Greenhouse Gases and the Ozone Layer:

A Lesson for the Future

Recent reports about environmental problems caused by chemicals introduced in the 1990s to protect the ozone layer struck me as having a message for those of us in the energy business .

The ozone issue relates to the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that replaced the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) once used in aerosol spray cans, air conditioners, and refrigerators. Over the years since they were introduced, they have been found to have several problems.

First, HCFCs may break down in the atomosphere to form oxalic acid, one of the components of acid rain. (The Wikimedia photograph accompanying this posting shows trees damaged by acid rain.) Second, they themselves are greenhouse gases, and are much more potent than carbon dioxide as greenhouse gases. (Articles report they are 4,500 times more potent.)

So why am I commenting on this issue in a blog that is focused on energy in general, and nuclear energy in particular?

I write about this because it is yet another example of our failure to understand fully the implications of any new chemical or technology before we implement it on a large scale. I write about this because it sounds a lot like dumping chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico to disperse oil without fully understanding the environmental effects of these chemicals. I write about this because I continue to find reports of unexpected effects from the so-called benign, environmentally-friendly, renewable solar and wind energy sources.

I am not saying that we should not have replaced CFCs with HCFCs, and I'm not saying that we should have waited for the perfect solution before we did anything. When this change was made, I'm not sure how much people understood about greenhouse gases.

I am just observing that, as we try to correct one problem, we often end up creating another. It sometimes seems that we treat Planet Earth as one large science experiment. I would hope that we can step back and learn from mistakes like these. While we may never be able to anticipate every consequence of a new technology or activity, one would hope that we would learn to analyze things more thoroughly, and perhaps implement new measures differently than we have in the past.

Now that the world is struggling to reduce greenhouse gases, I have to wonder how much the HCFCs have contributed and how much harder the problems of the energy industry are because of them and how much the greenhouse gas reduction measures being developed are considering this component of the problem.

This brings me to the most important reason to comment on this issue in a nuclear blog. I see lessons that can transferred to other fields from the nuclear field. First, there is the use probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) in the nuclear field. PRA has forced engineers to think systematically about possible sequences of events that can lead to accidents. Second, there are measures like defense in depth in nuclear reactors. While chemicals in the environment are very different than systems in a reactor, it seems to me that some greater diversity of solutions might have reduced the unexpected negative consequences of HCFCs.

Recently, the Gulf oil spill has had people commenting on how the oil industry could benefit by adopting measures from the nuclear field. It appears that the nuclear field may have useful models in other cases as well.

***

The ANS Conference:

Lots to Think About

I'm a little late reporting on the American Nuclear Society conference, which took place June 13-17 in San Diego, but I have been trying to synthesize in my mind some of my many observations during the course of the meeting, and I only now feel I can add something to the reports that have already been written.

In the first place, the meeting appeared to be very successful. Strikingly, although the economy is still in the doldrums, the meeting attendance was up--very much so for a summer meeting, which usually draws a smaller crowd than the winter meetings. More than 1400 people attended. Although I could not get statistics, I was also struck by the number of non-US attendees. Again, there are usually more foreign attendees at the fall meeting, particularly every other year when the fall meeting is in Washington, DC.

There are several possible reasons for this, one of which may be the renewed interest in nuclear power. Companies that haven't sent people in the recent past may be re-engaging. Another factor might have been the fact that additional people were drawn to the meeting by the three "embedded topicals" held simultaneously with the meeting. The three were: the International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP); Second International Meeting on the Safety and Technology of Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Control and Management (ST-NH2); and Nuclear Fuels and Structural Materials for the Next Generation Nuclear Reactors. The international nature of these meetings may also have contributed to the high number of non-US attendees.

The number of simultaneous conferences, of course, made for many competing sessions, and the only downside was that it was sometimes difficult for me to hear everything I wanted to hear. I necessarily had to be selective, and although I heard from others about sessions I missed, my report reflects what I was able to see and hear firsthand.

The opening plenary was a good kickoff for the conference, with talks by NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, Dick Stratford from the Department of State, Nuclear Energy Institute CEO Marv Fertel, Hitachi-GE President Masaharu Hanyuu, and Ross Ridenoure of Southern Cal Edison.

I was particularly interested that both Marv and Ross offered very thoughtful cautions about the potential entry of so many new nations to nuclear power. While the idea of more nations having nuclear power seems attractive in some respects, Marv cautioned that there is a need to assure that new entrants have the competence to operate nuclear power safely, and Ross wondered about the ability of the grids in some smaller countries to support nuclear power. Small reactors would seem to be a large part of the answer to that, but turning again to Marv's comments, he indicated that he saw a definite role for such reactors in the future, but he noted that all reactors look good on paper, and hoped that the small reactor community would learn from the mistakes of the large reactors. Another interesting observation offered by Marv is that no technologies are completely proliferation resistant. We need both good technologies and institutional controls.

There was much more to the session, of course, including a lively Q&A exchange on the new NRC-commissioned study by the National Academy of Sciences on the effects of radiation around nuclear power facilities, and a very comprehensive summary by Dick Stratford of the status of the various nuclear agreements between the US and other countries, and the reasons behind the approaches taken, the reasons some agreements have moved or stalled, etc. It was a fascinating look into international diplomacy.

I would be remiss if I did not conclude my discussion of the opening plenary by congratulating Dick Stratford on receiving the Smyth award at this meeting. (The Smyth Award is the highest recognition given jointly by ANS and NEI. Its recipient must have international stature in a broad area of the nuclear energy field and must have made significant contributions toward the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.) Marv Fertel presented the award to Dick, and in his acceptance of the award, Dick noted that his former boss and mentor, Dick Kennedy, had received the same award in 1998, but in Dick Kennedy's case, the award was made posthumously. Dick Stratford opined that he was very glad that his award wasn't posthumous!

In other sessions, one thing that was notable to me were that a number of presentations were made by people looking at the role of nuclear energy in a broader context. These included looks at the implications of very large-scale energy storage to allow nuclear power to meet peak loads by Professor Charlie Forsberg of MIT and two of his students (Isaiah Oloyede and You Ho Lee), and an interesting proposal by Cal Abel, a student at Georgia Tech, to replace coal-fired plants with nuclear plants, but to maintain the coal--and rail--industries by converting coal to natural gas to replace imported petroleum for transportation needs.

In addition, there were many talks that covered advanced reactor technologies, both large and small, and both water-moderated and other. In addition to talks from the developers of some of these technologies, there were some more general discussions of regulatory issues and the like. Still other talks that I attended addressed issues of financing or issues associated with the national strategies of particular nations, including potential new entrants such as Jordan. Rather than trying to offer a complete synopsis of sessions I attended (which would only be a subset of the meeting anyway), I hope to bring in further comments and insights as appropriate when I address particular subjects in the future.

My own small role in the meeting was to organize and chair a plenary session in the embedded topical on nuclear hydrogen covering some of the nuclear hydrogen programs around the world. In opening the session, I had to observe that, when we organized a similar session at the meeting in Boston 3 years ago, I had six countries and IAEA represented. At this meeting, I had only 3 countries and IAEA in the program (and due to a last minute health problem, the speaker from China could not attend). The 3 countries who did not participate this time were South Africa, France and Russia. The three countries who were on the program were all in Asia (Japan, Korea and China), and the two who were present both reported slowdowns of their activities.

Thus, as always, different activities proceed at different rates. The good news is that in most cases, the slowdowns appear to be temporary. In some cases, they may be related to belt-tightening by governments, and in other cases, they seem to be a pause to take stock and possibly redirect focus. Whether the slowdowns will stretch out, I cannot guess at this point, but given the current interest in nuclear power on other fronts, nuclear hydrogen efforts could well be reinvigorated in the months ahead.

***

Nuclear Waste Disposal:

A Tall Order for the Blue Ribbon Commission

Although I have heard many comments about what the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste disposal should cover, I have heard fewer comments about how it should do its work. I was therefore very interested in a recent article by Iain Murray on the latter subject. Although I don't necessarily agree with some of his general observations on global warming or on the public perception of solar and wind, I think he has given a very good account of how the consultation process, particularly with local communities, has helped in other countries.

His article reinforces what I have seen as the basis for apparent success of the Finnish and Swedish approaches to siting waste facilities. I was further interested in his report of the finding of the British review that citizen panels and school projects came to different conclusions about geologic disposal than did the stakeholder groups, which he indicated were dominated by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. While we all know that Greenpeace, FOE and others are very active and vocal participants in stakeholder activities, I do not think many decision-makers fully understand that such voices do not necessarily represent the views of local residents or others. It therefore only reinforces my conviction that the process that the US uses to reach a new decision on disposal of nuclear waste has to emphasize this type of engagement.

I also note that Iain Murray mentioned that the Commission should "explore the feasibility of reviving the Yucca Mountain project." While that will be very contentious politically, it would give added credibility to the Commission's efforts if it can address Yucca Mountain, as it would help demonstrate that the Commission's review was comprehensive.

Clearly, the Blue-Ribbon Commission has its work cut out, but it would make a good start by heeding the lessons of history, both good and bad, so that we do not simply repeat the mistakes of the past.

***

International Energy Outlook 2010:

What's the Word for Nuclear?

Last Tuesday, the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its 2010 International Energy Outlook (IEO). I was fortunate to be in an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC that morning, where Deputy Adminstrator Howard Gruenspecht of the EIA gave a briefing on the IEO.

Some of the key findings have already been reported by the press. Most notably, worldwide, the EIA is forecasting an increase in energy consumption of 49% between 2007 and 2035. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming fraction of the increases (84%) will be in the non-OECD countries. Also of interest is the confirmation that the recession has dampened energy demand in the near term. As the world (hopefully) moves out of this recession period, the EIA is seeing that the pace of recovery in China and India exceeds that of Japan and European Union member countries.

Much of the study discusses the conventional fossil fuel resources (coal, oil and gas) as well as unconventional fossil fuels (coal to liquid, gas to liquid, oil sands and oil shale). However, news that has not been as widely reported is the IEO findings on nuclear. Most noteworthy is that the projection for nuclear electricity generation in 2030 is 9% higher than the projection published in last year's IEO.

As many long-term watchers of the EIA will recall, it has long had a reputation of being skeptical, at best, when it came to assessing the prospects of nuclear power. I can well recall, during my tenure in DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, meeting with the top management of EIA (at that time) to tell them why we thought their assessment of nuclear power was unduly negative. Although they listened politely, I'm not sure we ever changed their thinking. It is therefore very encouraging to me to see a 9% increase in their projections in just one year.

I should point out what most readers of this post will know, or will guess--that most of this increase is in Asia.

It is important to keep in mind that EIA makes its projections based on existing laws and regulations, not on projected ones. Thus, even President Obama's recent call for higher fuel efficiencies of heavy vehicles would not be incorporated into this study. (In addition, that particular announcement also probably came as the study was being completed.)

For those who are interested in reading and understanding the details of the study, the whole report is available for downloading from the EIA website.

***

Nuclear Paranoia:

Same Words, Different Take

Sometimes I find it hard to believe that some commentators are speaking the same language I speak. A recent op-ed criticizes the choice of former Senator Bob Graham and former EPA Administrator Bill Reilly by President Obama to head a new independent commission on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. As I read the article, I could see some of his points, but most of what he highlights in his efforts to prove how bad these individuals were struck me in just the opposite way.

Let's see:

• "Both Graham and Reilly have records that show each possesses some level of interest in confronting environmental issues." So, this is bad?

• In February 1991, Graham said, " There are no black-and white courses in a national energy policy...Every option has both assets and liabilities." Something we should all keep in mind, IMHO.

• In November 1990, Graham said that America "was too reliant on petroleum as our source of energy." Duh.

• In 2004, the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), which Reilly co-chairs, "released a report that called for the expansion of energy technologies to keep up with requirements for 'substantially increased quantities' of energy over the next twenty years and address the challenges that 'climate change' presented teh energy stakeholders and those with the power to create and influence energy policy." Horrors!


• And back in March 1989, Reilly was involved in writing an EPA report that "said that if one wanted to help slow the warming of the atmosphere, one needed to drive a small car that was able to get 40 miles per gallon, pay a higher tax on coal and oil, plant lots of new trees, and finally, give up opposition to new nuclear power plants." Aha! That's the problem. He said the N-word.

To be fair, the author of the article, Kevin Gosztola, peppers the entire article with his criticism of Graham's and Reilly's support for nuclear power. He seems to see fear that they will use their appointments to this commission to push a pro-nuclear agenda.

But who would Mr. Gosztola want to see in these positions? Someone from the oil industry? Someone who knows nothing about energy at all? Only someone who is fixated on renewable resources?

Gosztola's concerns smack of a bit of paranoia to me. Anyone who is pro-nuclear has to be bad, even if all other indicators suggest otherwise.

I read the same quotes (as well as others pertaining specifically to oil and gas that I didn't include here) and came to just the opposite conclusion. To me, these backgrounds reflect the fact that Graham and Reilly are knowledgeable about energy matters, appropriately critical of the oil and gas industry, and rational about what kinds of measures are possible and reasonable. I think that bodes well for the work of the commission.

Further, as I understand the purpose of the Commission, their mandate will be to propose ways to prevent such disasters from happening again. Given our current need for oil and gas, it would be very hard to see them say that the only safe oil field is one that is closed. Rather, I suspect that they will suggest a mix of technological, regulatory and other measures that will lessen the likelihood that such a disaster could ever happen again.

As I noted in my previous post, they may draw on the experiences of the nuclear industry to identify these measures, but that hardly means that the nuclear industry will benefit directly.

Even if the recommendations of the commission result in reduced oil and gas production in the near term, it is not the role of this commission to propose alternative energy technologies. That will be determined in other ways. Therefore, even if one were to assume that they have reasons to promote nuclear power, this is the wrong commission for that purpose.

I should mention that Gosztola also claims these individuals have conflicts of interest. He particularly cites Graham's receiving PAC money from the nuclear industry, investing in companies with nuclear interests, and investing in Halliburton. For the reasons above, I don't see the nuclear PAC money or the nuclear investments as being an issue for his service on this commission. The Halliburton issue could be a different story, but can be resolved by his divesting his interests. It is a common problem that comes up in government appointments.

In closing, I note that Gosztola criticizes another quote of Graham's, cited in the Washington Times on March 18, 2001: "Nuclear power is not a magic bullet, but it should also not be a poison pill." Is this a wild-eyed proponent of nuclear power?

I read the same words and come to a completely different conclusion.

***

Setting an Example:

Once Again, Nuclear Power is Used as Model

I could not help but be struck the other day by calls for a "Three Mile Island" type of investigation of the BP oil spill, such as a recent op-ed in the Florida Times-Union. The calls for this action note that the TMI investigation led to the current regulatory regime for nuclear power, and suggest that this type of regulation might be what is needed for the oil industry. The statements refer both to the extent and depth of NRC's regulatory oversight, and to the model of independent regulation that the NRC provides, as contrasted with the reports about the Minerals Management Service (MMS). The emergence and role of the industry's Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) are also noted.

This is not the first time that analytic methodologies, regulatory approaches, procedures, or other measures that have been developed for nuclear power have been applied to non-nuclear issues and problems. To highlight just a couple with which I am personally familiar:

• Probabilistic Risk/Safety Assessment: I do not profess to be an expert on the history of PRA/PSA. Undoubtedly, people assessed the risks of other technologies before Prof. Norm Rasmussen and his colleagues began their highly systematic studies of the risks, and the probabilities of these risks, for nuclear power operations. What is clear, is that the Rasmussen approach to studying and analyzing risks was more systematic and comprehensive than earlier work in other fields, that it was further developed and refined within the nuclear industry in the years since WASH-1400 was first published, and that it has since become a model for other complex technologies. I know this latter point for a fact. I briefed NASA on PRA while I was at NRC, and I am aware of the use of PRA in the airline industry, at the Department of Veteran's Affairs, and elsewhere, and of growing interest in seeing the use of PRA in other applications, such as telecommunications.

• Emergency Evacuation Procedures: As we all know, there are explicit requirements for emergency evacuation procedures around nuclear power plants. Such procedures, however, do not necessarily exist for other industrial hazards. There have been cases where a toxic chemical spill has occurred on a highway within the Emergency Planning Zone for a nuclear power plant, and the emergency procedures that had been developed for the plant (and never used for that purpose) were actually activated for the toxic spill.

One could point to many other examples as well--in training, procedures-writing, preventive maintenance, and other areas--where the rigor of the approach in the nuclear field has been adopted, at least in part, in other areas.

It is not difficult to see why this is the case. Nuclear power was probably the first major, complex technology to develop under such close public scrutiny and in an era where safety concerns with other technologies were beginning to be recognized.

While every technology since the taming of fire has carried some risk, previously, it was only the benefits of new technologies that were widely recognized and discussed. It is amusing to read old papers that laud the new-fangled automobile, which was expected to reduce the (ahem) pollution on city streets from horses. No one ever projected in those days that the growth of the automobile would lead to other pollution and other problems.

By contrast, from its earliest days, nuclear power was recognized as a resource of great promise and possibility, but also one that carried significant risks if not built and operated to a very high standard. As a result, the standards of performance in the nuclear field have always been higher than those for most other disciplines. Little by little, it has come to be recognized that some of those standards are helpful in other areas as well.

I am in no position to judge the MMS or any of the specific details of the BP oil spill. Nevertheless, it is clear that this accident will spell substantial changes for offshore oil drilling, and perhaps for other aspects of the oil industry as well.

While it is easy for people in the nuclear field to see the BP oil spill as a chance to point out the hazards of other technologies, I do not see this as a time for gloating. The truth is that we need a continued supply of oil, so the problems revealed by the spill need to be stopped up every bit as much as the spill does. The positive message for nuclear power in all of this is the perception in many quarters that the nuclear power industry is the industry that is doing things right.

***

Small Modular Reactors:

Is Small Beautiful?--Time Will Tell

The buzz word of the year in the nuclear industry seems to be "small reactors." Having been involved in discussions of small reactors since my DOE days, I am both pleased and concerned about the hype.

I am pleased because I think there are some real potential advantages to small reactors, particularly for remote and small-grid applications. Potential advantages have also been cited for some larger-scale applications, including the ability to limit the capital requirements by building units incrementally, the ability to refuel one module at a multi-module site without shutting down the whole site, and (depending on the technology), some possible safety advantages.

However, I am concerned lest we expect too much of a technology that hasn't yet been proven. I was therefore pleased to see a reasonably balanced, albeit all to brief, discussion on "Downsizing Nuclear Power Plants," in the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum. I was also glad to see my grad school classmate, Andy Kadak, quoted prominently. The article outlines some of the well-known advantages of small, modular reactors (SMRs), but emphasizes that the installation costs may be as much as, or even more than, those of larger reactors. The advantages may lie more in the savings in financing costs if the plants can be built faster than in differences in the actual capital cost. There is also the fact that the utility's outlay per plant is smaller, so the utility is less likely to have to "bet the company" on the commitment to build.

The article was not intended to be encyclopedic on small reactors, so I cannot fault them, but their discussion of some of the available technologies was brief and incomplete. It should be noted that the designs mentioned vary from those that may indeed be close to "shovel ready" to those that still require significant development. While there are some small reactor proposals that rely on the technologies we know the best, and could conceivably be built soon, most of the design concepts are very different than existing reactors, raising the possibility of many unknowns that could slow or derail progress. At a minimum, the time needed for their development and deployment is clearer considerably greater. In addition, the more innovative small reactor designs will also raise new regulatory issues to be dealt with by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so licensing the first of these may not be a quick or easy process.

None of this is meant to throw cold water on the idea of SMRs. I am a big believer in diversity of energy supply for many reasons. I think the future energy mix could well involve both large and small SMRs. But I always worry when the newest idea takes on the trappings of being the "silver bullet." This is true whether that newest idea is fusion, carbon sequestration, renewables, smart grids--or, among reactor technologies, small modular reactors.

Therefore, within the nuclear community, I worry a little that SMRs are beginning to dominate the dialogue. I do not think the proponents necessarily intend it, but the general public sometimes doesn't hear all the nuances, and wants to turn immediately to building the better mousetrap, not realizing that the better design is still a paper reactor. (Sorry for the mix of metaphors here, from silver bullets to mousetraps, to paper reactors.)

The solution to this situation is not to let uncertainty stop us, but to assure that we don't start cutting off other options in anticipation that we have found the silver bullet.

***