Agnostic to Advocate

Steve Verhey last evening delivered a clear picture of the promise of the PNW nuclear industry and recounted his own journey from agnostic to advocate. His presentation was provocative, by intent, to invite us to evaluate the case for and against nuclear’s role in the power grid. (Email me if you would like the links to the recording.)

It is perhaps inescapable to compare nuclear with wind and solar. Deployment time, cost of resultant power, decommissioning expenses, comparative subsidies, carbon footprint and so forth are all part of this analysis. Current numbers make nuclear power more expensive than wind and solar. Unfortunately, last evening arguments went beyond dueling data to questioning Steve’s integrity. This is out of order. Noting “a different point of view” suffices.

The numbers will sort themselves out, as long as we cost out knowable externalities. Nuclear does things a bit differently than wind and solar and offers advantages that for some utilities may be worth a premium. Or not. Steve’s point is that our highest priority is decarbonization and we should view nuclear favorably as alternative to coal and gas. Several other participants underlined that cost is not the only criterion and that we should not catch ourselves up in an either-or choice – it should be wind and solar and storage and nuclear on the table.

My thanks to Steve for putting issues on our agenda and inviting us to carry the conversation further.

Don

25 June 2021

Nuclear Energy 450: A Study Guide

Nuclear Energy 450: A Study Guide
 

Recording of the CCL program on nuclear energy is now available. Email me if you would like a copy. Our other resource is PNNL’s study.

Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA, 2019) is a key complication to breaching the Lower Snake River dams, and important context to evaluating nuclear energy.

CETA eliminates coal-fired power plants by 2025, makes retail power greenhouse gas (GHG) neutral by 2030, and GHG-free by 2045. CETA removes about 5,000 MW from Washington’s supply in the next year or so. Natural gas goes out starting 2030 for another 6,000 MW. Breaching the Lower Snake River dams removes another 1,200 MW. Total PNW supply is about 30,000 MW.

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council when it adopted its current Plan 7 called for only modest increase in demand and was in no panic about meeting the increase with demand management; i.e., conservation measures. This was before Tesla, Bolt and the 2021 legislature. Conversion to EV is now the priority, and is a demand driver.

Enter SMRs (small, modular reactors). Can nuclear replace the LSR dams and coal and natural gas? Or, better, are they necessary?

What are our metrics for nuclear?

*Cost to plan, build and operate per MWH (Levelized Cost of Electricity). How much does its power cost relative to renewables. (Reader’s note: $100 per MWh is $0.10 per kwh, about what I pay for residential power.)

*Time to bring to production: How nimble is nuclear? Can it be up and running in time to make a difference?

*Performance: ability to provide baseload and dispatchable energy – gear up and down smoothly and rapidly. What do we really need? Is four hours backup sufficient, or are talking about much longer periods?

Other notes:
The CCL report addresses safety, GHG, and habitat of nuclear relative to other energy sources. It is persuasive. It also brings up the real estate dimension: nuclear consumes 400 times less land per kwh than wind or solar.  We have not come to terms to how much area we require for sufficient solar and wind power production to replace fossil fuel sources, nor where the projects are sited.

The PNNL report brings up geothermal. We need more information. We have geothermal resources in the region and PNNL says that geothermal’s Levelized Cost of Electricity is competitive.
 

Don

16 June 2021

Can Nuclear Replace the Dams?

Can Nuclear Replace the Lower Snake River dams?

Key to planning for life after the Lower Snake River dams, of course, is to assure our power supply. Whenever we have looked at the power grid we have been reassured by the dollars, mostly private,  invested in solar, wind, storage, and market integration. Nuclear for the most part has been in the background, hobbled by long construction timelines, cost overruns, concerns whether the eventual price would be competitive, and always safety and waste storage.

Is it time to look again at nuclear? Is there a “new nuclear” that answers the persistent questions while delivering reliable base power load at a competitive price, and that can offer solid sustainability credentials?

This month the Ag and Rural Caucus is teaming with Steve Verhey, chair of the Environment and Climate Caucus to brief us on the contemporary nuclear energy industry.  

Our usual meeting remains Thursday 24 June. This time, though, we advertise as well an earlier meeting on Monday 7 June hosted by the Yakima Citizen’s Climate Lobby: “How can Advanced Nuclear Energy can help protect the Climate?” Details are here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1029569777573239. Or, Register for this online discussion at http://bit.ly/ccl-nuclear-june-7 (pre-registration required; Zoom link will be sent to you after you register).

Steve will tailor the 24 June presentations to build on the CCL meeting and adapt the conversation to our interests.

I urge to take advantage of these two meetings.

Don

2 June 2021

Sour Neglect

Benign Neglect Turns Sour

This last session in Olympia left those of us in peripheral Washington (i.e., outside the Puget Sound littoral) concerned about the majority’s inattention to us, our needs and interests. This neglect we generously assumed to be benign. Puget Sound folks simply do not know us and they have their own agendas.

Last evening, we got a picture of benign neglect gone sour.

Willapa Bay oyster growers farm their own ground. Their ground, or beds, is degraded by burrowing shrimp. Some beds are damaged to the point of economic abandonment. Economic damage equates to lost jobs and incomes in Pacific County.

Burrowing shrimp populations in the 1990’s were controlled by carbaryl (Sevin) on selected beds. Carbaryl is old-school technology. It is tough stuff. It was removed from household use due to its toxicity. (I remember my mother using it on elder bugs.)

In 1992 Ecology approved continued use carbaryl on oyster fields, increasing the annual use from 400 to 800 acres. Carbaryl is deadly to Dungeness crab, but DOE judged that
Impacts of the application of carbaryl on Dungeness crab are mitigated for by the replacement of burrowing shrimp habitat with oyster habitat. The habitat generated by oyster culture appears to more than offset crab killed by carbaryl spraying. (emphasis added.)

No such balancing greeted the oyster farmers request to substitute Imidacloprid for carbaryl.

Imidacloprid (uh-mi-duh-klow-pruhd) is a neonicotinoid insecticide widely used to control fleas, bed bugs, termites…and burrowing shrimp. DOE in 2018 denied the oyster growers request to use Imidacloprid. Reversing its 1992 judgement, DOE cited disruptions to the sediment quality and food web: “Based on the  mounting scientific evidence of imidacloprid negative impact on the environment…”

Gone was any concession that oyster habitat contributed to the food web and environmental quality.

We can argue about neonicotinoids – and DOE fielded some 3,000 public comments – and probably even agree that it is not good to use neonic’s around bees. Indisputable, though, is the oyster growers’ sense that they were thrown under the bus in pursuit of a political agenda driven by Olympia. Ask them, and they will tell you.

Neglect ceases to be benign when adverse actions are taken in full knowledge of the consequent damage. Add disrespect to the damage and you have passionate political kickback. (The chat box last evening addressed the “villainization” of farmers, and not just oyster farmers.)

Southwest Washington is not new to these questions. Ecology in January denied permits for NW Innovation Works in Kalama, a $2 billion methanol project that pitted environmental issues against jobs and incomes. Again, balancing was in dispute. Studies “found a ‘high likelihood’ that the project would slow the rise in global greenhouse gas emissions in the methanol industry” but the studies were discounted by Ecology: “state officials cast doubt on those findings, saying they were based on an analysis of future markets that were difficult to predict”.

Both Kalama and Willapa Bay are in LD 19, which turned from blue to red in 2020. Any surprise? (Kalama is actually a couple miles upriver from LD 19.)

Environment/economy balancing is always difficult. This is why process is so critical. The process must be transparent, rule-governed, and fact-based. Transparency applies to external political agendas. Exclusion of politics is unrealistic and not even desirable, but agendas need to be put above the table.

Good process can dampen passion but legitimate disagreements do survive. Where process ends, good judgement and good heart step up.

Don

27 May 2021

Shiny object

Shellfish Farming 101
Mike Nordin, Pacific County/Gray’s County Conservation District

 

European Green Crab, or Raving Mad Crab…this is the shiny object to catch your attention.

No question that Mike Nordin will talk at least in passing about the green crab and burrowing shrimp but we do him and the industry a disservice by focusing on the dramatic. The Shellfish Industry is lot like land-based agriculture where labor, markets, pricing, product quality and differentiation, branding, environmental regulation, and a whole list of business concerns make farming a business, sometimes small, sometimes big, always risky.

Just the same, Shellfish farming for most of us is exotic enough to pique our interest.

Mike will weave us through both the familiar and the remarkable about the Shellfish Industry in his home country of Willapa Bay and Gray’s Harbor.

Put us on your calendar. And spoiler alert, I will send a couple of reminders next week.

Don

5/20/2021

Shellfish Farming 101

Mike Nordin, Pacific County/Gray’s County Conservation District

How Oysters are like Cattle
 

Join our next “Year-in-the-live-of” series. Mike Nordin, Director of the Pacific/Gray’s Harbor Conservation District, to find out how oysters and cattle are alike. Mike will give us a Shellfish 101 lesson along with a picture of life on Willapa Bay.

The oysters and cattle teaser is not accidental. The Washington Cattlemen’s Association inaugurated this series on our natural resource industries in February. The focus is not on an issue but on the industry and its people, its fundamentals and challenges, its heritage and its future.

Going to Willapa Bay for this program represents ARC’s respect for its neighbors in rural Washington. Even if you don’t particularly care about shellfish join us to learn about people trying to make a living, just like  you. Join us to enjoy the diversity that is Washington State agriculture.


Don

Simpson Plan

25 April 2021
(Preview of Op Ed for Capital Press)
 

The Simpson Plan does everything the Ag and Rural Caucus asked for: 1) puts up dollars up front to mitigate all foreseeable costs on eastern Washington residents, 2) provides time to make good on the mitigation guarantees, and 3) seals off the mainstem of the Columbia from discussion.

Fish advocates get the dams breached. Farmers are guaranteed grain transportation at the same cost as using barges . Ports are bought out of stranded assets. Power supply is assured.

What’s not to like? Well, fish advocates are upset by the Plan’s moratorium on litigation. They are correct. The Plan reaches too far. So, fix it. The economic stakeholders do not believe the guarantees. So, work at making the guarantees iron-clad.

It is now time to talk and deal.

And it is time to lead, and remember not everyone has been heard. I was talking to folks in Pomeroy the other day and asked them what they thought about the Simpson Plan. They wanted to talk. Even when I thought I had anticipated their questions, they returned to saying what was on their minds. This conversation is going to take time. We need to start, now. People on Main Street need to catch up and we – advocates of dam breaching and proponents of the dams alike – need to engage them in constructive conversation. We do not need to reinforce their bias. We do need to sketch out paths forward.

And we need to be honest with people. Breaching dams may not restore the salmon runs. We are grasping for something to do. Fish passage is not the question it was even five years ago. The Corps has done everything we have asked to maximize survivability of smolt going downriver. Increased spill, yes. By-pass structures, yes. Releases from Dworshak to cool the pools, yes. We now critique the increased time for smolt from Idaho to transit the slack pools to the Columbia bar. Upstream passage has not been an issue for years. Fish ladders work predictably for adult salmon. There just are not enough salmon returning. We ratepayers via BPA have spent billions restoring habitat. We thought it was effective but apparently not effective enough.

Breaching the dams is a little like looking under the street lamp for your lost keys. We can do something about the dams. We cannot do much about climate change and its effect on ocean conditions for the salmon. The Gulf of Alaska is getting warmer and more acidic as its surface waters absorb excess CO2. Salmon runs up and down the coast are stressed regardless of whether they are dammed. The Snake run happens to be among the most stressed.

Being honest means acknowledging that removing the dams is not sufficient to restore the salmon. Being honest also means that we are not quite sure why dam removal is necessary but it is what we can do.

Why disable perfectly good dams? Good question but the wrong one. The question is that when the courts remove the dams – because the salmon are listed under Endangered Species Act and are not surviving –  what will we have? No one will stand in line to bail us out. We will not have a functioning alternative to barging. Power security may be iffy. The Port of Lewiston walks away from its seaport investment. Ice Harbor irrigators look to the banks to finance reconfiguring their intakes. This is what the Berk Consulting group this week called the “Litigation Risk: dam removal without commensurate investment.”

The same scenario plays out if shifting political winds beat the courts to it. We came close to political preemption when the survival of the Orcas was laid on removal of the Lower Snake River dams. Will the next generation of state-wide political leaders show the same deference to local sentiment? The future of the Lower Snake River dams rides more on the impatience of Puget Sound voters than on the stubbornness of eastern Washington politicians.

The logic of the Simpson Plan is to take the cost out of losing the dams. The Plan is not calling for our hearts and souls. It is a cool-headed proposal to use federal dollars to fund a smart strategic plan.


Don

Biochar: Terra Preta

Terra Preta: Manaus to Twisp

Biochar, or Terra Preta (Dark Earth) – the name carries a mysterious aura. It goes back 2,500 years to the Amazon. Re-discovered in 1950’s by Indiana Jones archeologists it is now at the cutting edge of soil treatment remedies to restore soil organic carbon, buffer soil pH, and increase soil water retention.

Jeff Thiel will brief us on the chemistry and promise of biochar as a soil amendment. Lab work, or charcoal pits in the Amazon, needs to be brought down to production, distribution, and application in farmer fields. Gina and Tom McCoy bring a business plan to our discussion. They are working in the Methow to use forest waste as a feedstock for commercial production . They are the real cutting edge in this business. They are the entrepreneurs, the risk takers, in making the promise of biochar available to farmers in central Washington.

Use the links for more information. Don’t worry if you are new to biochar. We all are. This topic has a bit for many of us: chemists, archeologists, soil physicists, regenerative ag enthusiasts, farmers, business analysts, policy advocates…
 

Don