Forbes Fumbles Nuclear Football Analogy

Author Peter Kelly-Detwiler published a post for Forbes yesterday making an illogical comparison of sunk costs from nuclear plants to Mark Sanchez (the New York Jets QB). Despite providing a definition of sunk costs, the author doesn’t seem to understand what sunk costs really are.

The article references several examples of new nuclear projects going over budget, but going over budget doesn’t mean the costs are sunk. According to the article, sunk costs are “unrecoverable past expenditures.” Nowhere in the piece does the author give an example of a nuclear plant that hasn’t been able to recover its past expenditures.When nuclear plants were built in the ‘70s and ‘80s in the US, state public utility commissions (PUCs) determined whether all or some of the costs of power plants could be recovered from ratepayers based on whether the costs were spent “prudently” or not. In some cases, the PUCs found that some costs were not prudent and therefore were not recoverable from ratepayers. Yet the Forbes article doesn’t even mention this.

Even if the article were to correctly apply the definition of sunk costs, though, the analogy to Mark Sanchez would still be incorrect with today’s operating nuclear plants. The article states that the Jets pay Sanchez $8.25M a year whether he plays or not and if he doesn’t play then that’s a sunk cost. Well, even if one of the 104 nuclear units have sunk costs, utilities still operate them. In fact, nuclear plants provide nearly 20 percent of the US’ electricity and run more frequently than any other power source. The operation of these plants provides additional benefits such as stable, predictable electricity prices and avoided CO2 emissions equivalent to the amount of emissions from nearly all US passenger cars each year.

Of course, nuclear plants aren’t the only type of power plants that have had sunk costs. Dare I mention Solyndra, Deepwater Horizon, or the many wind turbines, coal plants and gas plants that have been abandoned, bankrupt or shut down prematurely?If the author wanted to apply a correct metaphor for nuclear plants to NFL quarterbacks, a more accurate comparison would be to Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or underrated QB Joe Flacco. Much like nuclear plants are to the electric grid, those QBs are highly productive valuable assets who are the backbones of the teams.
One more thing, Go Ravens!

Read More

Pruning Hooks Not Spears

It's a pruning hook.

This is from Darryl Wellington of the Progressive Media Project, writing in the Deseret News:

But the nuclear age is a suicidal age. We've had several near misses, the Cuban Missile Crisis being the most obvious. And we've almost had accidental nuclear war when our radar systems (and Russia's) have thought they were seeing incoming nuclear weapons and have prepared to launch nuclear weapons in response. At some point, we won't be able to avert the catastrophe.

Similarly, nuclear power plants may seem to provide part of the solution to our energy crisis. But Fukushima highlighted the dangers of accidents, and nuclear waste can never be truly safely stored.

The incident he’s referring to is the so-called “Norwegian Rocket Incident,” in which Russia prepared to launch its nuclear arsenal at the United States after a Norwegian rocket spooked Russia into thinking that the Americans had fired a missile from a submarine. It was indeed a near thing.

But that transition, “Similarly!” Really? To paraphrase Rocket J. Squirrel, That trick never works. To quote Isaiah, not to mention Joel and Micah, “And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.“ Domestic nuclear energy may use fission as its basis but its outcomes have nothing to do with weaponry. Pruning hooks, not spears.


This one really has got to be retired. Have at nuclear energy on its own terms – guilt by association is never attractive.

Read More

A Call for Civility and Rationality in Environmental Discourse from the Nature Conservancy

Mark Tercek

Earlier this month, UK-based environmental activist Mark Lynas kicked off something of a firestorm when he gave a speech where he apologized for his previous opposition to genetically-modified foods (GMO). It isn't his first high-profile conversion, as I'm sure many of our readers recall how Lynas changed his mind about nuclear energy.

While NEI obviously doesn't have a position on the GMO issue, we couldn't help but notice that the row stoked by the Lynas speech helped elicit a very level-headed blog post from Nature Conservancy President and CEO Mark Tercek calling for civility and rationality in environmental debates.

You can find the post at the Nature Conservancy's blog,  Cool Green Science:

Since I have become CEO of The Nature Conservancy I have learned that it is our passion and the passion of our supporters that make us effective. But sometimes that passion can be our undoing. So many of us, and others who are not associated with The Nature Conservancy or conservation want the same thing—we want healthy lands, water and air, and we want wild places in which we can find inspiration. But we come to this vision of what we want with different values and beliefs.

[...]

Lynas’s talk and website were swamped with some embarrassingly vitriolic and harsh criticism—because he opened a debate. That should never be the case. We are all stronger if we embrace science even when it surprises us by overturning some of our beliefs, and we are all stronger if we respect one another’s views.

The tone of Lynas’s speech is as important as its content. He is not picking fights or making attacks; instead, he lays out his thinking and the evidence on which it is based. This is a key lesson for the environmental community. Of course we want passionate debate and discussion about different strategies; this can only move us forward. We do not seek nor could ever achieve lock-step agreement, but when the debate loses all connection to science then the environmental movement suffers badly in the long run.

If that argument sounds familiar, you're right. Earlier this week, I shared the news that Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-chair of the CASEnergy Coalition and one of the founders of Greenpeace, was stepping down in order to enjoy a well-earned retirement.

Like Lynas, Dr. Moore was once a die-hard opponent of nuclear energy, but eventually changed his mind when he took a closer look at the science - a process that he described in the following video that was released earlier this week in conjunction with his retirement announcement:


Back in 2009, the Nature Conservancy published a study that concluded that nuclear energy had the smallest footprint of all forms of energy generation. And just as Lynas kicked up a fuss earlier this month with his speech, that study also generated some blow back for the Nature Conservancy, so much so, that they felt the need to tell the press that their study shouldn't be taken as a signal that the organization was endorsing nuclear energy.

Here's more from the Nature Conservancy's Rob McDonald:

On this one metric, nuclear power does have a small spatial footprint, as do several other technologies such as geothermal ... Since our report didn’t consider all those different types of impacts, it shouldn’t be taken as a comment on the overall wisdom of increased nuclear power. That would take another and more thorough, report.

Here's a suggestion: maybe it's time for that new report -- no matter where the science might lead.

Read More

Not Stooges of the Nuclear Industry

Here’s a line to perk up a Friday:

These are not corporate stooges of the nuclear industry.

Because heaven knows there are a lot of those out there trying to look legitimate.

To a person, their embrace of nuclear power is motivated by a deep concern about climate change and the conviction that no other carbon-free source of energy is sufficient (and safe) enough to replace coal and gas.

Write Keith Kloor’s story is on a strong topic – the embrace by some environmentalists of nuclear energy. Kloor talks to an impressive number of them, starting with NASA’s lead climate scientist James Hansen and moving on from there:

He’s not the only environmental luminary who is bullish on nuclear power. Last year, Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, echoed Hansen’s argument. A number of other champions of nuclear power have stepped forward in recent years, from Australian climate scientist Barry Brook to American writer Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy. A breakaway group in the traditionally no-nukes environmental movement has also begun advocating passionately for nuclear power. That story is the subject of a new documentary that is premiering this month at the Sundance Festival.

That would be Pandora’s Promise, one of the more interesting cinematic efforts for 2013. About environmentalists, the story misses Dr. Patrick Moore, who recently left his position as co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. It makes a bracing argument for the weaknesses of renewable energy:

This is, to put it charitably, wishful thinking. Renewable energy analyst Vaclav Smil lays out the major drawbacks with wind and solar: The energy it produces is intermittent, there is marginal storage capacity, it is still too costly, and it takes too long to scale up to become a meaningful substitute for coal.

These are problems for the industries to sort out, not stopping points. But for now, this is true and makes discussions in places like Germany so much hooey – or, to be kinder, wishful thinking.
But the story aims to be fair and lays out the most dire outcomes for nuclear energy. This is the part that doesn’t make me purr, but that could be the sign of a balanced article:

At this point, if there is going to be a revival of nuclear energy anywhere, it appears it will happen only with the arrival of new technology (what is referred to as "fourth generation" design) that resolves longstanding concerns and is competitive price-wise with coal and gas.

Well, nuclear energy already is competitive with coal and nuclear plants so have a lifespan of at least 60 years, which allows for a lot of depreciation on admittedly very expensive plants. One thing we can say for sure, the current low cost of natural gas will not sustain itself for 60 years.

The article also picks up the Pew argument that it’s not possible to build nuclear plants fast enough to have an impact on climate change – but that misses a large part of its appeal internationally, which is that it can be the first major electricity plant that many developing nations use – the choice of energy producers is much broader now than when the developed world electrified. It’s true that many countries are proceeding with the facilities they have now, but there’s a lot of growth to come – China and India currently (and both invested in nuclear energy) and many more to follow.

Still, a fair and valuable article.

Read More

Nuclear Power Plant Response to the Cyber Threat

Our nation’s commercial nuclear power plants take the cyber threat seriously.  Our industry has been developing and implementing cyber security programs since shortly after the events of September 11, 2001.  The industry’s efforts culminated in a binding industry initiative to implement a cyber security program consistent with the guidance in a document endorsed by the NRC as an acceptable method for establishing a cyber security program.  All plants implemented this program by mid-2008.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is a strong regulator in this area.  The NRC’s efforts to create a cyber security regulatory framework for the plants began shortly after September 11, 2001.  The NRC issued orders after September 11 that required power reactor licensees to implement interim compensatory measures to enhance cyber security at their sites. These security measures required an assessment sufficient to provide protection against the cyber threats at the time of the orders. Subsequently, the NRC amended the Design Basis Treat requirements to include cyber attacks.  In 2009 the NRC ammended their extensive physical protection program regulations to include specific requirements for a cyber security program to protect systems that, if compromised, would adversely impact safety, security or emergency preparedness.

So what does all of this mean?  What have the plants actually done to implement cyber security protective measures in response to the cyber threat?

Every plant submitted a cyber security plan to the NRC that describes how the plant will implement their cyber security program.  The NRC has reviewed and approved each of these plans.

Each plant also submitted an implementation schedule describing the interim milestone actions toward full implementation of the cyber security program.  The NRC has reviewed and approved each of these schedules.  The interim milestones of the schedule prioritize key activities designed to address the most prominent cyber threats to these facilities.

By December 31, 2012, each U.S. nuclear power plant has:

• Isolated key control systems using either air-gaps or robust hardware based isolation devices. As a result, the key safety, security, and power generation equipment at the plants are protected from any network based cyber attacks originating outside the plant.

• Enhanced and implemented robust controls over the use of portable media and equipment.  Where devices like thumb drives, CD’s, and laptops are used to interface with plant equipment, measures are in place to minimize the cyber threat.  These measures include such actions as: minimizing the use of devices that are not maintained at the plant; virus scanning devices both before and after being connected to plant equipment; and, implementing additional measures where the source of the data or device originates outside the plant.  As a result, the plants are well protected from attacks like Stuxnet, that propagated through the use of portable media.

• Enhanced defenses against the insider threat.  Training and insider mitigation programs have been enhanced to include cyber attributes.  Individuals who work with digital plant equipment are subject to increased security screening, cyber security training, and behavioral observation.

• Implemented cyber security controls to protect equipment deemed most essential for the protection of the public health and safety.  While full implementation of cyber security controls for all digital equipment requiring protection will take some time, plants have prioritized the implementation to cover the assets most essential to the public health and safety.

• Implemented measures to maintain the effectiveness of the implemented portions of the program.  These measures include maintaining the equipment described above in the plant configuration management program, ensuring changes to the equipment are performed in a controlled way.  A cyber security impact analysis is performed before making changes to the equipment.  The effectiveness of implemented cyber security controls is periodically assessed, and enhancements made where necessary.  Vulnerability assessments are performed to ensure the cyber security posture of the equipment is maintained.

This week the NRC began inspecting plant’s implementation of these milestones.

The balance of the implementation of the cyber security program is ongoing.  And I look forward to keeping the readers of the blog up-to-speed on advancements.

No cyber security program will be 100% perfect.  These interim measures well position the plants to ensure that the public health and safety are maintained, and that the sites will reliably continue to make their significant contribution to the nation’s electrical supply.

Read More

YouTubing Nuclear Energy From Congress

Here’s something that works exceptionally well:

Congressman Erik Paulsen [R-Minn.] answered constituent questions in his first installment of Erik's Correspondence Corner of 2013. This week, Paulsen answered questions sent in from Eden Prairie and Bloomington.

Ben, a student at Eden Prairie High School, sent in a letter explaining his thoughts on nuclear energy. Tracey in Bloomington e-mailed in this week with her thoughts on recent legislation to continue the Congressional pay freeze.

Congress folk answer questions from constituents all the time, of course, but Rep. Paulsen puts together a weekly video cast on YouTube, posting a new episode every week answering a couple of the questions he’s been asked. The straightforward video work and Paulsen’s modest manner makes it very charming and even persuasive – old fashioned retail politicking brought up to date. It’s very effective.

Oh, but what about Ben and his question? Ben, it turns out, is not favorable to nuclear energy, though he recognizes its benefits. Eden Prairie, where Ben lives, is about 55 miles from the Prairie Island facility. Meanwhile, Rep. Paulsen certainly does favor nuclear energy. His answer is on point and respectful of Ben’s view.

The issue in Minnesota is its long standing ban against building new facilities. Although Paulsen has moved to the House of Representatives, he came from the state legislature and is clear he’d like the ban overturned. The votes get a little closer every year, but so far, it hasn’t happened. There’s always 2013, though.

And hey, as long as we’re talking about YouTube, visit NEI’s YouTube page, for loads of interesting nuclear related videos. Eric wrote about the FLEX strategy video below, so that’s a good place to start.

Read More

Thanks Patrick Moore

Dr. Patrick Moore

Earlier today we got the news that the original "sensible environmentalist," Dr. Patrick Moore, was stepping down as co-chair of the CASEnergy Coalition in order to begin enjoying a well-deserved retirement. The following letter was posted  at the CASEnergy Coalition website:

Dear Clean and Safe Energy Coalition Members:

With more than 3,000 influential members across the nation, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition has become an important voice in conversations about our country’s energy future. We know that nuclear energy must continue to be part of a solution – not just to our energy challenges, but to our economic and environmental challenges – and the coalition continues to make great strides toward making sure that Americans understand why.

The mission endures, and the coalition is stronger than ever, so it is with mixed emotions that I share with you today my decision to retire as Co-Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. I will remain an active member, but am at the point in my career where I am ready to step down from a leadership role and spend more time with my family.

In partnership with my fellow co-chair and friend Christine Todd Whitman, I have seen the coalition make great progress in helping Americans make informed decisions about their energy choices. We have seen Americans take a greater interest in this country’s energy resources and become the champions of nuclear energy development.

As my full-time work with the coalition comes to an end, my work as a sensible environmentalist continues. I will continue to be a vocal advocate for nuclear energy and help others understand the clean air attributes of this important energy source as well as the many other benefits it provides to the American public.

I thank the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition for the opportunity to lead this effort, speak on your behalf and learn from you over the past six years. I truly believe that through the coalition, we will help guarantee a clean, safe and reliable energy future. It is up to us to listen, educate and keep the momentum going. Thank you for being a member, and for your support throughout this journey.

Sincerely,

Dr. Patrick Moore
Founding Co-Chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition

Like a lot of folks in the nuclear energy business, I'm going to miss Dr. Moore. Back in 2007, shortly after Dr. Moore started working with CASEnergy, I had the opportunity to interview him for one of NEI's first online videos.


Now, six years after he first started working with CASEnergy, it doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary for sensible environmentalists to support nuclear energy. Needless to say, I think you can draw a bright line between his work at CASEnergy, and the growing number of his confederates in the environmental movement who now profess an interest in leveraging nuclear energy to help preserve the plaet.

Read More