Energy R&D and the Military:

Historic Partners

A couple of recent announcements about military projects to support energy development have recently been published.  One cites a Navy project to develop a wind farm in South Texas.  The other discusses a military biofuels initiative and the potential prospects to create jobs.  
   
I was particularly interested in these articles because I'd previously heard criticism of one of the same projects.  The argument was that the military mission is not to create civilian jobs or to develop civilian energy resources.  

This is true.  However, throughout history, the needs of the military have been the creative force behind many of the technologies we take for granted today.  Not the least of the military contributions to civilian life was the development of nuclear power.  

Of course, nuclear power is a by-product of weapons development.  Nevertheless, the R&D program that led to the atom bomb also resulted in the development of all the early technologies associated with nuclear power--reactors, enrichment processes and reprocessing facilities.  

Would nuclear technology have been developed without the weapons program?  Perhaps.  It certainly would have developed more slowly.

Obviously, it would be irresponsible for the military to spend money developing something that was not needed for the military mission.  However, the military could not operate without adequate and reliable sources of energy.  Whether the wind energy project really does that is open to question, although some of the ancillary activities that the Navy anticipates doing, such as studying ways to mitigate potential impacts of wind turbines on military operations, are arguably of some value.

The case for biofuels development is much clearer, as a strong biofuels option could help assure a security of supply of fuels for military operations.  Although the article doesn't delve into this, one particularly intriguing aspect of a military biofuels program would be the ability to produce the fuels at military bases around the world, thus reducing the ability of an enemy to cut off supplies.  I'm not in the military business (once was, but that was a long time ago), but I understand that the cost in manpower and equipment to transport oil to our foreign bases is significant, and the potential danger to personnel for those operations is significant. 

I should point out that many of the same arguments could be made for a role for the military in the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).  This is not a new idea.  In fact, it is a very old idea.  As my book on Nuclear Firsts details, some of the very early reactors after the end of World War II were developed under a US Army program with the intent to use them on remote bases.  In fact, a few were deployed to places like Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica before the program was terminated.  The Army, and later the Air Force, also explored the feasibility of nuclear-powered aircraft. 

Although that program was dropped at that time, the renewed interest in SMRs makes it timely for the US military to reconsider such an option.  Current reactor technology options can meet a variety of needs on military bases, from electricity production to heat for base heating and even for producing biofuels.

Such ideas are being proposed.  The knee-jerk reaction I recently heard expressed that it is not the military's job to develop energy technologies should be abandoned.  If security of supply is important for our nation, it is certainly important for our military.  Obviously, the military can't fund every potentially useful project, so proposals for biofuels production, SMR development, or other energy projects need to be evaluated fully and objectively.  The fact that I am seeing articles about military projects in wind and biofuels is promising.  Perhaps the future will see the military support other energy projects that can enhance their security of supply--and later benefit the rest of the country.  

***     

 
 

The Election and Nuclear Power:

A Cautiously Positive Outlook

Although many in the industry feel that nuclear power fares significantly differently under the Democrats and Republicans differ significantly--and indeed, from time to time, some of the rhetoric makes it sound like that should be the case--I have never been convinced that it was.  I was therefore gratified that some of the major analyses I saw shortly before and shortly after the election support my view.  Although it may seem now that the election was ancient history, I waited in hopes of seeing more analyses.

To date, I have seen two analyses that are of particular note.  Both come from the pages of American Nuclear Society (ANS) publications, although both express the views of individuals.  One article is by Linda C. Byus, a columnist on finance for Nuclear News, the flagship publication of the ANS.  (This publication is available to ANS members only on the ANS website.  See page 23.)  

In the November issue of the journal, which was published just prior to the election, she expressed her view that there was bipartisan support for nuclear generation.  Her main messages were that 1) nuclear power generation is not a political priority for any party in the US today, 2) although theree may be some philosophical differences in the measures each party is willing to support, the overall campaign positions of both Presidential candidates were quite similar, and 3) the key determinant for the future of nuclear power in the coming years will be the economic recovery, as it will serve as a catalyst for energy demand growth.    

More recently, Jim Hopf provided a post-election outlook for nuclear energy in the ANS Nuclear Cafe.  In it, he covers a variety of issues and points out how the views of the Obama Administration are favorable to nuclear power in some ways while not so favorable in other ways.  For example, he projects that actions on Yucca Mountain will continue to be influenced by Sen. Harry Reid.  On the other hand, the Administration's views on climate change could ultimately lead to carbon dioxide restrictions, and that could help nuclear power.  He also notes that the Administration's views are unfavorable towards some energy sources that are viewed as alternatives, or competitors, to nuclear power--for example, coal.

Indeed, the energy landscape is very complex, so even the expressed preferences of one Party for or against nuclear power are often overtaken by other issues, including the environment and the economy.  Therefore, I expect that the overall prospects for nuclear power will continue to be positive.  Growth will be slower than was projected at the height of the Renaissance--but some of us always projected it would be.  Even Marvin Fertel, the CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, always cautioned against over-optimism.  The key, as Linda Byus says, will be the recovery of the economy.

***




 

Grid Costs:

Leveling the Playing Field

I was pleased to see a new study from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) comparing grid costs of different technologies.  I was pleased both because the issue is an important one, and because I used to work at the NEA, and I'm glad to see them tackling this subject.

The report, Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems, addresses the way variable renewables and so-called dispatchable energy technologies (specifically coal, gas and nuclear) interact in terms of their effects on electricity systems.  The premise of the study is that all power generation technologies cause system effects.  In particular, since they are connected to the same grid and deliver power to the same market, they exert impacts on each other. For example, dispatchable technologies need to be brought in or cut out to balance variable input from renewables.

We have long known that, but this study quantifies the effect.  The study examines the case for six technologies: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar.  It finds that the dispatchable technologies have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar. Currently, these costs are usually not acknowledged.  Rather, they are are absorbed by consumers through high network charges and by the producers of dispatchable energy through reduced margins and lower load factors.

The report recommends that system costs be made transparent in order to ensure that they are fully considered in future electricity planning.  The value of dispatchable low-carbon technologies in complementing the introduction of variable renewables needs to be recognized, and measures are needed to ensure that nuclear power and any other low-carbon dispatchable technology remains economically viable.  (No other such technologies are included in the study, but presumably, hydropower would be another such source.)  The study also recommends the development of load-following capabilities and other options to improve the flexibility of low-carbon dispatchable technologies in the future.

***

Seventy Years of Controlled Fission:

Another CP-1 Milestone

The December 2, 2012 seventieth anniversary of the first controlled chain reaction in the Chicago Pile 1 reactor passed with very little comment.  That is perhaps a sign of the passing of time, or of the familiarity of the technology.  Just as people today find it hard to remember a time before cell phones or the Internet, perhaps they feel that nuclear power has been around forever.

But indeed, this month marks a very important anniversary.  When I researched the milestones of nuclear power for my book a couple of years ago, the events at CP-1 were probably among the few that were truly unambiguous.  Even the other milestones most of us take for granted turned out to have challengers:  The first electricity production at EBR-I on December 20, 1951?  Well, yes, but there was a some electricity produced at Oak Ridge (albeit much less) on September 3, 1948.  "First city in the world to be lit by atomic power" in Arco, Idaho July 17, 1955?  Well, maybe first city briefly powered entirely by the atom, but the first electricity supplied to the grid was on June 27, 1954 at Obninsk, Soviet Union.

All these claims and counterclaims do not take away from any of the achievements, and all of them were important stepping stones to the nuclear power we enjoy today.  However, the first controlled fission chain reaction seems to stand alone.  To recall the words of Neil Armstrong when he landed on the moon, it was a "giant step for mankind."

***

Giving Thanks:

Nuclear Power Progress

On this Thanksgiving Day, I have only a moment to reflect on the past year and think about giving thanks.  Most of my thanks, of course, is for family and friends, and for health and well-being.

But I also want to reflect on some positive developments in the nuclear field:

• Despite the severity of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, there are still likely to be very few health effects from the releases of radiation.
•  
• Although some countries have used the Fukushima accident to try to reject nuclear power for the future, in most of the world, the public and the policy-makers continue to recognize the need for continued development and use of nuclear power. 
•  
• In these countries, the industry is using the lessons learned from Fukushima to further strengthen the safety of operating reactors. 
•  
• There is indeed a Renaissance taking place in nuclear power deployment, at the very least, in countries like China and India.
•  
• The U.S. continues to recognize the need to develop new nuclear technologies, and this week has seen the award of a long-awaited contract for small reactor development.

With that, let me wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!

***

Nuclear Power Education and Training:

Fit for KINGS

I recently had the opportunity to participate in a brand new education and training venture for the nuclear field.  Since I don't think the school is widely known yet, I thought it might be useful to describe it.

Korea's KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School, or KINGS, opened its doors just about a year ago.  Situated on a brand-new campus in between the Kori and Shin-Kori units near Busan, the school now consists of two new buildings, a dormitory and a classroom/administration building, about 50 students, and about 15 faculty members. 

At present, most of the faculty and students are Korean, but they have a number of students from such countries that are building or contemplating nuclear reactors, including the United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Malaysia, Vietnam.  South Africa, which already has operating reactors, is also represented in the student body.

The permanent faculty presently includes one American, Jay Z. James, who (among other positions) previously ran his own consulting firm for over 20 years and taught in Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Department.  KINGS has also had several visiting faculty, including myself, teach for short terms.

All classes are conducted in English.  The students are all young professionals who have completed their academic training and have worked for a few years.  Thus, they bring with them a basic engineering education and some practical experience in the working world. 

The focus of the school is intended to be hands-on and practical, so the 2-year curriculum includes a mix of nuclear engineering courses and courses on such topics as project management, operations and maintenance, and plant economics.  The intent is also to take advantage of being on the campus of an operating reactor facility.

As far as I know, what the school is seeking to do is unique.  While there are shorter courses focused on practical training, I don't know of any other program that offers such a combination of the practical and the academic in such an in-depth, extended program.

The program should be particularly valuable for the students who come from countries planning nuclear programs, as this may be their first exposure to actual facilities and to many of the non-academic aspects of running a nuclear power program.    

While the program is in its early phases and is not yet at its full anticipated size, the school anticipates expanding its staff and faculty over the next year or two.  Given what I observed in my short time there, it is well on its way to becoming a recognized element in the spectrum of education and training available to individuals in the nuclear profession.

***

Energy Production and Paper Cups:

Measuring the Impacts

I was traveling through Harrisonburg, Virginia a couple of weeks ago and stopped for lunch with my husband at a local barbecue joint.  I ordered a glass of iced tea with my meal.  When the iced tea came, I saw some text on the side of it.  Now, I have always been a voracious reader, and I can't tell you how many times I've sat at the breakfast table and read cereal boxes and the like, so although I just expected advertising or something, I simply had to read the text curling around the cup.

The iced tea was in a foam cup, and the text explained that paper cups produce 148% more waste by weight than foam cups.  Sounds good, right?  Except that the last time I checked, landfill is limited by volume, not by weight, and paper cups are thinner than foam cups.  Furthermore, paper is biodegradable, and foam generally is not. 

Admittedly, advances are being made in foam products, and some are biodegradable, but the cup didn't boast of being biodegradable.  I can't be absolutely sure, but after touting its weight advantages, I would have to believe it would have broadcast its biodegradability as well--if it were biodegradable.  But it didn't.

So what does this have to do with energy production?  Too often, I have seen promoters of various energy sources treat their products the same way--picking out the positives without presenting the whole picture.  Thus, we hear about how much wind or solar capacity has been built, but we aren't told that the fraction of power supplied by these sources is much smaller than the built capacity.  We also hear about how solar or wind or nuclear energy produce no greenhouse gases, but we aren't always told that each of these produces some other forms of waste.  We hear that natural gas or "clean coal" is cleaner than oil or regular coal and is produced domestically, but we don't hear how they compare to nuclear or solar or wind power, and we don't hear that very little of our electricity is generated from oil-fired plants. 

I could go on.  But this is no different from all the other things we use in our daily lives--paper versus plastic bags, genetically-modifed versus non-GM crops, electric cars versus gasoline-powered cars.  And foam cups versus paper cups.

The point, as always, is that every source of energy has multiple dimensions, some very positive, some negative--and some that can potentially be overcome with further technology development.  Yes, this makes it complex and problematical to compare sources.  Yes, it means that there is no one perfect source that we should rely on completely.

The "right" energy solution, and the "right" solution for almost everything else we use, is likely to involve a mix of options, and is likely to create continual pressure to reduce the downsides of each of these technologies.

***