Decouple

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.

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.