Nuclear Street Interview with Dr. James Conca, Co-Author Of THE GEOPOLITICS OF ENERGY

An Exclusive Nuclear Street Interview with Dr. James Conca, co-author of THE GEOPOLITICS OF ENERGY:  ACHIEVING A JUST AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DISTRIBUTION BY 2040 by Judith Wright and James Conca

- by Randy Brich -

Dr. James Conca is a fountainhead of knowledge when it comes to energy; and, when it comes to waste disposal he is an expert.   

His extremely readable and thought-provoking book (see review below) provides a roadmap for the world to follow which leads not only to U.S. energy independence but also to an equitable and renewable energy distribution by 2040.  Since 2040 really isn’t all that far off and new energy policies are being shaped practically daily, now is an excellent time to probe Dr. Conca’s creative mind for solutions to tomorrow’s energy dilemmas today.
 
Nuclear Street:  If you were President what steps would you take now to make the transition to a just and sustainable energy distribution by 2040?

Dr. James Conca:  Basically, I would do what Obama is doing - put qualified people into important positions. Step back and re-assess policy and develop a real long-term energy plan that gets us where we want to be in 40 years. Truly get the recommendations of the scientific community.  Right now, legislation is going forward that has not had much scientific vetting, like some members of Congress wanting only green electrons moving through new grid lines, clearly a strange and crazy idea. The United States has spent more than $1.5 trillion over the last 30 years educating, training and equipping the best scientific community in the history of this planet, but we rarely take their recommendations seriously.  This administration is the first in awhile that appears committed to science so it is good to see more scientific input but it is essential that legislation does not get out in front of science, or we will spend decades correcting it, like we are having to do with ethanol. As is happening, Blue Ribbon panels are being formed to review and recommend, but their recommendations need to be followed.

NS:  In your opinion how long do we have before we must take the energy situation seriously?

Conca:  I don't want to be alarmist, but it was 30 years ago.  Now we can only try to mitigate the worst effects.  Still, since it takes about ten years to make a real impact with new sources, we can achieve a lot by 2020 in terms of preparation, but not much will be built until between 2020 and 2030, and real effect will not happen until between 2030 and 2040.  Take wind as an example.  Worldwide we need well over 1 million 3+ MW turbines to help renewables reach their third of the energy pie.  If we push very hard now, between now and 2020 we will probably be able to install 50,000 or so, a huge increase but nowhere near the three trillion kWhr range it needs to be.  However, by 2020 this will have had the effect of cementing the work force development, manufacturing and resource base, worked out the siting and regulatory kinks so that between 2020 and 2030 you can build several hundred thousand, and then between 2030 and 2040, you can build a million. 

This type of exponential growth curve governs all nascent sources, as well as resurging ones like nuclear.  Worldwide, we need 1700  1,000+ MW reactors by 2040, but few will be built by 2020.  But even if only 50 to 100 are built, that will develop the capability to build several hundred between 2020 and 2030, and then a thousand between 2030 and 2040. Even now, three other forgers are slated to come online within 5 years to supplant Japan Ironworks monopoly on large-piece forging, one of the bottlenecks in nuclear construction.

At the same time, traditional sources, applications and equipment will have to die their natural deaths, not be prematurely killed.  No one is going to shut down a modern, working coal-fired power plant, it will be allowed to run out its natural life span. Similarly, when we do develop an efficient, fully-electric plug-in vehicle to replace 80% of our transport needs (we will always need about 20% liquid fuel for long-hauling, jet fuel and battle vehicles), it will take about 30 years for 800 million traditional vehicles to die off and be replaced by these new ones.  Again, an exponential rise in efficient systems paralleled by an exponential fall in old ones is the natural path we need to follow. This is how every innovation in history has occurred; it takes a little over a generation.
 
NS:  What will happen if we, as a Nation, fail to grasp the seriousness of the energy situation and continue insisting on pursuing a soft energy path that simply has no basis in physics?  In other words, what is the most likely scenario and how will it play out?

Conca:  What will happen is we will follow the path of least resistance and be even more dependent on fossil fuels, coal for electricity, development of unconventionals for liquid fuels, coal-to-gas, heavy oils, we have lots of these that will last well into the 22nd century.  The urgency comes from false promises.  If the public thinks we can be carbon-free by 2020, or that we can supply our energy needs strictly from renewables, then when 2025 rolls around and we start having rolling blackouts, we will not be able to compensate because we did not invest in the infrastructure, workforce and resource development we should have for all energy sources during those ten years and the public will just cry out "coal, coal, coal!"  Which we have plenty of and can bring up quickly. So we will be worse off than we are now.  Doing nothing does not help, and costs more in the long-term as fossil fuel costs keep rising (the present global economic melt-down notwithstanding), we pass conventional peak oil, then peak gas, then peak coal, then peak unconventionals, and by 2060 have real resource wars going on as the population tops 9 billion. Not a pretty scenario.
 
NS:  What needs to be done to wake the people up and how can one person do it?

Conca:  Rational, non-fear-mongering discussions by scientists and educated people, not ideologues.  Someone with a Carl Sagan-likability and credibility must reach the mass media markets like Oprah, Larry King, John Stewart. One person, or each person, must want to engage in serious discussion not soundbites, and the public is wanting this.  Everyone we speak to, regardless of educational level, is yearning for serious debate and realizes the cute commercials are not telling the whole story. Jefferson was not being facetious when he said an informed citizenry was necessary to a successful democracy.
 
NS:  How long do we have to wake the people up…do we have the luxury of waiting for it to solve itself?

Conca:  No, it will resolve itself not to our liking relatively quickly.
 
NS:  Why are you taking on this incredibly difficult task?

Conca:  Because whenever we see our grandsons turn on their iPods we know someone has to care about where the energy will come to power their children's toys, or merely produce their food.

NS:  How’s your book doing? Any chance there will be an expanded and updated version soon? 

Conca:  It is doing well, particularly in the circles in D.C. Anyone who reads it, regardless of background, gets excited about the discussion, as the energy debate in this country has been pretty anemic, focusing on cute high tech sound bites and photos instead of boring, basic drivers like, ‘Do we have enough steel to build a million 3+MW wind turbines?’ and ‘What upgrades to the electrical grid do we need to do to move this new power around?’  Yes, Judith and I are writing an updated expanded version as the economics are all different from 2007 and there is more we need to say about renewables.

NS: I know that you are traveling around the country presenting your slide show on energy and am wondering how it’s going? Also, could you give us a brief schedule of some of your upcoming appearances in case some of our readers happen to be in the area?

Conca: The talk is getting rave reviews, again because it covers the socioeconomic, political and scientific issues in a holistic way that no one else does.  The most difficult thing is to get invited to be in front of the right venues and audiences that need to see this but don't usually get someone willing to give them the whole story in an understandable fashion. So it has been very fruitful to get in front of the State Department, the Commerce Department and the Energy Department, Congressional staffers, large Rotary Clubs, teacher groups, college campuses, even a regional Sierra Club. 

Also, UCSD/Scripps used the text in two climate change courses and the New Mexico State MESA public school program used it as a text in a summer pilot project called the Science of Energy, which is developing a total energy curricula for middle and high school, exactly what this country needs to raise an energy-literate citizenry willing to make the difficult personal and political choices needed to lead us to energy independence and environmental sustainability.

We don't have any talks planned right now although we are getting back to D.C. every one to two months.  The next time will be in late July to brief the Congressional Research Service and some more staffers, but the dates are not firm. This last month I gave a keynote address at the Capitol Hill Nuclear Summit of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, addressed the Savannah River National Laboratory Director’s Colloquium, was a Forum Speaker at Energy Northwest in Washington State, gave another State Department briefing, gave a talk to faculty and students from the Colorado School of Mines, and was the UC Washington Center Forum Speaker in D.C.  We are finding out why the author Tom Freidman has a high-powered publicist.

NS:  Good luck in your quest to inject reason into D.C.  If there’s anything we can do at Nuclear Street to assist you please let us know; and, may the force be with you.

Dr. James Conca is the Director and Chief Scientist of the New Mexico State University’s Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research monitoring the WIPP underground nuclear repository.  Active research includes energy policy, nuclear energy and radioactive waste disposal, dirty bomb mitigation, acid mine drainage, military base clean-up, and contaminant flow and transport in arid regions.

NS Book Review: The Geopolitics of Energy: Achieving a Just and Sustainable Energy Distribution by 2040

The Geopolitics of Energy: Achieving a Just and Sustainable Energy Distribution by 2040 A Nuclear Street Book Review By Randy Brich

About Randy Brich
Randy graduated from South Dakota State University in 1978 with a M.S. in Biology.  After developing the State of South Dakota’s environmental radiological monitoring program, he became a Health Physicist with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, eventually transferring to the Department of Energy where he specialized in environmental monitoring, worker protection, waste cleanup and systems biology.  Later in his career he published a multi-sport adventure guide book and became a regular contributor to The Entertainer Newspaper’s Great Outdoor section. 

Since then he has retired from the federal government and, after taking time out to build an energy efficient house near the Missouri River, has formed Diamond B Communications LLC.  Diamond B Communications LLC uses a multimedia approach to explain complex energy resource issues to technical and non-technical audiences.  He also guides for Dakota Bike Tours, the Relaxed Adventure Company, offering tours of the Badlands National Park, the Black Hills and Devils Tower National Monument.

If you have questions, comments, or know of a book that you think Randy should review Email Randy Brich>> randy@nuclearstreet.com