On Wednesday, June 24 Bloomberg BNA (Bureau of National Affairs) conducted a morning meeting titled A Chain Reaction: The Role of Nuclear Energy in New England’s Energy Mix
at the Westin Copley Place in Boston, MA. The timing was fortuitous for
me, my wife and I were visiting family in Maine the weekend before the
event, so we decided to make a little detour on the way home so we could
attend.
The event was underwritten by Nuclear Matters, an advocacy organization founded with the initial mission of protecting the existing fleet of US nuclear reactors. Before
the meeting started, I chatted with Scott Mozarsky, President, Cross
Platform Business, Bloomberg BNA. Mozarsky was the meeting host; he
provided the introductory and closing remarks. He explained that the
event was the second in a series of six planned discussions held about
every two months for a year in selected cities including New York,
Boston, Pittsburg, Houston, Miami and Detroit. Nuclear Matters provides
the funding and makes some of its members available as speakers;
Bloomberg BNA plans the event, invites the speakers, and selects the
primary topics of discussion.
Mozarsky was careful to point out
that Bloomberg BNA maintains its editorial integrity and would resist if
Nuclear Matters attempted to control the events and to choose all of
the speakers. Before hearing about the event and talking with Mozarsky, I didn’t know much about Bloomberg BNA.
I learned it is a part of the Bloomberg media enterprise that focuses
on the nexus between policy and business. Energy is one of its primary
interest areas; there are few industries that have more influence on
creating government policies or are more influenced by government
policy. As Mozarsky explained, participating in a series of events about
the importance of nuclear energy in the nation’s energy portfolio was a
good fit for his organization.
My discussion with Mozarsky
answered one of my initial questions about the event; when I first
received the announcement and saw the sponsorship and noted the agenda, I
was a little surprised. The agenda devoted a substantial portion of the
available time to research, development and commercial innovation.
Those are not the topics that normally interest Nuclear Matters; it
usually maintains a tight focus on highlighting the economic challenges
faced by a select subset of the nuclear plants that were built decades
ago.
It’s apparent that the public information partnership with
Bloomberg BNA has resulted in Nuclear Matters recognizing that an effort
to build support and understanding of the importance of nuclear energy
will be more successful — and interesting — if it includes a vision for
the future. Though existing plants are important investments that
produce a large quantity of clean electricity, a rear guard effort to
protect their profitability is not an action-motivating inspiration for
people who care deeply about building a better future.
The Boston
event began with a discussion between Chris Gadomski, from Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, and John Kotek, currently serving as Principle Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of
Energy.
Aside: An overheard conversation
indicated that Kotek will be moving to a new position. Putting two and
two together, I’m guessing that he will be the Acting Assistant
Secretary of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, replacing Pete Lyons, who
recently announced his planned retirement. End Aside.
My
main take away from the Gadomski/Kotek discussion was that the DOE
nuclear energy program is primarily focused on blue sky research whose
uncertain payoff may occur in the relatively distant future. Kotek also
spent time explaining the way that the DOE program helps universities by
providing approximately 20% of its budget to university research. That
description did not match some of the conversations I had at the recent
ANS meeting with friends who are nuclear-focused professors. They told
me that DOE nuclear energy research funding was increasingly sparse and
getting more difficult to obtain. Several indicated they were
considering changing their focus to something like solar energy or wind
because grants in those areas continue to grow.
During the next
panel, former New Hampshire Senator and Governor Judd Gregg of Nuclear
Matters joined William Mohl, President of Entergy Wholesale Commodities,
and Daniel Weekly, VP, Corporate Affairs, Dominion Resources. Chris
Gadomski again moderated the panel. This was the segment of the event
most focused on protecting the existing fleet of nuclear reactors; Mohl
and Weekly both represent companies that share the common experience of
choosing to permanently destroy a well-maintained nuclear plant with
many years remaining on its extended operating license.
They each
insisted that the decision to shutdown the plant was strictly economic,
but they both failed to mention the impact of a series of political
decisions on both the cost of owning and operating the plant and on the
revenues that could be earned by selling electricity in the markets that
the plant was allowed to serve. I recommend against framing the
shutdown decision as “economic” because that implies that nuclear energy
is more expensive than its competitors. That may be true when high
cost, reactionary requirements are imposed that are not based on actual
safety or security vulnerabilities (9-11 and Fukushima both added huge
and potentially growing costs), but it is not necessarily true.
The
panel members also repeatedly stated that nuclear plants are not
compensated in the market for certain attributes like reliability,
cleanliness, and fuel diversity. They talked about the fact that as many
as 20 more plants might face challenges similar to those that led to
the early closure of Kewanee and Vermont Yankee. As soon as the Q&A
period opened, my hand was in the air. I almost got a chance to ask my
question, but time ran out after just two questions from the floor.
Fortunately,
one of the Nuclear Matters support staff quietly offered me the
opportunity to talk with the speakers in the hallway while the next
session was getting set up. My question for Senator Gregg and
Daniel Weekley was as follows – “Since none of the plants with shaky
economics is located in a rate regulated market with a monopoly provider
that has an obligation to serve, isn’t it time to discuss the fact that
the experiment in electricity deregulation has failed?” At first, both
were a little defensive but continued discussion led them to grudgingly
concede that the regulated utility model with a competent public utility
commission and a competent utility provides a form of long term
planning and compensation for features like fuel diversity, ultra low
emissions, and reliability.
Neither one agreed that they would be
willing to divert attention from their current issues by strongly
advocating for deregulation. Perhaps that is a job best suited for a
independent observers and trained problem solvers.
There were
questions for both John Kotek and Judd Gregg about the future of nuclear
public information efforts. Kotek explained that his organization
provides moderate support for teacher training and classroom tools, but
doesn’t do much to add to the general public’s understanding of nuclear
science and technology. Gregg indicated that he hoped that Nuclear
Matters will be out of business in a couple of years because it will
have achieved its mission of getting people to care enough about
existing plants to provide them with better support.
The second
major panel discussion included four people who are involved in
innovative nuclear energy developments. Dr. Charles Forsberg from MIT
discussed the hybrid nuclear and gas turbine power plant that MIT and UC
Berkeley are designing with the goal of providing a highly efficient,
responsive power plant that can supply a variable level of on demand
power. Seth Grae, CEO of Lightbridge described the metal alloy fuel that
his company has developed and is testing as a way to improve the
performance of light water reactors. Simon Irish, CEO of Terrestrial
Energy, talked about his company’s modular molten salt reactor
development and Jay Surina, the CFO of NuScale, provided an overview of
his company’d 50 MWE modular, natural circulation light water reactor.
Three
out of four of the members of that panel agreed that the current
structure and funding model for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes
it virtually impossible to develop, license and build anything other
than a large light water reactor in the United States. One problem is
that the rules are directive and have been written with light water in
mind. Simon Irish described how his company was planning to license its
initial plants under the performance-based rules of the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission. Another issue is the fact that the NRC funding model
cannot let the agency be proactive in developing expertise before it
has an application with a paying customer in hand.
At that point
in the development cycle, the regulatory customer paying the fees has no
revenue stream that enables it to wait for — and pay for — the NRC
regulator learn how to regulate the safety of a non light water
technology. Seth Grae, whose company is developing and marketing a
technology designed to improve the performance of existing light water
reactors, defended the NRC and stated that his international experience
tells him that all other countries still look to the NRC as the gold
standard.
As I was departing the venue, I ran into Senator Gregg
again and engaged him in a brief discussion. I told him that I support
his desire for a near term change in public actions, but that it seemed
evident that nuclear energy needs a consistent, well-supported effort to
keep telling its story. We talked about the fact that such a task does
not have an end date. For example, no matter how well the public
understands burning fuels like oil, natural gas and coal, those
industries still maintain extensive efforts aimed at continuing to
explain their value and contributions to our general well being and
future prosperity.
I hope the following will be taken as constructive criticism.
Bloomberg BNA and Nuclear Matters consider some minor adjustments to their current plan:
- Invite a more diverse speaker line-up. With one exception, everyone on the agenda was a white male over the age of 45. The one exception was a 30 something white male. The five member panel at the first event in the series was similar.
- Reconsider the model of holding the meetings in downtown hotels. Several people at this event were significantly delayed by traffic and missed a good portion of the morning discussions.
- Add more events to the plan; six meetings in six “major league” cities is not enough to successfully increase the public’s recognition of the value of nuclear energy.
http://www.theenergycollective.com/rodadams/2243954/moving-nuclear-energy-discussions-forward