Decouple

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.

On May 1st at 11am in a matter of minutes New York State lost more clean energy than all of it’s solar and wind energy fleet combined. This act of climate vandalism occurred in the context of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act which mandates 100% carbon free electricity by 2040 and a massive increase in electrification of the heating and transportation sectors. On the sidelines environmental organizations like the National Resource Defense Counsel chearled the closure. The premeditated shutdown of Indian point led to the building of several large methane gas fired plants to fill in the gap of electricity generation. 1000 intergenerational high paying jobs were lost and the Village of Buchanan will be devastated by the loss of work, taxes and revenue. To add insult to injury as it stands up to 50% of the 15 million dollar community fund set aside by the plant operator may be claimed by River Keeper the NGO that was so instrumental in the premature closure of the plant. The volunteer activists of Nuclear New York worked tirelessly to save Indian Point and put nuclear onto the political and media agenda as a keystone climate solution. They were up against environmental NGO’s with budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite their best efforts the plant has been shuttered, 81% of New York’s downstate clean electricity has been lost and marginalized communities will have to endure the burden of the air pollution resulting from increased methane gas generation. Their struggle was not in vain. Many lessons were learned and new strategies and tactics developed which might yet be employed to save furhter nuclear plants at risk of political closures across the USA. I am joined by Dietmar Detering and Isuru Seneviratne for an in depth discussion.

Heather Hoff is the co-founder of Mothers for Nuclear, and the mother of Zoe. She is a materials scientist, nuclear reactor operator and lifelong environmentalist.    In the words of their website Mothers for Nuclear is an organization of environmentalists, humanitarians, and caring human beings.     "We were initially skeptical of nuclear, but learned through asking a lot of questions. We started Mothers for Nuclear as a way to share our stories and begin a dialogue with others who want to protect nature for future generations."    Heather describes her trajectory as the daughter of an eccentric tinkerer growing up without a flush toilet in the desert in Arizona, to the co-leader of her campus recycling program, to her unexpected employment at Diablo Canyon as a reactor operator and her role as a co-founder of Mothers for Nuclear.

I am joined by Edgardo Sepulveda, a telecoms regulatory economist with an interest in the electricity sector, focused on restructuring and privatization. Edgardo provides a comparative and long-term perspective on the sector. We begin with the first private companies at the dawn of electrification in the 1880’s and the populist push to exert some form of public control to curb abusive pricing, including setting up regulatory commissions to protect the public interest (in the USA, the New York PSC was set up in 1907!). Consolidation from this multi-private operator model to the “traditional” monopoly vertically-integrated firm mostly occurred after World War II (WWII), when the idea that strategic sectors should be publicly-owned via state-owned enterprises (SOEs) drove a series of unifications/nationalizations: Hydro Quebec (1944); ENDESA in Chile (1945); EDF in France (1946); BEA/CEGB in UK (1947), etc. These SOEs expanded the grid and drove electrification. In the US, where public ownership never took off (with a few exceptions (TVA (1933)), the monopoly investor owned utilities (IOUs) also expanded, facilitated by rate-of-return (ROR) economic regulation that guaranteed a stable long-term return on the vast investments needed to meet demand. Starting in the 1980’s, neoliberalism and then environmentalism challenged this structure. Demand, after growing 5% to 6% annually for four decades after WWII, shrank to less than 1% in the last two decades. The neoliberal agenda of competition and privatization was kicked off 1980 in Chile under dictatorship, pushed forward by Thatcher in the UK later in the decade, so that by the California energy crisis in 2000, more than 50% of the USA and 3 out of the 10 provinces in Canada had “restructured”. The idea was that while distribution and transmission remained “natural monopolies” and should continue to be ROR-regulated, generation could be provided competitively and thus “deregulated.” So many vertically-integrated firms were “broken up” (restructured) to allow for a generation market to be created – markets would now set the prices and decide on how much and where to invest. In parallel, many SOE’s were privatized. So what is the verdict? Edgardo and Chris discuss the implications of these two models, for consumers and technologies, in the context of our need to double or triple generation by 2050 to meet decarbonization. Some reports that Edgardo refers to during the podcast, for an even deeper dive: For the USA, Borenstein & Bushnell argue that evidence shows that the restructuring hope was mostly hype in terms of performance: “The U.S. Electricity Industry after 20 Years of Restructuring” (2015) https://energy.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/07-20-2016-DEEP_WP001.pdf Given the above-noted discussion, Edgardo and Chris close of the discussion focusing on nuclear and the available options. A good nuclear-centric analysis of how liberalized markets under-perform from an investment perspective is by Koenig and Kee in “Nuclear New Build - How to Move Forward” (2021) https://nuclear-economics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-01-atw-NECG.pdf, in which they also develop one particular proposed solution (there are many). 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 and more blogs here: https://www.progressive-economics.ca/author/edgardo-sepulveda/

Environment, Social, Governance investing is a paradigm that is quickly becoming a driving force for global finance. Investors are increasingly paying attention and demanding disclosure of ESG metrics to guide their decisions. At best, nuclear energy sits in an ESG limbo. At worst, it is listed alongside alcohol, tobacco, and pornography as a sin stock. In the EU, the battle over whether to include nuclear in the EU Green Taxonomy still hangs in the balance.     Nuclear checks all of the ESG boxes, providing ultra-low lifecycle emissions electricity without any air pollution, containing all of its waste, providing high-quality intergenerational union jobs, and submitting itself to the most intense regulatory frameworks on earth.    What is the relevance of nuclear achieving ESG status? Would this change the cost of capital and make new builds in the west more economical? How would the Uranium sector be impacted by ESG eligibility?    I am joined by Arthur Hyde, a partner and portfolio manager at Segra Capital Management. In the words of its website, “Segra Capital focuses exclusively on contrarian or underfollowed investment ideas,” and today we dive deep into one such topic.