Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, international
politics & civilization.
Sunday
Feature
The
Changing Climate for Nuclear Energy
By Frank L. Bowman
It is well understood that the need for nuclear energy is
driven by our nation's massive requirement for electricity,
which cannot possibly be met by energy efficiency, demand-side
management and renewables by themselves. To be sure, we must
have greater efficiency, more demand-side management and more
renewables, but we must also have high-tech coal- and nuclear-generating
capacity to drive our $11-trillion-a-year economy.
Fortunately,
over the last couple of years we have seen increased attention
to nuclear energy as part of the solution, driven
by concerns about climate change. In fact, the idea of "the
changing climate for nuclear energy" is on a lot of minds
these days. This idea has at least two dimensions. First, the
phrase "changing climate" obviously reflects the
growing concern about the scientific phenomenon of climate
change, global warming and growing concentrations of carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Second, the changing climate
for nuclear energy reflects the new policy climate in which
we are operating, with growing numbers of our political leaders,
policymakers and the public coming to recognize the strategic
value of this energy source.
Climate Change
From mid-2006
to mid-2007 I participated in an exercise sponsored by the
CNA Corporation, a nonprofit organization that performs
national security analyses. CNA organized a Military Advisory
Board – a group of a dozen retired flag and general officers
from all four services – to conduct a detailed, even-handed
evaluation of the national security implications of climate
change. You would recognize many of the names on the board,
including:
• General
Gordon Sullivan, former U.S. Army Chief of Staff
• Tony
Zinni, former Commander in Chief of Central Command
• Joe
Prueher, former Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command
and former Ambassador to China
• Dick
Truly, former astronaut and NASA administrator
We received detailed briefings over many months from the U.S.
intelligence community, climate scientists, business leaders
and others.
As we developed
our report, which was published in April as "National
Security and the Threat of Climate Change," we came to
recognize that we could not make a useful contribution to the
ongoing debate over climate science. We concluded that we could,
however, make a useful contribution to the ongoing policy debate
by proposing a new way of thinking about climate change and
by focusing attention on the national security impacts of climate
change, which could be staggering.
On the
question of climate science – that is, whether
climate change has a significant man-made component; in particular,
whether CO2 causes global temperature increases or vice versa – Gen.
Sullivan said it best: "We never have 100 percent certainty.
If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something
bad is going to happen on the battlefield."
We concluded that, even if catastrophic climate change is
a low-probability event, the consequences are so staggering
that America's national security demands us to take steps now
to reduce the growth rate in CO2 emissions and to prepare for
(and adapt to) the potential extreme consequences of climate
change.
The direct potential consequences have been well-documented:
extreme weather events, drought, flooding, sea-level rise,
increased spread of disease. Economic and environmental conditions
in already fragile areas will further erode as food production
declines. Water will become increasingly scarce. Large populations
will move in search of essential resources.
The indirect potential consequences have not been so well
advertised. Climate change could seriously exacerbate already
marginal living standards in many Asian, African and Middle
Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and
the likelihood of failed states. Weakened and failing governments
provide a breeding ground for internal conflict, genocide,
extremism, radical ideologies, terrorism and dictatorships.
They are all profound threats to our democratic principles
and our market economy.
All this
has potential negative implications for America's national
security. We will be asked more frequently, either
alone or with our allies, to help provide stability before
conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. We will
be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts
once a conflict has begun. As Mr. Zinni said: "We will
pay for this one way or another. We can pay to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit
of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms.
And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
A Dangerous Dependency
I don't need to remind you that we can add energy security
impacts to the national security and military impacts, because
we are dangerously dependent for energy on the parts of the
world most likely to experience political instability and social
collapse, and whose values do not coincide with our own.
America
depends on imported oil for 63 percent of its oil consumption,
and approximately 20 percent of that comes from
the Persian Gulf. We are in the process of exacerbating that
dependence on oil by increasing our dependence on imported
natural gas. Consensus estimates show that the United States
will be importing 25 to 30 percent of its natural gas needs
within 20 years from the Middle East, North Africa, the Atlantic
Basin and offshore East Africa – all regions seriously
at risk.
These findings and the report's recommendations have created
a new driver for thoughtful approaches to the climate issue,
at least in Washington, from an unusual angle: the national
security aspects of climate change.
Carbon-free Technology
It bears repeating at this point: Our Military Advisory Board
concluded that, even if global warming and extreme climate
change are low-probability events, the consequences are so
severe that they demand prudent, thoughtful steps to reduce
CO2 emissions and prepare for potential impacts.
Well, this is familiar territory to the nuclear power industry.
Our operating philosophy is predicated on planning for, and
thereby avoiding, low-probability, potentially high-consequence
events. Discussion and debate over how to address climate change
is dominating the policy agenda in Washington and across the
country. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has never taken
a position on climate issues, but over the next several months
we will be working with the NEI Executive Committee and our
member companies to define an appropriate policy position for
the only carbon-free technology that is available today and
capable of large-scale expansion.
It may
well be past time to abandon the notion that a voluntary "best
effort" approach, by itself, represents a viable policy.
As the world's largest economy and most powerful nation, the
United States has a responsibility to provide leadership on
critical issues with major geopolitical implications.
We are deluding ourselves if we believe we have taken even
the first steps necessary to address our energy and environmental
challenges. A recent analysis by the Government Accountability
Office found that federal support for renewable, fossil and
nuclear energy research and development declined by more than
85 percent in real terms from 1978 through 2005. And the investment
stimulus for new nuclear plant construction in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, as it is being implemented, may not be adequate
to support financing and construction of even the first few
new nuclear projects.
We know,
from the work of Robert Socolow and Steven Pacala at Princeton
University and from ongoing analysis by the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), that there is no single technology
that can meet our country's huge electricity demand while reducing
growth in CO2 emissions. Only aggressive deployment of a portfolio
of technologies – energy efficiency, renewables, advanced
coal with carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear energy – will
reduce the upward trend in CO2 emissions.
Socolow and Pacala assume 700 gigawatts of nuclear capacity
in place worldwide within 50 years, roughly a doubling of today's
capacity. EPRI's analysis requires 64 gigawatts of new nuclear
capacity in the United States by 2030, roughly a 60 percent
increase from today.
Whether the numbers are right or reasonable hardly matters.
They do provide a tangible sense of the enormity of our challenge,
and they confirm one fact that is beyond dispute: Increased
production from nuclear energy is an unequivocal imperative.
The Political Climate
Hardly a week passes without additional evidence that U.S.
national political leaders, state government officials, policymakers
and policy institutions recognize this imperative. These include
Republicans, Democrats, union leaders, Wall Street, state legislators
and state regulators. The political climate for nuclear power
is changing.
• We have this from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair
of the Senate Environment Committee: "The vast majority
of the members on my committee support nuclear power, and so
do the majority in the Senate. So my focus is on safety, security
and research, because I don't think there is any question that
we are going to be seeing new plants."
• We have this from Judi Greenwald at the Pew Center
on Global Climate Change, one of the most articulate and level-headed
advocates of mandatory actions to reduce CO2 emissions: "You
can't just write nuclear off. I think everybody feels you have
to at least look again at nuclear power."
• Or this from the Progressive Policy Institute, the
Democratic Leadership Council's policy organization: "Nuclear
power holds great potential to be an integral part of the diversified
energy portfolio for America. It produces no greenhouse gases,
so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change.
And new plant designs promise to produce power more safely
and economically."
• And this from the chief scientist at Environmental
Defense: "Global warming is the environmental issue of
our generation. Clearly, to solve this problem we need to have
all technologies on the table. Therefore, nuclear energy needs
to be considered."
There is much more. State governments in Florida, Virginia
and South Carolina are passing legislation to encourage the
construction of new nuclear power plants by providing higher
assurance of investment recovery. State regulatory commissions,
such as the one in Louisiana, are developing new rules to provide
the investment certainty necessary to support construction
of new nuclear plants. We are relaunching the nuclear energy
industry, and we have the wind at our backs. The climate has
changed for nuclear energy.
Still,
we face challenges, despite the new support for nuclear energy
from organizations and individuals that have not supported
us in the past. We must recognize that the new support is fragile
and typically qualified by what I call the "Yes, but ..." questions.
Yes, they say, I agree with you about the benefits of nuclear
power ... but what about safety? Yes, I agree with you about
the environmental benefits ... but what about used nuclear
fuel? Yes, I agree with you about price stability and the fact
that nuclear plants have the lowest operating cost of any source
of electricity ... but what about the cost of new nuclear plants?
Yes, I believe we must see major expansion of nuclear power
worldwide … but what about proliferation?
These are
genuine, legitimate questions. They deserve serious, thoughtful
responses. And we need to do a better job answering
those questions – much better. If we fail to do so, the
emerging support for nuclear power will remain qualified and
uncertain.
Growing numbers of people want to believe that nuclear power
should be a larger part of our nation's energy portfolio. It
is up to us to give them reasons to believe. That is one of
our biggest challenges. In particular, we must be able to present
solid reassurance about safety and used nuclear fuel.
Safety: Nuclear Eenrgy's Best-kept Secret
All the
safety-related metrics tracked by the industry and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission demonstrate high levels of
excellence. Unplanned shutdowns are at near-record lows. Lost-time
accident rates are at record low levels. Forced outage rates,
unplanned safety system actuations, worker radiation exposures,
events with safety implications – all are down.
I have great confidence in nuclear plant safety based on those
indicators. But I derive even more confidence from the process
that produces those indicators and from the institutions we
have created to share best practices, to establish standards
of excellence and to implement programs that hold us to those
standards.
First, our industry has the strongest government regulator
of any industrial sector: a regulator who routinely conducts
over 2,000 hours of inspections a year through resident inspectors
assigned 24/7 to each plant. A regional office and headquarters
staff oversee the resident inspectors and assist with inspections
when necessary. Finally, a government regulator has the power
to impose fines and order a shutdown.
This independent oversight is backed up by our industry's
own unique form of self-regulation, born of a recognition that
the nuclear industry is only as strong as its weakest link
and cannot, therefore, tolerate weak links. How many people
outside the nuclear industry's small fraternity know that the
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations performs a comprehensive
evaluation of every U.S. nuclear plant every two years? Or
that we maintain an industry-wide database to catalog equipment
problems and mean time between failures so that we can replace
equipment before it fails, avoiding possible challenges to
plant safety?
Used Nuclear Fuel
Now we turn to the topic of used nuclear fuel. How well does
our industry deal with the four myths surrounding this subject?
Myth No.
1: The Department of Energy is going to simply bury the used
nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain and walk away. That
is not the plan, and it has never been the plan. The reality
is that the Yucca Mountain facility will remain open and closely
monitored for 100 to 300 years. The law requires an unspecified
period of retrievability. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations
require an ongoing confirmatory research and development (R&D)
program to verify the original assumptions based on new data
and scientific development. This period of monitoring, retrievability
and confirmatory R&D creates confidence that the repository
is performing as designed, that public safety is assured and
that the environment is protected.
Myth No. 2: There's a lot of this stuff. All the used fuel
from all the nuclear plants that have ever operated in America
would only cover one football field 7 yards deep. This is a
trivial amount of material. The 103 operating plants in the
United States produce 2,000 tons per year, compared to, say,
1.5 billion tons of CO2 per year from U.S. coal-fired power
plants.
Myth No. 3: Used fuel is difficult to manage. Just the opposite:
In engineering terms, used fuel is easy to manage and easy
to monitor, certainly when compared to the engineering challenges
and sheer scale associated with capturing, compressing, transporting
and sequestering the CO2 produced today by coal-fired power
plants.
Don't misunderstand me: At NEI, we know nuclear power cannot
carry the load by itself, and we know the United States must
continue to burn large amounts of coal. But we should keep
our nation's environmental challenges in perspective.
Myth No. 4: We don't have a plan for used fuel. Of course
we have a plan. We will develop a network of long-term interim
storage facilities, advanced fuel processing facilities and
advanced reactors that will allow us to reduce the volume on
that football field, reduce its toxicity and heat load, and
reduce the time of long-term isolation required.
Solving
the "Yes, But" Dilemma
We must
develop thoughtful responses to all the "Yes,
but …" questions. I have charged my senior management
team with developing those responses in various formats, from
the simple 30-second sound bite to short fact sheets to more
scholarly white papers, so that we have the materials necessary
to address all potential audiences.
And there is more on the agenda. We must do better at engaging
thoughtful people in factual discussion. We must train and
empower our people as ambassadors for nuclear energy. And we
must escape from the tyranny of short-term thinking.
As an example of how to accomplish the latter, we are approaching
a new construction cycle for advanced light-water reactors.
These reactors are well-suited for baseload electricity production,
and we will build many more of them well into the 21st century.
But a little
further out – say, around 2025 – we
should be building high-temperature reactors, with a more varied
product slate. That includes electricity, of course, but also
hydrogen and process heat.
By engaging in long-term thinking, we can envision high-temperature
reactors co-located with oil refineries and coal gasification
plants, providing the hydrogen they require to upgrade coal
and the heavy crude oils of the future into usable products.
We can see high-temperature reactors generating process heat
to produce clean drinking water, to extract oil from tar sands
and to accomplish scores of other industrial applications.
Beyond that, we will see the deployment of advanced technologies
to recycle used fuel, to recover the uranium, plutonium and
the other fissile elements and recycle them into fresh fuel,
and to deploy new-design, fast-spectrum reactors capable of
burning the new fuels.
Nuclear energy has the smallest environmental footprint of
any major source of energy available today or likely to be
available in the next 100 years. Nuclear has a bright and prosperous
future. It is ours for the taking.
But no one will drop that future in our laps. We must shape
it. We must build it. The question is, are we up to that challenge?
Frank
L. "Skip" Bowman was appointed the president and
chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
in February 2005. Mr. Bowman ended his military career in
December 2004 after 38 years in the U.S. Navy. At the time
of his retirement, he was an admiral serving as director
of
the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. Mr. Bowman was also deputy administrator
for naval reactors in the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department
of Energy (DOE). In these dual positions, he was responsible for the operations
of more than 100 reactors aboard the navy's aircraft carriers and submarines,
four training sites and two DOE laboratories.
Petroleumworld does not necessarily share these views.
Editor's
note: This
article was originally written for World
Energy, Vol. 10 No. 3 2007. Petroleumworld
reprint this article in the interest of our readers.
All
comments posted and published on Petroleumworld, do not reflect
either for or against the opinion expressed in the
comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed
are private comments and do not necessary reflect the view
of this website. All comments are posted and published without
liability to Petroleumworld.
Fair use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by
the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental
and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes
a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
All works published by Petroleumworld are in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.
Petroleumworld has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or sponsored
by the originator.
Petroleumworld
encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast Petroleumworld
articles provided that any such reproduction
identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com
or else and it is done within the fair use as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
the copyright owner.
Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated.
