Glenn Seaborg:

My Favorite Memory

This post was inspired by Will Davis, who blogs at Atomic Power Review.  Sometime in January, Will solicited stories about "favorite nuclear artifacts" for a planned post on the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog.  I had a couple in mind, but was still on the road, completing an 8-week, around-the-world trip, so I put it off until I returned.  OK, OK, I know it's an excuse, but I do think it trumps the "my dog ate my homework" excuse!

Alas, by the time I got around to writing up my story, I was just hours too late.  A couple of hours after I hit the send button, I got a message that his blog of people's favorite nuclear artifacts was posted.  If you haven't read those stories, I recommend you do--after you read the rest of my post, of course.

After consulting with Will, we've agreed that I should post my story on my own blog. 

The story of my favorite nuclear artifact relates to two meetings I had with Glenn Seaborg. 

When I was a junior or senior in high school, I won an all-expense-paid trip to Washington, DC, for a student science fair or a science symposium.  (I can't recall specifically what the event was.)  One of the luminaries we met was Glenn Seaborg, who, at the time, was Chairman of the old Atomic Energy Commission.  I was just gaga--a Nobel Prize winner and the head of a major government agency.  Who would think I'd ever meet such a person, let alone at the tender age of 16 or 17?  For me, this was better than meeting a rock star!  Somehow, I got up the nerve to thrust the program for the event in his hand and ask for his autograph.  He graciously complied.  I had the program for a long time, but over the decades, it disappeared somewhere in the recesses of my parents' basement.

Cut to a time many years later, when I was Chair of the ANS Honors and Awards Committee.  We had just established the Glenn Seaborg Award, and he was asked to present the very first award.  As Chair of the H&A Committee, I had the honor to sit next to him at the luncheon preceding the awards ceremony.  Desperate to make conversation with this man, who I still regarded with awe, I recounted to him that he had once given me his autograph, but alas, I was embarrassed to admit to him that it had been misplaced.  Without a moment's hesitation, he said, "Then I must give you another autograph."  Before I could say another word, he grabbed my copy of the H&A awards luncheon program, which had been sitting by my dinner plate, and signed it! 

Alas, over the years, that autograph also eventually disappeared, this time in the recesses of my own basement.  However, it is still there somewhere, and just as soon as I have a chance to go through my basement :-), I'm sure I'll unearth it.  This time, I'll give it a place of honor.  To me, it symbolizes the fact that, as famous a man as he was, he remained a true gentleman.

***

Is Biomass Green?

The Evidence is Mixed

Continuing the theme I started last week of looking at the unanticipated effects of technologies that most of us would assume are benign, I want to report today on several recent articles on biomass that also address some consequences that were not initially considered.  In this case, two of them point to issues I have heard about before (although not in the first flush of excitement about biomass), but the renewed coverage of the issues got my attention.  The third article, however, was new--at least to me.

The first of these articles carries the alarming headline "most biofuels are not green."  As always, the truth is more complicated.  The point of the article is that there are multiple interactions and several advantages and disadvantages of biofuels, depending on the circumstances.  It makes a difference to the net emissions savings whether the biofuels are grown on agricultural land (in which case, they can, of course, have a detrimental effect on food production) or whether forested land has to be cleared for biofuels production.  There can be other environmental effects as well, such as acidification of the soil, and pollution of lakes and rivers from runoff of fertilizer.  On the other hand, biomass production can, under some circumstances, help make desert land arable.

A related article delves more deeply into how to assess the availability of land for biomass production.  The article talks about the fact that proposals often talk about using "surplus land" for biomass production, yet, "We still have limited understanding of how much land is truly surplus and suitable for energy crop production,"according to Dr. Dauber, the lead author of the study.

The third article, however, was the one that really got my attention.  Increasing attention has been given recently to the use of algae as a source of biomass.  Some articles have speculated that algae-based biomass would avoid a lot of the agricultural concerns.  However, now concerns are being raised about algae-based biomass.  Again, there is an eye-catching title:  large-scale production of biomass made from algae poses sustainability concerns.  The concerns raised in this article include:  "the relatively large quantity of water required for algae cultivation; magnitude of nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and CO₂, needed for cultivation; amount of land area necessary to contain the ponds that grow the algae; and uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions over the production life cycle." 

Once again, my guess is that we will find ways to increase biomass production, but we clearly must consider very carefully where and how we grow such crops.

***

Renewable Energy and the Environment:

More Unanticipated Interactions

I continue to be fascinated by the number of unexpected impacts and interactions with the environment that people are identifying from every energy-related technology.  We are never surprised to learn of impacts from technologies that are large or that use fossil fuels or nuclear power.  However, we somehow never expect impacts from distributed technologies, or "natural" technologies such as wind, solar and biomass.

I therefore like to keep track of these impacts as I learn about them.  I have recently stumbled over a couple that were new to me.  We have heard a lot about migrating birds flying into wind farms and being killed.  Now, we are learning that even if the birds aren't killed, the existence of wind farms may affect their lives.  A study of gannets in the English Channel showed that wind farms could affect the feeding habits of the birds.  Is this serious?  I don't know.  I assume this is a preliminary finding and that more study will be needed, but in the meantime, some are raising concerns that this factor might need to be taken into account in siting decisions for wind farms.

Another article reported that replacing old, heat-trapping paving materials with new, cooler materials could could lead to higher electricity bills for surrounding buildings!  This is because the new paving materials stay cool by reflecting significantly more of the sun's rays than traditional pavements. If the rays are reflected back into space, it helps cool surrounding areas.  However, a portion of these rays can be reflected onto the windows of nearby buildings. In the study reported, windows facing the reflective pavements got 40 percent more daily sunshine in summer (12 percent more in the winter) as windows facing  traditional paving surfaces.

This finding demonstrates yet again that trying to improve one thing can have negative effects in other areas.  Again, is this serious?  Most likely, ways will be found to overcome the effect now that it's been discovered.  In fact, the article even indicated that the new materials could have a positive effect in areas where buildings can automatically respond to additional sunlight because they are equipped with smart lighting solutions, such as dimmers run by photo-sensitive cells.  However, buildings without these features do not fare as well.  Thus, there is a solution, but it can add to the cost of implementing the improvements.

The point of mentioning these findings is not to try to slam alternate technologies.  I firmly believe that most of these types of findings can be addressed successfully and are not "make or break" factors for the viability of a technology.  My major reason for reporting on these kinds of findings is to demonstrate that nothing is simple in the energy business.  Every technology has benefits, but every technology also has shortcomings.  Most of these shortcomings can be addressed, but they first have to be recognized, and then there will be a cost to address them.  With all our technological understanding and experience, it is taking time and effort to identify and address such impacts.

*** 

Energy from a Global Perspective:

Observations from a Grand Tour

My husband and I just returned from one of those dream trips--an 8-week, around-the-world vacation, with stops in southern Japan, Cambodia, India, Egypt (fortunately, while things were still calm), Italy, France, and England.  (Yes, we are old school, and don't tell any Social Media where we are until we are back home.)

Depending on our audience, we can regale any willing listeners--or anyone we can tie to their seats--with tales of all the interesting ancient ruins we saw, make them salivate as we describe some of our best meals, or bore them to death with hundreds of photographs.

For this audience, I will do none of the above.  Rather, I will focus on some energy-related observations.  Thankfully, we avoided some of the real energy trouble spots that were in the news during our tour.  Most notably, we were not caught in China's suffocating air pollution.  And we were nowhere near any of the disputed oil and gas fields.  

Nevertheless, we had our share of experiences that reminded us of just how important energy is, how much of the world still lacks what we take for granted, and how controversial all new energy is.  

For example, despite the fact that our hotels were mostly at least somewhat upscale, there were numerous brief power outages in some places.  It was not so much the power outage that got our attention, but rather the fact that no one even paused or looked around.  The flickering of lights and fans was such a common part of the background that locals didn't even notice it.  

Then there was the beach resort hotel that acknowledged it was short of power, so although the room had air-conditioning, it was cut off when demand exceeded supply.  Needless to say, in these same places, the Internet was intermittent, and even when we had it, it was marginal.  (To be fair, there were some places in the developed world where the Internet service was also wanting, but in these cases, it was clearly the fault of the hotel, and not of the entire infrastructure.)
 
Our final stop tied all our observations together neatly.  We stayed with friends in Lincolnshire, outside of London.  Lincolnshire still has a very rural look in most places, with large farms--and with coal mines.  Despite that, we saw signs all over the countryside saying, "Say NO to Windmills."  

This somewhat surprised us, as the land looked spacious enough to support some windfarms without making a significant dent on the bucolic nature of the countryside.  In any event, it was difficult for us to see how the windmills were any worse than the several coal mines where we passed huge piles of coal along the rail line.  And in the United States, in many places, the farmers are profiting from the installation of wind turbines on their land. 

We never did figure out what the fundamental objection was.  Are the economics in the UK much different than in the US, so there is no benefit to the farmers?  Has the local population drawn a line, figuring that the coal mines are enough of a contribution to England's energy supply?  Or is it NIMBY, pure and simple?  

(To those who will argue that the windmills won't do that much to help meet energy needs, I would only respond that it would be difficult to believe that was the motivation of the locals.  After all, the signs didn't say, "Say No to Windmills, say YES to Nuclear Power Plants"!) 

In any event, the trip, in addition to being many other things, was a reminder of at least a couple of the key issues that continue to dominate the energy scene--the lack of sufficient energy supply in many parts of the world, and the lack of acceptance of new facilities to produce more energy.

*** 

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.

***