Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Coal

Trump’s Energy Policy Is Scary To Multinational Petroleum Interests

By

Trump’s plan for American energy strength is rightfully causing angst among people who believe that renewable energy is the inevitable path forward to reduce society’s dependence on fossil fuel. It is likely to cause even more fear among the people who are betting on fossil fuel to continue dominating the world’s economy and geopolitics.

Trump’s campaign statements and careful attention to Senate confirmation hearings for his nominees for EPA Administrator (Scott Pruitt) and Secretary of Energy (Rick Perry) lead me to the conclusion that we are headed for an era of cheap and abundant power. Trump and his key cabinet members have promised to work to remove artificially imposed barriers to developing increased supplies. They plan to replace those barriers with pragmatic solutions and regulations based on science and the rule of law.

Even if the brief summary of the plan fails to specifically mention nuclear energy or uranium, the general strategy plays directly into atomic energy’s strongest suit. It doesn’t have much of a political backing – yet – but its scientific and engineering potential is unmatched.

This optimistic – scary to multinational petroleum interests – pair of graphs were on the last slide in a March 1956 presentation by M. King Hubbert to the American Petroleum Institute

This optimistic – scary to multinational petroleum interests – pair of graphs were on the last slide in a March 1956 presentation by M. King Hubbert to the American Petroleum Institute

When it comes to artificially imposed barriers to developing indigenous raw material supplies, the relatively recent declaration preventing new claims for uranium mining in key locations is roughly equivalent to the federal government declaring the Permian Basin or the Marcellus Shale to be off limits for oil and gas development.

In another example, Gov. Perry stated his determination to come to a pragmatic and working solution to the “nuclear waste” bottleneck that has been used to constipate the nuclear industry since the early 1970s. He briefly, but importantly, told Illinois Senator Duckworth that he was interested in nuclear fuel recycling technologies developed at the Argonne National Lab. He also responded with enthusiastic support for small modular and advanced reactors.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has made it clear that he intends to run an agency that bases its regulation on sound science and that remains within the limits of the authority granted by laws enacted by Congress. If he acts consistently with that stated position, one of his first wins might be in the office of Radiation and Indoor Air by directing an open and honest review of low dose radiation research that could change regulations based on the 1950s era assertion that all radiation is harmful to human health.

Abundant Supply Leads To Low Prices

Most segments of the fossil fuel industry and its backers – both political and financial – will have a difficult period of financial adjustment in this abundant energy economy. Many people who have difficulties understanding the long term and unavoidable effects of the law of supply and demand may be confused by that statement.

Restrictions on developing new sources of energy are exactly what keeps fossil fuel so profitable and so geopolitically important. Without placing vast areas of potential resources off-limits and without an incredibly diverse set of artificial burdens placed on abundantly available energy from actinides like uranium, plutonium and thorium, prices for oil, natural gas, and coal would be several times lower than they are today.

It is often in the interest of existing suppliers to suggest and support rules that slow or stop their competitors. The most egregious examples of these anticompetitive actions often include grandfather clauses that exempts the existing suppliers from the most costly provisions of new regulations. As part of the regulatory sales job, the public is often told that these new rules are opposed by “the industry.” The truth is that there are many different points of view and interests at stake among all industries.

Environmental Effects Of Abundant Energy Policies

Removing artificial barriers to development would not automatically result in a dirtier environment; quite the opposite is more likely. It’s important to understand that even industrialists have families that appreciate clean air and clean water. Not only will laws designed to address real problems of pollution and its effects on the property and health rights of neighbors remain in place, but from the perspective of a systems engineer, pollution is visible evidence of economic inefficiency and waste.

For example, the “stuff” that pours out of the furnace of a coal stack is often non-combustible material that was dug out of the ground thousands of miles away from the power plant and then expensively transported to the power plant only to burden filters, grinders and conveyor belts and then stream out of the smokestack all while not providing any useful energy in return.

It’s possible and potentially lucrative to invest cheap, clean nuclear energy early in the fuel cycle to remove polluting impurities from coal before wastefully transporting those impurities and putting them irretrievably into the atmosphere, landfills or waterways. Some of the components of natural coal that cause major problems when left as impurities to be run through the cycle could be valuable raw materials if separated and purified in processing plants located in coal country.

Of course, the demand for coal as a power plant fuel will be governed by the overall competitiveness of the product when compared to other fuel sources. The customers in well-designed markets will not limit their purchasing criteria to the cost per unit of heat provided, but will also consider factors like the ability to stockpile fuel to avoid supply interruptions, the availability of appropriate equipment for burning the fuel, and the proximity of the resource to the customer.

Easily mined coal may even be a prospect for conversion into cleaner, more valuable and more readily transported liquid fuels through the addition of a bit of heat and hydrogen in coal to liquid processes that have been well understood since the early part of the 20th century.

Abundant Energy Can Preserve Remote, Pristine Areas

An abundant energy economy will not result in increasing extreme extraction from remote locations. Those efforts can only be justified in markets where the fuel prices are high enough to support the very real and unavoidable costs of building new infrastructure, paying people to accept harsh living conditions and fighting against the elements that kept the area remote and pristine in the first place.

Instead, very low energy prices will encourage efficient use of existing infrastructure, deeper drilling in already developed resource areas, and efforts to take advantage of very low cost, easily transported and stockpiled fuels – like uranium, plutonium and thorium. Low prices will increase demand, but that is not a bad thing if the demand is supplied by clean and readily available fuel sources.

Another way to look at energy conservation is that it is the avoidance of work that could be accomplished if the energy was used. Conserving energy when we know that E=MC^2 with both M and C as large numbers is about as important as conserving bits in a gigabyte economy.

“All of the above” policies that are honestly aimed at making energy abundant so that it can be used to drive a vigorous, manufacturing economy can produce ever increasing wealth among the vast majority of its participants. The eventual and almost inevitable result should be a sustainable transition to cheap, abundant, emission-free uranium, plutonium and thorium.

That achievement will be a boon to lovers of clean air, clean water, and prosperous people. The possibility that this vision might come to pass is a scary prospect for those who continue to bet their wealth, power and careers on the assumption that the hydrocarbon economy will never end or on the myth that unreliables can do it all.

A version of the above was first published on Forbes.com under the same headline used here.

60 Minutes on coal ash – muted outrage, lots of smiles and nods

By

On December 7, 2014, 60 Minutes, the venerable investigative reporting television show that has been on the air since 1968, aired a segment about Duke Energy’s Dan River coal ash spill, which occurred on February 2, 2014. That large release of coal waste was a big topic in local newspapers and television shows in my current hometown; the affected river is less than an hour away by car. I’m not sure how much coverage the event and clean-up received in national or international news outlets.

Coming on the heels of 60 Minute’s catastrophic portrayal of the area affected by the 1986 Chernobyl accident, Stahl’s segment offers a contrast worth discussion in primetime media tone and content between the aftermath of a radioactive contamination event that took place in a remote area under the Soviet Union more than 28 years ago, and a toxic coal ash contamination event affecting tens of thousands of US citizens that occurred just 10 months ago.

It offers an even starker contrast between the media and government oversight reactions associated with the Dan River coal ash spill and the tiny release of nearly pure water from the San Onofre nuclear power station. The 60 minutes segment reveals that Duke Energy paid a $99,000 fine for allowing a pipe at a coal ash impoundment to collapse and release tens of thousands of tons of coal ash into the Dan River. It tells us that the company responsible for the coal ash knew there was significant risk of a major release and did nothing to shore up its systems or to move the toxic material to a safer storage location.

About 10% – 20% of the segment consists of a friendly, smile-filled conversation between the responsible company’s CEO and the investigative reporter, with plenty of opportunity for Duke Energy to provide its version of the story.

When the San Onofre nuclear power station experienced a leak in a single steam generator U-tube that seeped from the primary closed system into the secondary closed system at a rate of 75 gallons per day, the end result–after more than 14 months of hearings and focused political pressure with the power plant owner spending tens of millions in studies and response efforts–was a decision by the company to close a 2,200 MWe power station that generated between $2 and $5 million worth of virtually emission-free electricity every day.

In the San Onofre case, company leaders were routinely demonized and portrayed as being untrustworthy. Even the responsible federal regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was under severe criticism and political pressure to act harshly towards SCE, the company that owned the plant.

Major coal ash releases into public waterways and onto private land are not frequent, but they are certainly not unknown. In fact, Leslie Stahl, the same reporter featured in the December 7, 2014 Dan River coal ash segment also starred in a 2009 segment about the Kingston River coal ash pond collapse that released a billion gallons of sludge.

Aside: The headline and URL associated with the archived copy of this piece on the CBS web site is Coal ash spill: A billion barrels of muck. Perhaps the headline writer and editor don’t realize that a barrel is 42 times larger than a gallon. End Aside.

Actual spill was a billion gallons, not a billion barrels

Actual spill was a billion gallons, not a billion barrels

Despite a history of serious problems and focused political and legal pressure from environmental organizations, coal ash remains unregulated at the federal level and subjected to state level regulations that have a wide variety of different standards.

I’ll again reveal my bias against “state rights” in energy regulations. State borders are imaginary lines on a map and do not control the movement of materials like coal ash, combustion waste, or even radioactive materials. They also have nothing to do with the national prosperity and power that depends on abundant, accessible energy resources. As our founding documents encourage, when issues affect commerce between states or when one state’s rules significantly affect the citizens of other states, the federal government should be the arbitrator.

When the coal ash pond in North Carolina experienced a ruptured pipe, many of the people who suffered from the impact of released sludge lived in Virginia have no vote that can lead to improved rules and procedural requirements.

Not surprisingly, utilities that own coal ash disposal sites and continue to produce 130 million more tons of the material every year work diligently to ensure that the material does not get classified as hazardous waste and does not come under federal government regulations. That classification would add a considerable cost burden and would reduce the economic advantage that coal has in some areas over its competitive power sources.

I am not advocating a situation where coal ash regulations are increased to the point where they rival the regulations associated with reusable nuclear fuel. That would harm the entire economy by restricting our access to a reliable, affordable source of power. What I would like to see is a situation where there is more uniform regulation of coal ash and a strong, prompt push to implement workable solutions that protect public waterways and private property.

It would also be useful for the companies that operate nuclear power plants and own reusable nuclear fuel to take some notes from their coal divisions about how to better use their position to influence regulations that make sense without imposing onerous operating costs.

I’m not opposed to the political process and I recognize the important advantages to the adversarial system that is the foundation for our system of government. The nuclear industry needs to learn how to play the role that an industry is supposed to play in keeping regulatory reach and media coverage under control.

Inside a German Lignite Mine

By

The BBC made a visit to a German lignite (brown coal) mine. I’d like the people who favor the EnergieWende to explain how they can like this energy source better than nuclear power.

Smoking Gun – NCPC & John F. Kennedy

By

There is a folder in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum titled National Coal Policy Conference that documents an apparently successful effort to influence a rising political star to support national policies that favor coal over natural gas, residual oil and atomic energy. The NCPC, whose existence lasted from its founding in 1959 […]

Smoking gun – Antinuclear talking points coined by coal interests

By

Some of the earliest documented instances of opposition to the development of commercial nuclear power in the United States originated from designated representatives of the coal industry. They were the first people to mount sustained opposition to the use of taxpayer money to support the development of nuclear power stations. They testified against the implied […]

Smoking gun: AEC told President Kennedy why coal industry was opposed to nuclear energy

By

It’s been quite a while since my last smoking gun post on Atomic Insights. It may be time to revive the series to remind nuclear energy advocates to follow the money and know their opponents. In the battle for hearts, minds and market share it is always useful to know why vocal opposition exists, but […]

On Germany, coal and carbon

By

By Paul Lorenzini Germany’s nuclear phase-out has an obvious and unavoidable consequence: they will burn more fossil fuels and emit more carbon. They may succeed in lowering carbon emissions using some artifact (comparisons to some historical year) but only a fool would contend that their carbon emissions will be not be higher than they otherwise […]

Dieter Helm – Nuclear saga cannot go on (Leaders must push to a happy ending)

By

Dieter Helm has generously shared an April 2013 article written for Prospect Magazine titled Stumbling towards crisis. In that article Helm points to US energy decision making as a good example that serves as a contrast to UK energy policy making. He sees chosen path in the UK as almost guaranteeing a crisis. In his […]

Does nuclear energy need to do it all?

By

At The Energy Collective, there is an active comment thread on a post titled Is Bill McKibben Really Serious About Climate Change? that has been sustained since March 8, 2013. Recently there was a comment that provided an opportunity to address a frequently expressed meme that is often used by people who oppose the use […]

Visual – How much material does it take to run a 3,600 MWe coal plant

By

Utility companies that operate both coal and nuclear power plants rarely use the important communications techniques of comparison and contrast to help people understand the benefits of nuclear energy. There is some business logic behind that policy. I have a different set of interests and am not constrained by a need to protect any particular […]

Coal down, nuclear up – punchy ads from Bruce Power

By

Warning – these ads from Bruce Power might offend those who make their living by selling coal, financing coal, transporting coal, burning coal, mining coal, or selling systems that attempt to make coal cleaner. The general theme of the series is: We’re proud to be nukes! Supplying clean, affordable, reliable nuclear power that empowers prosperity […]