Decouple

The Taishan nuclear plant in the Guangdong province of China houses two French-built EPR reactors, the first of their kind in the country. For the past couple of weeks, equipment has registered slightly elevated radiation readings inside and directly outside the plant. The cause so far appears to be leaks from one or more fuel rods. Mark Nelson joins me in this brief episode to reflect on this breaking story; its coverage in the media; the phenomenon of fuel rod leaks; issues with first-of-a-kind reactors; the knowns, unknowns, and clues of this particular incident; and the issues of policy on background radiation limits. Despite media coverage claiming the leak is a disaster in the making, the minor fuel-rod leak is unlikely to cause any direct harm to people or the environment. At the current leak rate, if left unattended for two years the elevated radiation at the detection point near the plant would hardly amount to a quarter of someone's yearly background radiation dose here in Ontario. In this episode, Mark lays out possible paths along which this story could develop. We still do not know exactly how extensive the fuel rod leaks at the reactor are—whether it is a one-off or a systematic issue with the EPR design. However, Mark argues that the lack of a reactor shutdown to prevent expensive potential damage is a clue that the leak is just that, and not a cover for more concerning reactor damage. In Mark's words, the incident constitutes "bad industrial hygiene," but certainly not a "nuclear accident." Still, the leak could lead to political pressure on China, perhaps to implement a "zero leaker" policy similar to the United States. Mark's Twitter thread on Taishan can be read here: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060?s=20

A special crosspost from the WeCANDUIt podcast. Jay Harris, an indigenous energy consultant and proponent of small modular reactor (SMR) for remote locations talks about the energy, nutrition and water challenges facing remote northern communities.  We explore the fascinating history of SMRs in remote environments which goes back to the 1950's and we look at the possibilities and challenges of SMRs in the far north.  Jay is a member of the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan and has worked as an aircraft maintainer in the Air Reserves and in the RCMP in the far north. He was the first aboriginal person to attend the World Nuclear University program in Oxfordshire UK.  Nuclear North of 60 Slideset https://www.slideshare.net/harrisja/north-of-60-2013-cns-toronto

Edgardo Sepulveda, a telecoms regulatory economist, returns to the Decouple podcast to discuss energy equity and how it relates to discussions of energy poverty and energy democracy with a deep dive of the June 2 Public Power Resolution tabled by Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman.  Electricity is considered a “necessity good” in economics. For a variety of reasons in the industrialized world people will use about the same amount regardless of income. Given, however, that income is not evenly distributed this means that lower-income households will spend between 5% to 10% of their income on electricity, compared to just 1% by high-income households. This results in energy poverty. Edgardo describes the types of programs established to mitigate its depth and incidence. There is broad consensus that such programs have not been sufficient, and together with the climate crisis this has resulted in calls for “energy democracy”, a term first introduced by US activists in the 2000s that has gained traction in Canada and Europe. Edgardo reviewed a sample of the literature and noted that while there is no accepted definition, it tends to mean greater “energy citizenship” – broader participation in decision-making processes – and also greater individual and community control of energy infrastructure, with a strong preference for localism and renewables. A good conceptual review article is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620303431 Nevertheless, the empirical evidence is that energy democracy’s gains have been modest, and many of the policies to promote greater individual and community control of energy have been regressive – that is, have resulted in greater income inequality. Figure 7 of this ex-post review shows that 29 of 37 studies looking at feed-in tariffs or NEM were regressive and 7 neutral; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc11f Chris and Edgardo close off the episode discussing the June 2 “Public Power” Resolution tabled in the US House of Representatives (HR) by Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) & Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), two members of the “Squad.”  The Resolution calls for the Federal government to acquire all private electricity assets and transfer them to lower jurisdictional levels and communities, while requiring 100% renewable generation.   In @Dr_Keefer's words the @CoriBush & @JamaalBowmanNY resolution advocates for an "occupy Wall Street grid." Its ideological commitment to small is beautiful localism, 100% renewables & magical thinking about the grid makes a public power bill a danger to the public.  As such, the resolution appears to be a good example of how energy democracy is seen by progressives in the US and provided Chris and Edgardo with a concrete proposal to discuss. https://bush.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/bush.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Bush%20Public%20Power%20Resolution%20FINAL.pdf Edgardo’s Twitter handle is @E_R_Sepulveda

Its a basic truism but every material object that we use as humans that we did not farm or harvest from the land was mined. In the developed world we have offshored much of this mining activity and it is thus largely invisible to us. How do we decouple mining from its environmental impacts? Stringent regulation of environmental and labour practices. How does modern Uranium mining measure up?  With plans for an energy transition away from fossil fuels comes major mining implications. Replacing energy dense coal, oil and gas with dilute sources and storage mediums like wind, solar and batteries will lead to the biggest expansion of mining in world history according to Mark P Mills. Meanwhile the decarbonisation impact of uranium mining is uttlery overlooked.  Uranium has by far the lowest mining impact per unit of energy of any comparable fuel source. Several mines in Saskatchewan, Canada, that occupy a tiny land footprint produce enough Uranium to supply 20% of the world's nuclear power fleet which provides 4% of global primary energy. Thus Saskatchewans uranium mines can meet almost 1% of global primary energy demand.  Jerry Grandey was previously the CEO of Cameco Corporation, one of the world’s largest Uranium producers. In 2011, he was nominated for the Oslo Business for Peace Award in recognition of his efforts to facilitate the dismantling of 20,000 Russian warheads (The Megatons to Megawatts program), with the resulting uranium used in nuclear energy plants for the generation of electricity.

Humanity has emitted over 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, raising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from 280 to 417ppm. Every year, we add another 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, meaning that in 20 years we will double our total emissions.  There are signs that global emissions are plateauing, and many governments around the world have penned ambitious commitments to reach net zero. However, talk is cheap, and many plans hinge on dubious assumptions around the role of bioenergy with CCS for example.  There has been a shift in the climate debate with by and large an abandonment of the “denier” position and a growth in the lukewarmist camp, which acknowledges the reality of anthropogenic climate change but minimizes its consequences. In a previous episode with Mark Lynas, we explored what 1-6 degrees of warming looks like in terms of its impacts on humanity and the environment. Today, we do our best to understand the probabilities of reaching 3+ degrees of warming. How has climate modeling held up over the years? How likely are phenomena like methane clathrates to act as a significant positive feedback mechanism? Will the climate stabilize if and when we reach zero emissions?  Zeke Hausfather is a climate scientist and energy systems analyst whose research focuses on observational temperature records, climate models, and mitigation technologies. He was the senior climate analyst at Project Drawdown, and the US analyst for Carbon Brief. He has master's degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and a Ph.D. in climate science from the University of California, Berkeley.

Isabelle Boemeke, the nuclear influencer behind Isodope, joins me again to talk about Diablo Canyon, her experience as an unconventional advocate, staying positive, being honest about nuclear power, meeting people where they are in their understanding of nuclear power, dealing with false accusations, and how her communication styles vary between platforms. We also reflect on the women in nuclear advocacy who are leading the efforts to keep Diablo Canyon from an early demise.

The Byron and Dresden nuclear plants, which supply 30% of Illinois CO2-free energy will power down in 4 months without government intervention. These plants, which are licensed to operate well into the future, are uneconomic amid deregulated energy markets and the cheap natural gas unlocked by the fracking revolution. Keeping existing nuclear plants operating in the northeast USA has a carbon abatement cost of $25/ton of CO2. This is half the social cost of carbon in Biden's proposed carbon tax of around $50/ton.    By comparison, rooftop solar costs $800/ton and utility wind and solar $300/ton. As Robert Bryce has pointed out, solar gets 250x and wind 160x more in federal tax credits than nuclear per unit of energy produced. In a number of jurisdictions, legislators have recognized the important contribution of nuclear to grid resiliency, decarbonization, and clean air with measures like Zero Emissions Credits. In some areas these subsidies have paradoxically decreased the cost of electricity.  The Biden administration has committed itself to a decarbonized power system by 2035. There are mixed signals from his administration of their perception of the importance of nuclear energy to have a chance at achieving this ambitious goal. Senator Joe Manchin has urged Biden to support the continued operation of the US fleet and Jennifer Granholm, the DOE secretary, has floated the idea of federal subsidies to keep existing nuclear plants open. However, firm commitments to creating effective policy that can preserve the 50% of all US clean energy that nuclear provides are lacking. If Byron and Dresden are allowed to close, they will be replaced largely by imported fossil fuels with their accompanying pollution and carbon emissions. In this context Madi and a group of committed volunteers are leading an all-out effort to save the Byron and Dresden Nuclear plants, the zero-air pollution and zero-emissions energy they provide, and the thousands of union jobs that are on the line. Sadly they are opposed by environmental NGOs, like the NRDC, which recently danced on the grave of Indian Point, which had provided 2.5x the amount of zero-carbon power as the entire New York wind and solar fleet. To learn more about the campaign to save Byron and Dresden follow @Madi_Czerwinski and the @Campaign_GND, @ByronDresden, and check out https://savebyron.com/ https://saveilnuclearpower.com/

In New England it has been calculated by Reiner Khur that the carbon abatement cost of rooftop solar is 800$/ton, utility wind and solar ~300$/ton and keeping existing nuclear on line ~25$/ton. In the context of a social cost of carbon and proposed carbon tax of 50$/ton the premature closure of Indian Point is a shocking indictment of the environmental NGO's that fought so hard to kill the plant. We need to add new generation to the grid not because of a growing demand for electricity but rather the need to replace our fossil fleet and “electrify everything” to get as close as possible to zero emissions. In this light the key metric by which we should judge the various decarbonisation tools from energy efficiency retrofits at our disposal is the carbon abatement cost. I am joined by Edgardo Sepulveda, a telecoms regulatory economist based in Toronto with an interest in energy economics, for another deep-dive into the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and carbon abatement costs. The SCC is an economic construct that estimates the long-term global monetary effect of emitting a ton of carbon today, relative to a baseline. It is calculated using Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) that estimate future population and economic growth, corresponding climate changes, a “damages” function that monetizes climate changes, and a discount rate to bring all those future monetary losses from climate change due to an extra ton of carbon emitted today to current dollars. Chris and Edgardo discuss how the SCC has been around for 20-30 years and is one of the bases for setting the level of carbon taxes. They discuss how the SCC deals with uncertainty, and how new reserchers are dealing more seriously with intra and inter-generational equity considerations. The Biden administration just re-established the SCC at US$51/Ton CO2 The abatement costs is a related concept that estimates the monetary cost now of not having emitting carbon. It can be calculated for any program or technology (the numerator) against a baseline (the denominator). Conceptually, think how one kWh of nuclear with a price of USD$0.07/kWh (in Ontario) if it displaces kWh gas (the baseline with carbon intensity ≈600g/kWh), you get an abatement cost of $116/ton; if it displaced kWh coal (≈950g/kWh) the cost is $74/ton. Here is a review article looking at abatement costs, including the difference between statics and dynamic concepts https://www.aeaweb.org/articles/pdf/doi/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 It is critical to be clear-eyed about how the numerator and denominator are being calculated, and especially whether actual “full” prices, with subsidies and all, are used, rather than some theoretical levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). For example, the 2021 peer-reviewed study shows that based on average wind price in Ontario of USD$0.12/kWh, the associated abatement cost is USD$290/ton. https://www.econ.queensu.ca/sites/econ.queensu.ca/files/wpaper/qed_wp_1440.pdf Solar costs in Ontario are even higher, at USD$0.38/kWh; given past policies to install wind and solar at inflated costs, electricity prices in Ontario become a political liability and successive Governments enacted extreme measures. Edgardo’s Twitter handle is @E_R_Sepulveda Edgardo’s take on the Ontario electricity sector is here https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/power-people

Adam Blazowski is a co-founder of the Polish pragmatic environmentalist group FOTA4Climate. FOTA came together in 2018 out of frustration with the limits of the mainstream environmental movement. The organization includes a broad spectrum of experts and activists ranging from energy analysts to herpetologists and characterizes itself as a “tech agnostic group.” FOTA are supportive of nuclear energy not because of a bias towards the technology but rather because they believe it is the most effective means to the end of preserving bio-diversity, mitigating climate change and maintaining human development. Poland is a highly fossil-fuel dependent country, with 80% of its electricity generated by coal. As these plants reach the end of their life, and climate and air pollution become more pressing concerns, there is growing support for nuclear energy as a replacement on climate and energy independence grounds. Adam and I explore wheter there is a role for wind as a transition technology and fuel sparing tool in the context of such a fossil fuel heavy grid or will increased investment in wind lock in natural gas infrastructure that will become difficult to retire for economic reasons? We examine why Poland has no nuclear energy while its neighbour Ukraine gets 50% of its electricity from nuclear despite the Chernobyl accident? We explore some of the underlying geopolitics facing Poland with a need for energy independence from both Russia and Germany. We also discuss the EU politics, the green taxonomy with its loopholes that favour the use of biomass and what it means for the funding of nuclear projects in Poland. Adam explains that with the nuclear shutdowns in Sweden and Germany these countries are increasingly importing Polish coal-fired electricity to meet their shortfalls.  Fota4Climate is a small but growing volunteer grassroots organization which on a shoestring budget has managed to do impressive on-the-ground activism. They participate regularly in climate events and even staged a protest against the closure of the Phillipsburg Nuclear power plant in Germany with 20 Poles traveling over 800 kilometers to condemn the climate vandalism of the AtomExit. Adam Blazowski is a founder of the Polish pragmatic environmentalist group FOTA. He is a software engineer, manager, author and activist with over 15 years working in energy efficiency, smart cities, renewable energy, and advocacy for tech agnostic decarbonisation.

Carbon capture and storage. Loved by some, hated by others, essential to many an energy transition modeller for achieving net zero emissions. On today's show we explore some of the science and engineering challenges underlying Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS.) We look at CO2 capture at the stack, from the air and oceans examining the technical possibilities, the energy and material costs and the scaling difficulties.    The history of human influence on the climate system is thought to predate the industrial revolution. For example the Little Ice Age is correlated to massive human population die offs and accompanying reforestation secondary to the Black Death and old world diseases running rampant in the Americas.   Since the industrial revolution the burning of fossil fuels has taken us from an atmospheric concentration of 280ppm to 417ppm of CO2 with an accompanying 1C increase in global average temperatures. The laws of thermodynamics make reversing our centuries long liberation of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon unimaginably difficult. Enslaving carbon by emitting a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere to power an army of machines and chemical processes has brought humanity unimaginable wealth, freed slaves and extended lifespans but threatens future prosperity. Truly reverse engineering that process to put that CO2 back underground comes with a near impossible price tag, new infrastructure and energy requirements.   Keeping carbon in the ground and abating emissions as much as possible is an urgent matter however many environmentalists and climate activists chearlead the closure of zero emissions nuclear plants like Indian Point last week. An ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure but in a global society utterly dependent on fossil fuels for energy, transportation, cement, steel, fertilizer and many other vital processes is CCS part of the solution?   I am joined by Sean Wagner a materials engineer with a masters of science in engineering focused on nanotechnology from the University of Alberta. Sean is a master science communicator and lead writer and editor at the Alberta Nuclear Nucleus, a co-founder of Canadians for Nuclear Energy and the lead science advisor for the Decouple Podcast.