Interminable innumeracy: "renewables" versus nuclear

Interestingly, Doc Brown's modified Delorean was also the
equivalent output of a modern nuclear plant. Heavy.

A confession - I listen to and read a fair amount of science stories. (Yes, self-outing as a nerd right out the gate). And whenever the topic of renewable energy sources comes up, invariably a spurious comparison to the generating capacity to nuclear plants will come up. For example, identified resources for say, offshore wind will be identified somewhere in the realm of tens of gigawatts, to which the guest will inevitably state, "That's the equivalent of dozens of nuclear plants!" (i.e., about 1 GW each). Naturally, no clarification is given to the important factors here - as in, just how many wind turbines / solar cells / magical crystal arrays (okay, so maybe I'm exagerating with the last one) are required to accomplish this task, much less the inherent capacity factor in such a generating system. (In other words, the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time, meaning these generators sit idle for more time than they actually generate power).

A basic unfamiliarity with these concepts (i.e., the scale of individual energy generators and their respective availability factors) tends to produce a pervasive level of innumeracy, which in turn leads to genuinely terrible energy policy positions, such attempting to displace some or all of baseload capacity (including nuclear) with intermittent sources. In an effort to combat this epidemic (and inspired by the old Total cereal commercials which used to air back when I was growing up) I've put together an infographic to demonstrate just how many of these types of generators one needs to replace just one baseload unit.

I've made high-resolution versions available for download and reuse as well (svg and pdf).

The next time someone claims that renewable energy sources can somehow "displace" nuclear sources for baseload (such as say, Germany is attempting to do), I invite you to ask just how many units (and at what assumed capacity) will be required to accomplish the task. Chances are very good the advocate either doesn't know or simply isn't being honest with the numbers.

An aside: Does this mean I don't think we should use renewable sources at at all? Not really - if sources which coincide with peak demand (such as solar) can shave off demand for "peak unit" power (typically provided by fast-response units like natural gas turbines) and do so at an economically competitive price, more power to them. But don't count on inherently diffuse sources of energy providing baseload power needs anytime soon.

Effective and ineffective advocacy

Recently, there's been a push among supporters of nuclear energy to try and promote nuclear energy-related petitions in the White House's recent propaganda stunt online citizen petition initiative, "We the People". Some of these petition topics included advocacy of specific nuclear prototype projects (such as the integral fast reactor [IFR], liquid fluoride thorium reactor [LFTR], and others), others advocacy for nuclear energy education, and so forth.

Rather cynically, the White House decided to raise the signature petition threshold from 5,000 to 25,000 signatures in 30 days. Even still, a few petitions - particularly those related to marijuana and general drug-policy reform, managed to squeak through, along with others tied to topics such as the "Fair Tax" plan and the topic of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Taking a look at the official White House responses - released on a Friday (in other words, "trash day" in media parlance), one can tell that they simply wanted these topics to just go away. The White House takes these kinds of matters no more seriously than a local Congressional representative takes unsolicited letters from individuals: a boilerplate response that simply says, "Thanks, but we still disagree. Now please go away." Pretty clear and convincing evidence what kind of Potemkin Village propaganda fronts initiatives like these are - and a distraction from real advocacy efforts.

Contrast this with actions such as that organized by Meredith Angwin in support of the beleaguered Vermont Yankee nuclear facility. In addition to her blog, "Yes Vermont Yankee," she recently organized a pro-VY rally as a counter to some of the recent anti-VY rallies going on. Originally she expected a turnout of about 25 - and through the power of social media, managed to get over double that (60 total).

This is what effective advocacy looks like. Going out and talking to people - family, friends, and neighbors. Directly engaging with peoples' concerns, many of which are legitimate at their root (in the sense that health, safety, and economics are all legitimate concerns). And they're concerns we have answers for - especially those of us who are educated nuclear professionals.

Some of the most effective actions we can take are simply to educate people - not even evangelizing, but reaching out to organizations like schools, scouting groups, and so on. (Some of the most enjoyable teaching moments I've had so far involve teaching basic nuclear concepts to scouting groups.) One of the chief motivators behind the fear of nuclear energy and radiation is the fact that these issues are poorly understood - the more ordinary mundane they become, the less opportunity there is for the professional scaremongering class to stir up boogeymen.

It isn't always easy - people will often get intimidated when I tell them I'm a nuclear engineer. But the most common way I've found to deflect that and put people at ease is this - I tell them, "Really, it's just a very sophisticated way of boiling water to make electricity." And, bland as that sounds, that really is the root of nuclear energy - controlled nuclear fission which produces heat, which in turn boils steam and turns turbines. That's it.

Getting people to understand this, and the fact that radiation is all around them in nature, are key to allowing the public to make informed decisions on energy, rather than being emotionally manipulated by ignorance and hype.

Online petitions run for the cynical political benefit of their sponsors just won't do this. At best, they are simply used at the discretion of their political puppetmasters, and at worst fruitless efforts like these rob advocates of time better spent on more effective education and outreach efforts.

11/8/2011: To clarify a bit, following a conversation with the creator of the LFTR petition - I'm against petitions as a means of impacting governmental policy (which is next to useless). Petitions as a medium for education - which I still think is relatively limited by the medium itself - is still fundamentally the right idea, in that the goal is to begin a conversation. (Unfortunately, the LFTR petition recently expired, per the 30-day rule of the White House petition system, or I'd have otherwise provided a link.)

Small Modular Reactors and the Economics of Nuclear

My colleague (and member of my dissertation committee) Dr. David McNelis had an excellent Op-Ed in the Raleigh News and Observer yesterday touting the safety and economics advantages of small modular reactors (SMRs). A snippet:

In contrast to a conventional nuclear plant, SMRs could be added one at a time in a cluster of modules, as the need for electricity rises. The cluster's costs would be paid for over time, softening the financial impact.

The modules could be factory assembled and be delivered by rail to an existing nuclear plant site. In such a configuration, one SMR could be taken out of service for maintenance or repair without affecting operation of the other units.

Most SMRs would be situated beneath the ground to provide better security. Typically they would operate for many years - possibly decades - without refueling and produce far less waste than conventional reactors.

Significantly, almost all of the SMR development is being done with private financing. Companies are using their own resources to develop the small reactors, without government support from mandates or subsidies of the sort that renewable energy sources now require.

As the kids say, do read the whole thing.

SMRs are an interesting, potentially game-changing addition to the nuclear energy market in my opinion, namely due to their ability to overcome one of the chief barriers to the rapid deployment of nuclear energy units right now: high capital costs.

Prohibitively high capital costs (most new reactors are starting with price tags around $4 billion or so) present utilities with a double-whammy of sorts: first in that raising so much capital is in itself a difficult undertaking, particularly compared to the total capitalization of the types of utilities making these investments. (This is where the typical rhetoric about "betting the farm" comes into play, despite the fact that the low fuel and operating costs and very high capacity factors make nuclear units veritable cash cows once electricity begins to flow. Ultimately, such investments require tying up a large portion of an individual utility's assets for several years before any money is generated.) Second, due to the large amounts of money involved and generally long construction times, utilities get hammered on costs by paying interest upon interest; in other words, interest accrues on money they borrow from the moment construction begins, meaning that the "cost of money" is a rather significant factor in nuclear construction. Finally, given both the large amounts of money and extended timelines involved, investors will thus typically demand a "risk premium" - similar to the kind of interest rate premium an ordinary borrower without stellar credit would have to pay on bank loans an credit cards. This too can significantly raise the cost of capital for building new units.

Each of these factors thus conspires to keep many smaller players out of the market. Instead, many have sought to invest in smaller, more scalable alternatives such as natural gas, which has nearly the opposite economics of nuclear: low capital costs (i.e., each unit is of a relatively small capacity and can be built quickly) and relatively high fuel costs as a fraction of the cost of electricity. (While nuclear's fuel cost for electricity is around 10%, natural gas can be around 70-80%). Nor has the price of natural gas ever been historically stable (at least in the last 15 years).

Unless, of course, this is your definition of "historically stable." (Source: EIA)

SMRs have the potential to change the economics of the game by several means. First, many proposed SMR designs are engineered to be mass-produced and pre-fabricated in factories, rather than built on-site. This could tremendously push down prices while also shortening construction times, thus ameliorating what is currently one of nuclear's biggest weaknesses at the moment.

Meanwhile, the "small" in SMRs also may have potentially positive implications for both cost and safety: SMRs can be potentially built into the ground, using the surrounding earth as containment, due to their relatively small size. Given the lower total power and nuclear material within the reactor, it can be said to have a lower overall "radiological footprint," meaning simplified safety planning.

Finally, the "right-size" power of SMR capacity may allow them to be sold in a greater number of markets - places both where a new full-sized reactor is too big for the needs of a community (for example, Fort Calhoun, north of Omaha, is the smallest reactor in the U.S. nuclear fleet, clocking in at only 500 MW; compare this to currently proposed new reactor designs, which begin in the neighborhood of 1000-1100 MW). Likewise, the smaller size means that for utilities only looking to incrementally expand capacity, small reactors may prove to be competitive with alternatives such as natural gas turbines.

One point which I think nuclear advocates tend to allow themselves to be blindsided to at times is in the fact  that above all else, it is economics which will ultimately determine the future of the nation's electricity portfolio. Factors like politics certainly come into play (particularly such issues as energy portfolio mandates, etc.), and likewise factors such as safety can never be understated. Nor should public acceptance ever be ignored, much as it has to the industry's peril in the past. However, those ultimately committing the funds to expand energy sources are the utilities, many of whom answer either directly to shareholders or to ratepayers. In this regard, they have an obligation in either sense to produce power as profitably or affordably as possible.

Thus, the decision for utilities will always ultimately come down to economics, something that nuclear advocates cannot simply ignore. I don't necessarily doubt the assertions of fellow advocates such as Rod Adams, who assert that fossil fuels have a strong interest to defend in continuing to sell their products. (Although I will say that I also don't necessarily buy the idea that those who argue natural gas is currently more economical based on short-term factors are necessarily on the fossil fuel dole, either.) But the fact remains - for nuclear to succeed, it must be able to compete, head to head, dollar for dollar.

Nuclear energy has tremendous advantages to offer, in that is clean, abundant, and easily the most energy-dense source we have available at our disposal. Yet at the end of the day, decisions over energy investments do not necessarily come down to these factors: they come down to economics, and often (regrettably) economic return over the short-term. This may be where SMRs ultimately change the game for nuclear, then - namely, by bringing the advantages of nuclear to bear in a more economically attractive package.

Why I'm not worrying about Fort Calhoun (and you shouldn't either)

Given the recent flooding along the Missouri River and my own personal connection to the area, I've been following the news regarding Fort Calhoun (or "Fort Kaboom" as it is sometimes pejoratively known) with a great deal of interest. (Likewise, I'm sure several readers of this blog from the area are doing the same.) And of course, given recent circumstances, some degree of misinformation is to be expected, particularly from those pushing an agenda.

In particular, there have been reports (of rather dubious origin) claiming that Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency (FAAE) is reporting that the International Atomic Energy Agency has provided them information on a supposed "information blackout" regarding conditions at the plant, including a "potential near meltdown condition." Never mind of course that the plant has been in a state of cold shutdown (i.e., no power being produced) for over a month (since April 9th), given that it was under a scheduled outage for refueling and maintenance when the flooding began. In other words, a "meltdown" in the sense of Three-Mile Island (or even Fukushima, in which the core was shut down immediately after the earthquake) is physically impossible.

Further, a brief review of the IAEA's website reveals no such alarming news. In addition, any large radiation releases from the plant would be immediately detected by any number of independent radiation monitors not under the control of the NRC, thus making any claim that the administration has somehow orchestrated a "media blackout" all the more laughable. (Not to mention the sheer implausibility of such a blackout, considering the government's inability to control other recent releases deemed sensitive.) More than a grain of salt would be warranted, here.

Other claims include that a brief control room fire has lead to a catastrophic loss of power to the pumps circulating cooling water to the spent fuel cooling pools, inviting the inevitable comparisons to Fukushima Daaichi Unit 4 (e.g., where water levels became a concern after several days following the earthquake). However, the NRC has reported that the fire was quickly contained and that power was restored. Further, unlike Fukushima, while the flooding is most serious, operators are not facing the crisis situation at Fukushima, which involved a total station blackout and a struggle to cool three recently shutdown reactors, all while dealing with the natural devastation from a record earthquake and tsunami. In other words, the situations don't even remotely compare.

The NRC's blog recently deflated several ongoing myths regarding Ft. Calhoun, including the following:

• The FAA has not "closed" the airspace over Ft. Calhoun*. The airspace above domestic nuclear plants has been restricted as of September 11, 2001 for security reasons. Given the attention on Ft. Calhoun, OPPD requested that the FAA issue a "gentle reminder" to pilots regarding this fact.
• The brief control room fire did briefly interrupt power to the spent fuel cooling pumps, but these pumps are not currently offline, nor is there currently a danger of the spent fuel pools boiling over and exposing the fuel rods.

Other rumors include the idea that somehow Ft. Calhoun will be overrun by the rising flood waters, thereby washing away the backup diesel generators and producing a similar station blackout condition as experienced by Fukushima. However, several notable differences exist. First, a flood is a far slower, far more predictable process than a tsunami; as a result, operators have had more than adequate time to prepare earth berm flood defenses at the plant. These defenses were erected per federal guidelines well before the flooding began. Second, the backup power generators at Fort Calhoun are in hardened structures (again, unlike Fukushima), minimizing the overall risk of a total "station blackout" condition.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station (Image credit: AP)

In addition, Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat has also been busy spiking the rumors regarding Fort Calhoun. Among other things, he reports that the earth flood walls provide protection for another 5-foot rise in floodwaters (currently at 1005 feet); the diesel generators have an additional foot of protection from flooding. 

One of the chief things to keep in mind in all of this is that natural disasters aren't something which is simply neglected by nuclear plant operators; in fact, quite the opposite. Given the Missouri river's history, contingency plans against cases such as this are part of the standard operating protocol for any plant like Ft. Calhoun. Given that, my own personal concern is far more focused upon the fact that the reported flooding could last for through August, drastically impacting eastern Nebraska and western Iowa.

*Update: As one reader points out, OPPD has requested additional temporary airspace restrictions over Ft. Calhoun, banning all aircraft in a radius of two nautical miles (about 2.3 miles or 3.7 km) under a flight altitude of 3500 feet. (In other words, low-flying aircraft.)

An interview on nuclear with a local student

I recently did an interview with a local high school student (name withheld for privacy), and I wanted to share my responses both in that there's several good questions, and more importantly how outreach efforts like this are essential for nuclear professionals. I've tried to keep my answers at a relatively accessible level, so if it seems like I am perhaps glossing over some of the finer technical details, it's because my goal here was to make my response accessible to as wide of an audience as possible.
KF2MDCCM6BX6
(On a side note: I apologize for the recent lull in postings - in particular, I've been bogged down trying to complete my PhD dissertation, with a defense date in approximately three weeks. As you can likely surmise, it's been a little busy here. More updates to come soon.)

Events This Week in Raleigh NC about Fukushima Daiichi Impacts

Here are some more things going on around the NC State campus on the nuclear events in Japan. Both of them do note that visitors/guests are welcome, so feel free to share with anyone interested. Nuclear Engineering departments all over the nation have already put on a large number of events, but it continues to be a hot topic as we now transition into the real discussion about national and worldwide impacts of the event.

There is an event on NC State Centennial campus Tuesday (the 26th), discussion at 6pm, talk at 6:30pm, hosted by the IEEE Eastern North Carolina Section. (online RSVP form)

Japan Nuclear Incident - A Perspective
J Michael Doster, PhD
Professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering

The Japanese earthquake and subsequent tragic nuclear disaster came as a shock to us all. J Michael Doster PhD, Professor of Nuclear Engineering at NCSU, will offer a perspective on the Japanese Nuclear Incident and the societal impact of such events.

The NC State Nuclear Engineering department seminar is on Thursday (the 28th) in Room 1202 Burlington Engineering Labs, discussion at 3:45 and talk at 4pm and addresses what appears to be a wide range of issues.

What will be the Legacy of Fukushima? Implications for Nuclear Energy in Japan, the US, and Globally
William Kinsella, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Communication

Seven weeks after an earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear crisis in Japan, the long-term implications for global nuclear energy programs remain unclear. With a 90-day safety review underway, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing its approval processes for new reactor licenses and license extensions. Germany has returned to the nuclear phase-out plan it had recently moved away from. Emerging nuclear nations such as China and India maintain ambitious visions for expanding their reactor fleets, but face a range of uncertainties. Meanwhile, global and national concerns regarding energy costs and energy security continue to grow. This presentation addresses questions of nuclear safety, regulation, cost, financing, insurance, public opinion, national policy, and global interconnectedness in this turbulent context.

Of course, these are not the only local people active related to the events in Japan. I was surprised to find that a photographer from the local newspaper, the News and Observer, had traveled to Japan after the earthquake and is having a showing this weekend.

Symposium on Fukushima Daiichi

Several professors from NC State's nuclear engineering department will be discussing the events at Fukushima Daiichi at a public forum this Wednesday; the event will also be live streamed. See below for details.

NC State nuclear engineering experts to discuss events at Japanese power plant

What: Nuclear engineering experts at North Carolina State University will offer insight and analysis during a symposium on the recent events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. The plant was damaged during the March 11 earthquake and subsequent tsunami resulting in nuclear fuel damage and the release of radioactive material. Media coverage is invited.

Who: A panel of four NC State nuclear engineering faculty members who have been closely following the events in Japan — Drs. John Gilligan, Michael Doster, Paul Turinsky and Man-Sung Yim — will discuss technical issues related to the damage to the plant, as well as challenges officials face as they try to contain the radioactive material. Audience members will have the opportunity to ask questions during the event.

When: 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 23.

Live stream also available for public viewing of the symposium (no login required).

Where: Park Shops, Room 130, at 101 Current Drive on NC State’s North Campus (map). Parking is available in the Cates Avenue (Coliseum) Parking Deck at 201 Jeter Drive on Central Campus (map). From the deck, visitors should walk north through the tunnel under the railroad tracks to reach North Campus and Park Shops.

Cost: The event is free and open to the public.

Media Contact: Nate DeGraff, Engineering Communications, 919.515.3848