COVID-19 and Essential Services:

A Reminder of What's Important

As we get used to the "new normal" of living with the specter of the novel coronavirus looming over us, we are being reminded of all the things it takes to maintain our lives and well-being.

Some of these are obvious, and are the kinds of people that we've always known were essential.  Doctors.  Nurses.  EMTs.  And everyone else in the medical field staffing the hospitals and emergency rooms, and administering life-saving procedures.  Police.  Firefighters.   Military personnel.  All those who are always on the front lines when there are emergencies in our cities and towns.

Others are visible, but are people we never used to think about when the word "emergency" was uttered.  People who stock shelves and operate cash registers at pharmacies and grocery stores.  Kitchen staff at restaurants serving our new take-out-only world.  Gas station attendants.  Delivery personnel.  People who clean the grocery stores, pharmacies, and other establishments that are still open.  People who collect our trash.  People who repair our infrastructure.  People who gather and report the news. 

Many others are working behind the scenes.  We never see them, but our dependence on them has become more and more obvious as we have moved into crisis mode.  The farmers and distributors who grow, process, and ship our food.  The factory workers employed at factories being retooled to provide the ventilators and masks needed in this health crisis.   And yes, the toilet paper and hand sanitizer.  The truck drivers who deliver the food and goods we need.  The people who answer the phones of the services we call.  The government workers who continue to assure that essential services continue to be supplied to the American public, and that health and safety oversight is maintained.

And, last but not least, the people who assure that our power plants keep working, and that the power we so desperately need, especially during these difficult times, continues to be available.  Power to run our hospitals.  Power to run our factories.  Power to keep our homes well lit and at a comfortable temperature.  Power that enables us to operate all the technology that is helping us continue our work, keep in touch with each other, get needed medical advice, and so much more.

Our power, of course, comes from a variety of sources, all of them needed, but in times like this, our nuclear plants are especially valuable, as they can operate for long periods of time without refueling.  We should keep in mind that, at some sites, keeping the staff safe and available to provide the nation with much-needed power means that some staff are living on site, away from their loved ones. 

Right now, it is difficult for anyone to see what the world will look like when the COVID-19 crisis ends.  Much will return to the old "normal," I'm sure.  There will also be some changes.  Unfortunately, some establishments that are shuttered may never reopen.  Maybe more people will continue to work from home.  There is much speculation, and only time will tell.  But I hope that, even when things are back to normal, we remember the services that kept the wheels going during the current crisis--the people, the network of services, the factories, and the power plants.  They are the hidden, but critical, elements that keep our society functioning. 

***

Scary Energy Scenarios:

My Real Fears on Halloween

From Wikimedia Commons

As I sit down to write this, I realize that I have been bombarded by more than the usual number of scary things this Halloween.  Of course, there are the ghosts and ghouls and goblins, the witches and werewolves, and the vampires and zombies.  But what haunts me more is the specter of an energy future resulting from decisions made on the basis of short-term profit, misinformation, and dogmatic ideologies.

So, it is not the eerie sounds emanating from the dark forest that scare me, or the creaky sounds from upstairs when I know that no one is there.  It is not the skeletons hanging from the trees and rattling in the wind. 

What really scares me is a future where we are less safe because our critical energy infrastructure is not being maintained or operated with the highest attention to safety.

What really scares me is a future where our energy and non-energy infrastructure is at risk because we failed to plan for changes in the environment, population, and emerging needs.

 

What really scares me is a future where I cannot get the energy I need because short-term pricing and market imperfections have caused valuable energy resources to shut down prematurely.  
 
What really scares me is a future where the air I breathe is dirtier because misguided attempts to manipulate the market by favoring particular technologies or handicapping others has resulted in more use of polluting sources to back up intermittent technologies.

What really scares me is a future where energy availability is restricted because not enough fuel is extracted, not enough power plants are built, and not enough transmission capacity exists because we did not find a way to balance local interests and societal needs. 

What really scares me is a future where the price of energy is pushed so high that that gulf between the haves and the have-nots becomes a chasm, and social unrest results.
 
What really scares me is a future where we become dependent on the whims of other regimes because we failed to develop our own resources or because we favored technologies that use materials that are scarce in our country.
 
What really scares me is a future where we have lost our voice on the international stage because we have taken too rigid and unrealistic a stand, or because we have failed to stay competitive in critical markets. 

What really scares me is a future where we are mired in the use of outdated technologies because we failed to invest in research and development.

What really scares me is a future where we do not realize our full potential in all areas because we are impoverished in the energy supplies that fuel advances in other areas, a better standard of living, and so much more.

 

These are my ghosts and goblins.  They pertain to all sources of energy and all parts of all the fuel cycles--fossil fuel extraction, gas pipelines, electricity transmission, nuclear power plants, windmills, rare earths, and more.  And, while Halloween will be over tomorrow, and the scary spiders and blow-up black cats and sheet-clad "ghosts" hanging from my neighbors' houses will be taken down in a few days, the things that trigger my energy fears, unfortunately, are not as easy to stuff back into boxes and store in the basement. 

I would like to think that common sense will ultimately prevail and that, in the very near future, we will exorcise the demons of shortsightedness, ignorance, and fanaticism when it comes to energy matters (as well as other matters).  Until then, I am scared.

Happy Halloween!

***

Water and Energy:

                       A Close Connection

Several recent items brought home for me the very close linkage between water and energy.  In particular, one study suggests that coal and nuclear power plants are vulnerable to climate change.  The study predicts that rising temperatures could exacerbate the problems we have seen in recent years with plants having to shut down because cooling water temperatures were too high.  Specifically, they predict that electricity production could be reduced by between 4 and 16 percent between the years 2030 and 2060 due to increasing temperatures.

The authors of the study drew the conclusion that this might mean that electricity production might have to shift from coal and nuclear plants to natural gas plants, which use less water.  They appeared to jump to this conclusion without considering other options, including the use of cooling towers and the use of advanced nuclear technologies that don't rely on water for cooling.  I have seen other suggestions that more plants in the future could be sited in coastal areas, thus having access to the oceans, which would not heat up the way confined bodies of water can.

Of course, I have to agree that each of these solutions faces challenges, but so does the greatly increased use of natural gas.  The point is that there is a potential concern in the future and we need to begin to think about ways to address it.

What was even more interesting to me, however, was another article that crossed my desk, this one saying that water is also an issue for some renewables.  The article reports that solar thermal farms that are more "financeable" also potentially use billions of gallons of water.  Since some of these projects are being sited in desert areas, that could become a significant problem.  They mention one project in Nevada that would require about 20 percent of the area's water supply.

Once again, this is not a dire projection of doom and gloom.  The article identified solar technologies that use less water.  These include a technology that places mirrors on towers, producing high-temperature steam, and using a dry cooling method.  They indicated that photovoltaics require water "only" to clean the panels.  However, I understand even that can be significant, as dust can reduce the output of a photovoltaic array significantly.  Further, they say that photovoltaic arrays are typically more expensive and less efficient than solar thermal farms.  For photovoltaics as well, research continues on ways to improve the efficiency and to clean the panels without water.

While the article didn't mention it, wind produces electricity without the need for cooling water.  But as I've indicated in other posts, there are other issues associated with wind.  Therefore, wind has a role in the energy mix, but as with every technology, there are tradeoffs.  

The point of this discussion is not to conclude that we have no options.  The point is to recognize the issues associated with the water needed to produce electricity and the possible trends, and to assure that growing constraints are considered as new technologies are developed. 

On a larger scale, of course, water and energy are linked at a more fundamental level.  Just as it takes a lot of water to produce electricity from most sources, it also takes a lot of energy to produce clean water, more so in places where water for human consumption needs to be extracted from seawater. 

***

Japan after Fukushima:

Is the Present Situation Sustainable?

One question that keeps recurring in the discussions of Japan after Fukushima is whether the nuclear power plants that are now shut down are actually "needed." Although many sources warn of likely energy shortages, others point out that, after all was said and done, Japan survived last summer without the threatened power brownouts and blackouts. This suggests, they say, that Japan had power to spare and can now easily get along without its nuclear plants.

This argument ignores several important facts:

1. Last summer, some of the nuclear power plants in Japan were still in operation. This coming summer, most or all plants will be shut down, so there will be less power available than last summer. Following Fukushima, the remaining nuclear power plants in the country were not all immediately shut down. In most cases, they continued operation until their next regularly scheduled maintenance shutdown. Following that shutdown, in accordance with established practice in Japan, the plants were not to be restarted until permission had been received from the local governments. In the past, this permission was routinely granted. In the wake of Fukushima, however, the surrounding towns have withheld permission pending the completion of stress tests, assurances of the adequacy of earthquake and tsunami defenses, and perhaps compensation. To date, no plant has been allowed to restart. It seems likely at this point that this coming summer will see few, if any, nuclear power plants restarted. Therefore, the supply of electricity this summer is likely to be considerably tighter than it was last summer.

2. According to reports, Japan was fortunate that it did not experience an exceptionally hot summer. A hotter than average summer would increase the demand for energy. I'm not a weather expert, so I can't predict what is going to happen this coming summer, but I know that temperatures vary, and that there is a range around an average. Next summer's temperatures could be cooler--but they could also be hotter. As anyone who has spent a summer in Tokyo knows, even the average temperatures are pretty hot and uncomfortable. Even the Hawaiian shirts suddenly popping up in Japanese offices as a result of the Cool Biz campaign don't always bring enough comfort. A hotter summer without the usual power available could be unbearable.

3. Japan managed its crisis in part by ramping up its use of old thermal power plants. This has increased the levels of carbon emissions and other fossil fuel air pollution. Tokyo is already notorious for its high levels of pollution. These older fossil plants do not incorporate the most advanced fossil plant technologies, and even the most advanced fossil fuel plants have much greater emissions than nuclear power plants. The increased emissions are, of course, counter to Japan's goals and international commitments. This is clearly not a good long-term option for Japan, yet replacing these plants with new electricity sources of any type will take a number of years. Fossil fuel emissions have been associated with health effects, particularly among the elderly and those with certain illnesses. Prolonged reliance on an increased use of older fossil fuel plants is likely to result in chronic illnesses and even deaths in some segments of the population.

4. The cutbacks in power caused discomfort and inconvenience--or worse--for much of Japan's population. Japan reduced demand by cutting back on "unnecessary" uses of power. This required homes and offices to decrease the use of air conditioning, reduce lighting, turn off escalators, etc. All of these options work OK for most of the people, most of the time, but can be difficult to devastating for elements of the population. Japan has an aging population, and using the subways can be difficult enough under ordinary conditions. Walking long flights of stairs when escalators are shut down can be nearly impossible for the elderly, or for anyone handicapped. In very hot weather, it can be dangerous. Even in their own homes, the elderly and the infirm can suffer when temperatures soar. I have not seen any statistics on deaths due to heat stroke, but I suspect there were some, and others are also predicting that there could be more problems.

5. The reduced energy supply affected Japan's economy. Continued reductions in energy supply will prolong the effects on the economy. With the shutdowns of Japan's nuclear power plants, factory production was reduced or moved to lower-demand periods. This cost the economy jobs and reduced its exports, resulting in record trade deficits, and the loss, to General Motors, of Toyota's coveted status as the world's top selling automaker. Industries have been considering moving some of their manufacturing to other countries if they believe the energy shortages will persist. The loss of jobs and, worse, the loss of exports, would cause a sustained negative impact on Japan's economy.

In short, and not surprisingly, the overall picture is very complicated. Japan has so far weathered the loss of energy from its nuclear power plants by a combination of measures, including cutting back on demand in various ways, and substituting fossil fuel energy sources. All of these measures have had different negative impacts--on the environment, on the economy, and on the lives of members of the public. All of the effects are likely to get worse if the shortage of energy continues. Furthermore, the situation is now worse than it was last summer, when some of Japan's nuclear plants were still operating, and the situation will be even worse if 2012 brings Japan an unusually hot summer.

All in all, I don't think the fact that Japan got through last summer without brownouts or blackouts is a sign that the country can continue to function without any of its nuclear power plants unless the country and its people are ready to accept a significantly lower standard of living, a greater incidence of health problems and premature deaths, and a substantially reduced role for Japan in the global economy.

***

Energy Infrastructure and Energy Politics:

Energy and the Real World:
Views from an Insider

I recently attended a very interesting talk by Marvin Fertel, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The presentation was to an audience of Washington, DC-area local section members of the American Nuclear Society and covered a broad range of topics of interest to the nuclear community. Working in the world of politics as he does, he brings to his thinking a realistic, pragmatic perspective that is often missing elsewhere.

Perhaps his most important take-home messages to me were the difficulties of introducing any new energy technology on a large scale, and the fact that the "friends" and "enemies" in the nuclear business do not fall into neat slots. Both of these are observations I've made myself, but he had some facts that were new to me.

First, he pointed out that all new technologies require substantial changes in infrastructure to realize the often optimistic projections. The vision of an electric automobile in every garage, for example, is dampened by the reality that many more transformers would be needed on suburban electrical grids. Taking carbon emissions from coal plants and sequestering them somewhere requires pipelines. He made the sobering observation that it will take 30-40 years to make any large-scale changes in our energy sector. If we have only 10 years before we reach the tipping point for climate change, he observed, we out to be talking about adaptation strategies rather than about mitigation.

Taken in this light, it is not surprising that he also recognizes that there are limits to the rate at which we can build new nuclear power plants. He didn't go into detail on all the limitations, but we've heard them before--licensing, competing demands for commodities like steel (see my blog dated ...), manufacturing capability, skilled workers on site, etc. Nevertheless, he remains optimistic that we can ramp up reasonably quickly to create a substantial new-build program in the United States. He sees a ramp-up period in the next 8 years in which 4 to 7 new plants could be built, but by 2030, believes there could be 45 new plants on line in the United States, with at least an equal number in the pipeline.

Mr. Fertel also spoke about the perceived Democratic-Republican party split on the nuclear issue. He feels that the issue of climate change is not a partisan one, and he sees growing support for nuclear power in the public arena and in the Administration. He pointed out some recent positive actions by the Obama Administration, such as "fixing" the loan guarantee program, which the previous Administration had not done. And in fact, shortly after the meeting, the nuclear community saw further evidence of the Administration's views on this issue when Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced that he will push for billions of dollars in new loan guarantee authority for new nuclear power plants.

Mr. Fertel's slides are available on the ANS Washington-DC Section website. They contain some other interesting background. He also made some other interesting observations, which I hope to bring into future posts.

Should We Have a Nuclear "CSI"?

Nuclear "CSI", Anyone?

It has been observed many times that nuclear scientists and engineers do not necessarily connect well with the public in conveying facts about nuclear power. From time to time, we are told that more emotion is needed, not less. More passion, not passivity.

While I am personally more persuaded by facts than by flashy presentations, I can understand the point. The average person who hears someone like me who carefully qualifies all her statements to make sure they are absolutely correct may come away hearing the caveats and not the conviction. They want to hear “safe” or “unsafe,” not “safe enough.” Not “safe if built and operated properly.” Not “safe compared to coal.”

The concern about how nuclear power is viewed was raised again at the recent World Nuclear Association annual symposium by Alain Michel, who has had a distinguished career in Belgonucleaire. He has raised the idea that a TV series with a nuclear power plant as a backdrop might make nuclear power seem more familiar to everyone. He draws an analogy to currently the popular Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) series on crime solving. Another similar area might be those series focused on solving medical problems.

While the idea seems intriguing, there is a fundamental difference between these series and anything I could envision that would involve nuclear power plants. In crime series investigations, the protagonists are solving an incident that happened outside their community. In medical series, the protagonists are fighting a disease, also something from the outside. Occasionally, a segment will show the protagonists fighting to fix a mistake made by one of their own—a cop gone bad, or a doctor or nurse who inadvertently helps spread a disease. But that is the exception to the rule. The policemen and the doctors are usually the knights in shining armor saving members of the public, or at least getting them justice.

It is hard for me to see a series with nuclear as the backdrop operating the same way. True, scientists and engineers could be the knights in shining armor that save the day when there is a problem. However, wouldn’t the setting for the show have to have a serious incident every week to fuel the drama? If so, what would that do to the perception of nuclear safety? And since many, if not most, incidents and accidents have a human element as part of the causal chain, would we simply have nuclear engineers who are villains (wittingly or unwittingly) versus nuclear engineers who wear white hats? So wouldn’t half the engineers and scientists look like bad guys?

It should not be forgotten that most of the dramatic presentations that have used a nuclear power plant as a backdrop—or as the main element—have showed nuclear power in a bad light. “The China Syndrome” is the most famous example. “The Simpsons” may not have made nuclear power into evil incarnate, but they certainly portrayed nuclear power plant employees as bumbling idiots.

Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see a series portraying nuclear power in a positive way. I know lots of people in the industry who I think are knights in shining armor, who bring the world advances in nuclear medicine, nuclear power, and other applications. But their work seldom involves high drama. You don’t really have a child dying in a hospital bed while nuclear scientists develop and deliver a new radioisotope on the spot. Even if you manage to make one episode based on that premise (I must confess that, with most of the world’s radioisotope production shut down, you could possibly have one episode along those lines), it would not be something that could be repeated weekly. In nuclear power plants, it seems to me that the dramatic possibilities are even more limited.

I’d be happy to learn that I’m missing something, and that there could be a dramatic series based in a nuclear facility that did not scare the public more than it educated them. I’d be interested in any thoughts on how Alain Michel’s goals could be accomplished.