Natural gas pipeline infrastructure needs

Platts Energy Week TV carried an important segment on July 13, 2014 discussing the need to make major investments in the US natural gas pipeline infrastructure in order to deliver new sources of gas to growing markets. Chris Newkumet from Platts talked with Don Santa of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and Ben Schlesinger, a leading gas industry consultant.

The discussion above highlights several aspects of “cheap natural gas” that rarely get mentioned in the ad-supported media. The first item, the fact that interstate pipelines can be sited on private property with no agreement from the landowner using federal “eminent domain,” is hitting close to home. Last weekend, while traveling on one of my favorite country roads — Virginia State Road 151 (aka Patrick Henry Highway) — in Nelson County, I noticed several yard signs with the universal “No” symbol and the word “Pipeline” written on them.

Dominion Energy is planning a natural gas pipeline from West Virginia through Virginia that will have two branches, one that goes to the Tidewater area near Norfolk, VA and one that goes into North Carolina. Dominion started surveying the route, but local landowners resisted. Dominion has interrupted its survey efforts pending a brief to the County Board of Supervisors at its next meeting on August 12. Experiences reported in other areas indicate that Dominion will make an effort to site the pipeline in the least damaging locations, but the construction will happen even if numerous property owners on the chosen route do not agree.

Though there is a US constitutional provision that prevents taking private property without fair compensation, the amount of money provided to landowners to compensate for burying a pipeline across their property often does not make up for the construction-related headaches and the loss in value caused by the existence of the pipeline.

Here is a quote from the clip above that illustrates the natural gas industry’s point of view regarding pipeline construction siting.

Chris Newkumet: Don, the electric grid is facing similar challenges, but there are some differences both in the commercial and the regulatory model. Some would argue that it’s actually easier to more quickly develop pipeline capacity to feed new demand. Do you agree?

Don Santa: I would agree with that. We’ve got several attributes that are unique compared to the electrical system. First of all, FERC has got the authority to site interstate pipelines under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. With that comes the right of eminent domain. I think that’s a big advantage. You’ve got an industry that, although it’s regulated, it is still very contract driven. Pipes compete for market opportunities; there’s no central or regional planning. I think that has given us the ability to respond very quickly to these dramatic developments in terms of the shift of the source of supply and the areas of growing demand.

The second important point is that natural gas fired merchant power plants are either unwilling or unable to sign the kind of contract commitments that are required in order to finance and build new natural gas pipeline capacity. Insufficient pipeline capacity leads to large price differentials in places that are just a few hundred miles apart. The participants in the show discussed prices during a recent period in which there was a three dollar per MMBTU difference between the price of natural gas in Pennsylvania and the price in Boston while the prices in New York were within a dollar of the prices in Pennsylvania.

New England is a particularly stretched market, with continuing additions of merchant power plants burning gas without any long term contracts. During a recent effort to offer increased pipeline capacity to New England there was not a single electric generator willing to subscribe for firm natural gas transportation.

Governors in New England, in partial recognition of the potential impact of a loss of electrical power due to inadequate fuel supplies on cold winter days, have developed a thought-provoking possible response to the conundrum. Here is how the interview participants talked about the issue.

Chris Newkumet: There was an announcement by Spectra recently that they are making a major pipeline push into New England, basically playing off of the New England governors planning process. Don, can you talk a little about that?

Don Santa: Yes. The problem we’re talking about mainly goes to the electric power markets, mainly those restructured markets with the ISO/RPO markets where the generators don’t get that price signal to sign up for new pipeline capacity. New England governors, acting through a group called NESCOE have shown great leadership in terms of saying that the region needs the capacity, that there is nothing on the horizon in terms of changes in the electric market that is going to make that happen, and they came through with a proposal that the cost of the new pipeline capacity to serve the generators be made part of the generally applicable electric transmission tariff of ISO New England.

That sounds like the governors are proposing that all electric consumers chip in to supply the funds for the major capital investments required to enable the increasing use of natural gas as a power generation fuel.

There is a presentation posted on the NESCOE web site titled Addressing New England’s Energy Challenges dated June 30, 2014. A word search of the 30 slide brief contains 41 instances of the word “gas,” four instances of the word “renewable,” and zero instances of the word “nuclear.”

After a closer review of the brief, it turns out that it included two images that include the word “nuclear” within the picture. One is a pie chart showing that nuclear provided 25% of the electricity in the region at 6:00 pm during four particularly cold days. The other showed that nuclear was providing about 4,200 MWe from a group of generators with a total nominal capacity of 4,100 MWe at a time when 11,000 MWe of natural gas capacity was providing just 3,000 MWe due to fuel supply constraints and pricing issues.

I hope that the people who received that brief take the time to look a little more closely at the decisions they are making to favor natural gas over other generation sources. Will they turn to Peter Schumlin and ask him to explain the pressure he put on Entergy to close Vermont Yankee? Will they turn to Deval Patrick and ask him to help people on Cape Cod understand the importance of Pilgrim or to Maggie Hassan with the same question about Seabrook?

Selfish motives for LNT assumption by geneticists on NAS BEAR I

Dr. Edward Calabrese has published a new paper titled The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self‐interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model.

Abstract: This paper extends a series of historical papers which demonstrated that the linear-no-threshold (lNT) model for cancer risk assessment was founded on ideological-based scientific deceptions by key radiation genetics leaders. Based on an assessment of recently uncovered personal correspondence, it is shown that some members of the United States (US) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological effects of Atomic Radiation I (BEAR I) Genetics Panel were motivated by self-interest to exaggerate risks to promote their science and personal/professional agenda. Such activities have profound implications for public policy and may have had a significant impact on the adoption of the lNT model for cancer risk assessment.

This new work was inspired when Calabrese found a 2007 history of science dissertation by Michael W. Seltzer titled The technological infrastructure of science. One facet of the paper is to explain how self-interest can create biases that affect scientific conclusions, policy setting and public communications. The same measurements and observations can be used to support dramatically different reports depending on what the scientists are attempting to accomplish.

That is especially true when there is difficulty at the margins of measurement where it is not easy to discern “signal” from “noise.” The risk of agenda-driven conclusions has become greater as the scientific profession has expanded far beyond the sporadically-funded idealists motivated by a pure search for knowledge and into a occupation that provides “good jobs” with career progression, regular travel opportunities, political influence and good salaries.

On the other hand, their efforts on the committee illustrate one component of the technological infrastructure of genetics outside of the laboratory: the increasing significance of large-scale laboratories, federal funding agencies, policy-making committees, and government regulatory bodies as critical components of the technological infrastructure of science. Clearly, how the science of genetics was to advance into the future would have much to do with traditionally non-epistemic factors, in addition to epistemic ones.

Finally, in considering all these themes together, it is difficult to conclude that there is any sharp separation between the practice of science and the practice of politics (in the Foucauldian sense of power/knowledge). Rouse’s view of the intra-twining of epistemology and power, his view of epistemic politics, is pertinent here. The practice of science was at times the playing of politically epistemic games, whether at the level of argumentation in the contestable theoretical disputes of population genetics, at the level of science policy-making, as with the various organizations and committees responding to the scientific and political controversies surrounding the efforts to establish exposure guidelines in the light of concerns over fallout from atomic testing, or with the planning of the future infrastructure of experimentation based on funding opportunities.

(Seltzer 2007, p. 307-308)

Admittedly, the language in the above quote uses jargon from the field of historians, but my translation is that Seltzer found ample evidence to support an assertion that the majority of geneticists on the BEAR I Genetics Panel were more concerned about fitting into a political narrative than they were in answering the questions they were ostensibly assembled to answer. Their tasking was to provide political decision-makers with scientifically supportable answers about the genetic effects of the radiation exposure that might be expected as a result of atomic weapons testing. They decided to complete a different task.

Some members of the committee had an agenda to assert the zero threshold dose response assertion desired by politically active members of the scientific community. They knew that answer — whether or not it was the truth — would assist their scientific colleagues in their efforts to raise concerns about fallout to a fever pitch. Fallout fear was their agreed-upon lever for gaining public support for their efforts to halt nuclear weapons testing.

Other members of the committee were more concerned about obtaining financial support for a long-term research program in general genetics research. That desired research program could only be tangentially related to determining the effect of the tiny, but chronic and largely unavoidable radiation exposures to human populations from highly dispersed atmospheric weapons testing fallout.

(Warning: If you are interested in the history of how the no-threshold dose assumption was imposed and are pressed for time, please do not download Seltzer’s paper and begin reading. It is full of intriguing information, but it’s 450 pages long including footnotes. The section on radiation health effects controversies is 112 pages long. This post should have been completed several hours ago, but I got distracted.)

Here is a quote from Calabrese’s paper that does an excellent job of summarizing the important take-aways from Seltzer’s historical research for people who are mainly interested in encouraging a new look at radiation protection assumptions and regulations.

Seltzer provided evidence that members of the Genetics Panel clearly saw their role in the NAS BEAR I committee to be a vehicle to advocate and/or lobby for funding for radiation genetics (p. 285 footnote 208). Moreover, it was hoped that the committee, which would exist continuously over many years, would influence the direction and priorities for future research funding. According to Seltzer (2007), such hoped for funding possibilities for radiation geneticists can be seen in letter correspondence between Beadle, Dobzhansky, Muller and Demerec.

Demerec responded by saying that “I, myself, have a hard time keeping a straight face when there is talk about genetic deaths and the tremendous dangers of irradiation. I know that a number of very prominent geneticists, and people whose opinions you value highly, agree with me” (Demerec to Dobzhansky 1957). Dobzhansky to Demerec (1957b) responded by saying “let us be honest with ourselves—we are both interested in genetics research, and for the sake of it, we are willing to stretch a point when necessary. But let us not stretch it to the breaking point! Overstatements are sometimes dangerous since they result in their opposites when they approach the levels of absurdity.

Aside: Ironically, the Genetics Panel efforts seem to have been far more effective in obtaining long term funding support for statisticians and epidemiologists as part of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation’s Life Span Studies than they were in obtaining radiation health effects-related funding for genetics research. End Aside.

Calabrese goes on to tie this newly uncovered history-of-science work to several other papers that he has recently published regarding his own excavation work digging through the collected papers of major players in the drama associated with using fears of radiation to slow and then stop nuclear weapons testing.

In retrospect, therefore, a historical assessment of the LNT reflects the so-called “perfect toxicological storm”: Muller receiving the Nobel Prize within 1.5 years after the atomic bomb blasts in Japan, the deliberate deceptions of Muller on the LNT during his Nobel Prize lecture (Calabrese 2011a, 2012), the series of stealth-like manuscript manipulations and deceptions by Stern to generate scientific support for the LNT and to prevent Muller’s Nobel lecture deceptions from being discovered (Calabrese 2011b), the series of subsequent false written statements by Muller to support Stern’s papers and to protect his own reputation (Calabrese 2013), the misdirection and manipulation of the NAS Genetics Panel by the actions of Muller and Stern (Calabrese 2013), and now evidence of subversive self-interest within the membership of the Genetics Panel to exaggerate risk for personal gain. This series of Muller/ Stern-directed actions inflamed societal fear of ionizing radiation following the bombings of Japan and during the extreme tensions of the cold war with its concomitant environmental contamination with radionuclides from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, and led to the acceptance of the LNT model for cancer risk assessment by a human population that had become extremely fearful of radiation, even at very low doses.

(Calabrese 2014 p. 3)

Aside: If I had written the final part of the last sentence, I would phrase it differently. “…led the human population to accept their inaccurate LNT model for cancer risk assessment with its associated objective of limiting radiation doses to vanishingly low levels. End Aside.

As the scientist-led antinuclear weapons movement achieved its primary purpose of limiting atmospheric weapons testing and its uncontrolled releases, the public passions that their movement had purposely created were gradually appropriated by people with less admirable motives. Many of them had solid financial reasons to encourage people to fear all sources of ionizing radiation, especially the low doses that members of the public could possibly receive from nuclear energy production – even under accident conditions.

After all, every quad (quadrillion BTU) demanded by customers and NOT generated with nuclear fission is likely to be generated by hydrocarbon combustion. More fission means lower sales volume and probably a lower unit price for all competitive fuels.

Note: Copies of Calabrese’s paper are available upon request. Please contact me via email or using the contact link at the bottom of the page.

PS: People who read Dr. Calabrese’s paper might seize on information provided in the acknowledgements to challenge my narrative that efforts to slow nuclear energy development are often supported by the hydrocarbon economy establishment. His work has received long term support from the US Air Force and the ExxonMobil Foundation. “Sponsors had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing and decision to submit.”

I never said that antinuclear funding sources were monolithic or always worked in concert.

Additional evidence re: nonproliferation & antinuclear alliance

After posting Nonproliferation is a disguised antinuclear energy effort, I received the following comment via email. The author has given me permission to share it, with attribution. I know John Holdren well and this article in spot on. John does not weigh energy poverty very high and weighs nuclear weapons proliferation exceedingly highly. This dominates […]

Read more »

Nonproliferation is a disguised antinuclear energy effort

I stumbled across a 1983 article titled Nuclear power and nuclear weapons: the connection is dangerous that is the clearest piece of evidence I’ve found to prove that many of the basic talking points of the nuclear nonproliferation crowd are actually aimed at slowing, halting and reversing the use of nuclear energy. These efforts have […]

Read more »

Opportunity to use science to establish radiation standards

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments from the general public and affected stakeholders about 40 CFR 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations. The comment period closes on August 3, 2014. The ANPR page includes links to summary webinars provided to the […]

Read more »

Shell Oil and Gas Company’s Perspective on Energy Future

There was a time when the Royal Dutch Shell corporation demonstrated strong interest in nuclear energy. In 1973, it was approached by Gulf Oil Company, the owner of Gulf General Atomics, as a capital partner for an aggressive expansion program. GA had spent the better part of two decades developing an innovative high temperature gas-cooled […]

Read more »

UPDATE: Resolving issue of science of biological effects of low level radiation

A couple of weeks ago, Atomic Insights published an article about an initiative by past presidents and fellows of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) to encourage the organization to push for efforts to resolve the issue of the science of the biological effects of low level radiation. Part of the effort includes gathering signatures from […]

Read more »

Energy politics is often more about location than party

The Morning Consult has an intriguing article titled Map: State Energy Influence in Washington. The article briefly describes how states that produce various energy fuels have senators and congressmen that migrate to committees that affect the industry in their home territories. It also mentions the curiously large influence that Massachusetts has on energy policy making. […]

Read more »

Russia continues sustained fast breeder reactor effort

On June 26, 2014, the 60th anniversary of the start of the 5 MWe Obninsk reactor that was the first reactor in the world to routinely supply electricity to a commercial power grid, Russia started up the latest in a series of sodium-cooled fast reactors, the BN-800. This new nuclear plant is an evolutionary refinement […]

Read more »

HTR-PM – Nuclear-heated gas producing superheated steam

The first HTR-PM (High Temperature Reactor – Pebble Module), one of the more intriguing nuclear plant designs, is currently under construction on the coast of the Shidao Bay near Weihai, China. This system uses evolutionary engineering design principles that give it a high probability of success, assuming that the developers and financial supporters maintain their […]

Read more »

Fission is an elegant way to heat a gas

What if it was possible to combine the low capital cost, reliability, and responsive operations of simple cycle combustion gas turbines with the low fuel cost and zero-emission capability of an actinide (uranium, thorium, or plutonium) fuel source? Machines like that could disrupt a few business models while giving the world’s economy a powerful new […]

Read more »

Cheap, emission-free way to boil water

For the majority of human history, people used their own muscles to provide almost all of the work required for survival and development. A thin slice of humanity achieved a moderate amount of personal comfort and leisure because they were able, often through an accident of birth, to control a portion of the daily work […]

Read more »