Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

This week, we're joined by Idaho National Laboratory Director John Wagner to discuss energy policy and the lab's efforts to reduce its carbon emissions in a web exclusive episode.

Hello and welcome to this Web exclusive episode of Idaho Reports.

I'm Logan Finney.

We're joined by Idaho National Lab Director John Wagner to walk through the lab's goals for net zero carbon emissions, energy policy and issues on cybersecurity in Idaho.

Director Wagner, thank you for joining us.

Thank you for having me.

So for our listeners and our viewers who aren't as familiar with the Idaho National Lab, can you lay out for me generally what the lab does and what your mission is?

Absolutely.

Be a pleasure to It's my favorite topic, favorite subject to talk about.

So, first of all, we're a Department of Energy laboratory there.

17 different Department of Energy Laboratories.

We're the one focused primary mission is nuclear energy, research, development and demonstration.

Our vision at our laboratory is to change the world's energy future and secure our critical infrastructure.

And so on the energy part of that, this clean energy foundation with nuclear, but also how nuclear fits with other energy sources.

Then on the critical infrastructure we focus, we have a lot of expertise in both cyber and physical security for the critical infrastructure and the what is now the Idaho National Laboratory was established in 1949 as a national reactor testing station.

So we have a rich heritage that maybe we can talk about with respect to nuclear energy.

We currently employ about 5400 people at the laboratory.

And INL has a net zero carbon emissions plan for 2031.

What does that mean?

So it literally means that we intend to take our carbon emissions to net zero.

So not zero but a net zero.

So it means we have to compensate for those things that we cannot, that we are unable to completely eliminate.

So we are a big site, so we are probably the arguably the most complicated Department of Energy site in the complex certainly the largest by landmass of the of the Department of Energy sites where 890 square miles.

And at the same time, as I mentioned, our mission is about clean energy and security for energy infrastructure.

So what we do is is completely aligned with what cities, counties, companies, even countries are trying to do to do deep decarbonization.

So it really comes down to aligning our mission with our own operations.

And we can talk in details, if you like, about where our emissions and what are we trying to do about them.

Yeah.

Let's talk about some of those details.

What steps are going to be necessary to get to net zero carbon?

So, of course, the first step is to understand where your emissions coming from.

And so the EPA bends things up and what they call scope one, two and three.

That's probably jargon for most of your viewers.

So let me just spell it out a little bit more clear.

Scope one is things that we directly emit.

So for us and of course, the first step is just to understand what they are and then develop plans on what to do about them.

So primarily the direct emissions that we have from our site are from our electric, not our electric vehicles, what we hope to be electric vehicles, but from our vehicle fleet, from our transportation, from our landfill.

I will tell you, before I became a lab director, I didn't even realize we had a landfill on the site.

And then third from other various things like boilers, chillers, diesel generators and so forth.

The other big second big piece, what they call scope two, is emissions because of our own, because of our operations.

So that's primarily electricity usage and losses and transmission related to our electricity use.

And that's not carbon emissions.

On the actual INL site.

It's from wherever you're getting your power from.

Correct the scope.

One is direct emissions from our site.

The others from from things that as a result of us.

And that, again, it's primarily our electricity usage.

I will say fortunately about 75% of our electricity usage that we purchase is clean to start with.

So so that's a big that's a big advantage for us to start from.

And then last but not least is probably the hardest thing to decarbonize.

And that's all the emissions as a result of our operations, but that we don't control And so you can say, for example, we control how much electricity we use.

We could stop using electricity, which isn't really realistic and take that off.

But the third piece is for example, as I flew over here earlier today from Idaho Falls, there's emissions as a result of my transportation.

Those are emissions as a result of our employees commuting to work, things like that.

And so what is INL going to do to offset those things that you can't get rid of?

And then what are you doing to get rid of those things you can't control?

So we're really quite focused initially on eliminating our emissions.

And so that means first things like characterizing them and an even greater detail to understand what is the right approach to to eliminate them.

We have 605 vehicles, so I mentioned we have 890 square miles.

We have a big site.

So we have a bus fleet that transports our folks from where they live, like in Idaho Falls, and Pocatello, to to the actual site facilities.

We have 79 busses, so we want to take those to either EV or either electric or hydrogen based.

And then we have a lot of other light duty and heavy duty vehicles that we need to electrify or find some other non emitting path for.

So that's a, that's a big piece, a big focus.

We're characterizing the emissions off of our landfill currently to try to understand what is the best approach then to deal with those emissions.

And then there's a lot of focus because it is our biggest source of emissions on transitioning the remainder of our electricity usage to non-carbon emitting electricity.

Then in terms of offsetting, there are things like employee commuting that we can't drive completely to zero.

So we have to look at techniques related to like carbon capture and sequestration that frankly will be a little bit further down the road.

Sure.

And none of this is going to be cheap it's going to require a significant investment.

Where's that money coming from?

Correct.

And well, it's a mix.

But you're absolutely right.

None of these things are cheap.

So some of it is very aligned with our mission, and we can take advantage of procurement that we would do anyway.

We do that procurement a little bit different way.

So, for example, the vehicle fleet is probably the easiest one to think about those vehicles are going to age out.

They're going to need to be replaced.

And we make sure that we replace them with not emitting cars or trucks or or busses.

Some of that easy you say, okay, this is vehicles finished, this end of life, we replace it with an EV.

Some of it's harder like like the busses.

You can't currently just buy a not emitting bus that can operate on our site in the conditions that.

So we have to work with developers to make that available so that when we get around to buying it and say 2024 that that actual product is there and developed and can meet our needs.

So some of it's just aligning and using a procurement that we already do and maybe at a small premium and in some cases actually might save us some money.

It varies a little bit depending on what we're talking about.

The other big thing is when we look at our electricity usage we're very interested in nuclear with the nuclear laboratory and so we're talking to different nuclear vendors, not only about R&D on their concepts, but how some of those concepts can be demonstrated on our site.

And we may be able to use the energy from them.

And of course, we may talk more in more detail, but currently UAMP so Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems is working with a company called New Scale on something they call the Carbon-Free Power Project, which would be a small modular reactor sited on our site.

Now, that won't be operational until 2029, but that that represents a really important opportunity for perhaps that we get the electricity from that small modular reactor.

Sure.

As the nuclear facility having these proof of concept projects that as an ancillary you get energy from.

Correct.

And you referenced earlier on that the national labs are Department of Energy sites.

And I'm curious, is this clean energy push something that is a directive from the Biden administration or is this independent at your facility?

So, yes, the Department of Energy has as 17 different laboratories.

As I mentioned, some of ten of them are basic science laboratories they do all kinds of fundamental science.

We're just for a context where one of the applied energy laboratories and we're the one focus on nuclear.

The other two are Enril down in Colorado they focus on renewable energy and then NATL that has multiple sites on the country.

And they've been typically focused more on carbon based energy systems, coal and natural gas and carbon management.

So for us, we've always been nuclear and nuclear is not carbon emitting nuclear as clean energy.

And so it's a very direct line.

When the administration says they want to do deep decarbonization.

We kind of say, yeah, that that's the energy source that we work on.

Something I haven't talked as much about is when we as part of our nuclear R&D portfolio, we recognize that there's going to be, It's not going to all, be nuclear.

We're going to need intermittent renewable sources, wind and solar.

You know, I'm sure you see wind turbines when you drive to work.

So how does nuclear fit with these other energy sources?

That's something that we've been working on for years already.

So that, frankly, it just fits.

All right.

Let's turn our attention a little bit toward employment at the lab.

We've been hearing all over the place in the news about workforce shortages and both in the private sector and in government jobs.

And the type of work that you do at INL is very specialized, working on nuclear power, working on cybersecurity.

How is recruitment and retention going at the lab with your employees?

So it's going well.

But first, let me say we're hiring.

So if any of your your listeners are interested please reach out.

We're definitely hiring all the time.

So we are in constant efforts to hire.

And it's going well.

But but we don't take that for granted.

There is just so much competition for the talents that we're looking for.

Those are competition with private companies that we, you know, we partner with.

But also they value the capabilities of our people.

And so we compete with them.

They you know, they recruit our people away and for good reasons.

And I understand that.

And then we also work with the local universities, actually nationwide.

We look work with universities, community colleges and even high schools to try to develop more people because in this clean energy space and in this cybersecurity, cyber physical security space, we frankly don't have enough qualified people for all the work that we have in front of us as a nation.

And so we're just constantly working that.

I am happy to say, is a lab of it's currently about 5400 employees.

We've hired 600 people, just this fiscal year or so since last October.

So we're doing well.

But, but it's a, you know, we're putting a lot of effort into it as well.

And of those 5400 employees just briefly, did you lose very many people in response to the vaccine mandates that came from the Biden administration?

So we didn't lose that many.

But you know, I didn't want to lose any you know, just to be clear, I was disappointed that we would lose anyone as a result of it.

We don't know exactly how many people that we lost related to the vaccine requirement because people leave for different reasons and they don't always tell you why.

We estimate that we lost under 100 and it was probably quite a bit less than 100.

So we managed through that.

But I will say that it's not my goal to lose anybody for those kinds of reasons.

Let's talk now about cybersecurity.

The public universities have recently started a cybersecurity program.

You know, in the day to day, as I'm pallin around the statehouse, we hear from lawmakers and from the governor's office that INL is a partner in cybersecurity work that is happening at the state level.

What is the INL's motivation for working on cybersecurity?

So our motivation really starts with our sponsors.

We are a Department of Energy and federal laboratory, and so that's where it's started.

But then, of course, the threats the nation are incredible.

The threats to companies, states, every everybody.

It's a constant thing.

I'm actually very pleased to say that the capability that we have at the laboratory that's been developed, particularly over the last several years to a decade, is world recognized.

And our focus areas, control system, cyber.

So over time, control systems are in everything that we do and particularly in our energy infrastructure.

And they represent vulnerabilities.

And so that's where our people focus.

And and our folks are our folks, our staff, they support not only the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, and multiple other federal agencies where threats, both that they're experiencing in federal agencies and in private companies, domestically, but also to some of our allied partners that are also experiencing these these threats on their on their critical infrastructure.

And for a layperson and for myself, can you explain in a little more detail what those controls and systems are?

So think about well, let me let me try to make sure I don't get into jargon like relays and things like that.

But but think maybe I'll try to try to use this example.

It's not really an energy infrastructure control system, but think about an autonomous vehicle.

All right.

There are a lot of different systems in that vehicle that are controlling.

So control system where that vehicle's going.

Now, we do research in this space as well.

Now, think about your driving down the highway.

Maybe you're out out on on the highway and you're doing 80 miles an hour.

Somebody takes control of your vehicle and it's communicating.

And so there are there are different vectors, different pathways, sorry to use those words on which people can enter into these control systems and take control of that and do something malicious with it.

These attacks could happen on a car.

I use that because that's, I think, something that people can relate to even more concerning what they find, nothing more concerning.

If you're driving that vehicle than that.

But also in a broader sense, I think about a water treatment facility that is actively has systems that are adjusting the water quality, adjusting the chemistry of water that might go to your drinking water, or think about a control system that is adjusting electricity to different places that could cut it off or even surge it in different ways that could be destructive.

So there are just so many of these you forget, for lack of using jargon, parts of these control system that are accessible to whether that's a wireless connection or a direct connection line that people can potentially get into and and then control those systems for nefarious purposes.

And who generally are these malicious actors?

Where are these threats coming from?

You know, they can come from anywhere.

You know, oftentimes we talk about um, non allied countries that, uh, that, that may be responsible for certain things.

I won't get into any of those details, but frankly, they could come from, from any of those where they can come from.

It may sound silly, but somebody in their basement that, uh, that has a, has skills and it has understanding about some control systems have more vulnerabilities than others.

A big part of what our folks do is look at how to design new control systems that don't have vulnerabilities or if they have vulnerabilities and things that are of most consequence are protected.

Something that we call consequence driven cyber informed engineering for systems that are already deployed.

You know, that's not an option you have to think about how to protect and maybe replace those systems, understand what their vulnerabilities are, and in some cases, replace them.

All right.

And let's talk about the energy conversation.

It's the nuclear laboratory.

What do you and your staff see as the future of nuclear energy in the United States?

So you are talking to a nuclear engineer who leads a nuclear laboratory.

But even even with that qualifier, I'd say there is absolutely no way that we can achieve the deep decarbonization targets that people are talking about without a significant expansion of nuclear energy.

So things that we focus on first and foremost, is keeping our current 93 reactors operating in this country.

They represent more than half of our non-carbon emitting electricity, currently more than wind, solar, hydro, all the other things combined So we do research to help make sure that they are they continue to operate.

At the end of the day, it's a financial decision.

So a part of that is trying to look at new technologies and integration of new technologies to reduce the cost of their current operations.

And then we see a significant need for grow out of additional nuclear energy.

So that's where we focus more on what we call the advanced reactors, the reactors that the nuclear power systems that come next.

Happy to talk more about those if you're interested.

Yeah, let's dive into it.

Okay.

So love to.

Thank you.

So one of the things for for context.

So on the on the desert site the 890 square miles back in the fifties and sixties, nuclear energy was born.

So one of the things I hope that the people in Idaho know and understand and are proud of is that nuclear deployed around all around the world now can trace its origins to the technologies that were developed and demonstrated on this site back in the fifties and sixties.

A really an amazing time in terms of innovation and what what that has resulted in.

Now, whether you look at it in terms of power or or $600 billion annually to our gross domestic product.

However you kind of look at its major major impact to not just the nation but the world.

But we went through a period of time where we built on all of those reactors and we didn't really need to anymore.

We sort of stopped, in fact.

Some of your listeners may know that in 1994 the the site actually transitioned away from nuclear R&D and became a cleanup site in 2005 is when the Idaho National Laboratory was established in its current form.

And given the mantle if you will, of being the premier laboratory for nuclear energy research and development.

So that was the government federal government in 2005 saying no, no, we need a nuclear energy laboratory And so in a sense since then we've been building up the capabilities to support what is now happening and that is advanced reactor development, demonstration and deployment.

So we went from the last time we started up a new reactor on our site was the early seventies.

We're preparing to start up our very first very small nuclear system next calendar year.

We call that Project Marvel.

It'll only be 100 kilowatt system, but it will reestablish our kind of learnings on how to do this again.

And then also be an R&D platform for for what comes next.

And then after that, we've got a cadence of additional reactor.

So our strategy is we'll start small, kind of learn how to do it again.

And build up in size and complexity.

I'll tell you, one thing I find really interesting is the Department of Defense has a reactor project called Project Paley for a mobile nuclear power plant that'll be one to three megawatts, and that'll be demonstrated on our site in 2024.

And there's a whole timeline of additional projects.

So what I'd like your listeners to understand is, yes, we didn't do anything advanced nuclear for quite a long time, other than do it on the computers.

Now we're back and moving forward with building reactors and operating reactors again, including up to in this decade.

If you just look at it in this decade, the small modular reactor, which is the Carbon-Free Power Project that I mentioned, where their intention is to have first commercial module operation in the summer of 2029.

So really bright future for advanced reactors and it's really happening right here in Idaho.

Sure.

Could you tell me a little more about the the small modular and the micro reactors?

How are those different or similar to the reactors that were built decades ago?

So the interesting thing is they're they're different and they're similar.

So when you look back in the fifties and sixties, they demonstrated a lot of different reactor technologies.

And so while the reactors that I'm talking about now, we call them advanced reactors, they're based technologies were demonstrated back in the fifties and sixties.

Of course, we've learned a lot through computer modeling, through materials and fuels development and so forth.

So we're not doing the same.

There's a lot of innovations that have happened that will make them either safer or more cost effective.

A lot of different performance aspects.

So so to try to maybe make this as simple as I can.

The reactors operating around the world, including in the US, are predominantly what we call light water reactors.

So they have light water as a key coolant and moderator in their system.

Some of the reactors we're looking forward are variations of that, including the new scale reactors, which would is the Carbon-Free Power Project I referred to earlier.

That's an advance on a light water reactor in the advancements around smaller and modularity to reduce cost and kind of improve flexibility.

Then there's other reactors like these micro reactors that I mentioned are fundamentally different.

What is fundamentally different mean?

It means they're not using light water.

They're using some other kind of system as a coolant and moderator for the systems or and then really kind of advanced.

But again still are sort of back in the sixties a molten salt reactor where you literally have the fuel in a liquid form.

So that's quite a bit different right now.

So just to be clear, the light water reactors today, it's solid fuel, uranium oxide fuel, and you have water passing by that for coolant.

Okay.

And there is a complex conversation about energy happening worldwide, not just about carbon and the environment, but there's also complex geopolitical situations that are driving up gas prices, among other things.

Where does INL fit into that more contemporary conversation?

So you're absolutely right.

It's really interesting.

Particularly, it's it's while it's incredibly sad to see what the Russian's unprovoked attack on the Ukrainians which I won't go into, but it it's it's really caused everybody to rethink energy dependance and energy security.

A large number of European countries have been reliant and are continuing to be reliant on natural gas coming out of Russia.

So you can imagine that that's motivated their conversations with the US, U.S. companies and even our that even our laboratory, including myself and to in terms of the opportunities with a fairly strong focus on small modular reactors, but not just small modular reactors to address their energy needs going forward to to establish greater energy independence for their countries.

I'll note, I was just in Romania two weeks ago with a delegation from the Department of Energy talking to them about a small modular reactor project for Romania.

And then here in the Northwest, we're having a bit of a discussion about hydropower.

And there's you know, it's a conversation that's been happening for a long time about breaching the Snake River dams.

I'm not going to ask you personally whether you think those dams should be breached, but is INL having a conversation with congressional delegation, other stakeholders about the role that those dams play in our power system and what INL could do to offset those if the dams were to be replaced.

So first of all, INL is not a power provider just just to be clear, we develop the technologies, work with with with companies and federal agencies to demonstrate the technologies that they would be privately deployed.

So absolutely, But the short answer is absolutely.

And it's really kind of an interesting regional thing in nuclear right now.

And so I've been focused so far in my remarks on what's happening on the site in Idaho.

But I'll also note the Department of Energy has something they call the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Project.

And out of that project, they're funding a lot of different activities, but two major reactor demonstration projects.

And it just so happens the sites that are selected for those are also out here in this in this region.

And so one of those is a company called XEnergy.

It's a high temperature gas reactor concept.

And the current site that they're working for is is in Washington State at the Energy Northwest site there.

And so, you know, regionally, quite, quite, quite close, if you can, in the West And then the other project of the two demos is the TerraPower Natrium reactor.

And it's intended to be sited in Kemmerer, Wyoming, It's particularly interesting because they're looking to site it on what is now a coal site.

So as they expire, their coal plants or or, you know, stop operating their coal sites, they want to demonstrate that they can replace that power with a nuclear reactor and use the infrastructure and to the extent possible, the the the work force that's in that area to, you know, to continue to prosper and have energy.

But now from nuclear energy.

And so all of these projects will show a path forward on whether or not, you know, small modular actors look like a great or not a great know.

I'm betting on the great opportunity for replacing power from whether that's a coal site, whether that's a nuclear site that that's you know, that was shut down for whatever reason or protect or potentially for hydro replacement.

And nuclear energy is it's very promising but there are also concerns that come along with it, both with waste or people may think of accidents like Chernobyl or Three Mile.

What do you and your people at Idaho National Laboratory do to provide good information and sell the idea of nuclear energy to a public that may be skeptical about it?

So first.

Yes.

So let me answer that.

But I'll say it's not just promising.

I mean, more than half of our our non-carbon emitting electricity in the US right now is coming from nuclear power.

So think about if that went away so so to about 20% of our total electricity.

So, you know, you can think about one in every five homes in in the US is powered by nuclear energy.

And so what we're talking about is preserving that and growing that out even further.

Interestingly enough, you know I've been in the nuclear energy business for quite a while and really particularly in the last few years watching support grow for nuclear energy for a variety of reasons, a lot related to clean the fact that it is a non-carbon emitting source.

So we're seeing a lot greater acceptance from people who are very environmentally minded as well as the 24/7 nature of it or the continual nature of it.

They can balance out when the wind is blowing and when the sun isn't shining, for example.

So we are actually fortunate that we're seeing greater public interest, an exception or not exception, but interested in nuclear energy.

In fact, polls typically have shown about 60% favorable towards nuclear energy.

Recent polls have that number as high as 80%.

So that's promising to see.

Now what role do we play?

We provide unbiased credible technical information.

What does the safety really look like when people worry about some of the past accidents, whether that was Three Mile Island, Fukushima or Chernobyl?

Three of the probably most famous well known nuclear power incidents.

You know, what happened?

And what are we doing differently today relative to what happened at that point?

Just for so your listeners know in case they don't.

No one was harmed in Fukushima or Three Mile Island as a result of radiation.

That is not the case for Chernobyl.

and a key point, there's a lot of details and jargon I could get into, but a key point is that that Russian reactor, besides having very different design characteristics and functions than anything the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would license in the United States, it also did not have any kind of containment structure.

So when they had a situation, there was nothing to contain it.

And and I can promise you, are U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission would never approve anything like that, and nor would we advocate for anything like that.

So very, very different.

I know some may be skeptical of, you know.

Yeah, that's all.

But it's very, very different.

So what we do is we try one of the things we do is try to help people understand how is it different?

What are we talking about and what are the facts.

And what do we do with spent fuel with the nuclear waste once it comes out of a power plant.

So right now what we do is we store it very safely and very securely.

No, that's not a long term solution.

But but really quickly, we store it in big big pools of water.

Think about, you know, really, really big swimming pools.

When it first comes out of the reactor, it cools over a period of time, typically on the order of five years.

The water both provides a cooling purpose, but it also provides a radiation shielding purpose.

Then once it's reached a certain cooling temperature or cooling time, we can put it into dry storage.

So these are big cylindrical canisters that the fuel just sits in there safely and securely.

A very, very robust in fact, Early in my career, I designed such a system, so I know a lot about them.

But that's not a long term solution.

The longer term solution, we need to either have a geological repository you may be familiar with, there was a site called Yucca Mountain that was being looked at for for ultimate geologic disposal.

So you're talking about very, very long, essentially infinite separation from human beings.

Another possibility which would go along with geologic disposal is to recycle some of the usable material.

We do not currently do that in this country, but we'll see whether or not we we end up doing that in the future.

But I should have said the short answer is we do need deep geologic disposal for the material.

All right.

We will have our eyes on the Idaho National Laboratory, especially as those reactors come online in the upcoming years.

Director John Wagner, thanks so much for joining us today.

Thank you for having me.

Idaho Reports is back on the air in October.

But until then, you can catch us on the weekly podcast and in print on our blog, you'll find it all at IdahoPTV.org/IdahoReports Thanks for watching.

Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation committed to fulfilling the Moore and Betty's family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting