Madison Czerwinski is the founder and executive director of the Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal, which aims to “articulate a new vision for nuclear growth.” Madison explains why she attended the “funeral” for the Indian Point nuclear plant on April 30, why the closure is “unconscionable,” and why she is so angry that the United States built a “wonderful, world-class nuclear fleet that we are absolutely squandering for no good reason.”
Robert Bryce 0:04
Hi, and welcome to the power hungry podcast. I’m Robert Bryce. I’m the host of this podcast we talk about energy, power, innovation and politics. And we’re continuing Indian Point blackout week to mark the closure of the premature drastically premature closure of the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, New York, and I’m happy to welcome Madeline, I’m sorry, I’m happy to welcome Madison ger winsky. She is the executive director of the campaign for a green nuclear deal. Madison, welcome to the power hungry podcast.
Madi Czerwinski 0:37
Thanks, Robert. Thanks for having me. I know we’ve been talking about doing this for a while. So it’s good to finally chat.
Robert Bryce 0:43
So Madison, I didn’t warn you. But I asked all my guests to introduce themselves. So if you don’t mind, I gave your title. But if you just arrived at event, and you don’t know anyone, their dinner party, say and you have 30 or 45 seconds, say Introduce yourself, go? Sure. So
Madi Czerwinski 0:58
in 2017, I started my career as a pro nuclear environmentalist and advocate going around the world talking to journalists and policymakers about the need for nuclear, or both lifting people out of poverty and environmental protection. And then last year, when I was sitting around at the beginning of the Coronavirus, you know, I sort of realized that this was a crisis that required society scale action. And suddenly, a new economic strategy of reindustrialization around nuclear and manufacturing is very possible. So I decided to launch the campaign for a green nuclear deal, which is a nationwide advocacy effort to articulate a new vision for made an American nuclear to deliver clean electricity, good, high paying jobs and rebuild American manufacturing.
Robert Bryce 2:03
That’s a good pitch. Thank you. So and people interested in the campaign for a green nuclear deal? gmD campaign.org. I’m assuming now, we didn’t talk about your call to action, but I’m assuming that’s what you want people to do. Okay. So we have that out of the way. I’m going to start with the key question here. Why would why was Indian Point closed? Why did it close last Friday?
Madi Czerwinski 2:27
There are only two reasons why Indian Point nuclear power plant would be closed, given the situation. And its money and its politics. This was and let me be clear, when I say money, I’m not meaning economics. Indian Point was a profitable plant. So any concerns about environmental protection, public safety, were just complete lies. This was a purely political closure at the state level.
Robert Bryce 2:59
So I want to touch on that because when I spoke with Mayor Knickerbocker, she said that this was the the, in her view that one of the main reasons this plant was closed, it was because the anti nuclear groups, what did she say? stoke the fear that the plant was gonna blow up and kill all of us. I’m pretty I’m paraphrasing what she said, but only slightly. So you’re saying the same that the plant was closed by so called Green groups, I’m putting those in quotes now because I don’t believe they’re environmental groups. You’re saying that those groups premise that they? Well, what was that role and who who is responsible? I remember Jessica Mitford said may not be able to change the world, but you can at least embarrass the guilty who are the guilty?
Madi Czerwinski 3:40
Sure. I mean, yeah, Mayor Knickerbocker is absolutely right. It was green groups, including the NRDC, Sierra Club, most notably river keeper. But beyond that, it’s important to call out the elected officials and the public servants who purposely misled the public about public safety concerns and environmental harm. I think they should be held to an even higher standard. So, you know, frankly, I think what Governor Cuomo did to sell Indian Point down the river is an abuse of his office and frankly, a squandering of the public wealth that the state of New York had
Robert Bryce 4:27
sold Indian Point down the river. I hadn’t put it that way, but after being
Madi Czerwinski 4:31
away an estuary
Robert Bryce 4:34
Well, so what was the motivation? I mean, you know, I understand what Cuomo was, in fact, he it to the end, he said, Oh, well, this point, this point would be close, but it was so close to the biggest, you know, most densely populated city in the world, which wasn’t true, right. He was quoted saying that that’s not true. There are a lot of other locations in the world that are more densely populated, but past the point of believing much of what the governor says particularly in the wake of the Coronavirus, but what’s the I understood from your your speech on Friday in Buchanan at the what Mark Nelson called the funeral for Indian point that you use the word corruption. Is that true?
Madi Czerwinski 5:13
I mean, yeah, I don’t want to try to speculate beyond what I know about the reasons I was just looking at the facts like, it wasn’t a surprise that Indian Point, if it were close would be replaced by natural gas. That’s true. It wasn’t just
Robert Bryce 5:34
interruptive I made because Riverkeeper said over and over, oh, no, this plant won’t be replaced by natural gas. No, no, no, we’re gonna replace it with renewables and efficiency. And on their letter to the editor in the New York Times, April 13. Paul gelei from Riverkeeper and Kitt Kennedy from the NRDC said, Oh, well, the the output of Indian point’s already been replaced by efficiency and renewables and we really don’t need it. What did you
Madi Czerwinski 5:58
know, I mean, that’s just a blatant lie. Like we’ve seen natural gas, combustion rise and emissions go up with the shattering of Indian Point too. So, again, at worst, it’s an outright lie. at best. They’re doing some sort of nifty accounting trick to try to mislead the public. But I mean, I don’t know maybe it’s that comos dad who famously got a nuclear plant canceled in New York, He had some sort of needing to be better than his dad and wanted to kill two reactors. I’m not really sure. At best, he was complicit at worst, it was corruption. And I’m not sure what else to say about it. There. There is no reason technical, economical or otherwise, that this plant shouldn’t have gone on to operate for at least 40 more years.
Robert Bryce 6:58
Well, so let’s talk about that. Because that was one of the issues that I’ve heard over and over Oh, well, these plants, they’re, you know, they exceed or they get old, they have to retire. But when I was touring the plant with the Entergy team, including Brian Van Gore, and Jerry nappy, Brian told me he said he was amazed and he worked there for a very long time, 40 years or more, that how well designed the plant was and that there they had recently got an extra license extension. So it’s Can you expand on that, because that idea of the plant being able to continue to produce electricity, and also it being such a critical port, part of the electricity mix for New York City? Those are the parts to me that again, if you just say, Well, I don’t care about climate change, I don’t care about land use. Well, what about resiliency and the surest, reliable electricity for New York City? How can you address that? How do you think about that those issues,
Madi Czerwinski 7:51
right. I mean, there are nuclear plants around the country, and even around the world of similar vintage and design an age that are seeing their licenses extended to 80 years and beyond. Now, the NRC is looking at possibly life extensions out to 120 years, with 40 year life extension intervals. Clearly, these reactors are aging extremely well. And with proper maintenance and part replacement. I don’t know that we know that there’s a technical limitation to how long these plants can operate, or if there is some sort of end date for our large light water reactors. So anyone saying that this plant was just old and it needed to go is just completely a historical and counter to what we’re seeing at our nuclear plants around the country?
Robert Bryce 8:46
Well, so then we’ll then So what was the payoff? I mean, what are these groups get for closing this plant? What’s the payoff? That’s the part that I don’t quite understand. What’s the is it just about being? Well, okay, let’s, let’s talk about the tweet that Natural Resources Defense Council put out last Friday on April the afternoon of April 30. When that when the plant was beginning to be shut down. They essentially were gloating. And I you know, I’ve been writing about politics and the environment for a long time. And I read that and I was just gobsmacked by the arrogance of it. I mean, and I’m being you know, I want to hear your views. And I’m not here to confess everything about what I see. But what how did you read that?
Madi Czerwinski 9:30
I mean, trying hard to maintain my composure right now, but it was not something easy to see, especially after such a devastating day hearing, you know, Union reps and community members talk about their grief and losing this plant and their fear for their future and then to see an environmental group that has a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. that claims to care about decarbonisation and climate change, gloating that they were able to shorten the life of this nuclear plant drastically downstate New York’s largest source of carbon free electricity. It’s just absolutely unconscionable. And, and and it’s not just New York, right? I mean, they were responsible in part for the closure. Well, this pending closure of Diablo canyon in 2025. They’re active right now in my State of Illinois, trying to see through the closure of Byron and Dresden by the end of the year. So, again, I hate to speculate, but whatever the intention behind this is, it’s certainly not decarbonisation. It’s certainly not environmental protection. And it’s not a concern for human welfare. So I’m not sure
Robert Bryce 11:05
if that’s a really good point, whatever the point of it is, it’s saying that against not decarbonisation, it’s not it’s not environmental protection. It’s not a caring for human human needs. It’s just a power play just in rank politics. That’s what I’m trying to understand here.
Madi Czerwinski 11:22
Yeah, I, I think about it a lot, because I, I’m extremely frustrated. And I want to know what it is part of me thinks that is it, you know, this sort of Cold War era, anti nuclear ism, that’s just really baked in. And there just hasn’t been a critical reevaluation of those positions. Is it more of a 50 years, they
Robert Bryce 11:45
haven’t given it a refund?
Madi Czerwinski 11:47
That’s, that’s generous. I know. I’m trying I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, though, that it’s very hard in this situation. I
Robert Bryce 11:54
will, okay. 3030 years, okay. Since the Berlin Wall failed, what was it? 91? So, okay, only 30 years. So if you give them the benefit of the doubt, okay, so maybe they got other things to do.
Madi Czerwinski 12:05
Right. That’s, that’s charitable. Another thing that I worry is that there’s this sort of pervasive idea of de growth in the environmental movement, that humans are really bad for nature. And that in order to protect nature, we need to do with less, use less, and in general, like have less humans, which is just a not true based on the data we’re seeing from, you know, countries that are able to economically develop and decouple their emissions from that development. But also, it’s just like really under estimating the ability of humans to rise to the occasion and like, tackle problems, while also like delivering prosperity. It’s it’s this idea, like this artificial ecological restraint, that really concerns me, and I think that’s still pretty prevalent and environmental groups and on the left in general.
Robert Bryce 13:12
Yeah, I tend to agree that this D growth idea that Oh, that we have too many, we need fewer people, we were you were eating, we’re eating too much. We’re driving too much. We need to, you know, sit more in our loincloths and consider ourselves and think, no, I mean, that’s the essence of it. Well, no, you’re watching too much television, are you using too much electricity? And my response is, no, I’m using just the right amount of energy, all the rest of you all, you all are using too much. I’m just using the right amount. So leave me alone with your D growth. But that’s what I’ve seen from, frankly, from Bill McKibben from, you know, some of the leading environmentalists in America, this idea that, oh, we have to live simpler lives. And that that’s so it, is that one of your your your beliefs at this point that that’s what’s driving some of this, because you’re talking about some of the biggest and most the biggest and wealthiest and green groups in the United States with this kind of agenda. That’s a it’s a, it’s almost hard to fathom that. But that’s Is that what you’re thinking your contention?
Madi Czerwinski 14:15
I mean, I think that’s certainly part of that. I don’t want to generalize and say everyone, like participator thinks this way, but I definitely think that’s part of or still remains in the environmental movement, even to this day. And, you know, is
Robert Bryce 14:33
it pertains to nuclear?
Madi Czerwinski 14:35
Oh, absolutely. And, and I mean, you can see it in the environmental groups who work to prevent the construction of nuclear power plants in the developing world where electricity access is still
Robert Bryce 14:51
Madi Czerwinski 14:52
very low. There’s little economic growth, and they’re very happy to say no No, not nuclear will in renewable solar panels. Right. And I just, and that worries me, I think in the US we have, we’re very wealthy, we have a good chunk of margin for error. Clearly, the stakes are very high. I mean, Texas 200. Dad $200 billion, not acceptable. But when you’re talking about develop the developing world, these groups are resigning people to poverty. I can’t read it as anything other than that. So it really is, let
Robert Bryce 15:37
me interrupt you, if you don’t mind. And this isn’t one of the questions I’ve written down here. But I’m guessing you’re in your 20s or 30s. And you’re in your, and you’re really passionate about this. Why do you care so much? I mean, because I can hear it in your voice, and I care. But what’s the What drives you on this? I mean, because you, you, you, you live in Chicago, right. And you went all the way to Buchanan, New York on the last day of the plant operation? It’s not a small trip. It’s not an easy, it’s not, you know, certainly not free. Why did you go and why do you care about this so much? Why to start this campaign for the green nuclear deal?
Madi Czerwinski 16:17
Well, yeah, that’s a great question. I got started with nuclear when I was in college, and I just had this sort of I was born, I knew I wanted to make as big of a material impact for good as possible when I went out into the world. And I wasn’t sure if that was going to be through tackling climate change issues, or working to alleviate poverty across the world. And I found nuclear. And suddenly, these two pieces fit together just perfectly, where you don’t have to sacrifice environmental protection, to lift all boats and bring people into prosperous, healthy, fulfilled lives. So that’s what got me started in nuclear. And then as I’ve been traveling around the world, in and around the country, going to these communities, it’s just, I don’t think anyone really has an idea until you talk to the people that work at the plant and the communities that are driven by the plants, tax revenues. And he like, it is their life. It’s the lifeblood of these communities. It’s so much bigger than just, you know, a place where people work. They’re like, cathedrals of a clean and prosperous future that we can all have. So I just thought
Robert Bryce 17:47
I like that Cathedral, because that was I mean, and I’m sorry to interrupt, but when when I was in the turban Hall, and Unit Two, it was almost exactly three years ago, I think we were there may 10. of 2018. I was just I was really gobsmacked by the one the scale of the thing, right? And that it was just a marvel of technology and that it was being consigned to the ash heap. And I thought it didn’t. And I think even more now for no good reason, really no good reason. Except to this. I think it comes down to this excessive fear of nuclear and this idea that, oh, we should live simpler and the technology that, oh, it’s too much technology, and we need only solar and wind because they’re lower technology. Right, right. Or? I don’t know, is it? But it sounds like you’ve taken it personally, that you feel personally insulted somehow. Is that is that is that a correct? Read of what you’ve what I see or what I hear?
Madi Czerwinski 18:44
Yeah, I mean, part of it is at a personal level, like, this is my country, I have a lot of pride in what we have. And we have this progressive inheritance of a wonderful world class nuclear fleet that we are absolutely squandering for no good reason. So, you know, just for, for me, my children, my grandchildren. That I think is an outrage. And then back to your point, I had the privilege of visiting Hinkley Point C in 2019. And I actually got a tour and got to walk out onto the base mat. And I got really emotional, which is funny. You’re looking at a bunch of wells. Like it’s, it’s an industrial construction site. But I was just thinking like, there’s going to be generations of families working here. If If all goes right, this plant is going to be there long after I’m gone. Powering the future. Like it really is beautiful. It’s I think, this sort of beautiful nuclear is the thing that’s powering this beautiful, prosperous tomorrow. So I’m really, really mad. And I’m going to continue, hopefully Indian Point is our last closure, the fight certainly continues. But if I have to attend each and every one of these plant funerals, I will because it’s not important. It’s important to the communities. And it’s important because other plants are going to continuously be under threat until we can put a stop to it.
Robert Bryce 20:29
I like how you describe that is the absolute world class nuclear fleet. We are absolutely squandering. And I think that that’s exactly it. And I’ll just add one quick thought to your mirror to what you the, the way you described it, which I thought was really great. But what are they providing? They’re providing electricity, it’s not like they’re making like widgets, or, you know, I don’t know, sledge hammers, no, they’re temporary. The juice that drives everything we care about that they bring that that liberates women and girls from the pump the stove in the wash tub, that that you’re that legacy that you’re talking about. I thought you’re going to talk about rural electrification, because that’s the other part of the government legacy that is in the 30s that, you know, the civic minded politician Sam Rayburn and, and George Norris and Burton wheelers and, and Roosevelt, Franklin. So no, we need to make sure everyone has electricity. This is important for everyone. Right. And with this is the role of government to reach out and make that happen. And that’s where I guess it was this government failure.
Madi Czerwinski 21:32
In part, absolutely. I mean, you don’t have like you said, you don’t have modern society without electricity. It is a necessary public good. So the fact that no one stepped in to stop this closure. Again, it’s it’s an abject failure of duty. It’s a dare like a dereliction of duty, particularly at the federal level. I mean, we’re seeing these closures in, you know, Illinois, California, New York, historically, Vermont, New Jersey has been fighting to keep its nuclear plants afloat. I mean, at some point, if an administration cares about climate progress, if we care about being a leader in this critical technology in the world, and building it for our current and potential allies, why are we allowing it to be shut down? Why isn’t someone stepping in? It’s a lot of talk. It’s a lot of Oh, our current nuclear fleet is important by Indian Point, you know, oh, advanced nuclear fuels that are tested in Clinton new nuclear plant in Illinois are going to pave the way for the future. But sia, Byron and Dresden, like why why aren’t we stepping in?
Robert Bryce 22:49
I, again, I’m in complete agreement with you. And I was just stunned that the President Biden on his on his on his joint session of Congress address on Wednesday night, talked about climate change, he gives a shout out to electric vehicles and batteries is a shout out to wind energy, not a did not use the words nuclear energy one time, instead of nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation, North Korea nuclear program, not a single mention of nuclear energy. And it’s like, wait a minute. You mean, I don’t know. I’m starting to think some of these people, they’re just they’re flat earthers Oh, we’re gonna solve all this with with with renewables? No, you’re not. You can’t do it. And that’s the part that is disappointing. But, again, you we agree on these things. So give me your vision then. So this your idea about industrializing America rebirth of American industry based around nuclear, there’s a lot of different ideas about that right about how you achieve. You can because it’s a fabrication business, right? You got to build a lot of these things. And it’s got to be you know, not by the ones and twosies. It’s not like plant Vogel, where you make 212 big ones, and then you you know, and you forget how to build them, and then you learn again, another five or 10 years. Right, so what do you see that I talked to a few people who talked about Kirsty gogan and Eric Ingersoll about shipyard fabrication of reactors? What How do you see this? What did give me give me your blue sky? scenario for how that reindustrialization or industrialization of America built around nuclear? What would that look like? And is the government going to have to lead that?
Madi Czerwinski 24:24
Sure. Well, first of all, I totally agree with you. I say it’s a little cheeky, but you know, the US cannot afford to build one more ap 1000 in this country, but we could afford to build 50 more, you know, it’s
Robert Bryce 24:44
like that good.
Madi Czerwinski 24:46
Right. So beyond like the very bare minimum, like, bare minimum is protecting all of our existing nuclear plants. But then as we start to get into more blue sky, thinking The first step is to making is making a commitment to growing the industry. It doesn’t necessarily have to be led by the government in terms of Oh, we’re going to build a state owned, manufacturer, a champion that’s going to deliver this sort of like Russia or China. But we just need a commitment that the US is growing its share of electricity from nuclear, then it comes. The next step is sort of identifying and supporting or building a national champion firm who can do this.
Robert Bryce 25:42
Well, let me send you back if you don’t mind, because that’s it seems to me that that’s one of the real hurdles. And I’m just being honest with you here. I’m adamantly Pro, you know, if you anti co2 and anti nuclear, you’re pro blackout, that’s my line I’ve met use that line a long time. And I believe it’s still but the US grid, it’s one of the I think it’s one of its strengths, and one of its weaknesses is very balkanized. There are a lot of owners. So you’re saying and just want to be clear, and I’m not arguing with you. But I think maybe you’re probably right, if we’re going to have that robust nuclear sector, we’re going to have to have much more government, federal government involvement in the procurement and deployment. That is, is that is that your view as well?
Madi Czerwinski 26:20
Absolutely. I think at a bare minimum, it’s backing loans for and, you know, a lot of it is politics, what what company or utility is going to invest in a potentially $20 billion project, if the state can just elect a crooked governor that decides is going to turn it off after two years? You know, so there has to be some level of actual commitment that they can rely on. There should be green bonds issued that have the full backing of the US government to do this. You know, look at the tvpa they’ve delivered the only nuclear reactor in the 21st century until Vogel comes online. They’ve invested in their nuclear plants. I think getting upgrades of like 13%. So they’re one of the cleanest utilities in the country. And it’s because of their nuclear, you know, I think they have maybe 13 solar farms in one wind farm, when the public is when a public utility is charged with delivering reliable, cheap, clean electricity. It does nuclear. That’s what we’ve seen. So I think there is a good question about how much government is involved. But certainly the government has to step in at this point, because the systems we’ve created, particularly in the artios, as you’ve talked about, Meredith just does not incentivize anti fragile, reliable electricity. And that’s unacceptable.
Robert Bryce 28:03
I like that point about the the Dr. Chris Kiefer, calls it the fragile isation of the grid. And that’s what I fear. It really comes to New York is this fragile nation. And do you indeed refer back to Meredith and I wrote this piece in Forbes last Thursday, right, the day before the plant closed was that it’s going to make new york more subject to the fatal trifecta more reliance on imports renewables and just in time gas. And it what we saw in Texas and I was blacked out for 45 hours. What was the most reliable what was the most resilient form of generation was the nuclear plants Hello, and yet closed, and yet, The New Indian Point is closing and in New York and in California, they’re planning to close Diablo Canyon. So my guest is Matt is Madison ger winsky. She is the executive director of the campaign for a green nuclear deal. You can catch up with all of their doings at the gmD campaign.org. And you’re on Twitter to write I don’t have your Twitter handle written out here.
Madi Czerwinski 29:00
Yep, it’s just Maddie ma d i underscore and then my last name, which sir?
Robert Bryce 29:06
winfuture winsky CZER wi n SK II?
Madi Czerwinski 29:10
You got it? Wow. It’s a tricky one. I don’t wish it on anyone. That’s
Unknown Speaker 29:18
Robert Bryce 29:18
Maddie underscore your winsky. On Twitter at Maddy underscore your winsky as she is the executive director campaign for a green nuclear deal. You find them on the web gmD campaign.org. So, who are your heroes? And just a couple last questions because we’ve talked for about 30 minutes and my objective on Indian Point blackout week is to have interviews that are a little bit shorter than normal. Even working at this for a while you clearly as we sometimes say in Oklahoma and Texas, you have the bit in your teeth, you’re really running with this issue and I admire your passion for it. Who do you look to Who are your heroes when you think about these issues?
Madi Czerwinski 29:55
Well, this is sort of maybe a little bit standard for pro Nuclear advocate but someone who I continually go back to is Marie Curie, you know, she was sort of a pioneer of her field. And in the face of fear mongering and misunderstanding about the technology, she persevered to see the beauty of what she was developing, and what it could deliver for humanity. You know, I think the famous quote is, nothing in life is to be feared, or it should be shoo, I’m gonna mess this up. But now is the time that we should discover to fear less basically a call for understanding rather than cowering in the face of uncertainty. So I would say she’s my sort of spiritual hero,
Robert Bryce 30:56
and discovering the fear discovered a fear less I like that, and
Madi Czerwinski 31:00
the time we should learn more so that we may fear less. There we go. Yeah,
Robert Bryce 31:06
that’s, I like that. And I like that, especially in light of what happened at Indian Point, which I think was just, and I wrote it myself, just rank fearmongering. There was really that was the key issue that they use more than any other to get the plant closed. And I thought about it, because I’ve talked to people since then they said, Well, yeah, people, you know, they should be concerned, I said, Well, every thing we might do in anything in the world has some potential for a downside. And, you know, this person was talking about nuclear school. You know, when they put up new wind turbines, people die falling off those wind turbines, they just, you know, that’s part of it’s a fairly high fatality rate, in fact, when you didn’t terms of risk on the job, and so on. So anyway, that’s a great. So last question, Madison. So you told me your heroes, so I can tell you and you said you’re mad and sad about what happened at any point, and I am, too, but so what gives you hope?
Madi Czerwinski 32:03
I mean, a lot of things give me hope. I think maybe I’m audacious enough to think that we can actually achieve a green nuclear deal. But you know, today the Surrey nuclear plant just got a 20 year life extension, so it will hopefully operate through 2053
Robert Bryce 32:24
which was this I’m sorry, forgive me. Sorry. That I don’t know that in Virginia. Okay, as you are I What is it
Madi Czerwinski 32:31
as you are? Why
Robert Bryce 32:32
is she Oh, sir. Okay, sir. Okay, I got you. Okay. Yeah,
Madi Czerwinski 32:35
um, you know, last month, I believe Vogel began hot functional testing. And there is a December, online date for unit three, like, it was a long haul. And I was very worried for a while that we would never see the day but it looks like it’s going to be delivered as a project and people in southerns. area are going to get clean, reliable electricity for decades. So that gives me a lot of hope. And then sort of more abstractly, I just, I don’t know, again, maybe it’s my eternal optimism. But I sense that we have in this country right now, a hunger for achievement, that we that there’s sort of a tiredness of the divisiveness and this desire to come together to do big society scale things. And so I think that there’s a real opportunity for common ground and nuclear, like you said, there are tons of reasons to care about the existing fleet. Whether it’s cheap electricity, whether it’s reliability and resiliency, whether it’s environmental protection, whether it’s, you know, honest work for really good pay. I think nuclear presents this really unique opportunity for Americans to come together and that gives me a lot of hope.
Robert Bryce 34:09
will shed Madison will shed legend end it there. I thoroughly enjoyed this. It really enjoyed hearing your view on all these issues because I you know, you clearly thought a lot about it and you put a lot of effort and time into it. So my guest Madison Czerwinski, she is the executive director of a new nonprofit outfit called the campaign for a green nuclear deal. You can find them at G and D campaign.org. She’s on twitter at Maddy underscore cer winsky I’m anything else to add Maddie before I sign off
Madi Czerwinski 34:44
just one question. What do you think about the green nuclear deal Robert? I’m bored
Robert Bryce 34:51
I’m all about it. I’m you know, I’m adamantly pro nuclear. I want it to succeed. I’m I want it to succeed. Let me just say that I want, I want this I, these technologies to proliferate, we have too many people in the world living with either electricity poverty, or without electricity at all. And in my view, if we’re, if we’re serious about co2 emissions, we have to get more serious about nuclear. And unfortunately, we haven’t had that kind of seriousness. And I hope this, like you that this senseless closure of Indian Point will will maybe catalyze some movement on that, so. Okay, yeah, good. All right. Well, thanks to all of you in podcast land. This has been another episode of the power hungry podcast, we’re gonna have one or two more episodes of the Indian Point blackout week. So check back for some other great guests to talk about these issues. Because, in my view, this should be an inflection point in how the US thinks about nuclear energy. So until next time, thanks for tuning in, over and out here.