Purposeful price pumping by constraining supply

James Conca recently published a commentary on Forbes titled Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business For Everyone.

A major thrust of Conca’s initial post was highlighting the rapidly rising prices of electricity in New England that are being driven by an increasing reliance on natural gas as reliable power generators like the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and the Brayton Point coal plant are being encouraged to shut down by a number of activist campaigns and political actions. Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee published a post titled Soaring Prices in New England: An Update that includes additional details about the recently announced price increases and the ones that have not yet been announced.

Those electricity price increases are going to hurt all consumers and most businesses, but the pain will be greatest on those who can least afford to take corrective action. Businesses that sell or transport natural gas, produce equipment associated with burning natural gas, supply the wind and solar industry or build transmission lines will probably book increases in revenue that significantly outweigh their increased power bills.

Many consumers and businesses are going to be uncomfortably surprised; their elected and appointed leaders didn’t mention the costly effect that closing nuclear and coal plants would have on electricity prices. Many of them purposely obscured the effect that closing emission-free nuclear would have on the environment.

Conca’s article has attracted an active comment thread that is worth reading. One particular segment of the comment thread offers a clear view of a disturbing response to Conca’s concerns about higher power prices that deserves its own discussion. That segment starts with the following comment:

Beta Blocker

As a practical matter, there is no other way to achieve significant near-term reductions in US carbon emissions but to greatly reduce demand for energy in all of its forms. In turn, there is no other practical way to enforce these energy conservation measures except through policies which significantly raise the price of energy, including the price of electricity.

Constraining the supply of energy is one very effective means of raising its price. The US Northeast has chosen the pathway of enforced energy conservation as its primary energy management policy. Its conservation enforcement approach is being implemented through a series of environmental and regulatory policies which will inevitably result in ever-rising energy prices, which will in turn significantly dampen industrial and consumer demand for energy in the region.

The hard reality which we have to face is that providing cheap electricity to industry and to the public simply feeds a wasteful energy consumption monster. Unless energy prices rise significantly, forcing large changes in America’s energy consumption habits, it will not be possible to transform the American economy in ways that will make it truly sustainable for the long-term future.

The US Northeast and the US West Coast are the first major geographical regions in the United States whose political leadership clearly understands that if the American economy is to be transformed in ways that will greatly reduce its wasteful use of energy, the only approach that can possibly work is to raise the price of energy in all of its forms, thus making energy conservation not only an option, but a necessity.

People who have been following the energy discussion for many years will recognize that this philosophy has its gurus in people like Paul Ehrich and Amory Lovins who have produced several pithy quotes about the hazards of developing clean, abundant sources of power and making them readily available to average people. The energy conservation gurus like high energy prices because price serves as a way to ration power, which is apparently a product that the elitist gurus think most people should not have.

Another commenter supplied a response that is not uncommon among some participants in energy discussions.

Joshua Gower

“As a practical matter, there is no other way to achieve significant near-term reductions in US carbon emissions but to greatly reduce demand for energy in all of its forms.”

I can think of another way to significantly reduce US carbon emissions in the near term. Don’t shut down generating stations that produce base load electricity with zero carbon emissions.

I appreciate the noble ideals of the rest of your post but if purposely raising electricity prices to achieve reduced carbon emissions is your goal, shouldn’t you start by reducing the supply of carbon emitting sources?

In my opinion, Mr. Gower is being far too kind by crediting Beta Blocker with noble ideals. Raising prices for electricity, a vital commodity that is virtually impossible to live without in a modern environment, is not a noble goal; it is an elitist objective that will inevitably make life more difficult for people who are already struggling to make ends meet in a rather unsympathetic economy full of lowered expectations. Beta Blocker doubled down with the following comment:

Beta Blocker

Joshua Gower, the only way to guarantee that energy conservation measures are diligently pursued in this country is to make energy a very precious and expensive commodity.

If this means sacrificing low cost energy resources in the short term as one highly effective means of squeezing out wasteful energy consumption habits on the demand side of the equation, that is what has to be done.

Once base load demand for electricity has been significantly reduced through a combination of high electricity prices and government-imposed restrictions on expanded electricity production, the renewables will then have a much easier time of it competing against fossil fuel sources of electricity, primarily natural gas.

Regardless of what they might say publicly about why they are raising energy prices and are eliminating low-cost sources of electrical energy, reducing base load demand is what the political leadership in the US Northeast has to do in order to build a lasting foundation for going forward with the renewables.

Making these kinds of tough short-term decisions is the only practical way in which America’s total carbon emissions can be permanently reduced for the long term.

A skeptical part of me hopes that Beta Blocker’s comments are satire aimed at opening eyes so we can make progress on goals that align with my mission of abundant clean power for people, but I fear that the person writing that comment might have been completely serious about his ultimate objective.

Here is the comment I posted notifying Beta that I intended to start a new conversation based on his clear statements of intended purpose.

Rod Adams

Beta Blocker:

Thank you for stating your motive and end goals so clearly. I just wish you had been willing to post that comment under your real name.

Even if you are sincerely motivated and believe that higher prices will achieve the emissions reductions you desire, have you thought a little more deeply about the people who will receive enormous benefits from your actions?

An energy market with a supply that is constrained enough to result in higher sales prices generates massive cash flows directly into the pockets of the remaining suppliers. The multinational petroleum companies that supply most of the nation’s natural gas will be raking in the dough under the system that you want to impose. So will companies that own the pipelines, speculators trading on Wall St., and companies that are fracking the heck out of rural Pennsylvania and trying to do the same to New York.

Those companies are run by people who have excellent math skills and a keen understanding of the role of supply and demand. I am quite certain that they will applaud your efforts and supply continuing donations to the “non-profit” groups that adhere to your mission statement.

Coal, oil and gas interests have been funding the opposition to nuclear energy for at least 50 years because the thing that scares fossil fuel interests the most is energy abundance that drives prices down and reduces their profits to levels where they “just get by.”

I’m planning to copy your comments and produce a post on Atomic Insights later today to try to help a few more people understand exactly who they are working for if they take actions motivated by your philosophy of constraining supply to achieve emissions reductions.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, the Atomic Show podcast

I hope many of you have thoughts to share.

Please consider providing resources to expand our coverage.

Note: Donations to Atomic Insights LLC are NOT tax deductible. We are a tax-paying small business that has been organized to produce both profits and other benefits for society.

Antinuclear activists don’t like continued storage rule

Several of the usual suspects — including Dr. Mark Cooper, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, and Diane Curran — have banded together to assert their opinion that the NRC’s recently issued NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, violates the following provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

In connection with applications for licenses to operate production or utilization facilities, the applicant shall state such technical specifications, including information of the amount, kind, and source of special nuclear material required, the place of the use, the specific characteristics of the facility, and such other information as the Commission may, by rule or regulation, deem necessary in order to enable it to find that the utilization or production of special nuclear material will be in accord with the common defense and security and will provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public. (Emphasis added.)
42 U. S. C. 2231 (Atomic Energy Act of 1954 Section 182 License Applications)

The problem with the contention that the professional antinuclear activists filed with the NRC is that they have a different definition of the words “adequate protection” than most rational people. The NRC Commissioners and the staff analysts have determined, after a great deal of technical study, that storing used nuclear fuel in licensed containers on the earth’s surface under the watchful eyes of licensees with the oversight of professional regulators provides adequate protection to the public.

We have 70 years worth of history that proves safe operation of used fuel storage facilities.

Digging through the legalistic language used in the contention, it seems the underlying basis is that the NRC has previously asserted that their rules have provided assurance of adequate protection by expressing confidence that there would someday be a geologic repository. The activists cannot seem to comprehend is that there is more than one way to assure protection and that historical precedence does not change the original wording and intent of the law.

The contention uses a number of phrases that irk me because they are expressions of opinion couched assertions of fact like “…there is no question that the AEA requires…” or “…will pose an extreme hazard to public health and safety for thousands of years…”

The law directs the NRC to establish rules and regulations that they deem necessary. It does not direct them to lock their decisions into a pattern established by what they have done in the past. It requires commissioners to consider new information, new analysis, and new interpretations of processes that they deem necessary to provide adequate protection.

I’m confident that the courts will uphold the conclusions reached by NUREG-2157. It is the product of thoughtful staff work and careful legal analysis by people who are responsible to the people of the United States to enable the safe use of nuclear energy for the common defense and security in a way that provides adequate protection of public health and safety.

Here is an expanded version of a comment that I posted on an article titled Activists file petition to stop nuke-plant licensing. (Some of the paragraphs below had to be cut to stay within the character limit of the comment field.)

I strongly disagree with Mr. Kamps. We have many good answers for indefinite safe storage of used nuclear material. It’s time to stop allowing people who are professionally engaged in opposing nuclear energy to use “the waste issue” as a trump card that slows development.

We have been safely storing lightly used nuclear fuel material for 70 years. Though I have been researching the topic for more than 20 years, I have yet to find a single documented instance where anyone has been harmed by that activity.

The wild scenarios that antinuclear activists imagine require a future dystopia where people have forgotten how to read warning signs and forgotten how to perform simple preventive and corrective maintenance on concrete and steel containers. If that future does happen, society will have far more important risks to worry about than the much diminished quantity of radioactive isotopes that will be present after many half lives of decay for all but a few of the used fuel components.

The much more likely scenario is that future generations will be smarter than ours because they will know what we know plus what they have learned since we were alive. They will recognize that the “nuclear waste” that we carefully isolated from our environment is valuable raw material that still contains more than 95% of its initial stored potential energy. They will thank us for leaving that resource behind in such accessible locations.

They will also thank us if we more more rapidly towards building and operating more nuclear plants so that we can leave behind additional valuable methane (natural gas), which will remain a useful raw material that should be carefully conserved for the use of our children and great-great-great grand children.

It is incredibly selfish of us to think it is a good idea to keep burning gas so quickly that all proven, probable, possible and speculative resources in the United States will be gone within the life expectance of people who are already alive today.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disavows need for individuals to change behavior

During the march held in New York City on September 21, PJTV reporter Michelle Fields spoke with Robert F. Kennedy about his plans to change his personal consumption habits. The good news is that RFK Jr. has absolved all of us of having to make any changes in our personal choices; the bad news is […]

Read more »

National Academy of Sciences moving towards BEIR VIII

As has been reported in numerous articles here, there has been a large body of scientific research on the health effects of low level radiation published in the period since the last time the National Academy of Sciences produced a report on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. The BEIR VII Phase 2 report was […]

Read more »

Another blogger for nuclear energy – Nuclear Layperson

An Atomic Insights reader sent me a link to a blog started in July of 2014 titled Nuclear Layperson. The blogger, using the nom de plume of “millysievert” provides the following on her “About” page: Bio: Professional nuclear layperson, a.k.a. Executive Assistant to the World Nuclear Association Director General. Got a C in GCSE Physics. […]

Read more »

Fukushima is not contaminating Pacific

By Les Corrice It is widely reported that hundreds of tons of highly contaminated Fukushima Daiichi groundwater pours into the Pacific Ocean every day. But, an objective look at the evidence tells a completely different story. It’s long-past time for the Tokyo Electric Company (Tepco) and the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) to broadcast the truth […]

Read more »

What should we do with the waste?

It’s time to declare that the default argument against nuclear energy has been proven invalid. We know how to effectively store and protect used nuclear fuel. We do it routinely. It is not unusually costly or a burden on future generations. They should be free to make their own decisions about how to make the […]

Read more »

Continuing conversation with NRC Chairman Macfarlane

On September 11, 2014, the American Nuclear Society hosted a roundtable discussion for nuclear bloggers with Allison Macfarlane, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The meeting was broadcast as a webinar, but there were also seats available in the conference room from which Dr. Macfarlane and Margaret Harding (the ANS moderator) were running the […]

Read more »

David MacKay asks his audience to use arithmetic to understand energy challenges

After posting a couple of videos with Amory Lovins providing his energy mirage, several commenters indicated they would like to hear and see a different point of view. Unlike Amory, David MacKay is a physicist who likes to use real numbers and simple arithmetic to illustrate the scale of the challenge of replacing the power […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #223 – Diablo Saudi UAE Ukraine S Korea

On September 7, 2014, I gathered a group of nuclear energy observers to discuss a variety of topics of interest to people who believe energy is important. We talked about Diablo Canyon’s earthquake resilience, Saudi Arabia’s interest in a rapid growth in nuclear energy production, the certification of the APR+ in South Korea, the progress […]

Read more »

Crowd sourced analysis of a Lovins sales pitch

I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing an Amory Lovins talk in person three times. Each time, I left the venue with the feeling that an agnostic must have had after attending an Elmer Gantry revival. The audience for two of the events should have been more skeptical — those talks were part of a series […]

Read more »

Is it really necessary to have a deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel?

Though I have often received quizzical, almost uncomprehending looks from my type ‘A’ colleagues on submarines and in my other jobs, I’ve often been guided by a simple principal of decision-making – “If it’s too hard, quit.” Please don’t think that means I’m the type of person who can never get anything done or who […]

Read more »