Late last week, while many observers were focused on a long weekend of religious celebrations with friends and families, there were several announcements made … [Read More...] about Is America’s vaunted electricity supply system on course for rocks and shoals?
I’m going to beg forgiveness and literary license for the following extended, potentially inappropriate, and perhaps too personal metaphor.
For several weeks, I’ve been struggling with finding my “voice” in dealing with current events related to the U.S. electricity production system. As part of my healing process, I went on a several day long reading binge that included some histories, an advice book by a famous cartoonist about finding paths to success through multiple failures, and even a few mystery novels.
A reading binge can produce a hangover characterized by a stimulated mind armed with new methods of expression. It provides a variety of new filters useful for finding unusual patterns in a complex world.
Looking through my new set of lenses, the following headline from one this morning’s Google Alert emails struck me hard.
My immediate reaction was to wonder who the heck gave “Environmentalists” the authority to make the “do not resuscitate” (DNR) decision for nuclear energy in the United States.
It reminded of a recently devoured novel about a patient, cold-blooded, calculating chess player who decided that he was ready to move on to another woman. Divorce didn’t cross his mind. Instead, he created a long-term plot that would eliminate his first wife, cast himself as a deeply caring and emotional man, and allow him to walk away with a huge life insurance payment. The setup for the payoff took almost a decade, but his plan succeeded.
Even though not part of the original strategy, he took advantage of a painful illness and a claimed DNR discussion to get away with a skillfully executed murder. His success required the assistance of a number of additional characters; some were unwitting people taken in by the murder’s act, some were knowledgable co-conspirators.
It’s my belief that the U.S.’s ability to effectively use nuclear fission energy is in a situation analogous to the inconvenient wife in that story. Unlike the situation in the novel, where the patient is dead and buried when the book begins, our nuclear technology sector is still alive, but in the throes of a painful struggle with an uncertain outcome.
It’s at a point where active intervention is required to keep it alive.
Aside: Sure, I know about new nuclear and have a great deal of optimism about its potential. I can’t shake the belief that there will be no “new nuclear” in the U.S. for a very long time unless we take action now to slow the demise of old nuclear. End Aside.
There is obvious potential for occasional, potentially painful code red actions, but it is far too young and potentially vibrant to be a candidate for a DNR. An awful lot of people will miss the electricity production option if the plot to kill nuclear power promptly enough to avoid the potential of a cure succeeds.
Not only has the industry been severely battered by external forces, but it has developed habits that have damaged its ability to thrive. An identifiable group of opponents would like nothing more than to prevent the possibility of recovery. The people with harmful intent are deeply involved in the situation and looking for opportunities to kill the patient.
Some attending specialists have declared a terminal prognosis with a near term demise after a significant amount of additional pain. Others are praying for a miracle. Many are feverishly working on potential cures; I feel compelled to try to give them more time.
Unlike the defense attorney protagonist in the novel that inspired this admittedly unusual post, I’m under no ethical code of confidentiality. There’s nothing to stop me from sharing what I know about what I believe is a sustained plot to kill nuclear and reap a huge payoff.
One contribution that I can make to potential recovery of the patient is to step into the plot and identify the evil intent of the people actively – but not always openly – seeking the final demise of the patient.
Of course, it’s still going to be my word against that of a skilled, ostensibly credible, and beguiling group of assassins who have attracted a number of innocent supporters and clever co-conspirators. Convincing people to listen requires providing them with insights into motive and methods that open their minds to asking hard questions.
There is an almost unfathomable quantity of money and power riding on whether or not nuclear energy can be revived in time to approach its true potential. Any energy that is not supplied by nuclear power plants will have to be supplied by another source. All competitive suppliers, including those who market coal, gas, wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and even distillate fuel oil have the potential to increase sales, revenues and profits if they can force nuclear plants to exit the market.
During a brief building period that lasted less than 40 years, electricity production from nuclear reactors in the U.S. increased from zero to 800 billion kilowatt-hours per year.
At $0.05 per kilowatt-hour, that electricity is worth about $40 billion per year. Just imagine how large that number could have been if the technology deployment had not been abruptly halted. Heroic resuscitation efforts are worthwhile.
Late last week, while many observers were focused on a long weekend of religious celebrations with friends and families, there were several announcements made in the slowly developing crisis in the American electricity supply system.
Operators of a number of several large power plants with the ability to produce electricity night and day, wind or calm, pipeline or no pipeline, declared that they are planning to retire those plants. The companies making the announcements will either jump on the bandwagon trend of producing electricity using more fragile sources that depend on the weather or the hour by hour whim of the speculative fuel market or they will exit the business altogether.
Though I might have missed or overlooked a few important announcements, here are the ones that were the proximate stimulant for this post.
- First Energy’s announced plan to retire its Ohio and Pennsylvania nuclear plants
- Exelon’s announcement that it plans to retire the Mystic Generating Station
- First Energy’s bankruptcy filing and the implication that it will affect its other plants
The announcements were not limited to plants using uranium or coal, Exelon’s Mystic Generating Station is near the Everett LNG import terminal and also has onsite distillate fuel oil.
A multi-decade, high-risk experiment, initially envisioned by Ken Lay and his colleagues at Enron, is nearing a potentially painful precipice.
Under current rules, plants that incur the extra costs associated with buying fuel on long term contracts with some buffer capacity on site have seen their revenues fall dangerously close to their ongoing costs. This hasn’t been a short term blip or a market correction; it’s been sustained now for close to a decade.
The duration of the financial stress has been produced by a combination of forces including:
- Continued construction of large, intermittently productive wind and solar power generators even when local markets are oversupplied
- Continued development and deployment of advanced extraction techniques for natural gas and oil even in the face of glut-inspired price reductions
- Expanded efforts to replace electricity with local combustion of propane, fuel oil and natural gas
- Increasing acceptance of the notion that an untested promise to reduce consumption is equivalent in value to a proven capability to increase generation.
Owners of weather-resistant, fuel-secure power plants have seen their finances stressed and their stock prices fall. That makes it more difficult and expensive to raise the capital required to update and improve their facilities. Projects designed to increase productivity have been deferred or cancelled in the face of low prices; there is insufficient return to justify the investment.
Some capital projects cannot be legally deferred any longer; they are driven by changes in regulations put into effect to improve cleanliness or public/political safety perceptions.
In the case of required changes that need capital investment and often demand a period with no revenue generation during installation, companies have few options other than to retire their facilities.
Resources that were once directed towards long term technological advances have disappeared.
For example, First Energy was once one of the utility leaders that was deeply interested in small, modular reactors. They disbanded the group that invested in nascent engineering efforts and stopped sending representatives to the industry gatherings.
Instead of planning for a more prosperous, cleaner and abundant future, the company leaders have been forced to work on mere survival. That effort appears to be failing. While there are some cheering the company’s demise, there should be a lot of customers worrying about what comes next.
While it’s true that some of this situation appears to be part of a normally functioning market that uses price signals to help participants determine opportunities and capacity choices, there is little doubt that the electricity market has been structured (some might say “rigged”) with little consideration of the system’s long term planning needs.
It appears likely that the structure, unless changed soon, will produce an outcome that will impose significant widely-felt pain along with oversized gains for some well-positioned few during the correction. After enough reliable generation capacity has been retired, the gas supply glut will disappear. Periods of increased demand or interrupted supply caused by inevitable storms, weather fronts, or even purposeful attack will lead to painful prices and demand destruction.
Of course, high prices are not painful for everyone. They are exactly what “the market” depends on to encourage new supply. Unfortunately, while short term price spikes provide rich payoffs for well-timed speculation, they are difficult to use to convince long term investors that there is an opportunity for sustained income over a lengthy period of time.
That means that any new supply will be something that can be quickly and inexpensively installed. There are usually a number of reasons why some equipment is significantly cheaper than other equipment that appears capable of performing similar tasks. Most successful people avoid cheap goods; that is often part of the basis for their continued success.
Among those who write about this topic in most popular media venues, I’m in a worried minority. Many seem to believe in the current structure. Perhaps they are just confident that it will benefit their associates and their favored technologies. They often point to a study of power failures over a five year period and claim it “proves” fuel supply constraints rarely contribute to power outages.
As a person who came of age during the 1970s and who has studied the world’s fascinating and complicated fuel supply industry history I believe their conclusions were made with carefully imposed blinders that didn’t include some disruptive, dangerous and transformative periods in human history.
Some might say that the coming disruption will be a good opportunity to stimulate the deployment of newer, better, and more efficient technology. As a long-time advocate of new nuclear plant construction, perhaps I should stop sounding the alarm and simply maneuver to be ready to help pick through the wreckage.
The fact is that I am not standing on a distant shore watching the developing crash. I live, work and play here in America. So do the vast majority of the people I love and or know. I can’t just watch, so I’ll have to keep doing whatever I can to sound the alarm in time to make a course correction.
If it works soon, most may never notice and will wonder what I was so worried about. The longer we wait, the more radical the turn will have to be.
Though I take some pride in my critical reading skills and resistance to getting snookered by scam stories, I fell for a doozy yesterday. Unfortunately, I ended up propagating what might have been a clever ruse designed to paint nuclear energy advocacy in a bad light. It’s a story worth telling after I apologize profusely […]
California, an enormously populous and wealthy state with an outsized impact on the culture, economy and politics of the United States, has a gubernatorial election this year. Jerry Brown, who has served a total of four terms and is the son of a former two-term California governor, isn’t running for reelection due to term limits. […]
Mark Menezes, the Undersecretary of Energy at the Department of Energy, gave an optimistic, forward-looking, audience-flattering, stage-setting talk at the Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. At least five times during his 10-minute talk, he repeated various combinations of a phrase – “revive, revitalize and expand” – that is apparently the mantra that the Administration has chosen […]
Last week, the Nuclear Infrastructure Council hosted its 5th annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The agenda was packed; information and ideas came rapidly enough to inspire significant post-event reflection. One question worth of significant additional discussion is “How do we match the ingenuity and enthusiasm of atomic innovators with the large magnitude financing sources needed […]
By Peter Lyons Somewhere in Russia, 34 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium—enough material to make about 10,000 weapons—are awaiting disposal. Moscow was supposed to start destroying this stockpile, but has yet to start, leaving a huge threat lurking in an unknown location. If even a tiny fraction of this material fell into terrorists’ hands, they […]
I’ll start with a thank you and a congratulations to the Nuclear Infrastructure Council, David Blee, Caleb Ward and all supporting staff for assembling a great cast of attendees and speakers at the fifth annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The event was a high quality, well run and skillfully moderated affair that provided valuable learning […]
For now, I’m going to leave all names out of this piece of hearsay. Please believe me when I say that my sources are good and varied. Throughout his campaign, President Trump ran on the slogan “Make America Great Again.” That inspired many to attend his rallies and probably convinced many to vote for him. […]
It’s time – or way past time – to think and talk about nuclear energy in new ways, recognizing the importance of the topic for the future health and prosperity of humanity. This show includes 5 forward leaning thought leaders in atomic energy. All of them are optimistic about nuclear’s future, often driven by their […]
During a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing titled DOE Modernization: Advancing the Economic and National Security Benefits of America’s Nuclear Infrastructure there was an important exchange between Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) and Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute. So you don’t have to scroll through 4 hours of video, I […]
Note: The below is an updated version of a post first published in March 2017. Since DOE is preparing for its revised FY2019 budget submission and Congress is already holding hearings about DOE priorities, the subject of a fast neutron facility has reentered the advanced nuclear energy conversation. There is a known gap in fast […]