The Atomic Show Podcast includes interviews, roundtable discussions and atomic geeks all centered around the idea that nuclear energy is an amazing boon for human society.

Atomic Show #222 – How Proposed EPA CO2 Rule Rewards States for Replacing Nuclear With Gas

On August 20, 2014, Remy DeVoe, a graduate student in nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee, published an earthshaking piece on ANS Nuclear Cafe titled Unintended Anti-Nuclear Consequences Lurking in the EPA Clean Power Plan. Unfortunately, there has been a bit of a delayed reaction; so far, only the most carefully tuned instruments have noticed any movement.

In his article, Remy described how he and Justin Knowles, another UT nuclear engineering graduate student, chose to spend part of their summer in the very “nuclear” activity of digging deeply into a mathematical model to find out the basic assumptions underlying its results. The model they chose was the formula that the EPA has described as a “consistent national formula” for calculating each state’s existing CO2 intensity (CO2 mass per MW-hr) — using 2012 data.

Aside: Please forgive my use of the underline format for a phrase that is not a link. Though underlines generally indicate the existence of a link here on Atomic Insights, I wanted to reproduce the phrase exactly as it appears — including text formatting — on EPA Connect: The Official Blog of EPA’s Leadership in a June 4, 2014 blog post by Janet McCabe titled Understanding State Goals under the Clean Power Plan End Aside.

Remy and Justin entered a hypothetical scenario into the model in which each state with nuclear generating stations shut down all of their nuclear plants and replaced their zero emission electricity generation with natural gas fired generation. Remy and Justin uncovered a starting fact. In 15 states the carbon intensity in pounds per MWhr as calculated by the EPA’s spreadsheet model decreased.

That result made no sense to them. They thought that someone had to have made a mistake somewhere in the formulas used in the model that had not been caught by any of the reviews that must have taken place inside the EPA before the rule was issued for comment.

They dug into the spreadsheet and realized that the formula for calculating each state’s initial emission intensity gave every power source except nuclear credit for 100% of its actual generation in 2012, which was the year used for calculating the starting point from which each state’s carbon intensity reduction plan will be required a certain percentage reduction by 2030. For nuclear electricity production, the EPA’s “consistent national formula” applied a factor of .058 to its 2012 generation and then that far smaller number was added to the rest of the state’s 2012 power output to compute the overall carbon intensity.

That means that states with a substantial portion of power being produced by zero emission nuclear energy today have what appears to be a much higher carbon intensity than they actually have. If they close one of their operating nuclear plants, their EPA calculated carbon intensity number increases by a very small number because only 5.8% of the plant’s zero emission output was in that number in the first place. If the state chooses to replace the output of the nuclear plant with natural gas, there is a possibility — dependent on the state’s mix of other plants — that the carbon intensity number will actually decrease from what it was with the nuclear plant running.

Remy and Justin then met with the people who devised the formula and showed them what they had found. Those EPA staff members did not admit an error; they simply explained their methodology and assumptions in creating the model. They encouraged the pair to provide a comment to the proposed rule and said it would be considered during the process of finalizing the rule.

As young graduate students studying hard to become professionals in a field where integrity is highly valued and reinforced, Remy and Justin have graciously projected their personal honesty onto the EPA decision makers and believe that the formula was the result of an inadvertent misunderstanding that has “unintended” consequences.

I’m a little more experienced in the ways of Washington staffs and quite a bit more skeptical about the actions taken under the cover of pleasant sounding phrases. There is only a small chance that the formula’s results are unintentional. I suspect that it was created with the conscious goal of minimizing the CO2 benefits of nuclear energy.

During my 33-year career as a US naval officer, I learned to trust, but verify, and to stop trusting the work of anyone who would not admit an error, especially when confronted with proof.

Here are links to the spreadsheets documenting Remy”s and Justin’s analytical work.

State Goal Data Calculations:

Plant Level Data Calculations:

These documents can be edited so you can view the equations. The pair has requested feedback.

It is possible that the person who made the decision to bury the policy choice deep inside of a spreadsheet is not in an executive leadership position, but it is unlikely that a lowly analyst made the decision without managerial or executive acceptance that it was the right thing to do.

If the economic performance of nuclear energy production in a state is already acceptably competitive, it is unlikely that any plant owner will decide to shut down a plant merely to gain a little credit in the CO2 intensity reduction effort. However, if the economics of the plant are marginal because of temporarily low natural gas prices or other factors, this perverse incentive might be one more factor incentivizing a premature closure decision.

On Tuesday, August 26, I recorded a phone conversation with Remy DeVoe, Justin Knowles and Lane Carasik, who was the leader of the Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation this summer. Please have a listen, get a little angry and take some effective action by producing your own comment.

This is a call to action. Don’t let the EPA get away with imposing this formula. Follow the process provided before October 16, 2014 deadline. This is a high interest proposed rule; there are already more than 1900 comments so attention to this specific issue might require a noticeable volume mentioning the same feature of the formula.

I accept the court decision that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, but that decision did not give the EPA the authority regulate badly. It seems unlikely that a court would support an agency that decided to issue a regulation with a known flaw resulting in the potential for rewarding an increase in the production of a pollutant.

Note: During the show, we briefly discussed the fact that nuclear energy capacity factors in 2012 were in a temporary valley and the lowest in the past 12 years. Here is the capacity factor history graph copied from NEI’s excellent nuclear energy statistics library.



Atomic Show #221 – Acting Locally

On August 25, 2014, a group of atomic energy advocates gathered to share experiences and advice about how nuclear energy advocates can more effectively act locally. We discussed ways to find people who are interested in atomic energy, ways to develop social interaction, ways to show our humanity, and ways to make it fun to […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #220 – Atoms for California

Wind farm land impact is not limited to turbine foundation

Andrew Benson from Atoms For California contacted me last week to find out if I was interested in having a conversation about the history of nuclear energy in California, with a special focus on the history of the antinuclear movement in that trend-setting state. It sounded like a great idea for an Atomic Show so […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #219 – Mike Rosen misused Edward Calabrese’s Earth Day column

On Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response Dr. Calabrese shared some important stories about the data manipulations he had discovered relating to the establishment of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response assessment. Those stories will shake the established order. Not surprisingly, two commenters immediately added statements apparently aimed at discrediting Dr. […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response

Dr. Ed Calabrese is a professor of toxicology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, MA. For the past twenty years, he has focused his research on understanding the response of a variety of organisms and tissues to a variety of chemicals and radiation as doses vary from extremely low to quite high. He is […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #217 – Michael Mariotte, President NIRS

At the suggestion of a long time Atomic Insights contributor and Atomic Show listener, I invited Michael Mariotte for a guest appearance on the Atomic Show. In the small world made up of active nuclear advocates and people adamantly opposed to nuclear energy, Mariotte and his organization are famous — or infamous, depending on one’s […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #216 – Just the Fracks, Ma’am

Greg Kozera is the President of the Virginia Oil and Gas Association and the author of a recently-released book titled Just the Fracks, Ma’am: The Truth About Hydrofracking and the Next Great American Boom. I heard about the book from his publicist, News & Experts. Here is an excerpt from the communication I received. Hi […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #215 – Armond Cohen, CATF, describes need for nuclear

Armond Cohen is the Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force. We spoke in January 2008 on episode #78 of the Atomic Show. At that time, Armond and his organization did not take a position on nuclear energy. On March 28 of this year, I heard Armond give a talk at the commemoration of […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #214 – Age of Radiance Author Craig Nelson

The Age of Radiance is good read that adds personality and details to a story I know pretty well – the history of the Atomic Age from the discovery of radiation, to the discovery of fission, to the Manhattan Project to apply the newfound power to the task of creating a war-ending super weapon, and […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #212 – What Can We Learn From Fukushima?

On March 9, 2014, a small group of nuclear professionals gathered to talk about the events at Fukushima on March 11, 2011 and the continuing situation during the subsequent three years. The conversation included: Cal Abel – PhD candidate in Nuclear Engineering at Ga Tech who also blogs at Statistical Economics Meredith Angwin, who publishes […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #211 – Happy Nuke Year 2014

On January 1, 2014, I asked several nuclear communicators to join me for a discussion about highlights of 2013 and predictions for 2013. We had a lively discussion about the change in the conversation about nuclear energy stimulated by the release of Pandora’s Promise, the impact of the court decision telling the NRC to restart […]

Read more »