Posts Tagged ‘nuclear’

« Older Entries

The only thing more powerful than the truth is fear

Saturday, June 1st, 2013

As I was thinking about what to write this month, I was invited by my dry cleaner to attend a protest in a nearby park against genetically modified food.  This somewhat infuriated me as I know without doubt that GMO has helped millions around the world and had never killed anyone (although denial of these foods has), yet, as with nuclear power, opposition remains strong, especially in Europe.

My dry cleaner argued trying to tell me that 500,000 were killed in India due to GMO and, as you can imagine, there was no winning the argument.  Mark Lynas, who I have quoted in previous posts has recently taken a hard stand against those who oppose GMO. Mark makes his position clear in his talk at Cornell University this past April where he opens with the following: “I think the controversy over GMOs represents one of the greatest science communications failures of the past half-century. Millions, possibly billions, of people have come to believe what is essentially a conspiracy theory, generating fear and misunderstanding about a whole class of technologies on an unprecedentedly global scale.”

It is no mistake that environmentalists like Mark have also changed their views on nuclear power and are now vigorously supporting it.  The simple reason is that Mark and others like Stewart Brand and George Monbiot, are taking positions that are founded in science rather than a set of beliefs that may feel right, but cannot be supported by scientific evidence.

Most of the opposition to nuclear power is founded in fear – primarily the fear of radiation.  However, scientific evidence continues to grow demonstrating the benefits of nuclear power while disproving widely held beliefs of many who oppose it.

For example, this past week (on May 23), a new study was reported on by the Canadian regulator (CNSC) looking at cancer rates near Canadian nuclear plants.  Not surprisingly, once again the results were clear.  No indication of any increases in cancer near nuclear stations relative to the rest of the province.  “The most important finding of this study is no evidence of childhood leukemia clusters in the communities within 25 km of the Pickering, Darlington and Bruce NPPs.”

Next I return to the study I wrote about last month published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology by Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute.  They found that nuclear power has saved an estimated 80,000 lives annually – 1.84 million in all – since widely introduced in the 1970s and could save another 5 million if construction continues at a decent pace due to a reduction in air pollution.  Nuclear power has also reduced carbon emissions by 64 Gt over the same period.

And finally UNSCEAR has now released the results of its latest study on the Fukushima accident.  It clearly concluded “Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers“.  But of even more importance this study also concluded that there are health effects from the Fukushima accident stemming from the stresses of evacuation and unwarranted fear of radiation.

So what does all this tell us?  Looking at these three studies we can confirm that

i) operating nuclear power plants do not cause cancer to the residents of nearby communities from normal operations;

ii) over the past 40 years nuclear power has in fact saved almost 2 million lives through a real reduction in pollution by not burning fossil fuels and its resultant health impacts; and finally

iii) that after the biggest nuclear accident in the last 25 years, radiation has not harmed any of the people of Japan and is unlikely to do so in the future.

Considering these kinds of results, why aren’t we seeing this reported in the main stream media?  With this kind of story there should be universal praise of nuclear power and strong support for its expansion.   Frankly, if it were any technology other than nuclear that was reported to have saved millions of lives we likely would have seen it in the headlines at CNN, BBC  and other mainstream media.  So why are we primarily seeing these nuclear studies reported in trade magazines and blogs?  Why is the world not blown away by this fantastic evidence of the benefits to our lives of nuclear power?  As I was pondering these developments I came upon a chapter title in the book I am currently reading by Ben Goldacre called “Bad Science” (Good book by the way).  The chapter title is “Why Clever People Believe Stupid Things”.  The chapter then goes on to discuss many of the things we have discussed in this blog before such as confirmation bias, seeing patterns where there are none and a host of other standard reasons why people tend stick to their beliefs in light of strong evidence that they should consider alternatives.

The reality is that some people will never change their view of nuclear power and will oppose it no matter what evidence is brought before them.  But for those of us who are frustrated, there is hope.  We are starting to see positive change.  We have well known environmentalists seeing the benefits of nuclear power.  This is now captured in the new documentary “Pandora’s Promise” coming in June.  Film maker Robert Stone is quoted as saying “It’s no easy thing for me to have come to the conclusion that the rapid deployment of nuclear power is now the greatest hope we have for saving us from an environmental catastrophe,”   Entertainment Weekly says “the film is built around looking at an issue not with orthodoxy, but with open eyes”.  (I know some of you have already seen it.  I haven’t seen it yet but I am looking forward to it).

Our story is strong.  The message is positive and one of hope for the future.  But overcoming fear is no easy task.  Fear is a powerful emotion.  It will take hard work, commitment – and most of all -  time.  But if we all persevere, the future is bright. The time has come to get the message out and show how much nuclear power contributes to society, and how necessary it is in a high energy and resource intensive world.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change, Fukushima, General, Nuclear safety, public support, Risk | 7 Comments »

Learning the right lessons – a new paradigm to build a brighter future

Monday, April 29th, 2013

Last month we talked about Fukushima two years on and focused our discussion on making sure we remember the real people whose lives continue to be severely impacted by this accident.  This month, as we also remember Chernobyl on its 27th anniversary, I wanted to talk about the legacy of these events and focus on learning the lessons that are necessary to make the industry stronger and, most of all, improving its support amongst the public.

There have been a number of important positive reports recently that can lead to a better understanding of the consequences to the public of nuclear power.

The first being a study by Japanese researchers who found that internal radiation levels in the population around Fukushima are very low.  “Some 99% of residents of Fukushima prefecture and neighbouring Ibaraki have barely detectable levels of internal exposure to cesium 137, a group of Japanese researchers has found. Of the remaining 1%, all showed levels well below the government-set limit.”  Of interest, the levels are much lower than following the Chernobyl accident and indicate low levels of contamination in the food.  This builds on the recent WHO study I reported on last month that says the risk of adverse health impacts from radiation to the Japanese population is very low.

Second, a study was published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology by Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute.  They found that nuclear power has saved an estimated 80,000 lives annually – 1.84 million in all – since widely introduced in the 1970s and could save another 5 million if construction continues at a decent pace due to a reduction in air pollution.  Nuclear power has also reduced carbon emissions by 64 Gt over the same period.  This study is important because it quantifies the benefits of nuclear power being clean compared to burning fossil fuels.  Its author, James Hansen is considered an environmental activist who has taken hard positions on a number of environmental issues.

And finally a new draft document by the US Environmental Protection Agency that “would change its long-standing advice to state and local governments about how to limit long-term exposure to radiation after a reactor accident or a “dirty bomb” attack. By reducing the projections for how much radiation exposure is likely in the years after such an episode, the proposal could also reduce the amount of contaminated land that would have to be abandoned.”  This is critically important because finally there is starting to be a discussion on how to best respond in the event of an accident in addition to how to prevent accidents in the first place.

So why talk about reports such as these?  Because I think they are a critical step to ensuring we learn the right lessons following Fukushima.  This will lead to improving the response following accidents, and then ultimately starting a meaningful dialogue to reduce the public fear of nuclear power.

In the industry we often see the focus continuing to be on how to both reduce the risk of accidents in the first place and then ensure that even when there is an event there are no releases of radiation to the environment.  These post-Fukushima lessons learned fall into three broad categories:

  • Reducing the risk of an accident by building better protection against such hazards as earthquakes and tsunamis
  • Ensuring continued cooling of the reactors following an event through the use of portable accessible temporary power to replace safety systems that may have been damaged or destroyed on site; and
  • Better Severe Accident Management Guidance (SAMG) so that even after a severe accident there would be no releases. This includes such protections as hardened vents and recombiners to lower the risk of hydrogen explosions and various sorts of strategies for in-containment retention of any melted core.

But while this is all good, it is not going to get us to the solutions we need as it only goes part of the way there.  We also need to demonstrate that we have clear and effective strategies so that even if there are releases we can protect people and keep them safe.  This means a better understanding of the real health risks of radiation exposure so there can be clear guidelines on when to evacuate and of even more importance when to allow people to return.  And there also needs to be clear guidelines for remediation of land following any amount of contamination and how to go about it.

The latter is absolutely necessary because when it comes to public safety and hence public support, the real issue with nuclear power continues to be fear.  While most people would probably accept that nuclear power provides safe and clean electricity under normal operating conditions; the real fear comes from the belief that even if the risk is small, the consequences of a nuclear accident are too severe to be tolerated by society.  And as long as this belief holds, no matter what the industry does to reduce the risk of an accident, the fear will never change.  The more emphasis we put on trying to make it almost impossible for there to be an accident with releases, the stronger the belief that we must do this because the consequences of releases are just too severe to even contemplate.

This makes nuclear a hard sell to the public because the consequence is seen as real while the risk is less relevant.  People evaluate risk by focusing on the severity of consequences and considering their perceived control over them.  Some people are afraid of flying and not driving even though we all know the risk of dying in an auto accident is significantly higher than in a plane crash.  Why?  In part because we all believe that we are good drivers (control) and even if we have an accident we can survive because not all individual car accidents kill people (severity).  Therefore we can convince ourselves that we likely won’t have an accident and even if we do, it won’t be a bad one.  On the other hand, we may fear flying even though we know the risk is small because we also know that if we are the unlucky ones to be on the one plane that does go down, then we will surely die.  And so it goes for nuclear.  While safe most of the time, the public believes that IF there is an accident our communities will be destroyed by contamination and we will either die or even worse our children and grandchildren may also die from cancer in the future.

This is why need a change of paradigm.  What studies such as the ones above actually show is that:

  • Safely operated nuclear plants save lives every day by not polluting our environment as does burning fossil fuels.  These are real lives saved and the numbers are big.
  • Radiation is not as dangerous as most people think especially at low levels of exposure.  While it is a carcinogen, it is a far less potent carcinogen that many others we see in our everyday lives from many forms of pollution.  In fact we use radiation in medicine to save lives by both diagnosing illness and treating diseases such as cancer.
  • Following really bad accidents such as Fukushima; where the entire area was devastated by a huge natural disaster that made it increasingly difficult to manage the nuclear accident at three reactors at the same site; we have still been able to protect people from radiation.  The result being that to date not even one person has died from it; and studies show the risk of dying in the future to be too low to measure.

But we also know that through extreme fear people have died being evacuated in haste; that people have had their lives disrupted with extreme fear of not knowing if they will have health impacts or not; and that governments do not have clear and effective guidelines for how to remediate following such an event leading to fear causing irrational decisions that actually further fuel the fear. And that is why we need more effort on managing consequences and improving accident response.

So let’s learn the right lessons and start the hard work of changing the paradigm.  Let’s demonstrate to the public that they don’t need to be afraid; that nuclear accidents are very rare; that even when the next accident happens (and it will) that we can effectively keep the public safe from health impacts and protect their homes and their families.

Let’s explain to the public that while the risk of a nuclear accident is much lower than being in a plane crash (and air travel is very safe), so are the consequences.  Because we also know that if we are in a plane accident we will most likely die.  What we need to know is that even after the worst possible nuclear accident we will likely not die – and that our families and children will not suffer serious health impacts.

This is the big change.  Understanding that the risk of a nuclear accident is low and the consequences are indeed manageable is essential to reducing the fear that is so strong amongst the public.  And only without fear can nuclear power fully achieve its potential as the way forward to producing clean abundant energy for a better society.  Now this would be a great lesson learned from Fukushima.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change, Fukushima, General, Nuclear safety, public support, Risk | 2 Comments »

Fukushima – Nobody died from radiation and nobody will, but the fear remains

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

With the second anniversary of the Fukushima accident having just passed, it was with little fanfare outside of Japan.  There were the requisite articles in the press about Japan and its quest to reform its energy infrastructure.  There was talk about the devastating consequences of the tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear accident.  Those who are pro nuclear continue to state how Fukushima shows that nuclear power is indeed safe while those opposed argue that Fukushima clearly demonstrates why all nuclear power should be eliminated.

Let’s look at it from a different perspective.  I titled this post “Nobody died from radiation and nobody will…” for a reason.   The WHO has just released its report on Fukushima and concluded that there will be an immeasurable increase in cancers in the long term from this event.  While still a somewhat-flawed report (uses the too-conservative linear low dose theory) showing some increased risk for a small group; there is a clear conclusion that radiation from this accident has not been harmful to the people of Japan.  This is great news.  We can draw a conclusion that even after a very bad nuclear accident where there are releases, people can indeed be protected from radiation with no measurable health impact – a very important conclusion for the future of nuclear power and for how we manage possible future events.

There are important lessons the global industry must learn from this event but on this second anniversary I really want to focus on Japan.  We tend to talk about how this accident impacts us as an industry arguing the merits of nuclear power – for now let’s keep our thoughts with the Japanese people who are living it day in and day out.  For these people their suffering is far from over “….but the fear remains”.

First of all, I want to continue to express my sorrow to the Japanese people whose lives have been impacted by this horrific natural disaster.  With over 19,000 dead and hundreds of thousands without their homes (either because it was destroyed or if they were evacuated due to the threat of radiation from the Fukushima accident) these peoples’ lives have been radically altered and to this day many have very uncertain futures.  In addition to families, the economy of the region has been destroyed.

While we in the industry tend to focus on the accident from a technical point of view in most of our analyses, the focus is somewhat different in Japan (I was privileged to visit Japan this past year, but unfortunately not Fukushima).  The following paragraphs come from the official report of the National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC)– from the Chairman’s message.

“THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI of March 11, 2011 were natural disasters of a magnitude that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.

What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.

Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident, the result may well have been the same.

Many of the lessons relate to policies and procedures, but the most important is one upon which each and every Japanese citizen should reflect very deeply. The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society.”

Read the above carefully – and I invite you to read the entire report if you have not had a chance.  So while we focus on the technical, the Japanese people are looking at this accident as a proxy for examining what is wrong with Japan and its culture.  This is a defining event in the country’s history that is making the average Japanese citizen question key aspects of their culture.

Beliefs are powerful – so to note that some of what happened and its severity are due to a set of beliefs must be very difficult.  And as we all know, there is nothing like a crisis to start people thinking about things differently.  Of course it’s not my role to comment on someone else’s culture but only to note how culture can impact us all so profoundly.  If ultimately there is change in Japan, we should applaud the Japanese people as I cannot see anything more difficult than changing the way a society thinks.

I recently read “Strong in the Rain”, one of the first books to chronicle the disaster (the tsunami, not just the nuclear accident).  It tends to look at real families and the impact to them.  It is an interesting read and does help you feel what the people were feeling.

Now let’s go back to the accident itself.  From a technical point of view, the Fukushima plant is now in a safe state.  There is lots of news about how long it will take to complete the cleanup and decommissioning of the site and its cost, but the reality is that the plant is safe.  The concerns going forward are with the contamination of the areas nearby and the ability for people to return to their homes and resume their lives.

We have also seen that the radiation levels in the nearby communities are dropping.  A recent report has shown that levels are down by 40% and a number of people have been allowed to return to their homes.  And, as stated in the WHO report, it is now very clear that none of the Japanese public will suffer direct health effects from exposure to radiation.

But that doesn’t mean there are no health effects.  Similar to those who experienced the accident at Chernobyl, the main impact to health is psychological.  And this comes from the very basic issue of fear.  People are afraid of the impact of radiation to them and their families.  People are afraid of not having a future as their homes have been destroyed.    And in the case of Japan, people are stigmatized – they are ashamed to be from Fukushima.  The result:  depression, chronic anxiety, panic attacks,  lack of understanding of what to do, PTSD, insomnia, headaches ,excessive smoking and alcohol, anger, irritation, anguish and loss of hope.  And of most importance in a society like Japan, there has been a complete loss of trust in authority – people no longer trust the government.  With trust gone, people don’t know where to turn for credible information and, most of all, support as they do their best to recover from this disaster.

It is interesting that recently I have heard the term “social license” being used more and more in conferences and discussions.  Plant owners around the world clearly understand they operate with the permission of the local community, and that sets how the relationship with the community must work.  A loss of trust is a very difficult thing to overcome and rebuilding trust is a long term undertaking.

The fear associated with an accident of this magnitude has broader effects as well.  With no clear standards for decontamination after an accident, the Japanese government set goals of bringing the levels down to pre-accident conditions.  This target is very ambitious and also not likely necessary.  Our extraordinary fears of radiation have resulted in poor decisions being made both during the event and after.  It is now too late to try and convince evacuated people that they can go back to homes with higher levels of radiation than before even if the risk of health consequences is minute.  The damage is done – trust is gone.

Then there is the impact at the national level.  Before Fukushima, nuclear power produced about 30% of the Japanese electricity from 54 reactors.  Now all are down except for 2 units.  With the new regulator in place and their new rules also having been established, more are expected to be brought back this year.  But most will take longer as improvements are made to meet the new requirements.  At least things are going in the right direction.  But in the meanwhile, Japan is being forced to both reduce electricity use (greatly impacting Japanese industry) and pay huge costs for replacement power using fossil fuels, primarily LNG.  Imports were up 25% at a cost of ¥2.5 trillion and about a 4% increase in carbon emissions even though total electricity usage was down.

Lack of a broader focus is not a uniquely Japanese problem – this is a global problem.  We spend all of our energy on preventing accidents and convincing people they won’t happen.  We don’t spend enough time on building a consensus on how to manage after it happens – and if we have learned anything from this at all – accidents will happen.  So this is where we need to do better.  We need to develop clear methodologies for accident mitigation and we certainly are; but once again we are very focused on how to ensure there are no releases in future events.  We also need a consensus on developing safety guides for decontamination or how to manage once radiation has been released.   And most of all we need to think about people; not only how we can best protect them, but then how to give them confidence that they are safe and secure.

There are many positives to be learned from this accident but at this time I leave these to another day.  So to all the Japanese people we wish you well and hope you are all able to return to your lives as quickly as possible.  Our hearts are with you and you are not forgotten.

There is a strength in the people and as Prime Minister Abe told a memorial service in Tokyo on the anniversary also attended by Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko, “Our ancestors have overcome many difficulties and each time emerged stronger……  We pledge anew to learn from them and move forward, holding each other’s hands.”

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Fukushima, General, Nuclear safety | 1 Comment »

With 2012 behind us, what’s next for 2013?

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

2012 was a challenging year.

The industry continued to see the impact of the Fukushima accident. While the Japanese were working towards a policy of complete nuclear phase out by the 2040s; and other markets were looking at reducing reliance on nuclear power; and significantly France, the most nuclear country in the world, announced it will not extend the life of its oldest plant at Fessenheim as a start towards an “energy transition” for the future.  And finally, the low price of gas in North America fueled by a huge increase in unconventional gas and oil resources continued to stress the economic competitiveness of all cleaner generation alternatives, including nuclear, in North America.

But it was not a year of all negatives. Of tremendous importance was the issuance of the UNSCEAR report that has once and for all addressed the linear low dose theory stating that there is no evidence of measurable health impacts to people below 100 mSv/a.  However; while the data from Fukushima continues to support that there will be no radiation health effects, Japanese people continue to suffer as many remain removed from their homes with their lives on hold.

There were a number of other high points – the first COLs allowing the first new construction to begin in three decades in the United States; the restart of Chinese approvals for new plants, albeit at a reduced level; significant movement towards new build in the UK; and importantly after a tremendously difficult year, the election of a new government in Japan that is starting to put their program back on track.

With all of that behind us, what is next for 2013?  I believe most of us expect a strong year ahead for the industry although I am hesitant to forecast given my previous blog post.

So I will come to it in a different way. Here are some of the events we would like to see happen in the industry in 2013 to keep things moving forward. This is not an exhaustive list as there is just so much going on in the industry around the world; but the highlights of my own personal wish list focused on milestones for the nuclear industry.

  1. A number of plants restart in Japan and, most of all, we would like to see as many people as possible able to return to their homes in the evacuation area and resume their lives.
  2. A strong commitment to the in-service date for the delayed Oikiluoto project in Finland.
  3. China to continue to approve new plants
  4. EDF Energy to reach agreement with the UK government and commit to Hinkley Point C
  5. The Czech Republic to conclude their tendering process and sign a contract for their new project
  6. South Africa to formally start their process for new build
  7. At least one new country move forward with new nuclear plans. (It could be Saudi Arabia, a South East Asian country like Malaysia or Vietnam, or an eastern European country like Poland).
  8. Cameco to start first production from its Cigar Lake Mine
  9. A higher uranium price enabling new mine financing to be arranged (such as the for the Wiluna mine in Western Australia)

But most of all, what we would really like to see is a real shift in the industry to work together on a globally integrated plan to improve public support for nuclear power. There are so many good things happening that now is the time to really work together to address the big issues on people’s minds – these being: re-enforcing the benefits, explaining the risks and mostly reducing the fear. We all know that radiation should not be feared nearly as much as it is and we need to be using the UNSEAR report as a first step to moving the needle. Climate change is here now and we need to move off fossil fuels to save our planet. Nuclear power is a key element of any strategy to reduce carbon and we need to push now and push as hard for a new vision as the oil, coal and gas industries do to maintain the status quo.

So here is my list. What I will ask you to do is first, use the poll below to vote on which of this list you agree is likely to happen this year. And then please add your own comments to add your own expectations to the list. I will then compile the top items in a future post.

 

It’s a new year and the world needs us more than ever.  Let’s roll up our sleeves and get started!

Tags: ,
Posted in Climate Change, Fukushima, General, Nuclear New Build, Uranium | 1 Comment »

Nuclear competitiveness and the folly of forecasting

Saturday, December 29th, 2012

Hard to believe we have already come to the end of another year.  It was a year with both highs and lows for the nuclear industry. I will talk about this more in the new  year.  But for today, I wanted to close out 2012 by writing about something that I have been thinking about since I first addressed it in September of 2011 – gas prices.

It was about a year and a half ago when the then president of Exelon gave a speech to the ANS noting that “Nuclear is a business, not a religion”.  The premise was that nuclear needs sustained high gas prices to be competitive.  Since that time it has become a given that gas prices in North America are low and predicted to stay low for some time; the result being that new build nuclear plants are not competitive in this environment.  It is said in almost every article and discussion of the future of nuclear in North America. i.e. we love nuclear but low gas prices are making it impossible at the moment (albeit more in the US than in Canada).

And indeed, this was the year that gas prices seemed to go lower than anyone could have imagined.  Earlier this year the price actually dropped below $2/mmBTU and has stayed roughly in the mid $3 range ever since.

But this is the point.  Predictions are just that – predictions – and in most cases are notoriously wrong.   Just look at the change in prices from 2008 until now.  And I can assure you that in 2008 no one was predicting this to be the case.

I first cited Dan Gardner’s book “Future Babble” in my post of August this year.   I loved this book.  It was good fun to read and I strongly recommend it.  Basically the book explains why expert predictions fail and why we believe them anyway.  It includes some fun anecdotal examples.  “In 1984, the Economist asked sixteen people to make ten-year forecasts of economic growth rates, inflation rates, exchange rates, oil prices, and other staples of economic prognostication. Four of the test subjects were former finance ministers, four were chairmen of multinational companies, four were economics students at Oxford University, and four were, to use the English vernacular, London dustmen. A decade later, the Economist reviewed the forecasts and discovered they were, on average, awful. But some were more awful than others: The dustmen tied the corporate chairmen for first place, while the finance ministers came last.”

And while giving examples of where expert predictions are wrong is fun, Future Babble does actually quote a bone fide study on the issue.  This study comes from Philip Tetlock who today, is a much-honoured psychologist at the University of California’s Haas School of Business. In 1984 Tetlock undertook a massive study on just this issue.

”Scouring his multidisciplinary networks, Tetlock recruited 284 experts — political scientists, economists, and journalists — whose jobs involve commenting or giving advice on political or economic trends. All were guaranteed anonymity because Tetlock didn’t want anyone feeling pressure to conform or worrying about what their predictions would do to their reputations. With names unknown, all were free to judge as best they could.

Then the predictions began. Over many years, Tetlock and his team peppered the experts with questions. In all, they collected an astonishing 27,450 judgements about the future. It was by far the biggest exercise of its kind ever, and the results were startlingly clear.  The experts beat the chimp by a whisker. The simple and disturbing truth is that the experts’ predictions were no more accurate than random guesses.”

The reality of successful forecasting is captured in what I find to be a very funny current ad by Ally Bank in the US.

So what can we conclude from this discussion on the folly of predictions?  What will gas prices be in a decade?  Nobody knows.  Period.  Look at the history of gas prices.  In the last twenty years about half the time prices have been below $5/mmBTU and about half the time above.   The second graph is even more telling. Even with scores of predictions that prices will remain low for some time, forecasts by the EIA (US DOE) show that over the next six months or so there is a 95% confidence level that prices will be somewhere between $2 and $7/mmBTU, pretty much the same as they have been over the last twenty years with a few exceptions.

Natural Gas Futures EIA Dec 2012

Source: DOE EIA

Gas Forecast Dec 2012

While this is all in good fun – after all, it is the holidays – why am I discussing this and what does it mean for the future of nuclear in North America?  I guess I need to get a bit serious to close out the year and give you something to think about as we move into 2013.

So here are some truths:

  • Most nuclear plants in operation today are competitive as they are the lowest marginal cost producers in almost every market (and they were all built in a lower gas price environment)
  • New build nuclear is currently not competitive with $3/mmBTU gas
  • In a previous post, I showed that new nuclear in the US does well against $7 gas in the OECD./NEA report issued in 2010.   If we are able to reduce capital costs due to the benefits of series build (after FOAK projects), then new build nuclear should be able to compete with gas in the $5/mmBTU plus range.

The conclusion of this is that nuclear is competitive with gas over much of the range that gas prices are likely to be.  It struggles at the bottom, but excels at the top.  So a general conclusion is that a nuclear power is expected to be a competitive option for the future and as such, would be a reasonable part of any electricity supply system. This is the rationale for new plants currently being built in South Carolina and Georgia.

Now the real issue.  Nuclear plants take about 8 to 10 years to implement.  Do we have any idea what gas prices will be in a decade?  No we do not.  In fact we don’t even know what gas prices will be next year.  But we do know that overall, whatever they may be, nuclear plants will produce electricity at a cost that is within a reasonable range of gas and other alternatives.  And hence the issue.  If we can’t predict electricity prices next week, how can we ever make the decision to build a plant that will come into service post 2020?

This is where we need to question the current structure of the competitive electricity markets (which I have long said are really gas markets) [Note: the UK is struggling with just this issue at the moment as they work to move forward with new nuclear].  While the lowest cost at any time is a commendable objective, we must also accept that we do not want an electricity system with only one form of generation – and it is a truth that, at any point in time, only one form of generation can be the least cost option.  Add to this the fact that it takes time to build electricity generation and we can easily see how it is so difficult to take investment decisions, especially for capital intensive long schedule options like nuclear power.  The world is readily accepting that subsidies must be paid to encourage the use of renewables – and we certainly know that fossil fuels are heavily subsidized in many markets.  So what about nuclear?

We also know that today in Germany and Japan (at least temporarily), where decisions to not operate nuclear plants have been taken, costs have gone up with a huge impact to the local economies.  In fact high energy prices are becoming a very significant issue in Europe as recently reported in the NY Times.

So given we want an electricity generation system that is at least somewhat diversified and not totally dependent upon one form of generation, let’s consider the long term benefits of nuclear power:

  • Highly reliable and stable production
  • Extremely energy dense producing huge amounts of energy from relatively small amounts of fuel.
  • Relatively insensitive to uranium prices making the electricity costs very stable over the entire life of the plant.
  • Very low carbon energy source

So do we want a low marginal cost, reliable, and of most importance – stable cost alternative as part of the mix?  Well, given that we don’t know what gas prices will be, we do know one thing – that fossil prices vary with time and hence no matter what, gas fired electricity prices will be volatile.  So yes, I believe that having nuclear as part of the mix to help keep prices reasonable and stable is sensible and in the interest of consumers.

But all that being said, the future is up to us in the industry.  While we can’t control the cost of gas, we must do our best to continue to reduce the cost of new nuclear as we gain the benefits of series build, including learning lessons from China and elsewhere where these benefits are being proven.  And we must be able to demonstrate that we can build plants on time and on budget – and the rest will follow.

Wishing you all a very happy new year and thank you for reading my blog!   Looking forward to more interesting discussion in 2013.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Economics, General, Nuclear New Build | 2 Comments »

The changing face of global energy – Is nuclear power being left behind?

Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

I have just done my first pass of the Word Energy Outlook 2012 issued by the IEA this November.  Many of you will have seen some of the headlines – one of the most intriguing is that the US is expected to become the world’s largest oil producer by 2017 exceeding the output of Saudi Arabia.  With headlines like that how can you not want to read this report?

The trouble with trying to read and write about this report is that, as was the case with the Energy Technology Perspectives (which I talked about earlier this year), there is just so much in it to make you think that, agree or disagree, the report is full of interesting information that is worth discussing.

I have been a bit stuck on what perspective to take in this post.  Ultimately I decided to focus on some general points this month (of course with the outlook on nuclear as the key talking point) and then I will undoubtedly use the report for future discussions on more focused topics.

Reading the Executive Summary the report starts off with “The global energy map is changing, with potentially far-reaching consequences for energy markets and trade. It is being redrawn by the resurgence in oil and gas production in the United States and could be further reshaped by a retreat from nuclear power in some countries, continued rapid growth in the use of wind and solar technologies and by the global spread of unconventional gas production.”

When it comes to global energy production, this short phrase pretty much sums it up.  Strong North American oil production, more coal, less nuclear, more renewables and much more gas.  And not surprisingly, this  translates into more difficulty meeting climate change objectives.  It continues, “Taking all new developments and policies into account, the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path.  Successive editions of this report have shown that the climate goal of limiting warming to 2 °C is becoming more difficult and more costly with each year that passes. Our 450 Scenario examines the actions necessary to achieve this goal and finds that almost four-fifths of the CO2 emissions allowable by 2035 are already locked-in by existing power plants, factories, buildings, etc. If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time.”  Another testament to the continuing lack of progress on meeting the world’s climate change challenges.

And finally when it comes to the future of nuclear power it recognizes the changes in some countries to cut back while others continue to move forward.

“The anticipated role of nuclear power has been scaled back as countries have reviewed policies in the wake of the 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. Japan and France have recently joined the countries with intentions to reduce their use of nuclear power, while its competitiveness in the United States and Canada is being challenged by relatively cheap natural gas. Our projections for growth in installed nuclear capacity are lower than in last year’s Outlook and, while nuclear output still grows in absolute terms (driven by expanded generation in China, Korea, India and Russia), its share in the global electricity mix falls slightly over time.”

I am showing all of the above quotes because in a few words from the Executive Summary, the report says so much.  The figure below shows the key changes in projected energy use from the 2011 WEO.  In summary, as I read this report we can conclude that:

  • Fossil fuel use is thriving.  Clearly North American policies to increase both oil and gas production are very effective.  Coal use is up again globally from the last WEO even with a larger increase in (mostly unconventional) gas use.  Fossil fuel subsidies continue to be the largest of any energy source estimated at $523 billion, more than 6 times that for renewables and a 30% increase from 2010.
  • Renewables use continues to grow without any real demonstration that increasing renewables to that extent is feasible.  Subsidies are at $88 billion and rise to $240 billion in 2035
  • Nuclear is being left behind as the 6% reduction in nuclear compared to 2011 is the largest single change in the new WEO New Policies Scenario.

And this path is taking us down the road to being unable to meet the 2 degree climate change scenario.  After trying everything else in past reports, this year they try to demonstrate that increased efficiency is a potential path to delaying the inevitable and make time for more policy change to support the environment.  This has the potential to extend the 2017 date for lock-in to 2022.  However we can also ask, without a real and substantive global commitment to reducing carbon emissions, what will these extra few years actually achieve?  Most likely – nothing!

So let’s look at the nuclear case in a bit more detail.  Compared to the 2011 scenario, nuclear use is decreasing in those countries with the most to lose, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and even France, while being economically challenged in North America; and rising in the more rapidly growing economies of the east led by China.  This leads to an important question.  Is nuclear power becoming a transient technology that helps countries develop and then once there, can be phased out over time by a policy shift to renewables?  This seems to be a possible theme going forward but in practice nothing can be further from the truth.  It is interesting to note that this past week was the 70th anniversary of the first sustained criticality at CP-1 by Enrico Fermi.  And here we are today with the countries named above all having substantial nuclear programs providing a large and important part of their electricity generation (Japan 30%, Germany 30%, Switzerland 40% and France 75%).  Clearly, with this much nuclear, replacing it is not trivial and will have significant impacts.   Even the WEO acknowledges that “shifting away from nuclear power can have significant implications for a country’s spending on imports of fossil fuels, for electricity prices and for the level of effort needed to meet climate targets.”

And that is what we are seeing today as Germany and Japan wrestle with these impacts as they try to reduce the use of nuclear very quickly.  Based on hysteria following the Fukushima accident, the politicians in these countries (even France) seem to have forgotten what they have achieved since that famous date 70 years ago and why they built such large nuclear fleets in the first place.  Building a successful nuclear program is a major undertaking requiring investment in regulation, infrastructure and industry.  Germany, Japan and France have all benefited from this investment as they developed significant technology, know-how and industrial capability with the result being, in all cases, a very large portion of their electricity generation being economical, clean and reliable.  Reducing its use as a result of a misguided view on nuclear safety will result in a large negative impact to industry and their economies.  In Germany, utilities are suffering financially and in Japan, there is the risk of losing capability and business to the new nuclear powers of Korea and China while having staggering increases in imported fossil fuels and a devastating impact to the local economy.

In fact, looking at the following figure from the WEO shows the bigger story.  Just compare the capacity bar with the energy bar in each case and one thing is clear.  Nuclear power is a key workhorse of the global energy system.  It is by far the most efficient investment as every GW of capacity produces more GWh of energy than every other type of electricity generation.  As I stated in my earlier post on the ETP, one of the reasons for the enormous investment in renewables is that you have to build about three times as much capacity as nuclear to get anywhere near the same energy output – and of course even then this energy is not dispatchable.  But even looking at the use of more tradition fossil fuels, because nuclear fuel costs are very small, they are dispatched before more expensive coal and gas plants and, as the figure shows, 3 times as much coal capacity and almost 4 times as much gas is projected to each only generate twice the energy as nuclear.

It is important to remember that the WEO is not a forecast per se; rather it is a projection of how government policies would look once implemented.  And what we see is a world investing heavily in fossil fuels to protect the status quo while also investing in renewables as a token path to the future.  The fall in nuclear power use in developed countries is an important testament to the ongoing impact of the Fukushima accident on government policies in the west.

While the 2012 projection is less than 2011, nuclear power does continue to grow and in 2035 it is projected to supply 12% of world electricity (13% in 2011 projection).  Yes, it is being left behind relatively but, as I see it, this report clearly demonstrates the importance of nuclear power as a clean, efficient and reliable source of non carbon electricity going forward.  Implementing policies that reduce its use is folly as it definitely will result in expanded fossil use, higher costs, trade imbalances  and higher carbon emissions; all leading us down an unsustainable path.

Therefore the policy answer is not to limit and reduce the use of nuclear energy, but to expand its use because even a small expansion in capacity results in a relatively large increase in energy generated.  And that means that we need to work harder to address the issues resulting from the Fukushima accident in the developed world and remind those governments who are reacting to short term pressures why they went nuclear in the first place; and of the consequences of reducing its use to their societies so they can rethink potential policies that may move them away from this very important part of our global energy mix.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change, Economics, Fukushima, General, Nuclear New Build, Risk | 2 Comments »

Dr. Sylvia Fedoruk – A great innovator bringing the benefits of nuclear to the world.

Friday, October 5th, 2012

I want to commend the Saskatchewan government for honouring Dr Sylvia Fedoruk by renaming the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation located at the University of Saskatchewan the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation.

Dr. Fedoruk died on September 26 at the age of 85.  When I thought about writing this post, I asked myself why would those who read this blog – who usually are from as many as 25 different countries want to read about Dr. Fedoruk?  And the answer was simple.  Probably not well known outside of Canada, you should all know her.  She spent her life making the world a better place so I hope you will be as inspired by her as I am.

Dr. Syvia Fedoruk defined the word “innovation” when it came to bringing the benefits of radiation and nuclear to mankind.  Born in the small town of Canora, Saskatchewan Dr. Fedoruk was the only woman who in the 1950s was conducting medical-physics research in Canada. At a time when it was unusual for a woman to enter the field of medical biophysics, her groundbreaking achievements have earned her worldwide recognition, bringing honour to the University of Saskatchewan, her home province, and Canada.

In 1951 she was one of the team that developed Cobalt 60 therapy to treat cancer.  It is estimated that this work led to the treatment of some 70 million people worldwide by the end of the century.  She later was involved in the development of the dosimeter as well as the first uses of radioisotopes to scan for cancer in the thyroid and liver.

After a long career as a researcher, Dr. Fedoruk was the first woman member of the Atomic Energy Control Board (predecessor of the CNSC, Canada’s nuclear regulator), became the Chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan bringing her drive for innovation to a new generation of young people and then served the people of Saskatchewan as its Lieutenant Governor from 1988 to 1994.

At a time when the nuclear industry is fighting to demonstrate the numerous benefits we bring to society; we must always remember those like Dr. Fedoruk who spent their lives using nuclear technology to save lives and made the world a truly better place for us all.

Today, the world still has many great young innovators but we are having trouble inspiring them to turn their passion to the nuclear industry like many did a generation ago.  Rather it is a calling in IT or other industries that seem to be of most interest.  Yet we all recognize the need for clean reliable economic energy for a better future.  And we recognize that the latest developments in physics at the Large Hadron Collider which confirmed the existence of Higgs boson particles and the complementary experiments at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), recently revisited by Stephen Hawking have the potential to radically revise our understanding of the world.  With these and other developments we need to reinvigorate the imagination of young people, be it in physics, nuclear medicine or electricity from nuclear power plants so that the world’s brightest students still come and spur innovation in the nuclear industry to ensure that we meet the needs of future generations.

So I ask you two questions when you comment on this post.  First, who inspires you in the industry today?  Let’s celebrate those (and there are many) who keep moving the nuclear industry forward.  And second, what are your thoughts on inspiring a new generation of innovators to enter into this industry so that we continue to have the world’s best and brightest?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in General | 1 Comment »

We need vocal public support for nuclear – this is the industry’s most pressing challenge.

Wednesday, September 26th, 2012

I participated in the WNA Annual Symposium in London earlier this month.  During the event I had ample opportunity to discuss my last post on developing a better understanding of the beliefs behind the public’s view of nuclear power and what we as an industry need to do going forward.

But in the meanwhile, we have had quite a bit of unsettling news.  The push towards reducing the use of nuclear energy in the established nuclear countries has been accelerating.  Most of all we see that Japan is moving towards a policy of no nuclear post 2030s.  During the symposium the common thought was that the 15% option may win the day but when the 0% option seemed to be the one moving forward, most of the industry were somewhat stunned.  To date this policy has not been implemented as Japan’s business and industrial sector has finally spoken up.  But this is far from a win.  The reality is that in Japan 70% of the public are opposed to nuclear and would like to see it phased out over time.

Other countries have seen similar outcomes.  Belgium has decided to close its Doel 1&2 units in 2015 rather than have their lives extended for 10 more years.  In Canada the new government of Quebec has announced it will not refurbish and life extend the Gentilly-2 station and even in France, the most nuclear country in the world, government has announced that Fessenheim will be closed in 2016 and a long term goal of reducing the reliance on nuclear from its current 75% to about 50%.

We have become somewhat battle weary in the industry so we tend to rationalize the bad news and look to the good news – and there is considerable good news.  The UK is supporting new nuclear and moving forward, new build is underway in the US, Canada is committed to refurbishing its Darlington station and new build continues  to move forward, albeit slowly.  The middle east is embracing nuclear with the UAE having its project well underway and Saudi Arabia committed to a new nuclear program. India and Russia are both growing their programs; and of course, China is going to be booming and building, leading the world in new nuclear.

So why am I so concerned with the recent trends in some countries?  It is not simply the act of shutting down plants or reducing the share of nuclear – it is the rationale behind these decisions.  The fundamental belief driving these policies is “less nuclear is better than more” – or in other words, if we can do without nuclear then we should.  Now why would anyone believe that less is better than more  – there is only one reason and that is the real underlying belief – that nuclear power is dangerous.  That’s it.  If we didn’t believe that nuclear is dangerous there is no reason to reduce reliance on what is actually a carbon free and environmentally benign energy source.   And this is not a belief that we should let stand.

Look at the recent decision in Canada.  The newly elected Premier of Quebec Mme Marois has stated “I want this gesture to become a symbol of Quebec’s commitment to the environment and the welfare of future generations”.  Or let’s look at the decision in France to close Fessenheim, France’s oldest station in 2016 when it reaches its 40 year life.  (This is even though the French regulator has already approved its suitability to operate for another 10 years).  These decisions are purely political – with the belief that this is what the public wants.  In the case of France, a national debate will be launched to discuss the impeding “energy transition”.

The issue was wonderfully set out by Mark Lynas in his presentation at the WNA Symposium.  In his talk, he told a story of a Japanese couple on a train somewhere in the north of England, who pointed out of the window and asked him if a power station in the distance was nuclear.  When Mark made it clear that no, it was not a nuclear plant but rather a coal station, the couple were clearly relieved. And this led Mark to ask himself if the world had gone mad. How could a power source that kills more people every day than nuclear has done in 50 years of operation be the preferred choice for anyone?

Well, looking at what is happening in Germany, in Belgium, in France and in Japan – the question becomes a valid one.  Has the world gone mad?  Is turning our backs on the world’s safest, cleanest and most efficient energy source the way to the future?

To some extent the answer is yes, the world has gone mad.  But I say yes, not for the reasons you would think, but because as the world works to turn away from nuclear for reasons that make no sense in science; as the public believes that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and the issue is whether or not we can safely manage these dangerous machines; and as these decisions have real negative impacts to environments, economies and the health and safety of people in these countries; where are the supporters?  Now I don’t mean the supporters from the industry, the scientists or the industrialists who all understand the benefits of nuclear; the so called “experts”, but are also all seen as biased and prejudiced in their support.  I mean those members of the public who should be leading the charge to fight to stop the nonsense.  After all, the public are ones to really suffer from a dirtier environment and more expensive electricity.

The industry needs an ever growing group of activists who represent the public, not the industry, to fight for more nuclear.  We need those who believe that the world is a better place with nuclear power in it than without it.  We do see in France, industry is speaking out.  In Japan industry is working hard to keep government from making a decision that will have profound impact on the economy of Japan.  And as I have said in earlier posts, we have some key environmentalists who have seen the benefits of nuclear power and how it can contribute to their cause.  Those like Mark Lynas, George Monbiot and Stewart Brand and others.  These guys are all working hard and speaking out on the side that is less popular with their peers – thus giving even more credibility to them and their arguments.  And there is progress.  NEI just reported that public support for nuclear is rising in the US, closing in on pre-Fukushima levels.

In his WNA talk, Mark Lynas notes that rebalancing public perceptions of risk more towards what science can tell us objectively is central to any nuclear renaissance and that unbalanced risk perceptions are behind nuclear’s major challenges.

This is true.  I agree.  We also need to note that the way forward is long and hard because decisions are made based on emotion, not scientific fact.  What we need are public protests in Germany demanding that nuclear not be shutdown.  We need public protests in Japan supporting nuclear restarts.  And to get to this point, most of all we need the public not to be afraid.  Fear is a powerful emotion that is very difficult to overcome.

The road is a long one.  We need to work with experts in public opinion and make the arguments available to opinion leaders in the communities.  For example, we know the benefits of nuclear medicine for our health, yet anecdotally, we also understand that doctors were just as afraid after Fukushima as anyone else.  There were cases where they were recommending and then performed abortions for fearful mothers.  Yet we also know that these same doctors would not hesitate to prescribe a CT scan or x-ray, even if the benefit is doubtful just to placate a patient who has health worries.  And the likelihood is that the dose from these medical tests would be greater than the exposure from Fukushima.

We also argue that we must educate people when they are young.  We must bring nuclear energy into the schools so that students understand it more and fear it less.  But we also know that teachers as a group tend towards being anti-nuclear.

Hence the problem.  Those that are trusted in society like our doctors and teachers are not necessarily on our side.  These are the groups that should be more open to scientific proof.  These are two groups that we need to work on to move our arguments forward.  This is just an example but I think it shows that the climb is a steep one and the work is hard.  But now is the time to move.  We must all work together to build public support – and that means combating the key issue – that nuclear is inherently dangerous.  We must work to help people understand the reality that nuclear power is less dangerous than most alternatives and that the positives are essential for a prosperous, healthy future for us all.

So coming back to Mark Lynas and his thesis.  We need to do much more to use science as the source of information to make arguments and formulate public policy.  But is that enough?  The real question we all need to ask ourselves is what do we need to do so that the Japanese couple Mark met on the train is no longer afraid?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Climate Change, Fukushima, General, Nuclear New Build, Nuclear safety, publoic support, Risk | 6 Comments »

We are all talking to each other but is anybody out there really listening?

Sunday, August 19th, 2012

Was just in Oxford where I gave a lecture to the WNU Summer institute – a great group of young people who are committed to working in the nuclear industry and doing what they think is best for their and our collective futures.   Oxford is a great place to quietly contemplate recent events and consider whether or not we are going in the right direction.  (Not to mention I enjoyed having lunch in the “Harry Potter” dining hall).

As were many, I was interested in the recent paper written by Ten Hoeve and Mark Jacobson from Stanford University, ‘Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident’ published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science basically predicting that there will be 130 cancer deaths globally from the Fukushima accident.  While it would easy to simply accept this outcome since the number of deaths is relatively low, especially in the context of the large number of deaths caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the study has been criticized as poor science – and very effectively by Mark Lynas.  It is not the criticism that I find interesting  but the comments on Mark’s blog by those both supporting and opposing the study, including the authors.  Now I don’t want to spend my time discussing the study as in my opinion Mark did a fine job – but rather the implications of the two sides debating it.

I recently read “The Believing Brain” by Dr. Michael Shermer (as well as some other stuff) that helps to create some understanding of the situation that we find ourselves in.    What I found fascinating about the debate on the Stanford study is not whether or not it is accurate or nonsense, but the fact that independent of the facts, the chance of either side changing their opinion in any way based on the debate is effectively zero.  Or in other words as clearly stated by Michael Shermer – beliefs come first – we then look for information to support these beliefs and the more we investigate the stronger we believe.  We have natural filters to dismiss opposing views and carefully collect supporting evidence for our position.

The issue is important because we as scientists and engineers love to believe that if only we can better educate the public then they will come around to see what we so obviously see.  Well, unfortunately nothing can be further from the truth.  Most peoples’ beliefs are so embedded that no matter how much more information is provided, they are most unlikely to change their point of view.

Let’s come back to the fundamental issue of concern.  The public generally believes that nuclear power is inherently dangerous.   So what we really need to do is to try and understand where these beliefs come from and then work to get to the source and see if over time we can change some of these perceptions. And frankly as I have stated before, we are inadvertent contributors to this belief as we in the industry love to explain how difficult it is to manage nuclear power and how seriously we take safety thus reinforcing that it must be very dangerous indeed.

I visited the Atomic Test Site Museum in Las Vegas a couple of weeks back and it is obvious that the association of nuclear power with nuclear weapons is a powerful one.  In the museum there was mention of TMI and Chernobyl as examples of when the peaceful use of this technology went wrong.  And this even translates to popular culture.  In the recent Batman movie, the core of a new advanced fusion reactor is designed for good to power the world and yet is removed and transformed into a weapon of mass destruction in mere moments by a very smart scientist (although apparently there is only one such smart guy).  While only a movie the connection between atomic weapons and power is simple and clear.

Going back to the debate over the Stanford study, let’s consider other examples that I have used in the past.  First we recently had the final report released on the cause of the Air France crash out of Brazil a couple of years back.  It found root causes, suggested corrective actions and that was that. There is no “anti flying” group that came out and said, “see – look what happened here – clearly air travel is too dangerous and it should be abolished.”  In fact we laugh at the thought of it.  Yet more people died on this one flight than the nuclear industry has killed in its entire history.  This is because we fundamentally believe that air travel is safe.  That’s not to say that at some level of accidents, the public would stop flying – but where is this level?  I don’t know.

The same with the organic food farming incident in Germany.  Killed 50 hospitalized 4000 and there is no anti organic food group writing reports on the dangers of organic farming and calling  for an end to it.

Yet every nuclear incident is more proof of why nuclear power shouldn’t exist.  As told to me by my very talkative taxi driver in Vegas on the way to the airport- we have solar and wind, we don’t really need nuclear power.  The implication being that we all know nuclear power is dangerous and that if we have alternatives, we should use them first.

Of course the truth is actually the opposite.  Nuclear power is economic, clean, efficient, reliable and concentrated using very little land.  This makes it a great option for long term power production, not the option of last resort.

So if we can’t change people’s minds through education alone, what do we do next?  Well, an unexpected event or crisis is what will cause some people to revisit their beliefs.  In this case the recent crisis is negative for the industry (Fukushima) so many are now questioning nuclear power.  Yet somehow in a number of countries support for nuclear power remains strong.

In the UK, support for nuclear power is rising, even following Fukushima and with their close neighbours Germany deciding to abandon their nuclear program.  Why is this?  Well one thought is that the British understand that they are in dire need of electricity and are very concerned about being overly dependent upon gas from Russia (the crisis).  Another contributing factor would be the post Fukushima conversion of George Monbiot to nuclear supporter.  He is credible with the public and has taken tough stands on many popular issues.  There is no doubt that if he changed his mind on nuclear that is food for thought to the public.

In the US, energy independence is an important issue.  Americans do not want to be overly dependent upon middle eastern states for their energy and are looking for ways to be more self sufficient. Nuclear power is one option to help them solve this issue.  But of course this support can be somewhat fragile unless we get to the root of the public’s concerns.  For example, now in the US, gas prices are low once again allowing another viable option to overtake increasing support for nuclear.

So what am I getting to here?  Well let’s put in one final quote from Dan Gardner’s book  “Future Babble” which is actually a quote from Leon Festinger.  “Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart.  Suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen?  The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.” (I really liked this book and will cite it further in a future post.)

So does this mean the situation is hopeless?  Not at all but we must fundamentally change how we approach the problem.  We need to make use of experts as do other industries to better understand the driving issues behind negative views on nuclear power and then address the root cause.  We must accept that the task at hand is large and may take a generation to accomplish and most of all we must acknowledge that there will be setbacks along the way.  We must bring credible opinion leaders on side and we must have a global concentrated effort to demonstrate the benefits of nuclear power with simple focused and effective messages; but most of all provide a better understanding of the risks and note that the doomsday scenario is for the comics and not for real life.

I would like to know your thoughts on how we should work together as an industry going forward to really make headway on this important issue of the power of belief.  After all, as are those who disagree with us,   we are all committed to our beliefs – so how can we make the progress we need to bring more understanding and support for our answer to global energy needs?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in General | 9 Comments »

The obvious answer to a low carbon electricity system – More Nuclear Power

Sunday, June 24th, 2012

I started writing this while sitting on the very long plane ride on my way to China.  The Rio+20 conference had just started, the largest ever UN conference and yet it was receiving relatively little press.  I remember the first Rio conference 20 years ago when there was so much hope for the environment and the conference was seen as an important beginning in addressing climate change.  Now 20 years later, expectations were low and interest even lower.  I guess it’s not surprising.  With economic crisis ongoing in Europe, a weak recovery in the US and a slowdown in China, environmental issues have fallen way down on many people’s list of priorities.

In advance of this conference, the IEA recently issued its Energy Technology Perspectives Study (ETP 2012), where they make a passionate case in support of the environment and the need to develop a low carbon energy system.  Love it or hate it, this study is a gold mine of interesting and useful information in its almost 700 pages.  This study takes the 450 ppm scenario in the World Energy Outlook 2011 and extends it out to 2050, now calling it the 2 degree scenario (2DS).  This is then compared to the status quo (6 degree scenario) with a 4 degree scenario in between.  It then goes a step further to see if a zero emissions energy system is possible by 2075.  It is just not possible to discuss the entire study in one short (actually not so short) blog post, so I will focus on a few key issues and will likely continue to use it as a valuable source of data in future postings.

The study makes the case that environment and energy development must go hand in hand.  Here are some of the findings:

  • A sustainable energy system is still within reach and can bring broad benefits
    • Technologies can and must play an integral role in transforming the energy system.
    • Investing in clean energy makes economic sense – every additional dollar invested can generate three dollars in future fuel savings by 2050.
    • Energy security and climate change mitigation are allies.
  • Despite technology’s potential, progress in clean energy is too slow
    • Nine out of ten technologies that hold potential for energy and CO2 emissions savings are failing to meet the deployment objectives needed to achieve the necessary transition to a low-carbon future. Some of the technologies with the largest potential are showing the least progress.
    • The share of energy-related investment in public research, development and demonstration (RD&D) has fallen by two-thirds since the 1980s.
    • Fossil fuels remain dominant and demand continues to grow, locking in high-carbon infrastructure.

It then goes on to focus on how energy policy must address the key issues and the role of government in making it all happen, finally concluding with recommendations to energy ministers (assuming these recommendations were to be considered at Rio+20).

When considering “technologies” the focus is on renewable technologies such as wind and solar, energy efficiency technologies to reduce demand and carbon capture technologies to clean up the ever-expanding fossil infrastructure.  Nuclear is also shown to be important although it role is somewhat less than the other technologies.  It is these same technologies, primarily renewable and Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) they are talking about when they say “progress in clean energy is too slow”

Focusing on a few key issues, consider the following two figures.  The first illustrates the change in electricity generation mix for each of the three scenarios.  Improved energy efficiencies is the most important source of clean generation.  The figure shows that in the 6DS there is almost 50,000 TWh of generation required dropping to about 40,000 TWh in the 2 DS.  It can be seen that there is huge growth in renewable generation (wind, solar, hydro and biomass) and an increase in nuclear capacity.  Most of the remaining fossil generation is assumed to have CCS installed.

The next figure is somewhat more telling.   It shows the needed capacity and illustrates that due to the variability and low capacity factors of renewables such as wind and solar, capacity must still increase even though total generation decreases by 20% (50,000 to 40,000 TWh Fig 1.10).  This demonstrates the importance of nuclear as it has high efficiency relative to other forms of generation.  With less than 5% of the generating capacity (about 550 GW), it produces close to 20% of the electricity!  i.e. nuclear is an essential technology in a low carbon electricity system.

The main tool in achieving CO2 reduction targets for the 2DS is CO2 price, increasing from USD 40/tCO2 in 2020 to USD 150/tCO2 in 2050.  This greatly increases the electricity generation costs of CO2-emitting technologies and thereby improves the relative cost-competitiveness of low-carbon power technologies.  The following figure is a bit busy but important as it clearly shows how CO2 pricing is implemented to achieve this result.


The cost increase to effect change is one of the key points made in Jeff Rubin’s new book “The end of Growth”.  In an excerpt published in the Globe and Mail on May 5,  Jeff talks about the electricity and transport systems in Denmark.   The Danes have achieved a heroic drop in carbon emissions of 13% over the past twenty years while those of us in North America have seen an increase in emissions of 30% in the same time period.  Often praised for its commitment to renewable energy, now producing 20% of its electricity from wind power, what often goes unsaid is that the remaining 80% of its electricity is generated by coal.

So how is Denmark achieving this great carbon reduction?  Simple – price.  At $0.30/KWh, the price of electricity in Denmark is 2 to 3 times higher than in most jurisdictions in North America.  And at this relatively high price has a significant impact on behaviour and usage drops dramatically.

This is absolutely consistent with the IEA report as it suggests the only way to achieve a low carbon world is to price carbon aggressively to force behavioural change; first by reducing demand and second through the implementation of higher cost low carbon technologies.

Now while this may work in Denmark and in other countries where there is no choice but to implement higher prices to manage the transition such as in Japan and Germany (due to their need to replace idled nuclear), any politician who takes the position of significant increases in energy costs in North America will not keep his or her job for very long.  In North America the population believes that cheap and abundant energy is a right and anyone who tries to say we need to do otherwise won’t make it very far at voting time.

So what are we to do?  I do believe that the IEA’s ETP report has this answer as well.  And for us in the nuclear industry it has always been quite clear.  More nuclear power.

I have talked about the IEA’s nuclear roadmap before.  In effect, they prepared a number of “roadmap” reports for various technologies and this ETP report is where they bring them all together in a cohesive model of a clean energy system for the future.  When it comes to nuclear the IEA continues to be positive and sees an increase in nuclear generation from about 14% of electricity supply to almost 20% in 2050.  While the increase in nuclear capacity may appear to be modest, as stated earlier this modest capacity provides a significant portion of the needed electricity generation!

It should be noted that this target represents a decrease from their original target of 24% in their nuclear roadmap due to the impact of the Fukushima accident on public acceptance which has become the limiting issue.  This is based on a 2011 post Fukushima survey in which support for nuclear power drops due to an increased concern about nuclear safety with more people now supporting nuclear shutdown due to its inherent dangers.

Of importance, the study continues to include a “high nuclear” sensitivity case for the 2DS scenario.  In the 2DS-hiNuc case, nuclear generation is increased to 34% in 2050. Compared with the base 2DS, nuclear replaces fossil power plants with CCS and renewables, whose share in 2050 falls: in the case of CCS from 15% to 7%, and in the case of renewables from 57% to 49%. This scenario reflects a world with greater public acceptance of nuclear power. On the technical side, the average construction rate for nuclear power plants in the period 2011 to 2050 rises from 27 GW/yr in the base 2DS to 50 GW/yr. The cumulative investment costs of this case are only USD 0.2 trillion higher than in the base 2DS and are more than offset by costs savings for fossil fuels in the order of USD 2 trillion (10 to 1).

Going back to the cost figure above, this is not surprising because nuclear is competitive with other forms of generation and can be built now without the need for high carbon costs to incentivise it.  (I know in North America current low gas prices are challenging new nuclear and this was my topic last time – but keep in mind this study is looking at the bigger picture over a longer timeframe).

A system with about one third of the generation provided by nuclear seems very sensible and achievable so long as the industry can overcome the major issue of public acceptance.  Therefore the challenge is clear.   The industry should focus on the high nuclear scenario as our base case and work hard to regain public trust – no small task that will certainly require a long term sustained effort.

In the end, our world will become more electrified and we need to move forward with a cleaner, sustainable electricity system for our future.   So what is harder for the public to accept – very high carbon costs and a very large increase in variable renewable generation or a bigger role from a relatively modest increase in the number of nuclear power plants??

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in General | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries