Post # 91: Nuclear Power – Out With The Old & In With The New?

Some old things we call "masterpieces".

Some old things we call "vintage".

Some old things we call "antiques".
Some old things we call "classics".

Some old things we call "quaint".

And some old things we call "obsolete".

What do we call old nuclear power plants?

There's been an interesting discussion thread going recently over on my colleague Rod Adam's Atomic Insights Blog regarding decommissioning of commercial nuclear power plants (thanks to Joel Riddle for alerting me to the thread)...  Much of the dialog there expresses the angst of the pro-nuclear community concerning the collective impact of

• shutdowns of "perfectly good" commercial nuclear power plants that are not profitable
• shutdowns of plants that require major investments to continue to operate
• shutdowns of plants that simply are "worn out"
• the aggressive pursuit of decommissioning business by nuclear reactor vendors
• the conversion of nuclear power plant sites to non-nuclear generation uses

I want to offer some semi-random thoughts on the subject here, as this post is really too lengthy to fit nicely into a comment on Rod's blog...

THE NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING BUSINESS:

In my view, it is reasonable, proper, and to be expected that our current nuclear plant vendors would aggressively pursue nuclear plant decommission business.  Who better to do it?  Hurray for Westinghouse!  If it needs to be done, I want the guys doing it who know the technology.  There seems to be some subliminal fear in some quarters that success in the decommissioning business will steal the hearts of the reactor vendors.  Personally, I don't worry about that.  It's a business.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SHUTDOWNS:

Our current fleet of Gen-II nuclear power plants were simply not designed and constructed to accommodate major plant component replacements, upgrades, and improvements.  The idea back in the 1960s and early 1970s was that we were entering into a golden era of commercial nuclear power. The "status quo" fleet would be continually evolving to newer and better technologies and plant designs.  The nuclear power enterprise would continually renew itself.  Plants would run for 40 years (a commerce-based decision – not a technical limitation) and then be replaced with something much better.  That didn't happen for a variety of reasons.

The financial woes of the current nuclear fleet are primarily a function of two things:

• "too-cheap-to-meter" natural gas 
• electricity market deregulation

The first factor (cheap natural gas) appears here to stay for at least a decade or two.  It's hurting renewables (or would be if they were not so heavily subsidized) and it's gut-punching nuclear power.  From a business perspective, who wants to fight the nuclear battle when it's comparatively quick, easy, and cheap to go with natural gas and rake in the profits with practically no tangible downside?  The second factor (deregulation) has put a real squeeze on merchant plants – who are finding it increasing difficult to sell their power to customers who have an option to purchase cheap gas-generated power.  (This pressure is only going to increase in the foreseeable future.)

THE WORLD REALLY IS FLAT:

I am not among those who are sanguine that continued nuclear power development elsewhere in the world (outside of the U.S.) will save the nuclear power option.  (I wish it were true.  I just don't believe it is.)  From my perspective, nuclear power plant vendors are continuing to apply the development paradigm that has failed inside the U.S. to international markets.  (Any size you want as long as it huge.  Any cost you want as long as it's huge...) Very soon, the international market will start to behave more and more like the U.S. market.  Factors such as plant cost, plant size, operating complexity, etc., will become at least as large an obstacle to expanded nuclear power deployment elsewhere as they have become here. What is needed is a fundamental change in the way nuclear power is deployed.  With all due respect, China (not withstanding its recent advanced reactor aspirations) and South Korea cannot succeed in creating a new future for nuclear power by pursuing a worn-out deployment paradigm.

THE "NEW NUCLEAR SOLUTION":

I believe the "magic recipe" for the eventual re-emergence of commercial nuclear power has several elements:

• Continued safe operation of the current commercial fleet –  all bets are off if we sustain another "Fukushima-like" accident.  Continued accident-free operation is a prerequisite for a nuclear revival.

• Financial – the capital cost of nuclear nuclear power plant options has to come down radically, or a radical new model for power plant financing must evolve.  I'm not a financial guru, and have no magic answers, but I know that $10B market cap companies aren't going to purchase $6B assets solo.  It isn't really reasonable in free-market economies for us to expect a technology to prosper if it's entry and incremental capital cost is so large it can only be afforded by 10% of the prospective customers for the technology.

• Choice in plant sizes – Small Modular Reactors are essential to match diverse grid sizes, variable demand growth, and generating company budgets.

• Longer Plant Lifetimes – I originally shared some thoughts about my concept of "Centurion Reactors" back in 2009 here on this blog... Those thoughts were based on some initial thinking I had done a few years before with Dr. Alvin Weinberg here in Oak Ridge and a paper I presented on the topic at the 2009 Winter American Nuclear Society Meeting.  The inter-generational benefits of plants with 100-yr lifetimes is immense... but there are serious challenges and conflicts to confront (I'll post more on this in the future).

• Wise management of nuclear sites – Certified nuclear generation sites are a great resource and a terrible thing to waste.  This is a growing issue in the U.S. and Europe.  As current generation nuclear plants are shutdown, we need to maintain the ability to repopulate current nuclear plant sites with newer nuclear capacity.  This is a particularly thorny challenge because (a)  generating companies need the site to generate revenue, and (b) creeping development and population growth around existing sites will make it ever-more difficult to maintain nuclear capacity at some sites.  And then there's the question of new nuclear sites – can we make them both "grid accessible" and locate them where they are immune to future population growth around the plant?  (This is a major threat to the viability of the Centurion Reactor concept...)

• More efficient licensing & regulation of nuclear power plants – plants that may look very different than our present Gen-II fleet.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?

We have to face our personal demons and inconsistencies as a pro-nuclear community.

Many in the pro-nuclear community espouse fiercely free-market / low regulation philosophies while, at the same time, advocating what amounts to a strong top-down federal direction of energy policy.  Businesses are in business to make money for their owners by providing value to their customers – not to serve as a instrument of national policy.  Public utilities are monopolies who exist to serve basic societal needs in a manner that does not compete inappropriately with the private sector. (Though many would argue this model has been obliterated by the cable TV business – but that's another story...)

• Is electrical energy (and nuclear power in particular) so strategic in terms of our national interest that it should be nationalized (whatever that means)?  Most us us would answer "No!" to that question.

• How can a free-market drive us or evolve to an "optimal solution" (whatever that means) with a traditional "one size fits all" product placement strategy?

After all... Why is there no nuclear power equivalent to Moore's Law ?  Really.

Just Thinking...

Sherrell

Post # 90: Nuclear Power, Natural Gas, Lemons, and Lemonade

Everyone reading this blog knows I'm a strong advocate of nuclear power.  I've spent much of my career in the commercial nuclear power safety and advanced reactor concept development arenas. But I like to think I'm a realistic and honest advocate.  Thus the following thoughts...

THE NUCLEAR ENERGY "LEMON"

Readers of this blog are aware the technology of fracking has unleashed hitherto unrecoverable reserves of natural gas and petroleum in the U.S.  Barring any unforeseen complications, it appears two of the most significant impacts of the attractive price and availability of these new-found fossil resources in the U.S. will be:

1. the greenhouse gas emissions footprint of electricity production in the U.S. will be significantly reduced on a "per MWhr" basis (that's good); and
2. the sense of urgency and support for development of new non-fossil electricity production technologies will be reduced (that's bad, because if results in over-dependence on a single energy source). 

The U.S., for all its strengths, has a lack-luster record of innovation during periods in which two conditions exist:

     (A) there is no imminent threat to our lives and livelihoods, and

     (B) a low-risk, financially-attractive option exists to meet our immediate needs.

Thankfully, there appears to be no "A" on the horizon, and fracked natural gas wonderfully fits the condition "B".

I've blogged before (November 2011, Post # 57: Energy Technology: The Innovation Challenge)  about the embarrassingly-low rate of innovation in the nuclear energy business and the reasons for it.  As I said then,

"The environment in today’s nuclear energy enterprise is hostile to innovation.  Not by intent, but in reality nevertheless.  The industry is highly regulated.  It is very costly to do research, development, and demonstration.   It’s a very capital-intensive business.  The barriers to entry are incredibly high.  The down-side risks of innovation are more easily rendered in practical terms than the upside gains.  Often it seems everyone in the enterprise (federal and private sectors) are so risk-averse that innovation is the last thing on anyone’s mind.  In this environment, “good-enough” is the enemy of “better”.  Humans learn by failing.  It’s the way we learn to walk, talk, and ride a bicycle.  Our environment today has little tolerance for failures at any level.  There’s no room for Thomas Edison’s approach to innovation in today’s world.  On top of all of this, or perhaps because of it, the nuclear industry invests less on R&D, as a percentage of gross revenues, than practically every other major industry you might name."

This reality, in combination with the absence of an imminent threat or external forcing function, and in the presence of an abundant and "cheap" supply of natural gas; leads me to conclude:

the "U.S. nuclear renaissance" so longed-for by those in the nuclear power community is dead – for the foreseeable future. 

Stated differently, we seem destined to see, at best, only a handful of large commercial nuclear power plants, and a few evolutionary small modular light water reactor (SMR) power plants constructed in the U.S. over the next twenty years...

That's the "Lemon".  This is the "glass half-empty" view.


THE NUCLEAR ENERGY "LEMONADE"

You've heard the old adage, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade..." ?  So, what's the "Lemonade"?

The era of cheap, abundant natural gas will eventually come to an end.  What then? What arrows will we have in our "energy quiver" to replace it?

Presuming 

• no major commercial nuclear accidents occur that impact public health and the environment;
• the Vogtle and Summer construction projects are successful;
• the world-wide deployment of current and near-term nuclear power plant technologies continue; and
• someone(s) actually deploy evolutionary Small Modular Light Water Reactors...

nuclear power will remain an important element of the energy generation mix in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.  Thus, nuclear power will have an opportunity to win its way back to the deployment table when conditions change if suitable technology is available at that time.

The question, then, is "What will/should that future nuclear energy option be?"  Can we do it better - far better – that we've done it to date?

Thanks to fracking and natural gas, we now have the luxury of considering different approaches to nuclear energy.  It appears we will have at least a few decades to ponder that question and to develop the answer.

This grace period to incubate and develop improved nuclear energy options is the "Lemonade".  This is the "glass half-full" perspective.


SQUEEZING THE LEMONS

So, what are the functional attributes of my imagined future "Generation Phoenix" nuclear power plants?  

F. J. Bertuch (1747-1822)

I suggest nine attributes that combine to provide a starting point for those who wish to tackle the grand challenge of reverse-engineering Generation Phoenix nuclear energy system concepts for the latter half of the 21st century:

1. SAFETY/RISK: the plants should be much "safer" (measured in terms of public health risk, investment risk, and environmental risk) than today's plants.  The risk of an accident that would result in major land contamination and long-term relocation of surrounding human populations, or major investment loss in the plant, should be significantly lower than that presented by today's plants.
2. CAPITAL & OPERATING COST: the plants must be affordable and, yes, even attractively priced in terms both of their capital and their operating costs.  This implies an attractive cost of electricity and process heat delivered to the customer.
3. SIZE: the technology should be scalable. The plants should be available in sizes appropriate to meet the needs of diverse deployment strategies;
4. LOAD FOLLOWING CAPABILITY: the plants should have the robust load-following capabilities required to meet dynamic, mixed-generation electrical grids (i.e. grids with significant wind/solar generation components);
5. DUAL USE: the plants should operate at sufficiently high temperatures to supply the process heat requirements of the (then) current major industries required high-temperature process heat;
6. RELIABILITY: the plants must be at least as reliable as today's fleet of commercial light water reactors – preferably even more reliable;
7. PLANT LIFETIME: the plants should have a design lifetime of at least 100 years.  They should be designed in such a way that major components can be replaced easily.  (I coined the term "Centurion Reactors" a few years ago to describe such reactors.)
8. WASTE: the plants must have a radioactive waste management approach that society (not simply the industry) embraces as acceptable and sustainable;
9. PROLIFERATION: the plant designs and their operating strategies, when combined with (then) extant nuclear proliferation protocols, must not present an unacceptable nuclear proliferation threat.

So there you have it.  My nine performance criteria / functional requirements for future Generation Phoenix nuclear power plants in the "post fracking" or "post-natural-gas" era...

Achievable?  

Just Thinking...
Sherrell

Post # 89: Science and the Sandbox

I'm reading an interesting book that deals with the subject of how science gets done, and how it is converted to societal impact (one of my favorite subjects) – "The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of Innovation".  I've also found one can gain interesting (sometime provocative) insights on the same subject from the Nobel Banquet Speeches of newly-donned Nobel Prize winners.  This week I read Dr. Randy W. Schekman's Dec. 10 Nobel Banquet Speech. Dr. Schekman is a co-winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.  He delivered a short but thought-provoking speech on the role of government in "managing" science...
 
Schekman quotes from Vannevar Bush's (Bush was the science adviser to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman) 1945 report, "Science: Endless Frontiers":

"Scientific progress on a broad front results from the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown ... Freedom of inquiry must be preserved under any plan for government support of science."

Schekman then goes on to lament the modern tendency for governments to meddle with scientists' exercise of their curiosity and talents:

"... And yet we find a growing tendency for government to want to manage discovery with expansive so-called strategic science initiatives at the expense of the individual creative exercise we celebrate today. Louis Pasteur recognized this tension long before the trend towards managed science. He wrote, "There does not exist a category of science to which one can give the name applied science. There are sciences and the application of science, bound together as the fruit of the tree which bears it".

With all due respect to Schekman, one is left with the impression he believes the more appropriate role of government is simply to spread funding around to a "Priesthood of Scientists".  The Priesthood, snug in their laboratory sanctuaries, and safe from the buffeting of current human and environmental realities, would deliver a continuing cornucopia of discoveries that would somehow solve society's and the planet's most pressing needs.  I guess, in Schekman's mathematics:

Funding + Faith – Oversight  = Useful Solutions

REALLY?

Schekman continues by citing Louis Pasteur as an example of someone who recognized the evils of "managed science".  While it is certainly true one can identify a plethora of examples in which the results of basic research yield unexpected impacts, the elapsed time between the research and the impact vary wildly.  (Brings to mind the old story about the blind hog underneath the acorn tree...)

But a  different view was offered back in 1997 by Donald Stokes, in his book, "Pasteur's Quadrant – Basic Science and Technological Innovation".  Stokes was himself, no lightweight.  For eighteen years he was the Dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.  Among other things, he was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Public Administration, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

Contrary, to Schekman's view, Stokes, whose analysis of the interplay between unbridled scientific research and federal public policy spans the period from the late 1800s through the late 1990s, concludes that federal support should be focused on "use-inspired basic research" – research that is related to and focused on delivery of impact and results relevant to today's pressing challenges. (Italicized words are mine, not Stokes'.  Read his book for the details...)

There are of course, different perspectives on the relationship between "discovery science" and "applied research" and their justifications based on "delivered solutions" and "societal impact".  And then there's the question of the appropriate roles of the public vs. private sector,  and the individual  (or "lone wolf" ) researcher vs. large research organizations.  All of this, and much more can and should influence public policy relative to and federal funding of the scientific enterprise. 

With all due respect to Dr. Schekman,  I lean heavily toward Stokes' view.  From my vantage point scientific research (especially in the U.S.) suffers from multiple unhealthy realities and dissonant voices:

1. A weakening of society's belief in absolute truth and the value of seeking it.  The unavoidable result of the weakening of belief in absolute truth is a devaluation of the search for it – a reduction of support for research and pursuit of knowledge.  Think about it...
2. An entitlement mentality on the part of many in the scientific research business.  Schekman's comments (to me) hint of this attitude.  You can see it manifested in many quarters.  One that comes to mind is the aggressive position taken by SOME in the global climate change research community that we should pour enormous amounts of funding into the research agenda of the global climate change community without regard to requirements for true verification and validation of methods and models against real-world data (but that's a subject for a future blog.)
3. Shrinking federal "discretionary" budgets.  Scientific research comes after paying the federal debt, entitlement programs, and national defense. (Who can argue with that?)
4. A distortion of  Stokes' definition of "use-inspired basic research" by leaders in the federal research establishment.  It is very difficult to reconcile an objective reading of Stokes definition of use-inspired basic research, with some elements of the federal R&D portfolio for the past decade or two.  Pasteur wasn't playing around in a sandbox with blind faith that a cascade of useful solutions to pressing problems would somehow magically emerge.  He was focused on lines of research relevant to his chosen problem.  Things have begun to improve a bit with regard to federal R&D investments over the past few years, but I'm confident an objective review of the federal R&D portfolio would bring to light a plethora of "R&D investments" that are simply impossible to justify based on prudent public policy.
5. A demand, in some quarters, that every federal research investment must be successful.  This risk-averse viewpoint, often touted by those claiming to be caretakers of the American Taxpayer, is misguided and whispers a misunderstanding of how scientific discovery, engineering research, and technology development enterprises work.  This relates closely to Schekman's (valid, in my view) lament that many in the government bureaucracy believe discoveries and breakthroughs can be "programmed" and scheduled.
6. A focus on immediate return on scientific research investment by non-governmental entities.  This is (sort of) the opposite view of the entitlement crowd.  It is held and practiced by many industrial concerns.  "If we can't see a substantial return on our research investment within 2-3 years, we shouldn't be doing it." (I've blogged before about the embarrassing-low levels of research investment by the private sector in the nuclear energy arena.)

So, enough regurgitation of the status quo .  What are my proposed solutions?  

More about that in an upcoming post! :)

Just Thinking &
Happy New Year!

Sherrell

Post # 88: The 3COP Method – Transforming the Oral Presentation Skills of Technical Professionals

I'm a terrible blogger.  Really.

I routinely violate the 1st Rule of Blogging, which  states that one must add new content to one's blog frequently and regularly.  The optimal interval between entries is supposedly no more than one week.  Daily is far better.  Really?

Look down below at the date of my last previous posting – August.  Que pasa?

I am not a "professional blogger".  I follow "3 Simple Rules" for blogging: (1) I do not blog simply to demonstrate I'm alive; (2) I blog when I have a well-structured, fresh, original, or insightful thought to offer; and (3) I honor my readers and never lose site of the privilege bestowed on me by those who actually take time away from the other demands of life to read what I have to say.

So why no blog since August?

Well, it's not because I've quite observing and thinking.  It's because I've been otherwise preoccupied.  Two other endeavors have sequestered my attention during the past several months.  First, we've had some serious family health issues this year.  They are, thankfully, mostly behind us.  But they have deserved and demanded my priority.  Secondly, during the past six months, I've devoted virtually every free moment to (finally) bringing to fruition a vision I've had for well over ten years...

One of the reasons I blog is that I have a passion for communicating technical information to diverse audiences.  One of the most disconcerting observations I've made about technical professionals during the course of my career is that some of the finest scientists, engineers, and project professionals lack the training and skills to excel during those critical oral presentations that punctuate careers and business life cycles in scientific, technical, regulatory, and "high-tech" businesses. 

This really shouldn't be surprising, because most technical professionals have had no formal training in the craft of preparing and delivering effective technical oral presentations.

For well over ten years, I've had a vision for integrating my (now 35 years of) experience as a technical communicator in the energy and research business, with the best thinking of the cognitive science community, to create a method for preparing and delivering high-consequence oral presentations in high-stress environments (think Regulatory & Safety Reviews, Investor/Sponsor Meetings, Best & Final Proposal Presentations, Major Project Reviews, etc.).

I'm pleased to say the vision is now a reality: announcing the "3C-Oral Presentation" or "3COP" Method.  (In case you're wondering, the "3C" stands for CLEAR, CONCISE, and COMPELLING.)   During the second half of this year, I put the finishing touches on 3COP, and began conducting 1-day workshops for my clients at Advanced Technology Insights, LLC.

I'm passionate about the 3COP Method, because I know it can transform the communication effectiveness of our technical communities, strengthen relationships, promote broader understanding of complex issues, advance careers, and build business success for its practitioners.

The 3COP Workshop is an immersive training experience designed to transform the oral presentation skills of technical professionals whose success is captive to their ability to effectively communicate complex, controversial, and detailed information in demanding business and tightly-controlled regulatory environments.  If you and your company are in the 

• research
• engineering development
• regulatory compliance
• project management, or 
• high-tech product business,

the 3COP Method is for you!

Please check it out at www.ATInsightsLLC.com today!

Just Thinking...

Sherrell

Post # 87: The Cost of Higher Education – an Eye Opener

One of my favorite topics is the interaction of technology and society (thus the "byline" for this blog)...  One of the major channels of this interaction is the higher education enterprise.  I've blogged before that I believe the cost of a college degree is, in many cases, outrageously overpriced in both absolute and relative terms.  (I say this from the vantage point of one who is a product of the academic enterprise, who has interacted heavily throughout my professional career with the academic enterprise, and is a parent of young adults who have availed themselves of both traditional 4-yr colleges and the 2-year technical schools.)

I'm convinced many (some might even venture to say most) college degrees aren't worth what they cost - if one measures "worth" in terms of the value society places on the degree.  My basic metric for the value society places on a degree is society's willingness to pay for the exercise of the knowledge and skills supposedly represented by that degree.  (Now of course, the other element of this value proposition is the personal internal fulfillment and satisfaction one gains from the college experience and the knowledge gained therein.  But that's not my topic here...)  Based on my metric, it's abundantly clear a very large percentage of the college degrees being granted in this country today simply aren't worth their cost.

This morning I read one of the most insightful and damning assessments of this situation I've seen. It's an interview with Richard Vedder, of Ohio University and the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.  The interview is documented in an opinion piece by Allysia Finley in the Weekend Edition of the Wall Street Journal.  I encourage you to read it.   Provocative and thought provoking.  Good stuff.

Some have asked about my absence from the blogosphere during the past month...  The answer is that I've been very busy with clients.  I have also been putting the final touches on new 1-day workshop I'll be offering in the near future.  The workshop, entitled, "Mastering High-Stakes Oral Presentations for Scientific, Technical, and Regulatory Professionals," is a 1-day equipping event, designed to transform individual and organizational oral presentation effectiveness when and where it matters most.  More about this in a future blog...

Just thinking...

Sherrell

Post # 86: Nuclear Power – Staring The Dragon In The Mouth

Caution:  this post is extremely "U.S. - centric".  My musings below are focused strictly on the U.S. energy situation.  Things look different outside the U.S....

I am a believer in the "portfolio" approach to energy supply.  You know – spread your dependency across several supply options.  Reduce your vulnerability to problems in any one supply sector.  Some are fond of calling this the "all of the above" approach to energy supply.  And I'm strongly pro-nuclear energy.  I believe it is the only energy source in hand that has the capacity to meet our global energy challenges.  But...

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), based on the last 12 months of electricity generation data, the current U.S. generation mix is approximately 39% coal, 29% natural gas, 19% nuclear, 7% conventional hydro, 6% "other renewables" (primarily solar and wind).

An interesting detail buried in this data is that, despite a very successful industry-wide power uprate program that has yielded ~ 1950 MW of new generation capacity between 2007 and 2012, and expects to add another 500 MWe between 2013 and 2017, nuclear power's slice of the electrical generation portfolio in the U.S. seems destined to diminish over the coming decade.

I really, really hate to say it, but: Nuclear power is in serious trouble in the U.S. 

Why?  Three inter-related drivers:

• Natural Gas – the new "King of Enegia".  Barring the unforeseen, it appears the wonder-tech of fracking (thank you George Mitchell) is destined to deliver natural gas (in the U.S.) at  $4 to $6 /MMbtu for a long, long time.  (Of course an accident in which fracking is proven to contaminate a major groundwater aquifer, or an explosive growth in construction of U.S. LNG export terminals that allows us to economically export our gas might change that.)  Now don't get me wrong.  Cheap natural gas is a good thing.  In fact, the combination of reduced energy demand, improved energy utilization efficiency, and the on-going switch from coal to natural gas-based electricity production enabled the U.S. to achieve a remarkable feat in 2012.  According to EIA data,  U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2012 were almost 12% below our 2005 emissions level.  Remarkable! (See here for a penetrating analysis of this achievement.)

• Aging Nuclear Fleet – the cost of maintaining 40+ year old nuclear plants is rising and appears destined to continue to do so. The recently-announced retirements of Crystal River (~860 MWe),  Kewaunee (~ 550 MWe), and San Onofre 2 & 3 (~ 2150 MWe) are, at the risk of over-simplification, a likely harbinger of things to come.  Depending on whom one believes, as many as 10 to 12 plants additional plants are also under intense financial pressure due to the combined effect of cheap natural gas and plant maintenance costs.  Mark Cooper, at the University of Vermont, recently released a particularly interesting analysis.  He identifies ten plants he believes are unlikely to weather the financial pressures of today's "Gas is King" environment. It's a sobering picture whether or not one agrees with every element of Cooper's analysis.

• High Capital Cost of Nuclear Plant Construction – Five new nuclear plants are "under construction" in the U.S.: Watts Bar 2 (@ $4.5B), Vogtle 3 & 4 (currently estimated to be ~ $14B to $15B by Georgia Power), and Summer 2 & 3 ($10B+).  Given the current market capitalization of the U.S. electrical generating utility industry, this is simply too expensive for all but a few utilities to seriously consider.  (Only five U.S. utilities have current market values in excess of $25B : Duke, Southern, Dominion, Excelon and NextEra Energy.)  A choice in plant sizes would help (a la Small Modular Reactors). Regulated markets help by reducing financing risk and bolstering investor confidence.  But with the capital cost of combined cycle gas turbine plants hovering around $1000 / kWe (see EIA Report here), and natural gas at anything approach $4-$5/MMBtu, nuclear isn't going anywhere fast at a buy-in cost of ~ $6,000+/kWe).  And everyone is watching to see if these new plants can actually be delivered at costs close to their current projected levels.

Possible game changers for nuclear?

I can think of a few:

• As previously mentioned, should there be a case in which fracking is shown to pollute a ground water aquifer, a change in regulatory regime would almost certainly lead to a higher cost of natural gas.

• Another major accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.  Nail in coffin...  Game over.

• A major expansion in domestic LNG export terminals and the associated LNG supply infrastructure would open international markets for our natural gas and would almost certainly lead to an increase in domestic natural gas prices (presuming production levels did not increase in a manner to off-set the international demand).

• The promise of Small Modular Reactors to be more affordable from the capital cost standpoint could prove to be true.  (I'm not sure how this happens if no one is ordering them.)

• New nuclear reactor technology might dramatically reduce the capital and operating cost of nuclear power plants (I'm not sure how this happens when, in real terms, there's almost no significant investment in game-changing nuclear power technology.)

• Regulated electricity markets could expand in the U.S. – lowering investor risk and making large electricity generating capital projects more attractive from the investor standpoint (what are the odds?)

• A radically new, more attractive investment model could be developed, in which more investors come together to finance a nuclear power plant and share the risks – similar to the petroleum platform financing model long used in the oil industry.  Sounds like a "White Knight" scenario...

• Watts Bar 2 and the new Vogtle and Summer plants could come in on schedule and cost.   This would bolster industry and investor confidence.  But I'm not sure that's a game changer.

• Nuclear power could be "socialized" in much the same way other "civil infrastructure" (such as the interstate highway system) has been.  (I don't think so...)

It would be fascinating to apply a supercomputer and some game theory analysis to evaluate various scenario combinations.  Barring that, and based strictly on the computer between my ears, I'm having trouble coming out of this analysis with a picture that bodes well for nuclear power in the U.S. over the next couple of decades.

Sometimes you just have to stare the fiery dragon in the mouth.  Yes, you will probably be burned.  But you'll have a much better understanding of the challenges you face...  Now where did I put those flame-proof goggles?

Just thinking...

Post # 85: Technology, Individual Privacy, and the Bee Hive

Source: Muhammad Mahdi Karim (see usage note below)

We've been reading a lot recently about the impact of modern communications and surveillance technologies on individual privacy.  I've been collecting news accounts from various media sources and have assembled a picture of the implications of technology evolution for individual privacy in the western world (particularly the U.S.).

Imagine a day in which...

• Every phone call you make and every email you send can be monitored by governmental authorities in real time...

• Every click of your computer mouse, and every location you visit with your internet browser can be recorded and analyzed not only be governmental authorities, but by private companies as well...

• Your internet buying habits are tracked and analyzed by e-commerce entities without your knowledge...

• The camera and microphone on your computer and your telephone can be activated without your knowledge by nameless hackers...

• If you carry a cell phone, every movement you make during the day can be tracked (with resolution in some cases down to a few feet) by governmental and private concerns...

• Every trip you make in your automobile can be tracked by governmental surveillance cameras...

• Your medical records (eventually including your personal DNA / genome map) are stored electronically online and can be accessed by anybody who wants them badly enough...

• Every click of your TV remote and your detailed TV viewing habits are monitored by your cable TV provider and the "meta-data" can/is sold to advertisers and content providers...

• Your minute-by-minute household electricity usage (and all that can be inferred from it) are known to your electric utility...

• You (and unknown hackers) can control major appliances in your home from afar via telephone and internet...

• Your buying habits at local retailers can be tracked in detail (do you think those "rewards" come with "no strings attached" ? )

This is enough to give pause to even the most ardent technoholic.

Especially when one understands that "day" is TODAY...

Yes... all of the above and more are actually happening TODAY, if the avalanche of news media accounts are to be believed...

We are evolving to a point in which every individual, as we go about our daily lives, is creating a highly intimate, dynamic, and enormously-large "life data cloud" or "life data echo" (my terms).  Furthermore, unless current trends are halted, much (perhaps most or all) of this data can and will become commoditized, packaged as a data product, and either voluntarily or involuntarily made available to society.

This isn't simply "Big Data".  This is "Huge Data".

Most of what we as individuals know, and most of who we are, will become "common property".  Our lives will, literally, become an open book for all to read...

What has this to do with honey bees?

I used to keep honey bees.  They are wonderful and fascinating creatures.  When a honey bee returns to its hive, it brings its cargo of food and collected treasures.  But it also does a "data dump".  The worker bee conveys to the collective hive all it knows of value about its surroundings – thus allowing the entire hive to benefit from its individual life and effort.  Every worker bee is, in essence, both a "sensor / detector" and a source of effort for a collective community of individuals – each born and destined for a specific role in the community.

Bee hives and bee colonies are indeed a source of something wonderful and highly valued by man.  But honey bees (1) surrender their personal identities for the "good of the hive"; and (2) when honey bees die, they are carried out of the hive and their bodies non-ceremoniously dropped off the front porch. 

This makes we wonder about where we are headed as a society.  Aren't we beginning to look more and more like a bee hive?

Just thinking...


* The image above is presented under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 only as published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.