Category: nuclear power

What Might the 2014 Elections Mean for U.S. Energy and Environmental Policy?

The simple answer is that at this point we don’t know. Lots of different paths are possible, depending on how Republicans interpret their enhanced power in the U.S. Congress, how the President approaches his final two years in office, and how Congressional Democrats react to their minority party role. Nevertheless, I will offer my current thoughts and speculations, subject of course to significant change as we proceed in Congress’ 2014 lame duck session and the start of a new Congress in January with Republicans in charge of both Houses for the first time in eight years.

One major consideration that dominates my thinking is that Republicans, facing inevitable demographic realities in future elections (older white people as a declining percentage of the voting population, more non-white voters/mostly Latino and Asian, and a growing number of young voters generally more progressive than their parents and grandparents), must demonstrate that they can govern effectively if they are to win national elections in the future. Remembering the Gingrich era in the 1990’s, when Republicans took over the Congress, it proved much easier to be in the minority and sling arrows than to govern effectively when finally in power. The modern House of Representatives, under John Boehner as Speaker, has proved to be one of the least effective in American history, but with control of both Houses in Republican hands after January, Boehner and McConnell (the presumed Majority Leaders in the new Congress) have the opportunity to do more than just oppose Obama Administration initiatives. What Boehner and McConnell want to do and are able to do will determine their places in history.

The issues as I see them are as follows: policy for fossil fuel supply – coal, oil, natural gas, fossil fuel exports, Keystone XL pipeline, global warming and climate change, support for clean energy, water issues. Each will be discussed briefly below.

– Fossil fuel supply: with Kentucky’s senior Senator setting the agenda for the Senate it is likely that anti-coal activists will be unsuccessful in accelerating the pace of closure of coal-fired power plants in the near future. These decisions, made on economic grounds by power plant operators, will be self-interested decisions based on the legislative environment they are facing. With Republicans in charge I anticipate every effort will be made to slow down or repeal the EPA’s proposed rules on carbon emissions. While there are Republicans who understand the need to replace coal combustion with natural gas and eventually with renewable energy, the political reality that they may be challenged in reelection primaries by climate change minimalizers or deniers tends to keep them in line with status-quo positions. Coal’s role in power generation in the U.S. is clearly diminishing, faster than most people probably anticipated just a few years ago, but low-cost coal exports to other countries are picking up. As the UK experienced several decades ago, closing coal mines and losing the associated jobs is difficult politics, as this year’s Senate election in Kentucky demonstrated. Keeping one’s job is priority #1 for most if not all people, and the political system needs to keep this firmly in mind. Balancing this against the needs of environmental protection is what we pay our politicians to do.

The issues with oil and natural gas largely relate to fracking and its associated environmental threats, and with their export to other countries. Both are critical issues that can no longer be avoided and require careful policy prescriptions that Republicans are now in a better place to affect. Fracking of oil and natural gas from extensive shale deposits has expanded rapidly in the U.S. in recent years, and the U.S. Is rapidly becoming the world’s #1 oil producer (when shale oil adds to our declining but still large traditional domestic oil production) and a major souce of natural gas supplies. As discussed in two previous posts on this blog web site, I see no way to stop fracking in the U.S. because of the large associated economic returns, and therefore we must regulate it carefully to avoid the real possibility of water supply contamination and minimize accidental releases of methane, a powerful global climate change gas. Republicans can have their cake and eat it too if they support this needed regulation, gaining brownie points for their environmentalism and still allow the fracking industry to proceed on their profitable path. Substituting fracking gas for coal in power generation is in most people’s interest, and while I would prefer to replace coal with wind, solar and other renewable generation sources, we are not in a position to do that yet. Nevertheless, the U.S. public largely understands the need for this inevitable transition and Republicans would be politically wise to take a long-range view on facilitating this transition. We shall see.

A related issue is what to do about U.S. producers who want to export oil and natural gas. Large and remunerative potential markets await in Europe and Asia but since the 1970’s it has been illegal for companies to export crude oil in all but a few circumstances. The goal of the 1970’s legislation was to conserve domestic oil reserves and discourage foreign imports, but in reality, the export ban did not help accomplish either objective.

The Natural Gas Act of 1938, as amended, requires that anyone who wants to import or export natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), from or to a foreign country must first obtain an authorization from the Department of Energy. This is less of a barrier than the ban on oil exports, but until recently the U.S. was anticipating importing LNG, not exporting it. The fracking revolution has changed all this, and LNG import terminals are now being constructed as export terminals.

An argument against such exports is less fossil fuel and potentially higher energy costs for U.S. consumers. Foreign policy as well as economic considerations come into this discussion as we try to loosen other country’s dependence on Russian and Middle East producers. I anticipate that export controls will be loosened on a bipartisan basis and the U.S. will emerge as a major energy exporter in the decades to come.

Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline by the President will be a key issue in the upcoming lame duck session of Congress and may carry over to the new Congress in January. My own view, expressed in an earlier blog post, is that stopping construction of the pipeline will not slow Canadian development of its tar sands oil resources and that I’d rather have the oil coming to the U.S. rather than going elsewhere. I also believe that transport of oil by pipeline is safer than transport by rail car, the obvious and unstoppable alternative. With regard to this issue, which many environmentalists have identified as a litmus test for President Obama’s environmental bona fides, I see the pipeline, which has strong Republican support as well as some Democratic support, as a done deal, perhaps as part of a tradeoff with other Democratic priorities such as immigration reform.

The issue of global warming and climate change is a difficult partisan issue but shouldn’t be. The science of understanding global warming is advancing steadily, its risks are clear to most people, and the largely negative impacts of climate change are increasingly being documented. The problem in the U.S. Is the political clout of industries dependent on sales of fossil fuels. In addition, Republican control of the Senate means that chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee will fall to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a climate change denier. This is clearly bad news for environmentalists and others who are concerned about climate change, but also for Republicans and Democrats who will eventually have to deal with this global crisis. Inhofe can slow things down and probably will, at least for the next two years before another Senate election is scheduled. It will be up to members and leaders of both parties to limit the damage that Inhofe can do.

image

Support for clean energy (efficiency, renewables) should also not be a partisan issue, but unfortunately is. Vested interests in the traditional energy industries still have too much power with a Congress highly dependent on campaign funds. My views on the need to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy are clearly stated in quite a few of my blog posts, reflecting my view that such a transition is inevitable and clearly in the national interest. Unfortunately, I expect the next few years, under Republican control of Congress, to be a repeat of the years under President George W. Bush (‘Bush 43’) when lip service was paid to clean energy but budget support didn’t follow. As I was taught on my first days in Washington, DC in 1974, budget is policy. I hope President Obama will take a strong stand on these issues, despite Republican electoral gains, since he no longer has to protect vulnerable Democratic candidates.

I bring water into this discussion because water and energy issues are ‘inextricably linked’. Energy production requires water and provision of clean water supplies requires energy. Republicans as well as Democrats must recognize the need to consider these two issues together, and I think they will. This issue needs visibility and increased understanding on the part of politicians and the public, and is a natural for bipartisan cooperation. I hope I am right.

Obviously, I have only touched lightly on the many energy and environmental issues facing the U.S., and encourage others to join me in this discussion. These next few years should be interesting indeed!

Looking Back at Energy Policy in the 1970’s

Recently I have spent some time cleaning up some boxes in my basement, as ‘requested’ by my wife. Three of the boxes contained personal files from my several years as Staff Scientist with the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in the mid 1970’s. This was the period following the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-4 when the U.S. first began to think seriously about energy policy. The history of this period is still largely to be written, and it promises to be a rich history. It also represents a unique period in recent American political history in that Democrats and Republicans occasionally cooperated to pass legislation that was deemed to be in the national interest.

Reviewing the files in the boxes took me several days because I.found the contents much more interesting than anticipated after 35 years of non-attention. I also will donate the files to the Senate Archives after I have absorbed more of and thought more about the contents.

The Oil Embargo focused U.S. attention on the country’s significant and increasing dependence on imported oil from unstable and often unfriendly parts of the globe. While only about a quarter of total oil consumption was affected at the time, the Embargo was a rude shock to Americans when they had to endure higher prices and long lines at gas stations and even alternate day access to the pumps based on their license plate numbers.

Suddenly, energy became a dominating issue and the Ford Administration and the Congress were struggling to reassure the American public and devise policies that addressed this increasing import dependence. Lots of disagreements ensued, particularly on oil pricing, but attention also began to be focused on limiting energy demand and indigenous energy resources. Thus was born a large push for greater use of America’s large resources of coal and for increased use of nuclear power. Most economists talked of the one-to-one relationship between gross national product and energy consumption (not true, as has subsequently been demonstrated) and a favorite theme of nuclear supporters at the time was to call for a “doubling every decade”, meaning that we should double the number of nuclear power plants every ten years until the turn of the century. It was also a time when domestic oil production had just peaked and natural gas supplies were thought to be in limited supply. This led to restrictions on the use of natural gas, reduced use of oil for power generation, announcements of many new nuclear power plant construction projects, increased attention to reducing energy demand in buildings, industry, and transportation, attention to non-fossil fuel energy resources (read ‘renewables’), and calls for a national energy strategy. In the intervening years we’ve made progress on a number of these issues, some more than others, but we still lack a national energy strategy, a critical missing piece as we penetrate further into the 21st century.

A major step forward was the passage in 1975 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA – Public Law 94-163), the country’s first comprehensive energy legislation. It passed that summer in the House by more than a 3:1 margin and by 3:1 in the Senate, triggering a 3-month House-Senate Conference to iron out differences. The bill, as finally negotiated, was signed by President Ford just before Christmas that year despite Republican threats of a Presidential veto. It created many features of our current energy scene, which are discussed below. I also want to recognize those I consider the major legislative leaders, both Republican and Democrat, who fought for this legislation across party lines and brought it to the President’s desk. I do not believe that they have yet received the full recognition that they richly deserve.

EPCA’s primary goals were to increase energy supply, reduce demand, put a focus on energy efficiency, and give the President more tools with which to respond to energy supply disruptions. It’s primary actions were to:
– establish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The need for such a reserve had been recognized for decades, since the 1940’s, but the Oil Embargo underscored the critical need for such a reserve.
– Part B/Title III established the Energy Conservation Program which gave “authority to develop, revise, and implement minimum energy conservation standards for appliances and equipment.” It also authorized an appliance labeling program, to assist consumers in making energy- and cost-wise purchasing decisions.
– Part A/Title III established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new automobile fleets. This legislation, which remained unamended for 32 years, is still the nation’s most impactful energy conservation measure.
– other provisions included loan guarantees to encourage domestic coal and oil production by smaller firms, and additional presidential authority to act in times of emergencies.

The principal legislative leaders behind EPCA (see photos below) included Fritz Hollings (D-SC) who was the prime mover in the Senate of the CAFE legislation, Warren Magnuson (D-WA) who chaired the Senate Committee On Commerce, Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson (D-WA) who chaired the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Ed Muskie (D-ME) who chaired the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Chuck Percy (R-IL), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and John Tunney (D-CA), all strong Senate supporters of energy conservation, John Dingell (D-MI) who chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Harley Staggers (D-WV) who chaired the House Science and Technology Committee, and Phil Sharp (D-IN) who shepherded the CAFE legislation through the House. One must also give credit to President Gerald ‘Gerry’ Ford of Michigan who signed the bill into law despite severe pressure not to from many of his constituents and advisors. All deserve the thanks of a grateful nation for putting national interest ahead of party politics as we don’t do too often today.

My final thought is the recognition that critical energy issues were clearly identified in the 1970’s, 40 years ago, but that progress since then has been slower than then hoped for. This has hurt the country in terms of preparing for the future (wje still lack a national energy policy codified by the Congress), less job creation and economic growth in clean energy industries, and unnecessary environmental degradation. We have made progress in the years following the scary wake-up call to the nation following the Oil Embargo and the Iran-Iraq War of the late 1970’s when global oil production was curtailed. Nevertheless, we can and must do better in the future if we are to successfully combat global warming and climate change (this became a public issue only after Jim Hansen at NASA began to talk about the issue in 1979) and ensure America’s place in the emerging and inevitable renewable energy society.

In order, left-to-right: Sen. Ernest ‘Fritz’ Hollings, Sen. Warren Magnuson, Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, Sen. Ed Muskie Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John Tunney, Sen. Charles ‘Chuck’ Percy, Rep. John Dingell, Rep. Harley Staggers, Rep. Plil Sharp.

imageimageimageimageimageimageimageimage
imageimage

Looking Ahead 30-40 Years – A Risky Business

History has always been my favorite subject, starting in high school, and still constitutes a major part of my personal reading. Needless to say I have a strong interest in other topics as well, as attested to by my long career in science and engineering and education/mentoring activities with young people. What often fascinates me is looking back at how things have changed in the past, often in unexpected ways, and how people looking back in the decades ahead will put their perspectives on what we are doing today. This blog post is my attempt to flesh out these thoughts, while acknowledging the difficulty of looking into the future. If I look far enough into that future I will not be around to suffer the slings and arrows of projecting incorrectly, or collecting the kudos for projecting accurately. Nevertheless, it feels like a stimulating and challenging activity to undertake, and so here goes.

image

Let me start by going back seven decades to the 1940s when I was a young kid growing up in the Bronx and just beginning to form my likes and dislikes and develop opinions. My love for science fiction developed at that time and was probably a dead give-away of my future career interests. An important shaping event was the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan on August 6, 1945, an event that I still clearly remember learning about on the radio while sitting in the back seat of my parents’ car. Without a deep or much of any understanding at that time, I somehow sensed that the world had changed in that August moment. I still feel that way after many subsequent years of reading and studying.

The following decades saw several other unexpected and defining events: the addition of fusion weapons (hydrogen bombs) to our nuclear arsenals, commercial applications of controlled nuclear fission (nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered surface ships, and the first commercial nuclear power plant which was actually a land-based nuclear submarine power plant), development and emergence of the transistor as a replacement for vacuum tubes (first using germanium and then silicon), the development of the first solar cell at Bell Labs, the development and application of laser technology, the emergence of the information technology industry based on the heretofore abstract concepts of Boolean algebra (0s and 1s), and the increasing attention to a wide range of clean energy technologies that had previously been considered impractical for wide scale application – wind, solar, geothermal, ocean energy, fuel cells, advanced battery technologies, and a broad range of alternative liquid and gaseous fuels. Each in its own way has already changed and will further change the world in future decades, as will other technologies that we now only speculate about or cannot imagine. This is the lesson of history – it is difficult for most of us to look ahead and successfully imagine the future, and one of my earlier blog posts (‘Anticipating the Future: It Can Be Difficult’) discusses this topic. In the following paragraphs I speculate about the future with humility but also great anticipation. My only regret is that I will not live long enough to see most of this future unfold.

I will divide this discussion into two parts on which I have focused some attention and feel that I have some knowledge – medicine/health care, and energy. That leaves all too many aspects of the future that I don’t feel qualified to comment upon – e.g., what more will we learn about Amelia Earhart’s disappearance, Cuba’s possible participation in John Kennedy’s assassination, and the future of the tumultuous Middle East and the countries of the former Soviet Union. My primary focus in this post will be on the latter of the two parts, energy.

To help you understand my interest in medicine and health care I confess that at one point in my career, before committing to pursuing a PhD in physics, I gave serious consideration to attending medical school. During this period in the early 1960s I was a research scientist at Texas Instruments (TI) and was excited about the possibilities of miniature electronics which TI was pioneering in. I even suggested to my TI bosses that we undertake the application of transistors and sensors to artificial vision, but it was much too early for the company to make such a commitment. Today, 50 years later, that vision is being realized.

I also see great promise in the application of miniature electronics to continuous in-vivo diagnosis of human health via capsules that float throughout a human’s blood network, monitor various chemical components, and broadcast the results to external receivers. This will depend on low-powered miniature sensors and analysis/broadcast capability powered by long-lasting miniature batteries or an electrical system powered by the human body itself. Early versions are now being developed and I see no long-term barriers to developing such a system.

A third area in which I see great promise is the non-invasive monitoring of brain activity. This is a research area that I see opening up in the 21st century as we are beginning to have the sensitive tools necessary to explore the brain in detail. Given that the brain is responsible for so many aspects of our mental and physical health I expect great strides in the coming decades in using brain monitoring to address these issues.

The energy area is where I have devoted the bulk of my professional career and where my credibility may be highest – at least I’d like to think so. Previous blog posts address my thoughts on a wide range of current energy, water-energy, and related policy issues. Recognizing that changes in our energy systems come slowly over decades and sometimes unexpectedly, as history tells us, I will share my current thoughts on where I anticipate we will be in 30-40 years.

Let me start with renewable energy – i.e., solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, biomass, and ocean energy. I have commented on each of these previously, but not from a 30-40 year perspective. Renewables are not new but, except for hydropower, their entering or beginning to enter the energy mainstream is a relatively recent phenomenon. Solar in the form of photovoltaics (PV) is a truly transformative technology and today is the fastest growing energy source in the world, even more so than wind. This is due to significant cost reductions for solar panels in recent years, PV’s suitability for distributed generation, its ease and quickness of installation, and its easy scalability. As soon as PV balance-of-system costs (labor, support structures, permitting, wiring) come down from current levels and approach PV cell costs of about $0.5-0.7 per peak watt I expect this technology to be widespread on all continents and in all developed and developing countries. Germany, not a very sunny country but the country with the most PV installed to date, has even had occasional summer days when half its electricity was supplied by solar. In combination with energy storage to address its variability, I see PV powering a major revolution in the electric utility sector as utilities recognize that their current business models are becoming outdated. This is already happening in Germany where electric utilities are now moving rapidly into the solar business. In terms of the future, I would not be surprised if solar PV is built into all new residential and commercial buildings within a few decades, backed up by battery or flywheel storage (or even hydrogen for use in fuel cells as the ultimate storage medium). Most buildings will still be connected to the grid as a backup, but a significant fraction of domestic electricity (30-40%) could be solar-derived by 2050. The viability of this projection is supported by the NREL June 2012 study entitled ‘Renewable Electricity Futures Study’.

Hydropower already contributes about 10% of U.S. electricity and I anticipate will grow somewhat in future decades as more low-head hydro sites are developed.

For many years onshore wind was the fastest growing renewable electricity source until overtaken recently by PV. It is still growing rapidly and will be enhanced by offshore wind which currently is growing slowly. However, I expect offshore wind to grow rapidly as we approach mid-century as costs are reduced for two primary reasons: it taps into an incredibly large energy resource off the coasts of many countries, and it is in close proximity to coastal cities where much of the world’s population is increasingly concentrated. In my opinion, wind, together with solar and hydro, will contribute 50-60% of U.S. electricity in 2050.

Other renewable electric technologies will contribute as well, but in smaller amounts. Hot dry rock geothermal wells (now called enhanced geothermal systems) will compete with and perhaps come to dominate traditional geothermal generation, but this will take time. Wave and tidal energy will be developed and become more cost effective in specific geographical locations, with the potential to contribute more in the latter part of the century. This is especially true of wave energy which taps into a large and nearly continuous energy source.

Biomass in the form of wood is an old renewable energy source, but in modern times biomass gasification and conversion to alternative liquid fuels is opening up new vistas for widescale use of biomass as costs come down. By mid-century I expect electrification and biomass-based fuels to replace our current heavy dependence on petroleum-based fuels for transportation. This trend is already underway and may be nearly complete in the U.S. by 2050. Biomass-based chemical feedstocks will also be widely used, signifying the beginning of the end of the petroleum era.

I expect that other fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, will still be used widely in the next few decades, given large global resources. Natural gas, as a cleaner burning fossil fuel, and with the availability of large amounts via fracking, will gradually replace coal in power plants and could represent 30-40% of U.S. power generation by mid-century with coal generation disappearing.

To this point I have not discussed nuclear power, which today provides close to 20% of U.S. electricity. While I believe that safe nuclear power plants can be built today –i.e., no meltdowns – cost, permanent waste storage, and weapons proliferation concerns are all slowing nuclear’s progress in the U.S. Given the availability of relatively low-cost natural gas for at least several decades (I believe fracking will be with us for a while), the anticipated rapid growth of renewable electricity, and the risks of nuclear power, I see limited enthusiasm for its growth in the decades ahead. In fact I would not be surprised to see nuclear power supplying only about 10% of U.S. electricity by 2050, and less in the future.

To summarize, my picture today of an increased amount of U.S. electricity generation in 2050 is as follows:

Generating Technology : Percent of U.S. Generation in 2050
nuclear: 5-10
coal: 0-5
Oil: 0
natural gas: 30-40
solar + wind + hydro: 50-60
other renewables: 5-10

I am sure that some readers of this post will take strong issue with my projections and have very different thoughts about the future. I welcome their thoughts and invite them to join me in looking ahead. As the title of this post acknowledges, looking ahead is risky business, but it is something I’ve wanted to do for a while. This seems as good a time as any to do so.

image

Subsidies For Energy Technologies: Are They Fair?

Subsidies for energy technologies is a complicated and contentious issue and one that a few studies have tried to illuminate for the rest of us. For what I consider informative and balanced discussions I would refer you to
– ‘Reforming Fossil-Fuel Subsidies to Reduce Waste and Limit CO2 Emissions while Protecting the Poor’, Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd), September 2012
– Ken Silverstein’s October 23, 2013 piece in the e-journal energybiz entitled ‘Fossil Fuels and Green Energy Feed Mightily at the Public Trough’
– ‘Analysis & Projections: Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010’, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), August 1, 2011
– ‘Federal Financial Support for the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies’, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), March 2011.

There are many other useful sources of information as well. Of course vested interests on all sides of the energy debate have taken their shot at this topic. For example, the views of the fossil fuel industries can be found in the publications of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) and often in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Supporters of subsidies for renewable energy technologies are active as well in expressing their views via statements by trade associations such as the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association. All in all, a difficult subject to get one’s objective hands around, but I will try (foolishly?) in this blog post. Admittedly a strong advocate for rapid progress toward a renewable energy future, I will try to be as balanced as I can in my discussion, as I truly want to better understand this subject and believe that informed public opinion is the long term prerequisite to a sustainable energy future. I will let you judge how successful I have been.

I start with a few definitions and some ‘facts’ that all sides in this debate can hopefully agree upon.
– “Subsidies are one of many policy instruments used by governments to attain economic, social and environmental objectives.” (iisd)
– “Energy subsidies, in particular, are often used to alleviate energy poverty and promote economic development, by enabling access to affordable modern energy services.” (iisd)

The EIA, in its analysis, refers to ‘energy subsidies and interventions’ in five categories: direct cash expenditures to energy producers and consumers, tax expenditures via provisions in the tax code, R&D expenditures for increasing energy supplies or improving energy efficiency, loans and loan guarantees for certain energy technologies, and electricity supply programs targeted at specific geographical regions (e.g., TVA and BPA). The discussion in this blog post touches on the first four.

U.S. tax code energy incentives were first established in 1916 and until 2005 were focused on stimulating domestic production of oil and natural gas. Incentives for improved energy efficiency and renewable energy (solar, wind, ….) were introduced starting in 2006 and by 2011 accounted for 78% of a substantially increased amount of federal energy-related tax expenditures in that year. However, it is important to recognize that this large support for ‘clean energy’ was due to passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), and did not imply a reduction in tax code incentives for fossil fuels or nuclear energy. To put some numbers into this discussion, CBO estimates that tax preferences (“..special deductions, special tax rates, tax rates, tax credits, and grants in lieu of tax credits..”) in 2011 amounted to $20.5 billion. An additional $3.4 billion was provided in FY 2012 by DOE in R&D support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

CBO also points out that of the four major tax preferences operative in 2011, only four were permanent parts of the tax code (the energy efficiency part of ARRA expired at the end of 2011 and the tax preferences for renewable energy were scheduled to expire by 2013), of which three were directed at fossil fuels and one at nuclear energy.

image

A quick word about nuclear energy: the Atomic Energy act of 1946, following the end of WWII, created a framework for government control of civilian nuclear power plants for electricity generation. Industry was concerned about potential liability in the event of a nuclear accident and the limited amounts of liability coverage initially offered by the insurance market, so in 1957 Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law the Price-Anderson Act, which has been renewed several times since, and “..governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear accidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public.” (Wikipedia). In its latest incarnation the Act requires the nuclear industry to cover the first $12.6 billion of damages, with costs above that to be covered by retroactive increases in nuclear utility liability or the federal government. Regardless of one’s view of nuclear energy, I believe it is fair to say that a U.S. civilian nuclear power industry would not exist without the Price-Anderson Act.

What is my take on all this, an issue I followed closely through my many years in federal service and still follow? Energy is clearly a driving force in economies, and prominence of nations at various points in history have reflected their energy sources – e.g., the Dutch with wind power in the 1600’s, the British with coal in the 1800’s, and the U.S. with oil in the 20th century. So energy is critically important and U.S. policies to encourage oil, natural gas and coal production were central to America’s emergence as a leading economy and nation. However, the context has changed – we now have well-established fossil fuel industries, supplying approximately 80% of global energy today, and we now understand that combustion of fossil fuels puts large amounts of pollutants and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These carbon emissions, which mix into the global atmosphere regardless of where they are generated, cause global warming as they change the earth’s energy balance with the sun and create climate change that seems irrefutable and which we are struggling to better understand. So the world has a conundrum: use of fossil fuels helps improve human welfare in lots of ways, but that use is creating a problem that is a severe threat to the planet’s health. These considerations have led to major efforts to develop and deploy clean energy technologies – improved energy efficiency to reduce our need for carbon-emissive fossil fuels, and renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, ocean) that do not emit carbon dioxide during power generation. Nuclear power is also a non-carbon-emitting power source that is receiving increased attention.

image

Some people, including President Obama, have called for a phase-out of oil industry incentives, especially in light of unusually high profits recorded by major oil companies such as Exxon and Shell. This seems reasonable, as high oil prices today are providing adequate incentive to these companies. A complicating factor is that smaller, independent producers drill most of the onshore U.S. oil wells today, and are responsible for creating the wells that are delivering increasing amounts of home-grown shale oil and gas that are reducing consumer costs, creating domestic jobs, and bringing some factories back to the U.S. from overseas locations. If jobs and national security are our immediate priorities, then incentives for this domestic production by small producers should be maintained. The hitch is that this should not slow down national investment in clean energy technologies which are critical to our long-term economic and national security interests. This is where Congress has to exercise wise judgement as it sets national energy policy – taking care of today’s needs while investing in the future. The transition from today’s fossil-fuel-dependent world will take time, but it would be irresponsible to not look down the road and make necessary investments today that put us firmly on the road to a sustainable energy future. Without government intervention of this type, “..households and businesses do not have a financial incentive to take into account the environmental damage or other costs to the nation associated with their choices about energy production and consumption…unless the government intervenes, the amount of research and development (R&D) that the private sector undertakes is likely to be inefficiently low from society’s perspective because firms cannot easily capture the ‘spillover benefits’ that result from it.” (CBO). Our current energy pricing system does not take into account the ‘externalities’ of energy use such as public health effects and dependence on other countries for part of our energy needs.

In the end it comes down to values, as reflected in policy and budgets. When I first came to Washington, DC and worked on Capitol Hill I was told quickly that ‘budgets are policy’. I feel strongly that we lack a forward-looking national energy policy, which I ascribe to a failure by Congress to do its job of looking to the future, anticipating issues that will face the country, and taking the necessary steps to begin addressing those issues. When such a policy vacuum exists in Washington states often take the lead out of necessity, and that is happening now. We can clearly do better at the federal level to serve our long-term national interests.

Nuclear Waste Storage: A Problem We Must Solve

nuclear

The attached article (Federal Court Revives Yucca Mountain – 18 August 2013), which appeared in a recent issue of the e-journal Energybiz, addresses an important issue – use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a long-term radioactive waste repository. In principle the discussed Court decision, subject to further appeal, reopens the entire Yucca Mountain issue.

As mentioned in my earlier blog “Nuclear Power” the U.S. has a long-term radioactive waste storage problem that must be addressed, although temporary storage onsite at nuclear power plants gives us time to try to perhaps develop a different and less problematic storage scheme. This was the approach taken by Energy Secretary Chu in the first Obama Administration, along with the appointment of a Blue Ribbon Commission to explore options. The full Commission report (‘Blue Ribbon Commission On America’s Nuclear Future’), released in January 2012, can be found at htp://www.nei.org/corporatesite/media/filefolder/BRC_FinalReport_Jan2012.pdf. A brief summary of its recommendations is shown below:
“The strategy we recommend in this report has eight key elements:
1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the
authority and resources to succeed.
3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management.
4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.
6. Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to
consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available.
7. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development.
8. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and
security concerns.”

These decisions by Secretary Chu and subsequently by the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission effectively stopped progress on Yucca development. They have been highly controversial, attacked by many in the nuclear power industry and other nuclear power supporters. Utilities that have long paid into a federal fund for permanent waste storage are also litigating to recover the funds if Yucca does not go forward. A significant political factor is the unrelenting and powerful opposition to Yucca by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians and citizens.

Many ideas have been put forward for long-term radioactive waste storage since the dawn of the nuclear age. These include deep geological storage (e.g., Yucca), disposal in the deep ocean, disposal at deep ocean rifts, burn-up of long half-life transuranic wastes in breeder reactors, and even disposal of wastes in the sun after placement in earth orbit by rockets (with obvious risk factors!). The theoretical attractiveness of the latter scheme is that it removes the waste from the earth and it takes relatively little energy to go from earth orbit to collision with the sun (although the energy to reach earth orbit is not insignificant).

The long-term waste problem is part of what Alvin Weinberg called nuclear power’s Faustian Bargain – accepting the benefits of nuclear power along with its long-term and problematic legacies. Most of the accumulated wastes today are from civilian nuclear power but development of nuclear weapons has also contributed a significant share.

So how does one solve this problem, which has to be solved and has implications for an untold number of future generations? Several countries with nuclear power plants are actively researching this issue, and deep geological storage seems to be the favorite so far. There are no easy answers, given the time scales involved (e.g., plutonium, a by-product of fission, has a radioactive half-life of more than 22,000 years), but an answer is needed soon because of the growing amounts of waste and their vulnerability, in above-surface storage, to natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Fukishima is a clear example of the former.

What I believe is needed is a speed-up of U.S. government examination of this issue and increased and informed public discussion of the options. Increased international cooperation on the issue is also needed. Nuclear power issues are not just technocratic issues, as some in the nuclear power industry have long argued. The broader public needs to be involved in decisions about long-term storage if they are to receive needed public support and if civilian nuclear power is to have a shot at a long-term future. And not finding a solution is not an option – the waste problem exists and that genie, along with the ability to produce nuclear weapons, is out of the bottle.