Nuclear Energy and Carbon Reduction:

A Critical Combination

I was pleased last week to have the opportunity to attend two events associated with the official rollout of a recent MIT study entitled, "The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World."  This was an interdisciplinary study involving a number of people, both at MIT and elsewhere, some as part of the study group, and others as an advisory committee and a team of reviewers.  The co-chairs of the study were:  David Petti (also the executive director), Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Corradini, and John Parsons.  

This study is part of a series of studies that MIT has conducted, starting in 2003, on a variety of energy related subjects, including geothermal power, coal, natural gas, solar power, and the electric grid.  Several of the previous studies dealt with nuclear-power related issues, but this one had the unique twist of focusing on the implications of nuclear energy in a future where there are constraints on carbon generation.

The first meeting of the day was held at the headquarters of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the second event was a meeting of the MIT Club of Washington, DC.  The 2 programs featured most of the same speakers, so I worried that I might be bored by the second round, but that was far from the case.  The study provided a very thorough and comprehensive look at the energy supply options under a variety of assumptions, both in the US and around the world, so there was a lot to digest.  In fact, having listened to a summary of the study twice, there is still a lot more detail in the very comprehensive report linked above.

But if I could highlight one really dramatic visual take-away from the presentations--and the study--it is a graph projecting the likely cost of generating electricity under different levels of carbon restrictions and different assumptions about nuclear power.  In particular, Figure E.1 in the executive summary, below, shows that the cost of generating electricity is significantly higher for scenarios of very low carbon emissions if nuclear power is not part of the mix, both in the US and in China. 

 

Figure E.1 

 

The irony is that, the same week that I was attending these briefings, I received multiple messages regarding an initiative of a group in my home state of Maryland who are trying to gather signatures for a letter to the Maryland government urging the government to adopt a low-carbon goal for the future energy supply--but never mentioning the importance of nuclear power in doing so effectively.  When I contacted them to ask about this omission, they claimed they were not anti-nuclear, but wanted to avoid a controversial subject. 

I haven't been able to get my arms around the logic--highlight the problem, but don't mention the one option that is likely to be critical to a realistic solution.  It seems to me that this is a recipe for failure in one way or another.  And this is graphic evidence that the message about the important role nuclear power needs to play in the future still isn't fully recognized and considered in the ongoing dialogue.

So I congratulate the entire team of the MIT study for a job well done, I urge everyone to review the study, and I encourage people around the country--and the world--to share the important findings of the study with their elected officials and others so that we end up with carbon-reduction strategies that are realistic and effective.

***

Projecting the Future:

Some Bad Omens?

I am going to depart a little from my normal themes in this blog and talk about issues that are not themselves directly related to nuclear power.  However, they do relate to some indicators in the areas of research and of technical training that apply to a broad range of disciplines, nuclear among them. 

The first warning bell I saw in the last few days was a report on an MIT study that warned that the U.S. is falling behind in a number of key areas of research.  While none of the areas they mention included fission-related research, the very fact that the report identifies a broad range of cutting-edge research areas is troubling.  First, the areas they identify represent some of the key areas of technology today.  Second, it is not hard to guess that the key areas are indicators of a broader trend that affects many more areas of research.

Like the slow loading of straw on a camel that ultimately breaks the camel's back, each small budget cut in science and technology areas probably seems inconsequential to most people.  However, adding them all together--fewer research programs, less research in the remaining areas, cuts in staffing, cuts in training--suggests that the impact will be far greater than even the programs the MIT study names.  Not only will we not realize the benefits of the advances that R&D can bring, we will end up without a next generation of scientists to carry R&D further in the future.

The second warning bell I saw was a study that suggested that environmental sciences programs have a bias against nuclear energy.  At one level, of course, this clearly has a direct effect on nuclear energy.  It reinforces the gulf that many believe already exists between the environmental community and the nuclear community.  It hampers the ability of two groups who should be natural allies from working together.

However, what is even more troubling to me is, once again, the broader implications of biased education.  If environmental sciences students are not being trained to look dispassionately at nuclear power, I have to wonder what other biases are coloring their judgment.  Are they ignoring the downsides of some technologies because they are perceived to be "green"?  Are they dismissing options that should be considered because they are perceived to be "dirty"?  Are they failing to look beyond the surface to see the balance of pros and cons between different options, or to look at how a perceived weakness in one technology can be compensated?  If environmental sciences students are not being trained to look analytically at all issues and all possibilities, they will not come up with the best solutions.

The investments we make today will inevitably shape the future.  Just as we need robust research in a broad range of areas, we also need to train future scientists, engineers and decision-makers to approach all issues without preconceived biases to assure that the decisions they make are based on sound science.  This applies to decisions about nuclear power, but it also potentially applies to many other issues as well.

As perhaps a fitting postscript, I include here a photo of a package of irradiated hamburgers.  I covered the issue of food irradiation before, so I won't repeat myself here.  However, irradiated beef strikes me as just the kind of issue that people often approach with preconceived biases.  Perhaps in this case it isn't environmental science students who have this bias (or perhaps it is!--I really don't know), but to me, it is another graphic reminder of how biases sometimes seem to block people from looking at issues objectively, and how those biases sometimes prevent, or make it difficult, for us to enjoy the full benefits of some technologies.


***