Decouple

Medical isotopes make modern medicine possible. We depend on a steady supply to sterilize medical equipment, as radiation sources for oncology treatments and for diagnostic imaging. Canada is a world leader in the production of medical isotopes and punches far above its weight.  Canada's national research reactor, which closed in 2016, provided a number of isotopes including Molybdenum 99 which treated 76,000 patients a day in over 80 countries.  Now CANDU power reactors have been put to the job and crank out enough Cobalt 60 to sterlize 25 billion pieces of medical equipment and 40% of the world's single use surgical instruments.  I am joined by James Scongack, chair of the nuclear isotope council and an executive at Bruce Power, Canada's largest power plant, to deep dive this topic.

In the West, many nuclear advocates have pinned their hopes for a nuclear renaissance on Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs. SMRs range from a potentially faster way for nuclear nations to build more plants; to a way for countries to start their nuclear power programs; to special application power sources that serve specific country needs, such as those under development in Russia and China. Yet-to-be-built SMR designs make a lot of bold promises. A question looming over the nuclear industry is: will they fulfill those promises? In this episode, I am joined by Tony Roulstone, a lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of Cambridge with 10 years of experience as a nuclear engineer at Rolls Royce, which is currently developing its own SMR. We discuss the “secret sauce” of past successful nuclear buildouts; the necessity of state funding; failures of economic policy for long-term infrastructure; the true meaning of modular construction; the trade-off between small modular construction and economies of scale; the minimum order sizes for companies like Rolls Royce to actually begin manufacturing their SMRs (10 GW); the different types of SMRs; and the current status of SMR development around the world. The result is a detailed and sober conversation on the benefits, drawbacks, and challenges of SMRs. If you enjoyed the episode, please consider leaving a rating and review on Apple Podcasts to help new listeners find the show!

We live in a radioactive world. Every minute, 7,000 potentially cell-damaging radioactive releases occur in our bodies. How are we still alive? And what are the real risks associated with radiation? In this episode, Dr. Keefer is joined by Dr. Douglas Boreham, a world expert in the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation, to tackle the biological effects of radiation. They discuss various types of radiation; the linear no-threshold hypothesis; fears of airborne "hot particles" of uranium; our bodies' sophisticated cellular repair mechanisms; the surprising mechanics behind cell damage from radiation; the elusive idea of hormesis; and the "choreography of fear" that comes from an abundance of caution at nuclear plants. Dr. Douglas Boreham is a Professor and the Division Head of Medical Sciences at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, as well as a Professor in the Department of Medical Physics and Applied Radiation Sciences at McMaster University. He has 35 years of experience researching the biological effects of environmental and medical exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation.

Intermittent weather-dependent sources of electricity need backup storage to compensate for gaps in production. Elon Musk has promised that Solar + Powerall batteries ensure that your home will never lose power. In this episode, returning guest Mark P. Mills breaks down the concept of energy storage, the physical requirements and limitations of our current storage technologies, and what to expect in the future. Batteries will play an important role in the future of the grid and will continue to improve. However, the laws of physics and chemistry dampen some of the magical thinking that surrounds batteries, putting limits on their efficiency and energy density as well as demanding dramatic increases in mining if lithium-ion batteries are chosen for grid-scale storage. In a purely wind/solar grid, storage must be able to bridge days-long periods without sun or wind, which occur several times per decade in North America. Currently, all the grid-scale lithium battery storage in the U.S. could keep the country powered for just 20 seconds. This contributes to the economic reality that battery storage is unlikely ever to be cost-competitive with the storage of fossil fuels. While wealthy nations may be able to afford to go further down the path of a "green energy" transition, these costs will be prohibitive for poor countries. The fragilization of the grid and the crises of reliability that are beginning to impact states with a high penetration of wind and solar, like California, are beginning to create some of the characteristics of a third-world grid, such as a skyrocketing demand for gasoline backup generators (learn more about Nigeria's backup generator situation: https://www.energyforgrowth.org/memo/the-love-hate-relationship-with-self-generation). This is an impending disaster for a state pursuing an "electrify everything" agenda.  An outcome of the high costs and impracticality of using batteries to back up intermittent generation is that grids with high renewable penetration have built parallel generation portfolios: one low-carbon, and the other, in the absence of abundant hydro or nuclear, dominated by fossil fuels.  The renewables portfolio spares some fossil fuels, but it doesn't displace the need for maintaining fossil generators to run when it's not windy or sunny. This is why Germany, despite spending 500 billion euros on renewables, has kept 70% of its coal-dominated fossil fleet and is continuing to build natural gas infrastructure such as the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Dr. Keefer and Mills also reflect on the timescales of innovation and the (un)likelihood of achieving ambitious 2030 decarbonization goals; the concept of "energy Lysenkoism"; the geopolitics of China's energy policy; and Mills' forthcoming book, The Cloud Revolution. Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation. Apologies for connectivity issues throughout the interview that garbled some of the audio.    

Vogtle was supposed to be the beginning of a nuclear renaissance. The two AP1000's at this site were the first new reactors to be built in the USA in the 21st century. There was optimism that a novel modular design that economized space and materials would be on budget and on time. Vogtle, however, has become the poster child of the United States' inability to build affordable nuclear reactors.  The timeline has almost doubled and the cost overrun tripled. The project bankrupted the reactor vendor Westinghouse and almost bankrupted its parent company Toshiba. Decouple veteran Mark Nelson returns to discuss what we can learn from the challenges of this megaproject. Mark argues that Westinghouse, which had become divorced by a generation from nuclear construction, created a design that looked good on paper but presented major construction challenges. Rather than learning from contemporary successful reactor builders like the South Koreans,  the company believed it knew best.  The design features of the AP1000 which boasted 1/5th the amount of concrete and steel of a typical reactor and modular construction were supposed to enable parallel construction and speed up the build. In reality, they resulted in unprecedented challenges such as working in confined spaces and defective modules which led to interruptions in the critical paths of the construction schedule.  Furthermore, the engineering, procurement and construction firms engaged to build Vogtle had almost no workers or management with lived experience of building reactors let alone a first-of-a-kind novel design like the AP1000. Communication between the Chinese who were years ahead with their four AP1000 builds broke down and lessons were not shared with their American counterparts.  The history of successful nuclear buildouts in countries like France, Japan and South Korea shows that lived construction experience and consistent designs built over and over are what bring down nuclear costs and timelines. In essence the tacit knowledge of a skilled management and workforce trumps a fancy new design especially for an atrophied nuclear sector.  Vogtle is a cautionary tale for the western nuclear industry which has recently pinned it hopes almost exclusively on the role of advanced nuclear and novel SMR designs. Mark argues what is needed is humility, consulting with and employing the lessons of successful contemporary reactor builders, building simple reactors we are familiar with and focusing on optimizing construction ease over novel designs at least for now. 

Nuclear energy is only possible thanks to a highly-skilled, largely unionized workforce. In popular culture, nuclear workers have been portrayed as incompetent (e.g. the Simpson) or as evil incarnate by anti-nuclear activists like Dr. Helen Caldicott. In Canada, nuclear generation is publicly owned and run by a highly unionized workforce. It provides cheap, clean, and reliable energy to the commons AKA our grid. Due to the energy density of fission, each nuclear worker has an outsized role in preventing the burning of fossil fuels and producing large amounts of air pollution-free and low emissions electricity. I am joined by Bob Walker, the national director of the Canadian Nuclear Worker's Council, to demystify what nuclear workers do, how nuclear energy is a uniquely potent job creator, and why political parties and many unions have not engaged or even turned their backs on nuclear workers and their unions. This interview was originally recorded for the January 3, 2021 episode of We CANDU It.

Seth Klein, a writer and public policy researcher, joins Dr. Keefer to discuss his book, A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency. Klein draws on the history of Canada during World War II, when the country massively industrialized to help Britain with the war effort in what he describes as a "true society-wide mobilization." He uses this history to argue for a similar society-wide, wartime-like mobilization to fight climate change. Klein makes a bold argument: We have tried and fail for 30 years to "incentivize our way to victory," and we will lose the climate battle if we think strategic subsidies, incentives, and taxes alone will lead to decarbonization. Rather, we need the state to take charge and institute rapid, mandatory measures. During crises, Klein argues, populations actually respond positively to mandatory measures. For example, in World War II the backlash feared from rationing and other mandatory measures rarely manifested. We have seen a similar phenomenon during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite some dissent, there has been wide support for social distancing and mask requirements. On climate change, Klein argues that people "in the main" are ahead of the political curve and demanding strong climate action. In this episode, Dr. Keefer and Seth Klein discuss the nuances of this argument, including the important question of the technological choices made during a hypothetical wartime-like mobilization, and how we can avoid making progress in the wrong direction. Seth Klein recently launched the Climate Emergency Unit following over two decades of experience at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and in various other policy roles focused on poverty reduction, social, and environmental justice. Learn more about the Climate Emergency Unit: https://www.climateemergencyunit.ca/

Gaopalelwe Santswere, a nuclear physicist and regulatory expert, joins Dr. Keefer to discuss the electricity sector in South Africa whose aging coal fleet is in need of replacement. Despite operating the only two nuclear power reactors on the continent at Koeberg, and plans in the early 2000’s for nearly 10,000MW of nuclear, the government is pursuing an energy policy that prioritizes wind and solar. Gaopalelwe tracks the influence of foreign powers in the direction of South African energy policy. Countries such as Germany, as well as regional and international development banks, have taken an active role in promoting wind and solar and creating barriers to nuclear energy in Africa. So far, the wind and solar build-out has had negative consequences for South Africa, whose public utility Eskom is able to charge electric users only 40% of what it currently costs to produce the power using renewables due to generous subsidies reaped by wind and solar developers. With industry already leaving South Africa, Gaopalelwe argues that the embrace of intermittent renewables is leading to deindustrialization at a time of record unemployment and represents a regressive energy policy for South Africans and the neighbouring countries that depend on its electricity exports. In Europe and North America, the energy debate is detached from the energy poverty experienced by much of the world. Although South Africa's energy supply is more secure than in much of Africa, Gaopalelwe brings an invaluable perspective and context to a debate dominated by voices from the global north.  Gaopalelwe holds a Master's degree in Applied Radiation Science from North-West University Mafikeng Campus, and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. He is the president of African Young Generation in Nuclear (AYGN), and a national chairperson of South African Radiation Protection Association, SARPA.

Returning guest Zion Lights, a powerhouse pro nuclear advocate whose most recent initiative has been to launch the group Emergency Reactor, joins me this episode with reflections on her activism in the pandemic; her observations speaking with more receptive, younger generations about nuclear power; navigating political media; "lifestyle politics" versus data-driven activism; and confronting backward environmentalist notions such as overpopulation and the idea that we cannot make progress on climate goals without total political system change. Check out Emergency Reactor at: https://www.emergencyreactor.org/

At its birth, nuclear energy entered a highly competitive market for electricity generation. Oil was so cheap that it was stealing market share for electricity generation from coal and driving prices to all-time lows. Despite being a brand new technology 1960s nuclear plants were hitting prices of 3 cents/kWh in today's dollars. Gaddafi and OPEC then contributed to the price of oil skyrocketing. All of a sudden, many wanted to build a nuclear plant and early adopters were reaping huge profits. Nuclear energy featured prominently in the 1964 US democratic party platform. Democrats in the USA even threatened private utilities that if they would not build more nuclear reactors the government would start public utilities that would. So what happened? The Rockefeller Foundation was plagued by guilt over its role in supporting the science that led to the atomic bomb. In fact Ernest Lawrence the inventor of the cyclotron wrote to them to tell them that “had it not been for the Rockefeller Foundation there would be no bomb.” In an attempt to atone for its pivotal role the Foundation became invested in promoting the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-induced harms as a tool to fight atmospheric weapons testing and try to force the atomic weapons genie back into the bottle. LNT was accepted by the nuclear establishment in part because of hubris. The thinking was that it didn't really matter what radiation model was in place and how conservative it was since a core meltdown and radioactive release were thought to be impossible. LNT laid the groundwork for a regulatory paradigm that has plagued the nuclear industry since, “ As low as reasonably achievable. (ALARA) What “reasonably achievable” meant was really “what can you afford?” Because early on nuclear was very profitable in the context of the oil crisis and escalating fossil fuel costs there was a lot of room to maneuver in terms of adding on more and more costly features to reduce radioactive emissions that had no impact on health. The regulatory ratchet only tightens one way, so when the coal industry got its costs under control the inflated costs imposed by ALARA on nuclear prevented it from becoming cost-competitive again. ALARA means that nuclear can never be cheaper than its rivals because it is only reasonable that it spends any difference on measures to reduce any radioactive emissions to near zero. As Jack Devanney the principal engineer and architect of THORCON and author of “Why nuclear energy has been a flop” explains, the boom of nuclear power in the USA in particular was short-lived. No new nuclear plant was ordered in the 20th century after 1974, 5 years before the Three Mile Island accident. Interestingly the safety performance of the pre-ALARA early fleet has been exemplary and TMI was the most recent design. Jack Devanney argues that accidents will happen but emphasizes that their health consequences will be very minor as dose rates that the public experiences that are even 10-20x average background rates are not a health hazard in any meaningful sense.