Greetings from the conference center at the American Enterprise Institute, a few blocks from NEI HQ here in Washington, D.C. At the last minute I got wind of a day-long conference entitled, "Is Nuclear Power a Solution to Global Warming and Rising Energy Prices?". I figured it was a good subject for some live blogging, my bosses agreed, and so I'm here in the back of the room waiting for the festivities to begin.We're in the middle of a pretty nasty rain storm here in D.C., so it looks like we might be starting a little late this morning. Here's a copy of the day's agenda:
9:00 Welcome and Introduction, Jon Entine, AEIClick here for speaker bios. All in all, it's shaping up to be an interesting day. Though the presentations aren't available now, AEL tells me they ought to be posted on their Web site sometime this afternoon.
9:15 Panel 1: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Panelists:
Judi Greenwald, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Ernest J. Moniz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
William Tucker, author of Terrestrial Energy
Moderator:
Steven F. Hayward, AEI
10:45 Break
11:00 Panel 2: Economic and Regulatory Concerns
Panelists:
Christopher E. Paine, Natural Resources Defense Council
Paul Joskow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Richard J. Myers, Nuclear Energy Institute
Moderator:
Jon Entine, AEI
12:30 Luncheon
1:00 Keynote Address
Speaker: Dale E. Klein, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Chairman
2:00 Panel 3: Next Generation Nuclear
Panelists:
Edward Cummins, Westinghouse Nuclear
Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists
Charles W. Pennington, NAC International
Moderator:
Kenneth P. Green, AEI
Stick with us, it's going to be a good program. Check back here at this post for updates throughout the day.
UPDATE: AEI's Steven Heyward mentions the paper on "Stabilization Wedges" that came out of Princeton a few years back -- one that claimed that stabilizing GHG emissions would be easier if we split the problem into seven distinct wedges, including expanded use of nuclear energy (an additional 700 GWe of nuclear capacity). Right off the bat, Hayward mentions that former Vice President Al Gore referenced the paper in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, but for some reason left out the nuclear energy wedge -- glad we're not the only ones who noticed.INTERESTING FACT: From Heyward: If the U.S. had the same GHG profile as France, global emissions of GHGs would be 7-8% lower than they are today. France's GHG intensity is .29kg/C per dollar of economic output. The U.S. is .55kg/C per dollar of economic output.
JUDI GREENWALD ... of the Pew Center is at the podium right now. Much of the information we're seeing right now is stuff we've talked about here before. However, when we get to the section of her presentation on challenges, she lists two above all others -- waste and proliferation risk. Something to keep in mind when communicating with the policy community.
Here's the heart of Pew's position: Nuclear energy needs a "mandatory climate policy", one that installs a cap and trade system for carbon emissions. At bottom, that would provide the industry better long-term certainty, and send a clearer signal to the investment community than short-term tax breaks and incentives that may or may not remain in effect.
Another note: Greenwald says she's not sure what GNEP is really about, but that Pew has concerns over costs and once again, proliferation risk. MIT's Ernie Moniz is up next.
MIT's ERNEST MONIZ ... Some interesting points from the summary of Moniz's presentation:
- Pricing regime for CO2 emissions is critical. The sooner the better.
- Strongly endorsed government taking title of used fuel at interim storage sites for a period of up to 100 years.
- DOE should use this period to consider how Yucca Mountain might operate differently.
- Endorsed the establishment of an international "fuel leasing system" that would allow countries to have access to an economic source of nuclear fuel in exchange for forgoing enrichment (benefits with incentives for fixed time period that may be renewed).
- The Bush Administration and Congress needs to back off plans to advocate reprocessing, expressing particular concern over the MoX-Purex process.
- Endorsed the concept of GNEP, but thinks that we might be "getting ahead of ourselves" due to the long lead times involved in developing these technologies.
MINI-FACT UPDATE: Here's another one that William Tucker passed along. In 1990, a train full of coal left the Powder River Basin every 20 minutes. Today, that same train full of coal leaves every six minutes. In total , coal comprises 70% of the freight carried by rail in the U.S.
"FUNDAMENTALLY DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY": From time to time, we've tried to drawn a distinction between extreme environmental activists who are reflexively pro-nuclear, and others in the activist community who are more thoughtful and are now re-thinking the nuclear energy industry in light of the threat of global warming and climate change. Coincidentally, Greenwald from the Pew Center mentioned earlier this morning when she said that there's a real split in the environmental community between those involved in the anti-nuke movement and those who are pondering the broad policy implications of global warming.
A lot of us in the industry would have thought that the National Resources Defense Council was one of those more thoughtful groups. But after sitting through a presentation by NRDC's Christopher Paine, I'm beginning to wonder. He's part of a panel going on right now on the economics of the industry, and in his presentation, he pretty much stuck to the economic case against the industry. But after saying that he wasn't reflexively anti-nuclear, Paine then said that industry costs are so high because nuclear energy is a "fundamentally dangerous" technology and the high cost reflects the threat the industry poses to the public and the environment.
Draw your own conclusions.
LUNCH BREAK: We've got about 20 minutes before NRC Chairman Dale Klein comes to the podium for the keynote address. The rest of the panel discussion that just ended covered a lot of the ground we've examined in detail here when it comes to the economics of nuclear energy, but one exchange was worth noting. During the Q&A, Paine from NRDC displayed a slide that show how California's electricity demand has held steady in recent years, and held it out as an example of how demand side management can work.
In response, Paul Joskow of MIT called the chart, "something of a cheap shot," noting that over that same period, California had experienced skyrocketing electric rates and had driven much of the heavy industry out of the state forever -- something we've noted before. He also later added that during the state's heat storm this Summer, only a fraction of California's wind energy capacity stayed in operation, a fact we've dealt with before as well.
ON DALE KLEIN ... The NRC Chairman's speech tracked many of the issues he's been fronting since he took over at the Commission a few months ago, namely removing uncertainty from the regulatory process, as well as his personal concerns about the challenges the industry faces in terms of the infrastructure needed to build and operate a new generation of nuclear plants. Of course what we're talking about is the twin issues of manufacturing infrastructure as well as the workforce question.Other items of note -- Klein touted his decision to split the reactor oversight process in two between existing reactors and new reactor build, as well as the surge in hiring at NRC that will see 200 additional positions added to the agency work force every year between 2006 and 2008.
Klein's speech writer earned his keep with this line when Klein addressed the issue of quality of the paper work submitted to NRC: "Show me quality and clarity, and NRC will show you kindness."
Other interesting points: While the U.S. has been able to get away with importing science and engineering talent over the past few decades, the nation will not likely be able to turn the same trick when it comes to nuclear engineering, as China and India will need their own engineers in order to expand their own burgeoning fleets of new reactors. In addition, while NRC might not care where nuclear components are fabricated, components that are manufactured domestically will be easier for NRC to certify.
MONDAY UPDATE: Greetings to readers of NEI's Nuclear Energy Overview. AEI tells us that all of the presentations from the event will be posted over at their public Web site come Tuesday morning. Once the link is active, we'll pass it on to you. For UPI's summary of the meeting, click here.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Electricity, Nuclear Power, Climate Change, Global Warming, GHG
Comments
Factoid refers to a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "fact" intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion.
The proper term would be factlet
Good effort. Thank you for the timely report of an interesting event that will most likely not receive much coverage in the traditional news outlets.
My conclusion about Christopher Paine's "fundamentally dangerous" comment about nuclear technology is that he is simply repeating ideas that many nuclear industry people have been saying for decades. They (we)) claim that nuclear energy is fundamentally risky and in need of extraordinary effort and care.
ADM Rickover worked tirelessly, for example, to convince people that his organization and his organization alone were the only reasons for safe operation of nuclear power at sea.
There have been a number of comments rather recently by ADM Bowman about the "unforgiving" nature of the technology. (I found several instances with a Google search with the words "Bowman unforgiving nuclear".)
My own experience is that well designed and constructed nuclear reactors are not fragile and are pretty darned forgiving of human error. Of course, I have seen people nearly crucified for making a mistake that might have, almost, kind of led to an accident, but the mistakes have rarely actually caused a hazard to human health.
On NRDC, their position paper on nuclear power makes it clear that their opposition is not open to rational debate. One irony is that they seem perfectly willing to trust to CO2 sequestration, which has never been done, but complain about nuclear wste storage, which has been successfully carried out for years despite the lack of a permanent facility. They also insist on improvements in safety on nuclear power activities that have never harmed anyone.
Another thought on CO2 sequestration is that it will lower the efficiency of the power plant (although I don't know by how much, and scale is vital to scientific debate), but the electricity cost figures appear to represent non-sequestered efficiencies.