Energy Security Postscript and Next Chapter

Cross-posted from the Smart Grid Security Blog

Long-time readers of the SGSB might have wondered if they'd ever see another post. Me too. After producing an average of 1+ posts per week since its inception 5 years ago, I cut way back after leaving IBM in 2013 to give myself more time to focus on consulting. And now there's a new development to report.

4 month ago I shuttered my security strategy business and began my first day on the job at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). It's one of the Department of Energy's national labs, and it's the one most squarely positioned at the intersection of energy infrastructure and national security. Let's call that energy security.

My INL title: Senior Cyber & Energy Security Strategist - may sound a little pretentious, but it pretty accurately captures what I was hired to do. If you visit the lab's home page or the INL Twitter feed it seems like nuclear energy research and related nuclear work are its dominant activities. But while nuclear energy research and fuels fabrication were its origin in the 1940's and its historic mission, with the help of its massive and remote test range that includes grid-scale transmission, distribution and communications assets, the lab I just joined does a ton of research and applied work on power and industrial control systems, Smart Grid and wireless communications, cyber and physical security and resilience, renewables, microgrids, energy storage and more.

Nuclear energy R&D, and full nuclear fuel lifecycle work (including non proliferation) will always be a significant part of that nation's requirements, and the INL mission, but nuclear energy is arguably the most reliable portion of our non fossil fuel baseload, but INL is quietly becoming something much more - and more important - than its nuclear legacy might suggest.

Without going into too much detail, the lab's customers now include not just DOE's nuclear energy organizations, but also DOE's renewables, resilience and cyber-physical security components too. DHS has become a major customer, as the lab hosts the ICS-CERT cyber security overwatch function for the US grid and other critical infrastructures, and performs other leading edge cyber and physical security roles as well. DoD is a very large customer too, for energy, security and communications test functions, rounded out by direct work with utilities and energy and telecom technology suppliers.

In short, INL in 2014 is not the lab many people think it is. While it's yet to update its image online, a visit to Idaho Falls quickly confirms that this is one of the nation's preeminent Energy Security lab resources. Nuclear energy is and likely always will be a key element, but without making much noise about it, INL has become so much more, and I'm very very lucky to be a part of it.

------------------------------

Postscript to the Postscript post: Though my blogs are in suspended animation, I continue to speak in public, and albeit more frequently and tersely, on Twitter @andybochman. As the Twitter profile reveals, I continue to work out of my home office in Boston while hitting the road most often for DC, and of course, now, Idaho.

Good Things in Small Packages:Small Reactors for Military Power

I started out my military career working with nukes, the kind that made large, smoking holes. My attention now turns to the more productive side of atomic power, namely, power. In a new paper from the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, Richard B. Andres and Hanna L. Breetz make the argument for micropower for military installations, foreign and domestic, using small (less than 300 megawatt) nuclear reactors.

 
The authors argue that installations are vulnerable because they are grid tied (domestic) or require convoys of fuel to power them (foreign). They also point out that DOD has the most experience in this space (see USS Nautilius) and that the financial burden could be borne in the name of National Security.

They conclude that DOD should lead the charge for small reactors to meet their own needs as well as to make sure that the US leads that industry’s development. When first written the paper mentioned that most of the technology was stymied somewhere between the drawing board and production. But there is good news in the President’s 2011 Budget for nukes.

The New York Times reported that the budget contains $500 million over five years for DOE to complete two designs and secure National Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. The reactors will be built entirely in a factory and trucked to the site, like “modular homes”. Sounds just like what Dr. Andres ordered. Only problem is that $500 million is only about half of the cost to get to NRC approval. Actual production is in the $2 billion neighborhood, and that is a pricey neighborhood. Enter Amory Lovins.

Amory has often derided the cost for nuclear power as an unnecessary expenditure. His argument is that micropower is the way of the future, not big honking gigawatt nuclear power plants. Although there has been a resurgence in the interest in nuclear power, it is still difficult to find private investments willing to underwrite the expense. Maybe the development of small nukes for national security reasons will lead to cost effective small nukes for distributed micropower nationwide.

Small reactors for FOBs are more problematic. Even Bagram only needs about 25 MW with other FOBS being smaller. Security will be the first concern. If someone tries a smash and grab at Fort Hood they have to go through a couple of armored divisions and have a long way to got to get away. Kabul to Peshawar is only 128 miles. Cost shouldn’t be an overriding factor in considering secure power, but even at a 75% cost reduction in production, half a billion for 25MW is a bit much. Of course if you could produce a 300MW system, Bagram could air condition Kabul! The real soft power.

My buddy, T.C. the fighter pilot, would tell you that DOD's mission is to fight and win the Nation's wars, not spark business recovery. DOD needs to focus on conserving energy. “Reducing the consumption at Miramar by 50% might save a lot of fuel and money, but I'd rather reduce consumption by 50% at PB Jugroom even though the savings in gallons and dollars are tiny.” Reducing demand reduces risk.

All that being said, it may well be worth DOE and DOD efforts to explore the potential. It is something that may be beyond the means of commercial entities, but not government (See China). If there is going to be a market here, let us not be left behind as we have been with other alternative energy production means.

Pictured: Hyperion (left) and Babcock & Wilcox (right) Small Reactors. Click image for article.

DOD and DOE Pledge Tighter Teaming on Energy

I've met DOE folks knowledgeable about DOD energy efforts in the past (certainly this is the case with renewables, microgrid and energy efficiency activities at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar). And conversely, know young DODers with some DOE/NREL time under their belts. Those interactions have proven fruitful, because now the two biggest players in USG energy are formalizing their intentions to work as a team on energy on multiple levels, and across the entire portfolio of energy issues:

... Signed by Deputy Secretary Poneman and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, [the Memorandum of Understanding or MOU] covers efforts in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water efficiency, fossil fuels, alternative fuels, efficient transportation technologies and fueling infrastructure, grid security, smart grid, storage, waste-to-energy, basic science research, mobile/deployable power, small modular reactor nuclear energy, and related areas.

In particular, seems like the on-base nuclear notion is still going strong, especially given the fact that regulatory factors are discussed, not just technical:

Collaboration will include NRC review and licensing of nuclear power plants that are deployed for DOD purposes, and are located on or adjacent to DOD US installations.

The DOD also offers up one of its biggest assets for this effort - its CONUS bases:

The Department of Defense aims to speed innovative energy and conservation technologies from laboratories to military end users, and it uses military installations as a test bed to demonstrate and create a market for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

To me, the ability to use our many hundreds of bases, each a small-to-medium sized town, as energy and energy efficiency technology and process labs is a huge win. But then again, I don't live on a base anymore.

Partnership announcements in the business world are often more about marketing than substance. But we've been seeing them with uncommon frequency around energy matters in the normally tightly siloed Federal government recently (see post on USN and USDA pairing announcement, here). Let's hope the sum of the parts helps all orgs involved go further/faster than was previously possible.

Wonder Twins image courtesy of Wikipedia

Lovins addresses New Nuclear Power for DOD (Q&A 3 of 3)

In this, the third and final post in a short series of Q's & A's with RMI founder Amory B. Lovins, we ask him to take what he's been recently saying and thinking about "new nuclear" energy technology and articulate it strictly from a DOD perspective. Lovins is no stranger to DOD, and played major roles in both of the highly influential Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Energy reports (2001 and 2008). He's a thought-leading outsider who knows more about DOD and energy--where it's been and where it needs to go--than maybe all the readers and writers of this blog put together. That said, please read the following with a critical eye and see if it holds up for you.

Question 3: Are there any points in particular you'd like to call out re: the on nuclear energy generation potential for DOD?

ABL: Yes. Two major technical task forces evaluating DoD's energy options have carefully considered the various nuclear technologies at diverse scales that were vigorously suggested to them. Both pointedly declined to recommend military pursuit of any nuclear technology to power facilities. My 1Q2010 Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ) article "DoD's Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity" explains, with footnotes omitted:

"Nuclear power is sometimes suggested for land installations or even expeditionary forces, typically without discussing cost (grossly uncompetitive), modern renewables (typically much cheaper), operational reliability (usually needing 100% backup), or security. For these and other reasons, the 2008 DSB and JASON task forces didn’t endorse this option."

Some of the task forces' reasons are obvious. For isolated or grid-connected fixed installations, any mini-reactor would require 100% backup, as analysis of a Toshiba ~10-MWe unit proposed for the fly-in village of Galena, Alaska confirmed. Moreover, its economics would be dreadful. Unconservatively assuming the same $2,500/KWe capital cost at 10 MWe as at 50 MWe, a found that if the reactor (with capex upwards of 9¢/KWh) and its licensing (roughly comparable or larger under current rules), its installation and removal, and its decommissioning were all free, if O&M costs were half Toshiba's estimate for the 50-MWe design, and if NRC dropped the required security staffing from 34 to 4 guards, then the ~5–14¢/KWh operating cost alone might compete with diesel's, burning costly barged-in fuel; but to make even this work, the study had to make many absurd assumptions. I'm unaware of any remote installation for which a mini-reactor can be shown to be competitive.

Nor, inherently, can a mini-reactor's security of supply approach that of a properly designed network of diverse and distributed sources. The principles of resilient design, summarized in Ch. 13 of " Brittle Power", are no more compatible with a single power source than are the principles of least cost . Nuclear power does not earn a place in a "diversified" DOD energy supply portfolio simply by being different, any more than a financial portfolio should include one of everything on offer. Rather, a balanced portfolio includes only assets with a clear risk-and-return rationale.

The Naval situation is different, but not completely, as my JFQ article continued:

"After vast investment in hardware and a unique technical culture, nuclear propulsion has proven its merit in submarines and aircraft carriers. In 2006–09, Congressional enthusiasts announced supposed Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) findings that nuclear propulsion in new medium surface combatants could beat $70/bbl oil. However, the 2008 DSB task force discovered that NAVSEA’s actual finding ($75–225/bbl) had improperly assumed a zero real discount rate. A 3%/y real discount rate yielded a $132–345/bbl break even oil price; NAVSEA didn’t respond to requests to test the 7%/year real discount rate OMB probably mandates. Presumably the Secretary of Defense will reject this option and focus resources on making ships optimally efficient."

In short, as my JFQ article concluded, "The 2008 DSB and JASON studies are redirecting the military energy conversation from exotic, speculative, and often inappropriate supplies to efficient use, which makes autonomous in-theater supply important and often cost-effective...."

It's therefore disappointing to see that some in the Building, apparently unaware of the full competitive landscape, are now wasting still more time and money on nuclear power after both of DOD's advisory bodies rejected it for many compelling reasons. I hope the Congressionally mandated report the DOD Energy Blog mentions (4th paragraph: here), due 1 Jun 2010, will dig deeper than the current cheer-leading—originating ultimately from vendors desperate to find a cost-insensitive customer for technologies already rejected by the marketplace.

There you have it, sports fans. Amory's systems-based, economics-grounded response has substantially squelched my recently burgeoning enthusiasm for a new nuclear component to DOD's energy portfolio. I have to check my own cheer-leading tendencies sometimes. That said, if there's a man or woman among you who wants to attempt a public retort to these arguments, be my guest ... and good luck, you're going to need it!

Photo Credit: Edmunds.com

Lovins addresses New Nuclear Power for DOD (Q&A 2 of 3)

This post asks Amory Lovins to respond more specifically to new technologies related to 3rd and particularly 4th generation reactors.

Question 2: Some make the case that recently popular, small, modular design reactors solve many of the challenges of the large, capital intensive, centralized predecessors. These are still just concepts at this time. Do you feel they're worth pursuing ... why or why not?

ABL: No. My paper "'New Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story" summarizes why not. Again, the fundamental issue is economics. The systems needed to confine radiation and to manage and capture heat from any sort of reactor do not scale down well. The argument that offsetting and indeed greater economies can be obtained from mass production fails to note that the main competitors (efficiency and micropower) not only scale down well but are also decades ahead in capturing their own economies of mass production, so nuclear can never catch up. This conclusion does not depend on the specific technology proposed (Hyperion, NuScale, Toshiba 4S, etc.); it depends only on nuclear engineering basics and on the observed status and trajectory of competitors.

Another way of saying it is that simpler, more efficient approaches are readily available and so we shouldn't distract ourselves with nuclear. In the linked article, Lovins comes out swinging and never relents:

Novel [new] designs claimed to solve LWRsʼ problems of economics, proliferation, and waste .... But on closer examination, the two kinds most often promoted—Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and thorium reactors—reveal no economic, environmental, or security rationale, and the [business case] is unsound for any nuclear reactor.

My interpretation is that Lovins' case does not rely on fear or emotional appeal. It's not Three Mile Island. It's not Chernobyl. It's dollars and cents and other types of sense. In case you're joining late, opening round Question 1 was answered previously here. Stay tuned for the third and final question that asks Lovins to focus his nuclear thinking in particular on DOD applications. Anyone want to argue back?

Lovins addresses New Nuclear Power for DOD (Q&A 1 of 3)

In the energy biz, there's no one quite like Amory B. Lovins. I'll spare you further remarks on him, but suffice it to say, if his name is new to you, then you are but a mere toddler on the path of energy wisdom. We ran a post recently on the potential promise of new nuclear power generation approaches for powering DOD. Here is part of 1 of Amory Lovin's comprehensive three-part response to that post. Wait a second ... reading this article first will help, since Amory uses the term "micropower" as if you know exactly what he's talking about. It'll also give you a better intro to him than I have here.

Question 1 : Mr. Lovins, throughout your career as a thought leader on energy matters you've made it clear that nuclear power generation is a highly sub-optimal way to address our nation's energy challenges. Does the advent of new-design reactors alter your opinion in any way?

ABL: No. As a 40-year student of the empirical evidence on the cost and performance of nuclear power and its competitors, I see no prospect that any known form of nuclear fission (or for that matter, fusion) could become a cost-effective way of making new electricity. Even if the nuclear part of a GW-range power station were free, the other two-thirds of its capital cost would still be grossly uncompetitive with end-use efficiency and micropower (i.e., cogeneration plus renewables other than hydro dams over 10 MWe). The underlying analysis is published in "Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?" The results are summarized in the expanded version of my recent Foreign Policy paper "On Proliferation, Climate, and Oil: Solving for Pattern".

Despite 100+% subsidies, plus three years (Aug 05–Aug 08) of the most robust capital markets and nuclear politics in history, proposed new U.S. nuclear plants have been unable to raise any equity from the private capital markets—because they have no business case. Instead, the world in 2008 got 17% of its total electricity from micropower (vs. nuclear's 13%) and ~91% of its new electricity from micropower (vs. nuclear's less than 0). Micropower is walloping all central thermal plants in the global marketplace because it has lower levelized costs and lower financial risks, so it can better attract private investment. For example, in 2008, distributed renewables got $100 billion of private capital and added 40 GW of capacity, while nuclear power got and added zero; all renewables, including big hydro, even got more investment than all fossil-fueled generation did.

Of the 55 reactors listed by the IAEA as under construction, 12 have been so listed for over 20 years, 34 have no official startup date, most are late, 40 are in four centrally planned and nontransparent power systems (China, Russia, India, South Korea—China has 17 of the 21 starts in 2008–09), 55 were bought by central planners (nearly always with a draw on the public purse), and none were free-market purchases competed against or compared with their proper range of rivals. Thus new power reactors can be built only where and to the extent taxpayers can be forced to pay for them (as a few states now do—in advance, whatever they cost, whether they ever run or not, no questions asked...thus jettisoning all the bedrock principles of utility regulation, and creating the same moral hazard that just crashed the financial system). For those who reject a socialized electricity system and take market economics seriously, as I do, nuclear power is a nonstarter on economic grounds alone. Both conventional and "new" reactors and fuel cycles also have broadly similar proliferation, vulnerability, and waste issues, differing in many details but not in fundamentals. But those issues need not be addressed if the technology is clearly uncompetitive.

And he's not nearly done yet. Click HERE for Lovins' response to question #2.

Smaller Nuclear Power Plants may help US Achieve a More Resilient Energy Future

We touched on small nukes for DOD applications in late 2009 (see: here and here). Well, if anything, the pace has quickened. There's lots of talk inside and outside the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, and of course the NRC, on the development of new generations of advanced design reactors as well as the Bill Gates-fueled buzz surrounding their tiny cousins known as mini or "pocket nukes". IMHO, large, capital intensive nuclear power generation isn't going to get us where we need to go. But I like distributed energy gen, and the new, smaller, less expensive reactors could certainly be sited where needed, placing fewer demands on T&D infrastructure. Recently invigorated by a refresher talk last week via the MIT Energy Club on the current and future state of nuclear power in the US, I have the good fortune of introducing this new and comprehensive overview by the US Army’s Paul Roege on the nuclear power topic de jour: mini nukes.

Americans are just beginning to understand our energy vulnerabilities and their potential impacts to the military, especially with the help of people like Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (MD). Could this popular awareness create opportunities – not only to mitigate security concerns, but to rebuild US industrial capabilities and resilience?

The Department of Defense has been working on critical infrastructure protection (CIP) for several years, with a clear need to balance those efforts with the resource demands and necessary focus on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress is encouraging DOD to step up the pace on domestic CIP; for example Section 335 of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act calls for a comprehensive assessment of DOD critical infrastructure vulnerability to disrupted power supply, and a mitigation plan.

The best way to ensure resilience of critical functions is through diversity of energy systems and supply sources and resilient designs. DOD has been pursuing diversity through various non-nuclear alternative energy technologies. Although the Army, especially, had experience in nuclear energy during the 1960s and 70s, it abandoned those efforts due to the relative convenience and low cost of fossil fuels. Since then, nuclear energy has been essentially off the table in terms of military energy options. Alternative energy goals explicitly excluded the nuclear option, and any mention of nuclear energy has met with immediate skepticism due to perceived negative public attitudes.

However, with broadening public awareness of grid vulnerability, climate change and now military operational energy challenges, many have proposed a re-look at military nuclear energy. It’s not a simple question; such an effort would require resources and leadership support to proceed. Recognizing this problem, Congressman Jim Marshall (GA) introduced legislation last summer to address this question. His efforts are visible in Section 2845 of NDAA 2010 which requires DOD to conduct a feasibility study of this option, reporting to Congress by 1 June 2010.

The timing could be fortuitous for the country if DOD can catalyze advancements in energy concepts and technologies, given the Department’s (as well as the nation’s) recognized need for secure energy. In the case of nuclear technology, engineers have been working on a new generation of reactors over the past three decades that would provide more affordable, safe and scalable alternatives to the large light water reactor designs that, today, provide the lowest cost source of power to the US grid, but which were built on obsolete assumptions about economies of scale, demand growth and power grid taxonomy.

These “next generation reactors” languished over the three decades lull in nuclear power construction. Now, these advanced concepts could be left behind in the “nuclear renaissance”, as the US energy industry, regulated by the extremely risk adverse Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), scrambles to build dozens of reactors – choosing instead from incremental designs that can be licensed and built quickly to meet new demand and replace aging capacity.

Experts recognize the advantages that small reactors – sometimes called “grid appropriate reactors” - could bring to more resilient energy grid. The Department of Energy has established a small reactor program, and industry groups have held workshops on the topic. Foreign entities have embraced the idea; Toshiba has been marketing their “4S” reactor for a number of years.

While US utilities have mainly pursued fossil fuel generation options, which require less capital investment, the balance of nuclear expertise has shifted overseas. European nuclear generating capacity has been growing quietly and advances in Asia have been dramatic. Korea and China, in particular, have been building new plants, not only at home, but for exports throughout the developing world. US capabilities in nuclear power design, fabrication and construction have dwindled over recent decades, with the remnants of once-powerful US nuclear engineering companies, such as Westinghouse (Toshiba) and GE (Hitachi) being sold to foreign companies.

Venture capitalists are the latest entrant in the energy market. Bill Gates has announced his support for a “traveling wave” reactor concept, which would require much smaller quantities of enriched uranium and could potentially burn natural uranium or even more plentiful thorium. Gates recently spoke on TED video, making a compelling case that we need nuclear energy to address climate change. Google has also hosted discussions on advanced nuclear technologies including thorium and breeder reactors – discussion forums are abuzz with such possibilities.

This is an exciting time for those who recognize the fundamental role of reliable, resilient, affordable energy in social stability and national security. No longer is energy the sole realm of utilities – everyone is getting into the game. Americans have the opportunity to resume their historical leadership role in the energy industry, which was fundamental to helping us achieve our unprecedented level of stability and economic strength.

Scale Image Credit: Hyperion Power

The View from Early 2010: Massive Energy Changes on the Way

When you watch something closely day to day it's difficult to discern difference. But as anyone who occasionally visits a young niece or nephew knows, those kids are changing rapidly. For some reason, after years of tracking the slow and steady evolution of various energy technologies, I've gotten the feeling over the last few weeks that our relatively static energy sector is in for a major growth spurt.

And for all the great work the DOD Energy community has done trying to help the Department be more proactive with how it manages its energy issues, policy progress will ultimately pale in comparison with the seismic shifts about to hit DOD and the rest of society. You may think this is hyperbole, but ...

I don't think so. While each of these technologies has a boat-load of attendant risk, and that risk comes in multiple flavors (e.g., technological, regulatory, business), all are setting an impressive baseline that's only going to improve and likely accelerate over time.

On top of continuing steady incremental technological improvements in solar, wind, Smart Grid and storage, each of these three categories of systems could dramatically change the energy landscape on its own. Combined, they'd totally remake our approaches to generating, transporting, consuming, and making money from energy:

1. Home power generation (see the Bloom Box)

2. City (and base-sized) power generation (see small nukes)

3. Electric Cars and V2G (see everywhere, including here)

Though we still have a long way to go figuring out how to power aircraft and most tactical vehicles in ways other than JP-8, the implications for rest of DOD are huge. This could be the beginning of the end for the brittle grid problem facing CONUS bases. Also consider the potential for expeditionary energy. Will be tracking it all right here. As we always say, stay tuned!

Nuclear Comeback for DOD Bases?

Life would be so simple if we could conduct a feasibility study, find feasibility, then navigate through the regulatory processes with uncommon aplomb and install small new nuclear reactors at each of our bases. Each base would have a constant flow of electricity more than adequate for all of its own needs, including all mission systems, base housing, key services, etc. In fact, most would have power to spare should the host community ever find itself in an emergency situation where power to key facilities like hospitals would be a lifesaver.

Well, looks like DOD's going to take a run at this, thanks for a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2010 that says so. Here's an excerpt from an outstanding summary by William A. Macon, Jr., Army Reactor Program Manager:

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to assess the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants on military installations. Not later than June 1, 2010, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing the results of the study. In summary, the study shall consider: options for construction and operation; cost estimates and the potential for life cycle cost savings; potential energy security advantages; additional infrastructure costs; impact on quality of life of military personnel; regulatory, State, and local concerns; impact on operations on military installations; potential environmental liabilities; factors impacting safe co-location of nuclear power plants on military installations; and, any other factors that bear on the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants
on military installations.

Clearly, as Army Energy Security Implementation Plans (AESIPs) are developed according to the AESIS and the Secretary of Defense conducts a formal feasibility study on deploying nuclear power plants on military installations, the nuclear energy option for military power and fuel production will likely gain increased attention and may warrant consideration by senior leaders in coming years. The potential renaissance of an Army Nuclear Power Program comes at a time when the commercial nuclear power industry is actively pursuing new nuclear power plants, with 28 combined operating license applications currently under review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

It also comes at a time when there are compelling new designs for smaller nuke plants, my favorite being Hyperion's bathtub-sized nuke that requires very little care and feeding and generates all the energy most bases need. Hyperion was covered on the DOD blog some time ago, here in fact. But before I get too worked up, it's important to note Macon's own nagging concern that that the NDAA did not fully include the feasibility of the regulatory processes to implement reactor development on military installations, and as he says, this is not a trivial issue. Considerable regulatory development still lies ahead, even if all the technical studies come up roses.

So here's Macon's full paper, complete with the historical context you'll need to weigh the odds that nuclear powered bases will come to pass ... in our lifetime. Depending on your age, that is.

Whither DOE?

One constant message I've heard in my travels as DOD Energy Blogger is that the Department of Energy (DOE), originally created during the Carter Administration in response to the energy crisis of that time, is ill structured (and therefore ill prepared) to play the new energy leadership role so many envision for it in our time of multiple energy related crises. Everyone praises the potential of the DOE labs, which sponsor more basic and applied scientific research than any other Federal agency. But the nuclear weapons and energy oversight tasks which the Department also owns leave it very little room to maneuver re: adding additional capabilities.

One source that's tracking the ongoing DOE debate in DC is an online publication EnergyWashington. As EW sees it:

Several former DOE officials have begun questioning whether DOE should be restructured and refocused on energy tasks at hand: “These critics suggest that DOE is now being asked to take on a massive new energy policy function – the Obama administration’s and Congress’ call for a green energy transformation of the U.S. economy – and predict that it cannot perform both this major new function and its nuclear weapons-related responsibilities, which take up two-thirds of DOE’s budget.”

You can find a summary of EnergyWashington's recent DOE transformation articles here, and if you want to go deeper and stay tuned all year, you can ask for subscription info here.

Potential Solution to DOD's Grid Dependency Problem

If I told you there was an interesting new renewable energy company with an office on Trinity Drive in Los Alamos, could you guess what kind of technology we'd be talking about? Nuclear would be a good start, but this time with important differences:

• Small in size
  
• About 25 MW in capacity - enough for 20,000 homes
  
• Inherently safe design, built to work underground
  
• $25-30M for each unit
• Almost ready for production
  

Here's another new company to keep an eye on: New Mexico-based Hyperion Power Generation. If they can execute their plan, we may have an affordable response to one of the DSB's Feb 2008 report's key recommendations about DOD bases needing to break their dependency on the fragile, vulnerable, national grid. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, have a safe and happy Thanksgiving. I'm going to take a few days off and come back with new posts starting 1 Dec.