIVELY SMALL PART OF THE OPERATION OF THE PLANT AS OPPOSED TO FOSSIL FUELS, AND THEY'RE RELATIVELY STABLE.

>> WHAT'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE AIR QUALITY?

>> WELL, I THINK NUCLEAR ENERGY SHOULD -- NUCLEAR REACTOR AND NUCLEAR ENERGY HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY.

AGAIN, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG ATTRACTORS TODAY.

SO I THINK NUCLEAR ENERGY, AGAIN, CLEAN ALWAYS SOUNDS LIKE GREEN, AND IT ALWAYS IMPLIES THAT SOMEHOW THERE'S FREE LUNCH.

AND WE CAN HAVE A LOT OF ENERGY AND WE CAN'T.

EVEN -- RENEWABLES ARE WONDERFUL.

BUT REIEWABLES ARE DISTRIBUTED AND THEY'RE INTERMITTENT.

AND THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STORE THAT ENERGY?

OR ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITHOUT IT WHEN IT'S NOT AVAILABLE?

SOME LEVEL OF HUMAN ACTIVITY, INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES AND OTHER THINGS, PLUS MANAGING THE INTERMITT ENSI, THE COMPLICATIONS, MEANS WE CAN'T LIVE ON THAT ALONE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED BASE LOAD POWER LIKE NUCLEAR ENERGY, AND I THINK IT COMPETES WELL IN TERMS OF COST, RISKS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

>> LET'S GO TO ROBERT IN BOISE.

ROBERT?

>> Caller: YES.

THIS IS ROBERT IN BOISE, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.

THE INJECTION WELLS THEY USED TO USE IN THE PROCESS OF THE CONTAMINATED WATER, HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE THAT'S BEEN USED AND WHAT ARE THEY USED TO CLEAN THOSE PROCESSES UP?

>> GOSH, I DON'T KNOW.

THERE ARE NO INFECTION WELLS, CERTAINLY NOTHING THAT INJECTS CONTAMINATED WATER.

YOU KNOW, THERE WERE INJAMES CAMERON SHUN WELLS IN THE PAST THAT INJECTED SOLVENTS, A LOT OF THAT WAS HYDROCARBONS, A LOT OF THAT WAS EXTRACTED BY DRILLING DOWN AND PROVIDING VENT PATHS, BECAUSE IT VAPORIZES AND EVAPORATES.

BUT INJECTION WELLS ARE NOT AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF DISPOSAL.

IT BRINGS UP AN IMPORTANT POINT.

WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS OUR PREDECESSORS DID, AND WE SAY, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

WHAT WAS -- WHY DID THEY DO THAT?

AND I'M CONVINCED IN MOST CASES THEY WERE GOOD PEOPLE WHO WERE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

WHO GOT TO REMEMBER, 40, 50 YEARS AGO, NOBODY RECYCLED, THE ANSWER TO POLLUTION WAS DILUTION IN EVERYONE'S MIND, AND IT WAS VERY -- IN MY OPINION THAT WAS SHORT-SIGHTED, AND NOT RESPECTFUL OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

BUT THE INJECTION WELLS, THOSE THAT PRESENT -- HAVE PRESENTED ANY ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD HAVE ALL BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE LAB, AND MITIGATED OR CONTINUE TO BE MITIGATED, AND WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

>> WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE FUTURE OF THE INL IS GOING TO BE?

WHERE ARE WE GOING, AND ARE THERE GOING TO BE JOBS TO GO WITH THEM?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK -- THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY WAS WRITTEN HERE IN IDAHO.

IN THE EARLY DAYS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.

AND I THINK WE'RE POISED FOR THAT TO BE THE CASE AGAIN.

I THINK IT'S A VERY EXCITING TIME.

I THINK IT'S EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT, I THINK IDAHO IS THE LEADER OF THIS -- IN THIS AREA OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGY THAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

NOT ONLY TO OUR COUNTRY, BUT MANKIND IN & ITS FUTURE.

SO I HOPE ALL IDAHOANS ARE PROUD OF THAT, AND I HOPE THEY COME OUT AND LOOK AT WHAT'S COME HAPPENING ON THAT 890 SQUARE MILE SITE, BECAUSE IT CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AND CHANGE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE FUTURE.

IT'S AN EXCITING PLACE TO BE.

>> DIRECTOR, APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

>> MY PLEASURE.

>> IF YOU'RE ON OUR PHONES, WE'LL TRY TO CATCH ON YOU THE FLIP SIDE WHEN WE GO TO OUR WEB EXTRA.

WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME.

THANK YOU AGAIN, MR.

GROSSENBACHER.

I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE INL, GO TO THE "DIALOGUE" WEBSITE, YOU'LL FIND MORE INFORMATION, LINKS, AND OUR WEB-ONLY CONVERSATION.

GO TO IDAHOPTV.ORG AND CLICK ON "DIALOGUE."

YOU'LL ALSO FIND US ON FACEBOOK, SEARCH AT "DIALOGUE" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION AND BECOME A FAN.

YOU CAN LOOK FOR OUR SHOWS ON YOUTUBE AND OUR WEBSITE.

THANKS FOR TUNING IN.

JOIN US NEXT TIME FOR "DIALOGUE."

Captioning performed by LNS Captioning www.LNScaptioning.com