33. How to END Global Fossil Fuels Subsidies

A headline from May 18th from The Guardian really caught my eye.

Fossil Fuels Subsidised by $10 million a minute, IMF says (note the British spelling of subsidize)

In summary, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has completed a study of global fossil fuel subsidies. They calculated a whopping $5.3 trillion worth of annual subsidies for fossil fuels. I have not yet had a chance to thoroughly read the study, and doubt that I will find time in the near future. 

These subsidy calculations include implicit impacts from both local air pollution (see: Beijing, China) as well as impacts purported to be the result of increased heat being trapped in the atmosphere due to the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 that has been observed following the ever-increasing combustion if fossil fuels, with the combustion products (mostly CO2) being dumped more or less directly to the atmosphere. Most people shorten this to climate change, formerly known most often as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Note that this post is not meant to argue whether global warming or anthropogenic climate change exists, it is simply to lay out a simplistic plan that would eliminate, over a matter of roughly 2 to 3 decades, a great deal of the subsidies enjoyed presently by fossil fuels (which mostly freely release combustion products to the atmosphere).

The simple proposal (other than politically simple)
Most proposed carbon taxes I have seen over the years have suggested a tax of at least $25 dollars per ton. The article I linked above mentioned a projected cost of 42 pounds per tonne (roughly the same as a ton) of carbon dioxide emissions.
Aside: I should maybe be ashamed to admit that I never have bothered to research the rigor of whether these often-thrown out number are per ton of Carbon in the CO2 released or per ton of CO2, with the oxygen molecules included on the calculation. This is basically irrelevant for the discussion of my proposal here, other than being about a factor of about 3.66 off (3.66 = 44/12 : rough CO2 molecule atomic weight versus carbon atom atomic weight). End aside

Whichever method is typically used in the calculations for computing a carbon/CO2 tax, my proposal will involve instituting such a "carbon" tax in the U.S., but limiting the tax to only $10 per ton (of carbon or carbon dioxide). This cost is much lower than most carbon taxes that have been proposed (that I can recall). Of the revenues generated by this carbon tax, I propose that in the neighborhood of only $2-3 Billion per year for ONLY 5-10 years be allocated to help advance peaceful nuclear power. This level of spending will leave plenty of money leftover for other worthy causes, which I will leave for others to fight over. Despite this "relatively" modest amount dedicated to advancing peaceful nuclear energy, the amount would be enough to kickstart nuclear energy. Properly deployed funding within the U.S. would put the world on a course that can legitimately end the need for any future fossil fuel subsidies. This will eventually result in a reduction reduction global CO2 emissions and allow an increasing of the standard of living of people all across the globe.

For this reduction of CO2 emissions and increase of worldwide standard of living to occur, I would prefer to see the United States regain a top position in supplying nuclear power plants for export. The U.S.-produced designs must be capable of competing with Russian, South Korean, and Chinese plant designs, as those three nations are presently far-and-away leading the world in exporting ready-to-build nuclear power plants. I am afraid that without some fairly rapid policy shifts within the next 5 years, the U.S. will have fallen fully behind the 3 nations listed above, possibly with no hope of recovering.

2 Primary Uses of the Funds

1. Regulatory Funding Reform (combined with a shift toward Enabling rather than Disabling)

Of the $2-3 Billion annually to be allocated to advancing to U.S. peaceful nuclear power endeavors, $200 Million should go towards providing additional funding to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), above and beyond the present $1 Billion budget, all but about 10% of which is provided directly from license-holder fees. The primary use of these new funds (greater than 60%) should be to fund hiring of new employees and training staff to support licensing of advanced reactor design and fuel cycle facility license applications.

In conjunction with this new increase of funding, the overall direction of the NRC should be ever so-slightly re-calibrated, more towards enabling than disabling, with NO CHANGE to its reason for being:  "The NRC was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment."

2. D.O.E. Nuclear Innovation Fund

The funds wouldn't necessarily have to all go through the D.O.E., but more funding needs to be provided to some innovative nuclear power startups than the $452 Million over 6 years that the SMR program was allocating. While those funds should be useful, they are going to light water reactor designs, which are well-proven and probably a little less worthy of subsidizing than some advanced designs that could really advance the overall nuclear fuel cycle. These designs and concepts would not be limited only to reactor designs, but also to advanced fuel cycle facilities. 

Why Will It Work

Simple: Because E = mc^2  (E being energy, m being mass and c being the speed of light........and the speed of light is FAST, really really fast, and SQUARED; thus a tiny change in mass equates to a massive amount of energy)

If you don't understand why I provide such a short answer, PLEASE go read more about nuclear energy and energy density. Basically, nuclear power is a far superior energy source to any other alternative that has been commercially developed so far in terms of the combination of energy density, controllability, and overall environmental impacts.

Limiting the funding to no more than 10 years would make it slightly more palatable politically, although this proposal would be sure to have numerous vehement opponents who would stand to lose out in a true nuclear renaissance. The combination of several years of sustained funding, combined with slight regulatory recalibration would be sufficient to overcome the "coefficient of static friction" that is presently hindering the deployment of peaceful nuclear energy within and from the U.S. and enter a period facing only "rolling resistance" (kinetic friction). Kinetic friction is generally much less than static friction, so once nuclear power enters more of a kinetic friction regime, other sources of energy will be unable to beat it out in any properly-designed, fair market. The qualities that make nuclear energy a superior source of energy will cause it to win out in the markets it is suited for. I would expect that in this hypothetical future, that fossil fuel subsidies could be all but fully eliminated from the world within 25-30 years of the start of my proposed program.

22. Debunking Antis (Peter Bradford) - The Weight of Lies

You may or may not have known it yet, but the Wall Street Journal has been conducting an online poll regarding the question "Should the World Increase Its Reliance on Nuclear Energy?". (Helpful Hint: click on the 1st entry of these search results, the WSJ gives access to things when accessed via Google search results). The poll has been up for at least several days, and I am not sure how much longer it will be up. If you have read any of the posts here, or met me in person, you could probably guess that my answer would be a resounding "HECK YES!! and faster than what we've done during any point in my lifetime (which began in the mid-80's)".

Within the past few days, commentary from Mark Lynas on the "pro-nuclear" side and from Peter Bradford on the "anti-nuclear" has been added. Mark Lynas is a British environmentalist and has relatively recently come to the realization that increasing the usage of nuclear power is an imperative for the world to have a successful future. Peter Bradford was a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Commissioner from 1977 to 1982. He has since made a bit of a career for himself as an anti-nuclear activist.

I will let Mark's words stand on their own (although I make zero claims of possessing climate change expertise).

In this post, however, I will break down Mr. Bradford's editorial, add some corrections and/or things he omitted, and add in a video of a song from my favorite musicians, the chorus of which makes me think of anti-nuclear folks almost every single time I hear it. My strong speculation is that almost anyone who would wish to get in touch with Mark Lynas would have an opportunity, by simply Tweeting him. I imagine/speculate Mr. Bradford is much tougher to get in touch with (and I will leave it to the reader to guess how that sways my idea of the overall integrity of each man).

Additions:
1. My assertion regarding ease of getting in touch (despite an Atlantic amount of distance) has been proven true in under 12 hours.
2. Check out Leslie Corrice's commentary on Bradford's writing over at his Hiroshima Syndrome site.

The Breakdown/Analysis/DeBunking:

Bradford starts off with a straw man argument comparing the utilization of nuclear power to using caviar to fight world hunger. This is not even close to a comparable comparison on a cost basis. Additionally, many of the costs associated with nuclear construction have been concocted precisely by the actions of anti-nuclear activists combined with the timing of extreme inflation rates within the U.S. (see: this chapter of a free online book written by Bernard Cohen).

Bradford goes on to make the claim that the full impact on people's health from Fukushima won't be known for years, if ever (cue cheesy, scary sound effect). I disagree. The majority of the region around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant following the Great East Japan Earthquake has had radiation levels far below those that cause harm to humans and far below the naturally-occurring levels of quite a few places around the world that experience no negative health effects. The over-exaggeration of potential negative health effects is, from my viewpoint, highly immoral in that it has caused actual harm while preventing no real harm.  I agree with Mr. Bradford that people not being able to return to their homes is a tragedy, but I actually realize that it is efforts of people like Mr. Bradford himself that are the biggest impediment to those people being allowed to return home, rather than trivial amounts of radiation that could be easily managed/worked around.   Next

Pete B., what do 1970's advertisements have to do with anything regarding the present discussion? The Shah was basically a puppet ruler put in place by the U.S. government, who was overthrown by the people of Iran. U.S. over-extension in Iran in 1953 is a major contributor to the Iran situation today. Bringing that up has ZERO relevance to today's nuclear power discussion.  Next

"If the next nuclear-power-related catastrophe is a bomb........." - Yet another fallacy. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not a "Like-for-Like" equivalent, Pete. The bomb pre-dated nuclear power. Diverting fissile material from a nuclear power plant to create a bomb would be a far-far-from-optimum way to obtain nuclear weapons. Find another straw man.  Next

"Of course new reactor designs are safer." Thanks, for admitting that, Pete. Maybe we can actually get somewhere with this discussion. "However, safety depends on more than design." I agree completely, Pete. Operations are highly important. I mean, Technical Specifications specifying the minimum requirements of plant OPERATION make up an integral portion of a plant's OPERATING license granted by the Commission you were once a part of (a fact you have utterly milked in your activities subsequent to 1982). Oh, you didn't mention that operations and maintenance also ensure safety. I'll grant that you simply forgot that.  Next

"A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy.........."  Mr. Bradford, to suggest that these countries wouldn't be completely willing, able, and eager to learn all the things that they would need to know to properly build, maintain, and operate nuclear power plants screams of an air of arrogance on your part. People are capable of learning, particularly if the reward will enhance their society's well-being.  Next

Expense - I covered this above   Next

Quoting John Rowe - See the Rod Adams collection on John Rowe. I will summarize for you. The way Exelon is currently structured and positioned, they have basically no incentive to build new plants as extra capacity would merely hurt the profit margin of their existing TWENTY-TWO CASH COW plants.
(Lengthy Disclosure: I have been intending to purchase Exelon stock for months now, and at under $36/share, I need to do it soon particularly with the possibility of a normal amount coldness this winter leading to considerably increased natural gas demand and somewhat increased natural gas price which equals increased profit margins for Exelon's TWENTY-TWO already-built, operating nuclear plants). Next

Then, Peter Bradford goes into full-on, Tea Party market-based capitalism-mode, which I doubt he would do for ANY other topic. I admit that there is a severe disconnect between "pure" free-market capitalism and the utility industry as a whole. There are rather complex and diverse market structures involved (including the U.S. Government Corporation that is the Tennessee Valley Authority). This disconnect is not reason to abandon nuclear power, it is a reason to figure out methods of properly figuring out how to plan for, pay for, and build nuclear power plants.

You can't decide you want a nuclear power plant one day and start getting power from it the next. If you could, a "pure" free-market capitalistic approach would show, unequivocally, in the long term that nuclear power is the most cost-effective energy source.

Now the Music:

And now for a song from my present favorite musicians. These guys are my favorite in large part because I have 2 brothers (one of whom actually called in the middle of me writing out this sentence), but also because these guys are extremely talented and put tons of ENERGY and emotion into their songs.

Lyrics to Weight of Lies

"How does this song apply to anti-nuclear activists?" you might ask. The chorus starts off with a slightly obvious statement "The weight of lies will bring you down", but the part that always made me think of anti-nuclear folks was the end of the chorus, "so when you run make sure you run; to something and not always from; cause lies don't need an aeroplane, to chase you down". 

The anti-nuclear movement is a move away from technological progress. I see no way to argue against that. Turning away from peaceful atomic energy would be a step backward for humanity, and would lead to enhanced energy scarcity in a time when increased energy abundance is needed to minimize physical human suffering. Bill Gates understands the situation, thus he has helped fund TerraPower. 

Thus, I say we (the World) should run TO increased reliance on Nuclear Power, so vote YES in the Wall Street Journal poll while it is still open.

/An Aside

Also, a link that was shared this evening on Facebook titled "5 Biggest News Stories that Left out the Most Important Part".  

#1 on the list: The "Fukushima 50" Sacrificed Their Lives to Prevent Disaster (also, They're All Still Alive)

19. Three Different Nuclear Topics

1. Mihama anniversary (2004)

Prior to today, I had never heard of the August 9, 2004 event at Mihama Unit 3 in Kansai Province in Japan. If I were a Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) specialist, I probably would have. The really short (I refrain from saying condensed) story is that a condensate pipe was not being tested regularly enough, the wall thinned, and the pipe ruptured while workers were in the vicinity. Very sadly, this event took the lives of some 5 workers.

I normally like to remain upbeat and positive on this blog, but I am bringing up this event for a specific reason. A few nights ago (8/7/12), I simply retweeted an article about communities loving living near nuclear power plants (my Twitter). That retweet ended up causing an anti-nuclear Twit(?) to tweet that I was spreading propaganda and peddling deception. I bring up the Mihama anniversary simply to show that the nuclear power industry is actually rather transparent, and actively shares lessons learned. Click on the link I included at the top of this post to find plenty of information and lessons learned about the Mihama incident (and learn more about FAC, if you so desire).

Alternatively, the anti-nuclear Twitterer never did fulfill what I thought was a polite request either for a link or simply for a search term so that I could try to learn something about their claim of having lived near a nuclear plant that experienced a catastrophic failure. Without any further information, I have no place to even begin a search to find out more about some past mistakes to be sure to avoid.

Who's the one peddling the deception? There was no hiding of the deaths and injuries of those unfortunate workers at Mihama Unit 3, and there is also no hiding of any negative health effects resulting from radiation from Fukushima Daiichi.

The fear of radiation has significantly greater negative health effects (contributing to something around 761 deaths) than the low doses of radiation that could be received from the Fukushima incident itself (zero deaths so far, and none in the future that will be distinguishable from the cancer rates from all other factors). Also, I highly recommend this article about anti-nuclear advocates peddling excessive and unwarranted fear of low level radiation. Anti-nuclear advocates have done far more harm than they have ever prevented, both to economies by way of decreased nuclear power production and to the environment via the resulting higher levels of fossil fuel use.

2. Anti’s are declaring a victory with the NRC decision from yesterday

Putting on my optimist hat, this claiming of victory is probably actually premature. I think this ruling will end up applying sufficient pressure to finally stop the perpetual kicking of the can down the road on the nuclear “waste” issue, finally resolving this perceived issue. The spent fuel issue has, in reality, been a hurdle to building new nuclear power generation. Once an actual decision is made on fulfilling the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), at least a slight uptick in interest in new nuclear builds in America should follow. 

The  NWPA states that the Department of Energy (DOE) is to take custody of spend nuclear fuel. Rather than the DOE simply being a charitable organization, the idea was that the funding for the DOE's handling of the Spent Nuclear Fuel was to be paid for via a very meager tax on each kilowatt-hour of nuclear power that has been sold over a number of years. If I remember correctly, something in the neighborhood of $25 BILLION has so far been collected for this purpose. 

In reality, nuclear waste from power generation isn’t actually a problem. The high level waste that is the crux of the issue is PARTIALLY spent nuclear fuel. This spent (and future) fuel is in solid form (with some gaseous fission products embedded within the solid fuel rods). Solid wastes are easy to contain since solids, by definition, do not flow. The ash ponds at the Kingston Fossil Plant, alternatively, were in basically a slurry form. Other fossil fuel waste products are mostly in gaseous form and are freely dumped to the atmosphere as part of NORMAL OPERATION. Containing these is very difficult. Many estimates have placed the toll of these coal plant emissions in the neighborhood of 25,000 premature deaths per year, just in the U.S. (for everyday operation of the facilities).

Here is a further explanation on the decision, from the NRC's official blog.

3. Ben Heard Aussie Nuclear Debate
I highly recommend listening to this 9 and a half minute introduction to a debate held recently in Australia. I hope to find time in the near future, between my active role in adding actual new nuclear power generation, to be able to listen to the entire debate.

Rod Adams had a nice write-up about this debate at his blog.

I apologize for my lack of recent posting, and will try to do a better job of writing up some thoughts on a more regular basis. 

14. Some NRC Talk - from an Entreprenuclear Perspective

Big news in the U.S. Nuclear industry this week (other than the Nuclear Energy Assembly in Charlotte) has centered around the announced resignation of Gregory Jaczko as Chairman of the NRC, along with the announcement today that Blue Ribbon Commission Member Allison MacFarlane is President Obama's selected replacement (pending Senate confirmation, of course).  These stories have been and will continue to be covered extensively all over the place (see the following links), so I doubt I could add much of anything to that part of the discussion.

I have not yet fully read all of these links yet, so I cannot vouch for all of them. They should be solid reads, however.

Jaczko Blog Coverage:
Rod Adams take is that it is good news
Reactions gathered at the ANS Nuclear Cafe
Will Davis's coverage at Atomic Power Review

Other Jaczko Coverage:
James Conca article in Forbes (I highly recommend his recent articles on Forbes.)**

Entreprenuclear View:

In the course of reading about Jaczko's resignation and some speculation about his potential replacement (prior to Ms. MacFarlane being announced on 5/24), I happened to come across the NRC's top level Organizational Chart.  Every single position is filled......except for one.  That vacant position is for Director of the Office of New Reactors.  Of all the positions to not be filled, REALLY?  As the writer of a blog titled Entreprenuclear and as a citizen of the United States of America (where nuclear power was born), that seems almost unacceptable to me.  It definitely does not engender thoughts that the NRC is positioned at present to license New Reactor designs, to even allow innovation to occur.

NRC Org Chart, dated May 14, 2012

Who will be leading the group to license the 2 SMRs that are being jointly funded by the DOE (by up to $452 Million per design) and the Reactor's design firms?

MacFarlane Blog Coverage:
ANS Nuclear Cafe
Steve Skutnik at Neutron Economy

Other MacFarlane Coverage:
Reuters, Washington Post, MIT's Technology Review (not about NRC appointment), Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Statement, Business Week, Wall Street Journal (to read full article, Google the article title), and New York Times


** I wish Kirk Sorensen could have cloned himself to have enough time to have both maintained his series at Forbes and founded an innovative nuclear reactor design Startup.  Focusing on the startup certainly should take precedence in his case though.  Tying this all almost together, it is very interesting that Kirk's startup Flibe Energy has felt it necessary to take the route of going after an initial customer that is not subject to the NRC's licensing processes.

Kirk also found a snippet from the proceedings of the Blue Ribbon Commission where Allison MacFarlane showed a keen sense of curiosity in regards to utilizing thorium as a nuclear fuel source.  A transcript of the particular exchange can be found on pages 253-255 of the 479 page .pdf linked here.  A video can be found here, with the particular exchange beginning at about the 29:30 mark.

If you want, you can watch or read for yourself, but the Entreprenuclear take on the exchange is this, the level of inquisitiveness and interest shown by Allison MacFarlane could indicate some decent potential in regards to Ms. MacFarlane potentially being at least somewhat supportive of advancements that could be improvements on the presently utilized commercial Nuclear Fuel Cycle in America.  Her having a background that does not include growing up through the existing nuclear industry and with its infrastructure could help her to be more receptive to newer, and innovative technologies.  That is certainly far from being proven at this point (long before she could even be evaluated by the Senate), but I will choose to hold out some hope for now.

Obviously though, it is not the role of a nuclear safety regulatory organization to be innovative in developing new reactor designs (Aside: Secretary Chu, this is where you should figuratively raise your organization's hand, and stop using inordinate amounts of time and resources, possibly engaging in Vulture Capitalism - see trick above, chasing diffuse solar dreams see: Solyndra  /End Rant-like Aside).  A regulatory organization does have plenty of other processes and other areas that could hold opportunities for value-creating innovations.

It is time for me to stop ranting and get some sleep, so I will save any discussion about reform in regards to the way the NRC is funded for a future posting.  Much more research on that topic will be needed on my part prior to that time anyway.

Not sure why my posts are out of order now.