Phoebe Lind [00:00:59] Hi, everyone. Welcome back to the next episode of Titans of Nuclear. I'm Phoebe Lind, and today our guest is Richard Kidd. He is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment and Energy Resilience, and now he owns a small consultancy helping to advise on energy and sustainability issues. Welcome to the show. 

Richard Kidd [00:01:19] Hey, Phoebe, thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. I appreciate it. 

Phoebe Lind [00:01:23] Of course. We're excited to have you. So, our conversation will mostly be focused on your work in energy and climate resilience at the Department of Defense throughout the Department of Defense and the Army as well. And I promise we'll get to nuclear energy, but I do want to set the scene for some of our listeners who may not be as aware of the connections between the US military and climate and energy and how all of these things work together. 

Phoebe Lind [00:01:46] So, the US military is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the US, and obviously has a very large footprint around the world. That said, DoD is also very well-positioned to be a leader in climate resilience. It commands many buildings, planes, ships, and people, and all of the energy that goes into powering them. Tell us a little bit about your career journey and how you became interested in energy issues. 

Richard Kidd [00:02:17] Sure. So Phoebe, first of all, you're right. The US Department of Defense is a very large consumer of power. It's needed to do the Department of Defense's job in terms of training and preparing for conflict. So, the Department of Defense emits about 1% of the US's greenhouse gases at Scope 1 and Scope 2. The Scope 3 are probably higher than that. And if the Department of Defense were a country in the UN, we'd be about the 55th or 56th largest emitter. So globally, it's a very large emitter. And it does have a potential to affect the clean energy transition, but only up to a point. And that's what we'll talk about later. 

Richard Kidd [00:02:56] In terms of me, I have an interesting journey towards issues on energy and resilience. So after finishing graduate school, I actually became a relief worker for the United Nations. I was an Emergency Logistics Officer for the World Food Program, responsible for logistics and support on refugee camps around the world. And these were sort of the ultimate energy-scarce environments. If we ran out of fuel, diesel fuel, we had some very hard choices to make about whether we power the water purification or the cold chain or the security systems. So, it really focused my attention on the issue of energy efficiency. I had the opportunity to go work with Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute to design a net zero refugee camp. And ever since then, I've been a strong advocate for all things energy resilience, energy security, energy sustainability, energy efficiency, renewables, and now, later, nuclear power. And I'll be happy to talk about that in a few minutes. 

Phoebe Lind [00:04:09] What was your first interaction with nuclear power? What were some of your first experiences like? 

Richard Kidd [00:04:15] Well, my first experiences... When I was a small boy, I visited the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Oregon which has now come offline, unfortunately. But I was fascinated with the Trojan plant and the technology. So, I certainly have been a hobbyist in terms of tracking the technology and the evolution of the technology. But I'm really a policy guy. I'm really about policy issues and how do we provide public goods and services for the lowest cost and the greatest benefit? And so, when you start to look at the public policy case for nuclear power, it just gets stronger and stronger. Whether it's from the climate lens or from the Department of Defense's national security lens. 

Phoebe Lind [00:05:02] So in your career, you were working with energy issues from very early on with your experience at the UN. When did you start to make those decisions about where energy was coming from and considering nuclear as an option in your operations? 

Richard Kidd [00:05:19] So, I followed energy issues, as I said early on, from the lens of logistics. Fortunately, I was able to make a mid-career transition and joined the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Management Program, FEMP. FEMP is like a consultancy service for the federal government. It advises federal agencies on how to comply with their statutory goals and mandates, whether it's carbon-free energy production or renewable energy, building performance, fleet optimization, petroleum reduction, a whole range of issues. 

Richard Kidd [00:06:00] I started to take a look at all these mandates that were put on federal agencies, specifically the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, both of which have been revised and updated since then, and the definitions of "clean energy" and the policy momentum that the various administrations were placing. And it appeared to me very early on that the numbers don't add up without nuclear. 

Richard Kidd [00:06:36]  I was a career senior executive, so I worked alongside the political appointees from four different administrations: Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. And while the Obama administration said "all of the above," there really wasn't the funding, the enthusiasm, or the commitment from the majority of the political appointees on nuclear. Renewables and efficiency were primary, and that's great. There's still tremendous opportunity in renewables and efficiency and we should be doing all we can. 

Richard Kidd [00:07:09] Now, in the Biden administration, though, it's very clear that there's a lot of emphasis on nuclear. And I think that for folks who are watching the issue, the numbers just don't add up without nuclear. By that, I mean the numbers in terms of our required carbon reduction, our expansion of electric power to support the electrification of vehicles, AI, data centers, all these other items. And to provide the Global South with the lifestyle that they need, want, and deserve, without having to go through the transition of coal plants first and then clean power later. 

Phoebe Lind [00:07:49] Yeah, I would say a lot of our listeners would certainly agree with that sentiment. Another concept that we talk about on the podcast every once in a while, something that I really love, is the idea of energy abundance and the fact that people around the world deserve to have access to energy. Because the reality is that it has given us much better lifestyles and much better outcomes across all sectors of life. And nuclear energy is a great way that we could increase energy around the world and no one has to reduce the amount of energy that they use. And that's not really fair to people in developing countries when people in the US, we've had access to so many opportunities because of abundant energy resources. 

Phoebe Lind [00:08:31] But also given that sentiment, what are your thoughts about the current state of affairs of in nuclear energy? Do you think that shift from the Obama era when we were more focused on clean energy, but renewables... And now that nuclear is a little bit more a part of that conversation, do you think it's enough? Do you think we need to go further? 

Richard Kidd [00:08:55] I would just say that every conversation... During the Obama administration, every energy conversation I was involved in, very seldom did nuclear power come up. Now, every conversation I'm involved in, nuclear power comes up. So, there's this awareness of the role that nuclear power can and should play if done correctly and safely. And I think we now have the technology and the commitment that we can do that. 

Phoebe Lind [00:09:29] What do you think instigated that change? 

Richard Kidd [00:09:34] I can't speak for the whole industry. I can only speak for how I got to this position working two very difficult policy issues in the Department of Defense. The first was the policy requirement and requirement physics simply for the Department of Defense to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. And the second was the requirement of the Department of Defense to have power on the battlefield to do the things that we need to do to prevail in any future conflict. So from those two angles, that sort of decarbonization angle and that power sufficiency in the operational space, in both of those thought processes or policy evolution processes, I came to the conclusion that we don't get there without nuclear. And I'm happy to talk you through those, if that's all right. 

Phoebe Lind [00:10:30] Yeah, absolutely. 

Richard Kidd [00:10:32] We'll take them one at a time. 

Phoebe Lind [00:10:33] Sure. 

Richard Kidd [00:10:35] Right, so you began the podcast by mentioning the fact that the Department of Defense is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the country. And I doubled down on that by saying, "We're about 1% of total US emissions." So, all greenhouse gas emitters are contributing to the problem of climate change. And there is a need to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions. 

Richard Kidd [00:11:02] The Department of Defense, when I was there, or annually, we publish an annual energy management report which shows the Department Defense's energy consumption. It's about $13.5 billion a year, plus or minus. About 70% of that energy is liquid fuel and about 30% is purchased commodities, electricity, natural gas, coal, and other items. And that fluctuates; the more active the military is, the greater the proportion of fuel that's being consumed. 

Richard Kidd [00:11:42] There is a task given us by Congress and in Executive Order 14008 to essentially transition all federal agencies to zero carbon emissions not later than 2050. And the president outlined a number of steps and Congress outlined a number of steps to do that. In all previous executive orders from Presidents Bush and Obama and Trump on federal efficiency or energy efficiency or sustainability... They were called different things over the years. There was always a national security set-aside. So in other words, essentially any military operations of the department were exempt from those executive orders. 

Richard Kidd [00:12:31] In this executive order in this administration, that was not a priority case. So, we as a department were then tasked to plan from Congress about how do we get to net zero? So, for those activities in the Department of Defense that are analogous to civilian activities... Let's say, the Department of Defense runs 600 small towns and cities across the United States. We have a pretty clear technological pathway that gets the department close to net zero through energy efficiency in buildings, electrification, onsite carbon-free electricity production through renewables and solar, and then the purchasing of carbon-free electricity from an ever-greener grid. So, that's a pretty clear pathway. 

Richard Kidd [00:13:24] Unfortunately, it's a lot harder when we talk about operational energy. So, the Department of Defense has one common fuel on the battlefield; it's called JP-8. It's a jet fuel derivative. It runs everything from a generator in the Army to a tank to a self-propelled howitzer to an F-35 fighter plane. The department also has bunker oil for ships and then very small amounts of hydrogen, diesel, benzene, and other items for niche applications. 

Richard Kidd [00:14:01] Again, the good news on the operational energy side in terms of decarbonization is there's plenty of room for efficiency, plenty of room for new technologies, plenty of room for changes in the way that we do things. But at the end of the day, we're not going to get to net zero. The terrific advantages of liquid fuel in the form of JP-8, the form factor, the energy density. The Department of Defense is buying equipment now that's going to burn liquid fuel in 2045. And we did a deep dive on sustainable aviation and there's still a question mark about sustainable aviation fuels. But it doesn't look like there's a clear pathway for SAF right now that will produce the fuel in quantity and at the cost acceptable to the Department of Defense. And also without secondary adverse effects, whether it's water consumption, deforestation, reduction in food production, or other things. So at the end of the day, we don't get there without nuclear power. 

Richard Kidd [00:15:09] We, the Department of Defense, need that secure baseload nuclear power for our installations, we need that nuclear power to produce sustainable aviation fuel, we need that nuclear power, perhaps, to propel some of the ships and other items. So, there's no technological pathway to the department... And I should say, even with that nuclear power, there's probably going to be a residual amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the Department of Defense is going to have to offset, capture, utilize in some other form. So, there's going to be a CCUS at the end of the technological pathway for the Department of Defense. 

Richard Kidd [00:15:51] So given all of that, I'll stop there and then switch to the second line of argument. But I'll stop there if you have any questions or follow-up on sort of the argument around greenhouse gas reductions. So basically, the Department of Defense doesn't get there without nuclear power. 

Phoebe Lind [00:16:10] Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it's not just about saving the environment, right? You said previously, national security was always exempt from a lot of these executive orders and acts from Congress about reducing greenhouse gas emissions across sectors in the federal government, but now I think it's becoming better understood by national security experts and also the general public that climate change can be very destabilizing. And as climate change affects... You know, it puts more pressure on other resources that you mentioned too, like food, water, the availability of energy itself, and that could exacerbate conflict too. How can you explain the necessity of planning for climate change and prioritizing that in military activities to people who don't understand that it's not just about saving the environment?

Richard Kidd [00:17:00]  You've switched topics a little bit, and that's great. So, it's on the notion of adaptation and resilience under a world that's going to be increasingly defined by the effects of a changed climate. So, climate change is about physics, not politics. And that physics is going to affect the world that the military operates in. So, the Department of Defense had a major effort about climate adaptation. We developed a tool that looks at our installations across two time epochs and two greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and takes a look at the effects of climate change on military installations. Whether it's sea level rise, riverine flooding, heat, drought, wildland fire, increased energy consumption, all of these effects. And then, we've developed the ability to model and score the effects on our installations. 

Richard Kidd [00:17:59] And it's not just on the installations. Climate change is affecting the Department of Defense at three levels. One, on the installations and infrastructure. A lot of that infrastructure is being destroyed every year through extreme weather events that are outside of past patterns. So, the climate is changing, driving these extreme weather events. It's also affecting the Department of Defense in terms of its people and equipment. So, helicopters that were designed to carry a load for a certain distance in a normal window of weather conditions, now that window has been reduced. There's more extreme heat and extreme humidity, so the aircraft is less efficient. In some cases, our runways are too short. In some cases, the runways have been made out of asphalt that will melt in temperatures today that weren't the case 50 years ago when they were first put in place. 

Richard Kidd [00:18:59] And on terms of the effects on the people... So, 36°C wet bulb... At that point, the body can no longer cool itself. At lower temperatures, you can't have sailors on the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf doing their job without being at risk of heat casualty, or Marines or soldiers or airmen. So, we have to think through the effects on our equipment and the people and effects on the supply chain, and of course, the military's relationship with the population and the communities that support the military. 

Richard Kidd [00:19:42] The Department of Defense has a Defense Climate Adaptation Plan, and I would encourage readers to find that. It was required by the White House, but in fact, we were already doing it. And it outlines this comprehensive set of responses that the department has to take to adapt to the effects of climate change and to build resilience. The Department of Defense also has a number of policy documents about how climate change will affect the security environment, which is what you raised. But I'll stop about the summary of adaptation. I'm happy to take some questions about the security environment. And then, noting we still have to get to nuclear power and operational energy. So, we've got a couple of things out there. 

Phoebe Lind [00:20:31] I know, it's definitely... That's all my fault. I have an interest in all of these different topics. 

Richard Kidd [00:20:35] No, it's terrific. 

Phoebe Lind [00:20:36] It's fascinating how they all work together. But I'm happy to switch gears and jump into the operation side of things. 

Richard Kidd [00:20:44] Operational energy or climate change in the security environment?

Phoebe Lind [00:20:48] Let's switch to operational, considering that's more in your wheelhouse as well. 

Richard Kidd [00:20:52] Sure, sure. So again, another policy challenge that I and others in the Department of Defense wrestled with was the ability to move power around the battlefield. And so, we've built this terrific military, the best in the world, that requires huge amounts of power and energy to do its job. And in Iraq and Afghanistan, a very significant portion of the casualties were lost defending and protecting fuel convoys. And that meant combat power was diverted from fighting the insurgents to protecting the convoys. 

Richard Kidd [00:21:37] If we fast forward to today... If we look at a conflict in the Pacific or in Europe, we're going to have to move even larger amounts of fuel across longer distances against more sophisticated adversaries. And these adversaries have also developed the ability to sort of reach out and touch us here at home through cyber attacks on our energy grid, our pipelines, our pumping infrastructure. All of these critical nodes in the energy supply chain here in the United States are now held at risk in ways that they haven't been for the last 60 or 70 years. So, this notion of a contested environment and that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary is still very prevalent. 

Richard Kidd [00:22:26] I also had the opportunity to work on national security documents across different administrations. And Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis put into the Trump administration's document on national security strategy that "the homeland is no longer a sanctuary." And guess what? The Biden team kept it. So, if there's a notion that goes across administrations, it's this fact that the homeland is no longer secure and our ability to move fuel across the battlefield can no longer be taken for granted. 

Richard Kidd [00:22:59] So, if you look at this challenge of contested logistics... Again, tremendous opportunities for energy efficiency. I can give you some little examples. The M1 tank in Iraq has a 1,500 horsepower turbine engine. After the initial invasion, it spent 70% of its time stationary, and it spun the engine just to power air conditioning, communications, and sensors. That's about 1,495 wasted horsepower. That was all wasted energy. So, simply by putting a Honda generator in the bustle rack or a generator under armor, tremendous efficiency gains for that vehicle. 

Richard Kidd [00:23:47] Likewise, the largest fuel-consuming assets in the Department of Defense are heavy aircraft, transportation aircraft. Putting on Microvanes, winglets, changing the orientation of the windshield wipers... Little things, right? But these can save 3%, 4%, or 5% of the energy consumed. So, there are plenty of opportunities for efficiency. There are opportunities for new equipment like a blended wing body aircraft which increases fuel efficiency by 30%, 35%, using drones more instead of manned vehicles, less fuel for the drone, integration of AI and solar on some of the drones, a whole range of items. And in terms of the operational energy, the department sort of focuses on demand reduction, so using less, and then fuel substitution, using different fuels. 

Richard Kidd [00:24:48] Again, you take a look at this, and we still can't move the fuel we need even after all of those efficiency gains. So, what does that mean? Well, that means we need to produce more power across the battlespace. And then, that moves to the conclusion that we, the Department of Defense, needs microreactors both to power forward operating basins, installations, and ports, to provide the power needed for directed-energy weapons, which is going to be a huge new demand, to provide the power needed for AI and data centers. 

Richard Kidd [00:25:26] So, you're going to have AI and data centers at the edge of the battlefield. Well, how are you going to power those, right? Huge energy demand. And then, nuclear power across the battlefield to actually produce liquid fuel. So, you're still going to have those F-35s. You're not going to put a battery or a nuclear power unit in the F-35, a nuclear battery, but you could produce fuel at the edge of the battlefield and not have to move it around. So, that reduces the risk and it reduces all the fuel that was burned moving it around the battlefield. 

Richard Kidd [00:25:59] So, the point being there from a policy construct... As we look at how do you reduce the Department of Defense's greenhouse gases, you don't get there without nuclear. How do you meet the Department of Defense's current and growing power demands on the battlefield? You don't get there without nuclear. 

Phoebe Lind [00:26:17] Could you explain a little bit more about how nuclear at the edge of the battlefield will contribute to those things? We'll still be using that liquid fuel for many of these other larger things that we're powering. And I'm less of an expert on the mechanics of aircraft. 

Richard Kidd [00:26:37] So, I said "edge of the battlefield." I should probably walk that term back. It's not going to be on the cutting edge of the battlefield. It's more like in the hilt of the battlefield. So, behind the front lines in sort of operational bases that are semi-permanent. And if you look at concepts across the Pacific, there's this notion of having a range of airfields and ports distributed across the Pacific outside of the missile range of the Chinese, but still manned with aircraft and other items. So, that would be sort of the use case for a modular reactor of a few megawatts of range. 

Richard Kidd [00:27:26] There has been some discussions about nuclear batteries, modular reactors below a one megawatt. And you could see applications for those in, say, the High North, up in the Arctic, or communications nodes and other centers like that. One of the ideas for the larger reactors, above five megawatts or so, is that they would actually be able to do air-to-fuel. So, you take carbon out of the air and combine it and inject energy and you make a liquid fuel. It's an energy losing equation, if you will, but it's a form factor conversion. And by converting that energy into a different form factor, you're able to use it across some of the systems that already exist out there in battlespace. 

Phoebe Lind [00:28:19] Switching gears a little bit, considering both operational and installation energy, while they have very different demands. Have you seen enthusiasm around the Department of Defense for nuclear energy and applications in general? 

Richard Kidd [00:28:34] I think the answer is yes. I mean, I know the answer is yes. There's been a range of documents internal to the department that have explicitly called for the integration of nuclear power on to the installation of energy microgrids. So, there's a large construction budget for energy resilience. And in the guidance documents provided across the department, it says, "As you plan your energy secure microgrids, design them so that you can have nuclear power." We also have a lot of interest in advanced or next gen geothermal, where it makes sense to do so. So, that's in the policy document. 

Richard Kidd [00:29:18] You have a number of preliminary procurement actions underway. The Air Force initiated a procurement action for an SMR up at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. There have been some procurement challenges around that, but I think that's an early signal. I know that the other services are also taking a look at nuclear power options on their installations. 

Richard Kidd [00:29:43] If I digress for a second about American policy... The US government right now has lots of money going in for nuclear technology development through the Department of Energy and they're doing great work. The government has loan guarantees through the Loan Program office at DOE and tax incentives. There is not yet a deliberative commercialization effort across the whole of the US government. And the Department of Defense has a lot of tools that could be useful for nuclear power commercialization, but it doesn't have all the tools. 

Richard Kidd [00:30:23] So right now, the Department of Defense can offer land, accelerated permitting, security, and a 30-year power purchase agreement. That may not be sufficient for a first-of-kind or second-of-kind reactor, which is going to require some cash infusions throughout the initial process. So, I think there's a look towards the US Congress. I mean, there's tremendous bipartisan support for nuclear power. It's one of the few things that Congress can agree on right now... For ways that you might be able to do some capital injects across the department as it moves forward with nuclear power projects for its installations. 

Richard Kidd [00:31:05] In terms of operational energy, the Department of Defense has a program called Project Pele, which is for a mobile microreactor. It sort of started... I wouldn't say in secret, but it didn't get a lot of attention. It's now a well-known project. It's got a lot of momentum, it's got good leadership. And I think the combatant commands and the command structure out there across the globe is really interested in the benefits that attributes of Project Pele offers or similar technology. Project Pele now has two different companies that are sort of in the mix, and there are more companies out there that are hot on their heels with new options and new technologies. 

Richard Kidd [00:31:52] And that's what's exciting about this industry. I mean, this is a classic sort of business school case. There's a huge market opportunity. There are lots of new entrants, lots of great technologies coming out. And which ones are going to make it, which companies are going to have the best value proposition... And all of the companies struggle with who's going to pay the money to build the first one. Once you build the first one, then it gets a lot easier. 

Phoebe Lind [00:32:20] What do you think is the biggest challenge or the biggest hurdle to building the first one? Is it that missing money for commercialization that you mentioned? 

Richard Kidd [00:32:28] From the Department of Defense's perspective... I can't speak for all industry. I mean, there are a couple of challenges. One is cost. So, there's cost, technological risk, complexity, in terms of the procurement complexity, and then aligning public and private sector incentives. 

Richard Kidd [00:32:48] A long time ago when I was at the Army, I helped build an office called the Office of Energy Initiatives Task Force, now the Office of Energy Initiatives. And this was to develop large-scale renewable energy projects on Army land. And I walked around the building and said, "Look, the private developers have to make money. If you're going to do a public-private partnership, that means the private sector has to make money. It has to be a bankable, financible project."

Richard Kidd [00:33:15] And so, that was a hard thing to do on a relatively simple set of technologies, solar panels, more specifically. But we were able to get there and now the Department of Defense is... I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but anyway, a gigawatt plus of large-scale solar across military installations. So, we have to replicate that operating model for more complexity, more cost uncertainty, more regulatory uncertainty. So, the permitting, all of that needs to be addressed. I think the greatest single challenge is just managing complexity across multiple dimensions. 

Phoebe Lind [00:34:04] With your work at your consultancy, how are you thinking to help solve some of these challenges? 

Richard Kidd [00:34:13] It's interesting. I thought when I left public service, I was going to be the climate and sustainability guy. I'm certainly getting a lot of interest there. But there has been a lot of discussions around nuclear with different clients. I'm fortunate to be a Senior Advisor with the Boston Consulting Group. So, I work on their energy team. I'm also working with an engineering firm, advising a country on its energy transition. I'm an advisor on CORE POWER, which is a maritime application of nuclear. 

Richard Kidd [00:34:54] It's good; it's exciting. And I do that humbly because as I said, I'm not necessarily a titan of nuclear. You've got other great minds around the technology, around the manufacturing, the sophistication, the fuel cycle and pipeline. I try to look at the policy dimensions and how can you make a strong policy case for nuclear power? 

Phoebe Lind [00:35:21] Again, I mentioned this to you before, but I would absolutely consider you a titan of nuclear. I've seen you around the DC circuit. And it really is a team effort, and there's so many very difficult challenges to overcome with getting nuclear on the grid, whether in the US or abroad or through the US military, so we're very grateful to have your perspective on Titans of Nuclear today. And now that you are almost done with the podcast, you're a titan here at the very least. Are there any final thoughts you would like to leave our audience with? 

Richard Kidd [00:35:53] No, Phoebe, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to join the team. I continue to listen to Titans of Nuclear, scrolling back through the old episodes and learning as I go. So, this is a great resource for all of us who have either been in the industry for a while or are relatively new. So, thanks so much for what you do. 

Phoebe Lind [00:36:13] Of course.

‍