Comments by Rod Adams Subscribe

I have to take issue with your implication at the end, however, that the West Coast of the US has somehow figured out how to live within the limitations of renewable energy. Sure, you have some visible projects and some overt rules aimed at encouraging their use, but the statistics on the Energy Information Administration web site do not lie. Neither does my personal experience of the number of vehicles on the road on the west coast.

You and your neighbors have deluded yourselves. You are still dependent on fossil fuels for more than 80% of your total energy consumption. You do a bit better than average for electricity production (49% natural gas, 22% hydro, 15% nuclear, 11% all other renewables and the rest petroleum products) but that is mainly because you are importing electricity produced by burning coal in your neighboring states. (BTW - if you live in CA, you would be in far better financial shape if you still retained the manufacturing base that was the start of much of your prosperity.)

I also challenge you to find a wind turbine installation whose energy output approximates the output of the strip mine operation that you observed. You might not be so sanguine about its impact on the environment.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

@Roger Brown - Your perception of "nuclear energy" appears to be limited to the commercial power plants currently operating in the United States that were designed and built using 1950s vintage technology (perhaps with some minor updates as late as the 1970s when construction began.) Their steady output is based on human choices, and interpretations of economical modes of operation, not technical limitations of the energy source.

My understanding of nuclear energy is based on operating propulsion power plants on board submarines and training on a prototype of the power plant built power the USS Bainbridge. It is also based on several decades of study of fission applications including the reactors operating in France, the small reactors built by the US Army to power remote sites, dozens of test reactors, plus the designs of several new plants being offered by Areva, Hyperion, NuScale, B&W, and Toshiba. In  those cases, nuclear energy is truly "on demand" power that meets both steady state "hotel" loads, varying power demands from serving major equipment, and even the peak loads that occur when the officer of the deck orders "all ahead flank" from a dead stop.

My definition of "on demand" also includes being able to serve where people want the power. Though there are not nuclear plants everywhere, history has shown that they can operate anywhere from the North Pole, to the Panama Canal Zone, to downtown Ft. Lauderdale (been there, done that), to Antarctica (US Army), to deep under the ocean while recovering remains of the Titanic (NR-1). Geothermal power in the US is limited to just 4 states (California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii) while biomass has challenges as a sole power source in many places where there just are not very many plants growing.

@rmabelis - though I wish that the Okliluoto project in Finland had progressed without any technical hickups, I am not surprised that a first of a kind project of that complexity has some issues. It is the first time that ANYONE has tried to build that particular reactor design, and it is the first time in more than a decade that the country where it is being built engaged in the construction of any nuclear power plant. FOAK issues happen to new products; they can happen in a big way with a big project involving thousands of workers, any of whom can make mistakes that cause delays.

With a nuclear project, there are plenty of second checks that catch the mistakes and make them right, but that level of QA still takes time and costs money. I expect that future implementations of the EPR will go better, but each time a new work force is introduced there will be learning opportunities.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights 

On the other hand, John Rowe has no desire to do anything to increase the supply of electricity at this point. He is quite happy being the leader of a company with 17 large, low marginal cost production units in a market where the "last in" generator sets the price for the entire market and he really likes it when that "last in" plant is a peaker burning natural gas at a time when the market price for gas is high.

BTW - I take great pleasure in drinking my daily coffee from a mug that a student at UC Berkeley gave me at an American Nuclear Society student conference.

It's logo is the familiar atom symbol with Nuclear Engineering, UC Berkeley written around it. My it has been a conversation starter on more than a few occasions among my colleagues, many of whom wear or used to wear gold dolphins.

For most of the covered period, it has been far cheaper for major polluters to simply buy credits than to make any attempt to use cleaner technologies. 

My interpretation of that defining event was that his defeat was more due to the public's distrust of his statements (he pledged "no new taxes") than the fact that he was planning to accept a tax increase.

In an era where fiscal responsibility would be greeted with a sigh of relief from many, a politician who forthrightly stated that we need to increase selected taxes as PART of a plan to reduce ever increasing deficits would earn the respect of his constituents and the ire of some wealthy but intellectually impotent opposers. Since most people agree with the need to reduce both pollution and dependence on oil and gas imported from unstable and unfriendly areas of the globe, I believe that a gas tax and perhaps even a carbon tax can be effectively sold to the public.

It would be much better for all of us than a new trading game controlled by the same people on Wall Street that brought you Enron, the California energy crisis, packaged mortgage loans and collateralized debt obligations.

If the public demands a straightforward tax on gasoline and/or carbon, the politicians will follow. (Unfortunately, it does not seem that it will be the other way around.)

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

As a long time investor in Chesapeake Energy, one of the premier independent gas producers in the US, I follow its reports with great interest. CHK has provided me with a rather different view of the prospects for natural gas to gain large shares of the electrical power market. Until American consumers are willing to pay considerably higher prices for electricity, natural gas and the myriad of products made from gas, Chesapeake is willing to slow down production until they are.

Read, for example, this press release about the company's decision to curtail production due to lower than acceptable prices:

http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Pages/1277378.aspx

Chesapeake is obviously not the only player in the market, but their decision processes are representative of some of the best business minds in the gas industry.

One thing that people need to learn about gas from shale formations is that the production curves are much sharper than those from other types of formations. Once the well is in production, its rate of depletion can often reach 15% per year.

I do agree, however, that many mainstream Environmental groups seem to be quite enamored with gas as a bridge fuel - as a skeptic of human motivation I cannot help but wonder just how much money they get from oil and gas interests in return for their support and political cover. 

When it comes to fawning articles in the mainstream business press about clean natural gas, I find it hard to forget just how many Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and other gas company advertisements I have seen in those same publications in just the past couple of years. Heck, I live in the most political city in the world and regularly watch a steady stream of buses lettered with the unforgettable marketing message - "Powered by Clean Natural Gas". 

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

Evidently, you have successfully provoked thoughtful discussion from my pro-nuclear colleagues, but I sense a distinct lack of interest from the doubters of fission technology value. I count only one comment from the renewable/anti-nuclear  side in the 20 that precede mine.

I would like to follow up with you on one particular statement in your original post:

Why do they bridle at the very thought of nuclear fission power? Have they seen any damage to their local environment? Have they known any people whose health has been damaged by exposure to the waste products? Have they been unable to purchase reliable or inexpensive power because of living in an area largely supplied by nuclear fission power plants? Did their high school physics teacher tell them that there was some kind of unusual danger or that there is something worse about dying from over exposure to radiation compared to overexposure from heat, smoke, or falling off of a roof or tall tower? 

As you kindly indicated, I am a long time conservationist who loves the great outdoors and works hard to help keep it clean and healthy. My positive view of nuclear fission came very early - I was about 6-8 years old when my Dad showed me the difference between power plants that burn coal, oil and gas (with their tall waste dumps that constantly spew deadly materials into our common environment) and power plants that produce a small amount of admittedly troublesome waste that cannot be so easily dispersed. 

My positive view was reinforced as I gained first hand, detailed knowledge and experience as a power plant operator in a sealed environment and decided that one of my life missions was to bear witness to the capabilities of that amazing technology. I am willing to ask for advice - how should we share our knowledge with those who have a belief system that gives them a visceral reaction to our favored power/energy technology?

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

Pickens is selling - very effectively - when he talks about his wind turbine plans, but you have to have a bit of a questioning attitude to find out what his real business interests are. He is heavily invested in natural gas and natural gas vehicle fueling stations. He is fully aware of the fact that wind turbines make great press and also build markets for machines that can respond quickly and burn his favorite fuel in ever increasing quantities. 

I also believe that he is fully aware of the value of high capacity transmission lines from an area where there are planned large power plants to an area where there are plenty of customers. As a successful American businessman, he is also quite willing to have the taxpayers or ratepayers subsidize the construction of those lines and enable the eminent domain proceeds that will be required in order to gain the appropriate rights of way.

You gotta admire the man - he is showing a remarkable amount of foresight and planning. He is not the only one who wraps his plan to sell increased quantities of fossil fuels in an environmental cloak of invisibility. He just happens to be very good at it.

However, I think that many Americans need regular reminders that the US is still one of the top tier of energy producers in the world with a production rate for oil and gas that is not too much less than that of Russia or Saudi Arabia. We import more because we use a lot more than we produce, but making it harder to produce is not the right direction.

I do think that we need better negotiators on the government side when it comes to oil and gas leasing deals. No need for them to be unfairly biased against the producers, but there is also no excuse for the kind of royalty free deals - no matter how high the prices get - that were negotiated by the non keepers of the gate at the MMS section of the interior department.

One more thing - a much large portion of the profits made during the past few years in oil and gas did not accrue to "the shareholders" in general. They went to management who pumped up share prices through stock buyback programs to make their performance look good, while keeping dividends low. (ExxonMobil, for example, "invested" more than $130 billion over the last five years to retire about 25% of its shares. Lee Raymond walked away with $400 million, but he was not the only one.

http://abcnews.go.com/gma/story?id=1841989

Long term shareholders - like me - gain no benefit at all from pumped up share prices that turn capital into paychecks and options gains. I would have much rather had the money either distributed to all of us through dividends or invested in new energy resources that would provide long term value for the future. Stock price increases enabled by retiring stock only accrue for owners who happen to sell near the peak; for some odd reason, it appears that insiders are better at that kind of timing than those of us who can only read publicly available materials.

@watthead - I am with you on the need for clean, cheap, energy and agree with John that you need to add reliability to that goal statement. One reason is that it is not true that one kilowatt-hour is like another and has equal value. The customer really does care whether or not the light burns with the prescribed intensity when he throws the switch. Those of us who operate motors and semiconductors REALLY care about the quality of the current that flows when we demand it. 

Anyone who has ever been at a tailgater or has experienced the aftermath of a hurricane can understand the extreme jealousy that can be stimulated when your neighbor's lights and refrigerator works while yours do not. That emotional response explains why there are some times when you are willing to pay far more for power than you are at other times.

There are "early adopter" markets available for useful energy sources. Think about the rich folk that like beautiful views from the top of a mountain where the nearest distribution line is several miles away. How do you provide that mountain retreat with reliable power for the Sub Zero refrigerators and big screen TV's? That customer is willing to pay a pretty penny if you can demonstrate a reliable power source that will not destroy his expensive toys and will make sure they do not conk out in the middle of the big game. What about off shore oil rigs, mining or lumber towns, 100 meter yachts, or seaside resorts on distant islands? If you really have a power source that works, why not sell it to those customers and learn enough in the process to bring the price down - if that is possible.

Here is my rub with your argument about how to make something "cheap". Some basic analysis makes some of us scoff at the notion that it is worth much time or money to try to develop certain types of politically approved "renewable" power technologies. The wind will NEVER blow when you want it to (I have been a competitive sailor, so I am pretty well aware of wind limitations and variability) and the sun sets with depressing regularity (even here in the mid Atlantic regions, I go for whole weeks during the winter when I never see the sun - I am at work before it rises and depart after it sets.) 

I am also pretty well versed in the most advanced battery technologies; I have owned a number of laptops, cell phones, and handhelds, plus I know more about submarine batteries than I am allowed to share. The amount of stored energy is tiny compared to the demand that would be placed on batteries to fill in the gaps in a wind or solar powered grid.

You do not understand the history of atomic fission. Light water reactors DID NOT come from weapons programs. They were developed to solve a very challenging POWER problem - how do you supply reliable power to ships that have no access to oxygen and can not discharge waste products because they are SEALED environments. It turned out that the only technology available was something using fission, and at the time, the only fission power source that could be squeezed into the available space was a steam plant. At the time, the only available Brayton cycle gas turbines were lasting about a hundred hours each while hanging under the wings of some demonstration aircraft.

If there had not been a war on when Fermi, Hahn, Meitner, Szilard, and others figured out fission, we would have had small atomic power plants without ever having gone in the weapons direction. CP-1 showed just how simple it would be to construct heat sources using fission. Please do not try to tell me that Europeans, Americans, Asians and Africans of the 1930s and 1940s were unaware of the high costs, pollution and economic unfairness caused by society's growing dependence on burning coal, oil and gas. Early fission researchers were very excited about the possibility of clean, affordable energy using the concentrated nature of the brand new phenomenon that they had discovered.

The cost structure of the commercial nuclear power industry has a lot more to do with the fact that the government selected developers had goals in mind that conflict with those of ordinary people, like continuing to protect fossil fuel dominance. The technical potential, however, of fission is that it can provide reliable, emission free, affordable power in a variety of ways - including the LFTR that Charles Barton describes. (I personally like atomic gas turbines with high temperature pebble bed reactors, but recognize that there are an almost infinite number of ways to use standard heat engines to produce useful power from fission.)

In 1938, Otto Hahn performed that chemistry test after conducting irradiation experiments where he aimed a neutron flux at uranium. He found barium and told his former partner, Lise Mitner about it. She and her nephew, Otto Frisch talked through the theory over a holiday weekend and used the term "fission" from biology to describe what had happened. They even did a pretty fair job of computing the energy release. 

Within months, other scientists had determined that the reaction released neutrons, offering the potential for a chain reaction - if neutrons split uranium and uranium splitting releases enough neutrons. . .

By 1942, the controlled chain reaction achieved a break even power. The total amount of public money invested up to that point was probably less than half a million dollars.

The difference is that fission, like fire, is easy, controllable, and practical. In the hands of a reasonably knowledgeable operator, it is plenty safe, even though it can cause great harm in the hands of someone who is careless, homicidal or stupid.

Fusion may be worth some investigation, but if it takes decades and billions of dollars, that expenditure has to be balanced against other pressing needs. I would not be quite so forceful with my negative opinions, however, if it were not for the fact that fusion salesmen often try to gain support for their toys by denigrating nuclear fission and talking about how superior their technology may someday be - if they can ever get it to work.

My theory remains the same - the reason that fusion gets more government money is because it does not threaten the interests of those who often make government decisions - the big money people from the establishment who love the fossil fuel economy. On the other hand, fission has proven that it can impoverish those people in pretty short order.