Atomic Insights

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

With immediate and profound changes, U.S. nuclear power can become an unexpected but welcome low carbon wedge

By 86 Comments

Researchers from Carnegie Mellon, University of San Diego, and Harvard recently published a useful call to action titled U.S. nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge. For pro-nuclear observers and debaters, their conclusion may seem quite depressing.

It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, without immediate and profound changes, we appear to be set to lose one of the most promising candidates [nuclear power] for providing a wedge of reliable, low-carbon energy over the next few decades and perhaps even the rest of the century.

For nuclear entrepreneurs, energy policy creators, business leaders and other people of action, the conclusion sounds more like a plea. The study on which the conclusion rests should not be seen as a hand-wringing condemnation, but as a reasonably comprehensive identification of high priority areas of concentration. There’s no doubt that the current trajectory can lead to an industry collapse, but there’s also little doubt of the existence of tools that can alter course and speed enough to achieve a more favorable outcome.

Not so dramatic policy changes

The researchers for this study spent several years conducting parametric studies and eliciting the opinions of various experts to evaluate whether or not nuclear energy has a future in the U.S.

(Note: The authors acknowledge having received financial support for their work from a wide variety of grant-making organizations including: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Grant 2016-7281); the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Grant 12-101167-000- INP); the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (CEDM) through cooperative agreements SES-0949710 and SES-1463492 between the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon University; the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Carnegie Mellon University Yellow Ribbon Program; the University of California, San Diego Frontiers of Innovation Scholarship Program; and the University of California, San Diego Deep Decarbonization Initiative.)

Their studies and expert surveys led them to believe that “barring some dramatic policy changes, it is most unlikely that nuclear power will be able to contribute to decarbonization in the United States, much less provide a new carbon-free wedge on the critical time scale of the next several decades.” That begs the questions, “What policy changes are needed? Are they as radical or dramatic as the researchers found?

One area where the recently published paper apparently overestimated the difficulty of favorable policy changes is in the case of new large, light water reactor plant construction. “Recent efforts to kickstart nuclear construction in the United States have failed.”

Though there have been considerable challenges in the form of cost and schedule overruns and a cancelled project, the Georgia Public Service Commission, the Vogtle 3 & 4 owners, the Congress and the President came together to make commitments and policy changes (settlement with Toshiba, agreement on a cost ceiling between Southern and GPSC, additional loan guarantee, extension of deadline to qualify for production tax credits, etc.) that should result in two completed units before the end of 2022. It is too early to declare failure and too early to assume that the issues that produced the cost and schedule challenges have not been, or cannot be overcome.

There are no new projects underway, but there are four sites (including VC Summer), with a total of 8 potential reactor units currently holding issued Combined Operating Licenses (COLs) based on the AP1000 design. It’s no surprise, given the difficulties experienced by the first of a kind projects, that the owners of the licensed projects have declared they have no current plans to use the licenses. It’s also well within the range of predictable outcomes that one or more will change their plans once the Vogtle units have completed all required testing and are fully operational.

When that happens, not only will it prove that the U.S. version of the AP1000 certified design is fully complete and constructible, but it will also prove the [temporary] existence of a large, experienced workforce with all of the require skills needed to build, test and start-up more units of that design.

The paper classified higher gas prices and “robust” carbon prices as necessary ingredients for a revival of interest in nuclear energy. It also declared that both of these were “unlikely to materialize soon.” Given the growth in natural gas exports as LNG, the increasing domestic demand for gas, and the lack of interest in expanded drilling, Energy Information Agency predictions for gas prices over the near term include price increases of up to 20% over the current $3.00 per MMBTU. The EIA has a history of underestimating volatility in gas prices.

There is also a recently announced bipartisan effort with significant corporate support to implement a carbon fee and dividend program. While still a relatively low probability occurrence, it may be a little more than “unlikely” that there will be a price put on CO2 emissions.

Advanced reactors

Even though many advanced, non light water reactors (LWR) have been tested and demonstrated at a significant scale, both in the U.S. and internationally, the researchers found few reasons to be optimistic about the commercial availability of any large non-LWR reactor designs until midcentury. They relied heavily on a review of past DOE programs and budgets along with a series of interviews conducted with “30 senior nuclear energy experts”.

They pointed to unpredictable budgets, historically small R&D budget numbers, allocation of at least half of the research budget to maintaining facilities, and lack of sharply focused program management.

“Our analysis suggests that in order for advanced nuclear technologies to play a role in deep decarbonization over the next several decades, more competent stewardship of nuclear innovation, substantially greater appropriations, and a change in energy markets, all very heavy lifts, will be required.”

The list of necessary changes is reasonable, though it’s a matter of debate whether or not they qualify as “very heavy lifts.” There is evidence of improved stewardship already and Congress has been discussing sharply increased funding in its recent budget hearings. The importance of short term energy market variations, however, might be somewhat exaggerated considering the long term nature of nuclear plant investments.

Smaller reactors

The paper notes that there is a lot of interest in smaller reactors as a way to overcome some of the cost and schedule hurdles faced by enormous projects. It provides details for the basis of their opinion that successful development of mass produced SMRs will require direct and indirect subsidies in the range of “several hundred billion dollars.” The authors go on to imply that in addition to that high level of government support,

“…the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission would need to find ways to dramatically accelerate its regulatory review processes, including addressing novel design options that depart from current practice, such as systems that encourage automation, multimodule construction and operation, smaller operational and security staffing levels, and perhaps dramatically smaller emergency planning zones. Moreover, a serious national commitment would have to be made to deeply decarbonize the energy system. The signal that this is happening must be strong enough for investors to confidently assume that the direct or in-direct cost of emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will lie in the range of $100 per ton of CO2 within a decade. All these developments are possible, but we believe they are most unlikely.”

I believe that the authors have erred by implying that smaller reactors would need all of the following in order to succeed: multi-hundred billion dollar subsidies, a dramatically improved regulatory construct, and a high price on carbon. Any one of the three or a combination of partial realization of individual steps might be sufficient to encourage the kind of private investment interest that will result in a thriving, increasingly competitive energy option.

The glass is half full with a rising level, not half-empty with a lowering level.

Atomic fission technology is a terrible candidate for a “do not resuscitate” order. Antinuclear groups MUST not be granted right to put one in place

By 50 Comments

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.

Environmentalists split on letting carbon-free nuclear power die.

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.

Is America’s vaunted electricity supply system on course for rocks and shoals?

By 41 Comments

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 […]

Logical Basis For Sec. Rick Perry’s Resiliency Pricing Rule.

By 17 Comments

The intense conversation Energy Secretary Rick Perry purposely initiated with his Sept. 29 letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission continues to occupy the attention of specialists. The direction was concise: implement pricing rules that protect electricity generators that meet certain requirements from being pushed into early retirement. The marching orders came with an aggressive but […]

FERC Proposal Supporting Coal And Nuclear Prompts Howls From Gas, Wind, Solar, Antinuclear

By 15 Comments

If his goal was to stimulate a conversation with a rapid approach to concluding action, Energy Secretary Rick Perry has scored a victory with his recently proposed Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule. During the past couple of weeks, the insular world of energy policy wonks has talked of little else, numerous congressional hearings have been held […]

Can Gas Turbines Using Nuclear Fuel Change The Energy Game?

By 49 Comments

Disclosure: Rod Adams founded the now defunct Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. His company developed nuclear gas turbines from 1993-2010. It is a modern day truism that natural gas power plants are cheap while nuclear power plants are expensive. Natural gas plants can also be built in a variety of sizes by a larger number of suppliers […]

Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association and Marcellus Shale Coalition join antinuclear “citizens group”

By

The Beaver Valley (PA) Times has published an important article titled Group forms to oppose bailout of struggling nuclear power industry. That article needs to be read and retained by those of us who believe that existing nuclear plants are important pillars of the U.S. electricity supply network that is often called “the grid.” The […]

Bipartisan pro-nuclear love fest at Senate EPW hearing

By

Yesterday, on International Women’s Day, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee held a hearing that provided both visible and audible proof that times are changing in the political and public acceptance of nuclear energy. The committee organized the hearing in order to gather information and invited stakeholder feedback related to the recently reintroduced […]

One Toshiba Lesson – Organizations With Venerable Corporate Names Can Be Risky Acquisitions

By

There are numerous reasons why Toshiba, formerly an enormous and successful Japanese electronics manufacturer, is struggling to survive. One of the lessons available to be learned – once again – is caveat emptor (buyer beware). After a series of purchases and deals that gradually took Toshiba a long way from its core competencies, the company […]

Toshiba Likely To Exit Nuclear Plant Construction Business

By

Note: There is an important information update at the end of this post. Westinghouse is “unlikely to carry out actual construction work for the future nuclear power plant projects to eliminate risk.” Satoshi Tsunakawa, President and CEO of Toshiba, the Japanese company that owns Westinghouse and its CB&I Stone Webster subsidiary, made that statement during […]

Nuclear highlights of Rick Perry’s confirmation hearing plus a suggested action

By

The Senate Energy and Environment committee, chaired by Senator Lisa Murkowski, held a confirmation hearing yesterday for former Texas Governor Rick Perry, the Trump Administration nominee for Secretary of Energy. Sam Britton, the nuclear waste specialist from the Bipartisan Policy Center, produced a valuable resource by watching the full hearing and producing a series of […]

Natural gas burners file suit challenging fairness of New York Zero Emission Credts

By 27 Comments

A coalition of electric power producers that operate natural gas-burning generation plants have filed suit in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. They are challenging the New York State Department of Public Service’s (NYSDPS) recently enacted Zero Emission Credit. Competition wasn’t designed with customers in mind The lawsuit filing document Indicates that […]