ML20217P258
| ML20217P258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1998 |
| From: | Lopezotin M NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Crockett S, Bradley Jones, Virgilio M NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804100047 | |
| Download: ML20217P258 (22) | |
Text
- '
i,t, UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
,E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
's.,*****/
April 1,1998 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER NOTE TO:
Marty Virgilio Brad Jones Steve Crockett k
FROM:
Maria Lopez-Otin Executive Assistant to Commissioner Diaz The attached letter and speech is provided for your information. I thought it might be of interest since it addresses matters affecting the Commission.
Thanks
Attachment:
As stated cc: PDR r u.+ 1 'J ) v [O 9004100047 980401 1 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR \\ Connu i
c. e l l I i t i GLOBAL ENERGY STRATEGY By: William S. Lee Summary af remarks at Emerging Issues Farum, NC State University, Raleigh, NC,. February 9, 1990 t l and updated far remarks in Dallas, Texas, September 20 and October 18, 1990. 1 l i l l i
~ GLOBAL ENERGY STRATEGY Iraqi aggression over mid-east 011 gives sharp focus to the importance of energy to the World's peoples. We see that some Will kill to capture more energy--greater Wealth-- higher standard of living. Meantime the current Administration, like others before, is devising a national energy " strategy" for the U.S. From time to time, we have seen a national energy " policy" developed only to loriguish on bookshelves. Whether We call it energy strategy or energy policy, we need Wide consensus on a clear, sustainable direction on energy matters. During my career in the energy business, I have seen coal electric-generating plants converted to 011 for air quality; oil plants converted to coal because of import concerns; nuclear plants first promoted by the Congress then discouraged; same renewables subsidized while another is impeded; natural gas encouraged, banned, then encouraged again as a generation fuel. Whereas this litany illustrates the virtue of being nimble, it also suggests the need for a sustainable direction. In my view, energy strategy should have four principal elements:
- 1. The strategy should be long-term.
In the U.S., we have not been able to have a clearly defined energy direction for even one term of office. l
. J 2. The strategy should be global. An energy policy harmful to less-developed-countries is not appropriate for the United States. 3. Energy strategy should be consistent with a sustainable environment. This is an environment of such quality and long-term trends as would support the permanent flourish-ment of human life. 4. The strategy should. support on improving standard of living for people over the World. The dual challenge for our planet of improving living standards While assuring a sustainable environment is simply stated, but not easily met. Each night on the other half of our globe, there are perhaps one-half billion smoky fires burning to give Warmth and cook food.for those in poverty. These poor have scrounged for fuel--gathering twigs, cutting trees, picking up dung, or anything they con burn. Here we have environmental degradation and human deprivation--our dual challenge. Time Horizon Let me set a time horizon, so that we may construct a model of how We might meet the dual challenge. It must be considerably longer than one' term of off!ce. I select as my time horizon the year 2040, for that's when the young
. people in Junior high school today Will be my age. They will'have advanced through their contributary careers to the same extent I have. Many mature adults Who will make and implement policy in 2040 have already been born. And 'they will live with the consequences of what we, and they, Will have done or not done. In this time frame there will be a compelling certainty. Even assuming imminent success in restraining worldwide birth rates, the earth's human population.Will reach 9 billion souls in about 2040. Remember, we crossed the 5 i billion threshold in 1987 and are now growing at 1.8 million each week. So as we develop a strategic plan to meet our dual challenge we have to reckon with 9 billion mouths to feed: useful and productive work for 18 billion hands: 9 billion thinking minds to educate; and 9 billion sets of aspirations, each as important as our own. All of a sudden, our dual challenge looms larger. -We j must care for all these folks without fouling our nest. We sometimes take comfort in knowing that technology will lead the way in solving our problems. Technology con help maintain standards of living in the developed countries while elevating these standards in developing countries-- without fouling the nest. However, there is one important -constraint that we must figure into our strategic plan,
4. _q_ Forty to fifty years is about the time-constant for full deployment of major technological breakthroughs. The history of technology suggests it takes four or five decades from laboratory discovery through development, invention of useful applications,.followed by demonstration, building supportive infrastructure and commerclol deployment. Only when all this is done con the mature technology exert its full impact on society. This suggests that the technologies that will have a major impact in the year 2040 have already been discovered--but not necessarily deployed. It also suggests that we connot expect massive solutions from new, undiscovered technology in the time-frame we have selected to construct our strategic plan. I remain confident however that forthcoming mind-boggling scientific discoveries Will be of inmense help later. I am also prayerful, because the solutions now in hand clearly must be improved. ASDiratlQ[lS What Will be the aggregate aspirations of 9 billion people? What hopes do we have for the World when today's young people are my age? Peace and brotherhood, of course--but that's another subject. We Want a sustainable environmental quality that not only makes our planet habitable, but enjoyable.
. At the same time, we Want acceptable standards of living for 9 billion people. This would-include food, clothing, shelter and societies that provide for their citizens hope and the fulfillment of hopes. This will necessitate quality education Worldwide and all sorts of j other things, but human standards of living can only improve if we increase productivity. If the people of planet earth are to rolse their standards of living, they must have basic needs met; they must have access to means of production; and they must harness these means to ever-increasing productivity. If people want more, they must produce ?n~a. j We are laced With the moral and ethical challenge of environmental concern, and the companion is the moral, spiritual and ethical dimension of. Worldwide poverty. Those smoky fires are burning i How much productivity Will result in a standard of j living acceptable to 9 billion aspirations? As a trial example, let's assume that on acceptable standard of living for the World's people in 2040 Will be about one-half the personal goods and services now enjoyed in the U.S.--you could assume one-third, or two thirds, or some other level, but we Will not attempt sensitivity analyses for now. For this model, let's use one-half.
l-. Per capita U.S. Gross National Product in 1990 was $21,740. For our model, we assume that for human aspirations to be met, per capita Worldwide gross production must reach one-half this value, or $10,870 in constant dollars. Average Worldwide gro.ss production in 1990 is $3,874 per capito. So now We can begin to measure j the first part of our dual challenge: In the next 50 years, We must have almost a three-fold ~ increase'in personal productivity, from $3,874 to $10,870. Here, let's pause'to test the reasonableness of our assumed productivity growth for the World. In 1940, U.S. productivity was $7,786 per capita (constant 1990 dollars). Note that 50 years later, worldwide' productivity reached $3,874 per capita--almost exactly half the earlier U.S. i level. -History suggests our model.is reasonable. When you frame our challenge in terms of dollars and cents, you con see that the challenge is considerable. And remember, we are going to do.this While protecting the Integrity of our environment. Our dual diallenge is fonnidable, and as we construct a model of how we might meet-the challenge there will be many varlobles, but there is one component of this model that is absolutely essential: -The energy needed to drive it all, c a
-7 Ene'alzina ASDirat10nS r Increased productivity con only come by increasing the energy input to the productive process; 1.e., energy to j multiply the efforts of 18 billion hands and 9 billion minds. So if we aspire to a higher standard of living for our World's people, we must have greater energy tu drive that production. Most agree that We Will need substantially more energy to produce more. In the 1987 report.of the World Commission on Environment and Development, "Our Common Future," a 45-year energy growth of up to 3.5 times is suggested; the 1983 World Energy Conference forecasts total energy growth of 1.9 to 2.4 times in the next 40 years; the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis estimates 2.1 to 3.4 times in 50 years: Whereas the i Conservation Commission of the 1986 World Energy Conference projected an energy demand two times higher in 2040 than 1990. Rather than adopt any of these forecasts, let's assume major gains in productivity efficiency to arrive at on estimate of energy for our model. Since an increasingly greater share of total energy is in form of electricity at point of end use, I will focus on electricity.
. Electricity We know electricity is important to our productivity. In my view, we're going to.see more applications of electricity to solve environmental problems. The electric automobile and delivery van for urban use will see explosive growth. Mass transit Will be electrically driven. The new i Water and sewage treatment syste:Us needed worldwide will be driven by. electricity--as will the lasers, plasma torches, and computers and caesiunicat10rc systems in industrialized J nations. We'll likely be using electricity to strip selected atoms from molecules, such as detox 1fying waste by removing its chlorine component. Nevertheless, we must not waste electricity. The most benign new kilowatt hour is saved kilowatt hour. Our L Company's experience.with demand-side savings hos been spectacular. Now in our sixteenth year, by direct-interactions with our customers, we have induced them to reduce their peak demand by 3,000 mW. This 1s.three L 1,000 mW electric generating units that we will never have to build;.Over $3 billion in capital that we will never have to raise by selling new securities; and about $600 million each year that our customers' don't pay to service that capital. This is win-Win all around. And we're planning even more demand-side savings.
m _g_ For our model, let's make a bold assumption. Let's assume that this new generation of folks is going to be super successful in conserving energy. Let's assume that technological breakthroughs Will dramatically increase energy efficiency and solar' energy Will take care.of a greater share of space heating energy. And, by our.2040 time-frame We Will cut electric input to half of What it is today per unit of productivity. A Whopping 50 percent savings--superb conservation success by doubling our energy efficiency, . Electricity'use in the U.S. is currently about 0.6 kilowatt hour per dollar of GNP. Whereas total U.S. energy use per dollar of GNP is already declining through success.In conservation and energy efficiency, the electricity component of total energy is rising, and the electricity input per unit of GNP has been relatively constant in the U.S. since 1970. Worldwide use of electricity per unit of production is about the same, 0.6 kilowatt hour per dollar. So, in our model, We'll assume We can chop this in half--from 0.6 to 0.3 kilowatt hour per dollar of World GNP. Now, We're ready to run the model und find out how much electricity Will be required. Remember that our inputs are: i I 1
. _ partially fulfilling human aspirations in the next 50 years, the World average standard of living Will improve to one-half the level We now enjoy in the U.S. _ and over that same period, conservation and energy efficiency will be so successful that Worldwide electricity use to achieve that standard Will De Cut in half. Now bear with me through the arithmetic. To achieve the aspired Worldwide standard of living of $10,870 annual GNP per person Will require 0.3 kilowatt hour electricity input per dollar, or 3,261 kilowatt hours per person per year for the 9 billion people then on this planet, Thus, in the year 2040, 29.3 trillion kilowatt hours will be needed annually, up from 9.9 trillion today. Our model suggests that When today's students are my age the World must produce about three times as much electricity as today. Present power plants will be worn out in less than 50 years. So, to generate three times as much as today's electricity Will mean these power plants must be replaced by new ones, and their generating capacity must be duplicated with more new plants, then duplicated again.
. Sources of Electricity How Will We make that much electricity? This is not a hypothetical question. That decision must be ude and acted upon this year in a ny U.S. states and countries Worldwide. And it must be made and acted upon many~ times next year, and again the next, and every year through our time horizon. Remember that we are constrained by the time-constant in deploying new technology. So there's no as-yet-undiscovered magic.that Will help us in a major way during the careers of today's students. We must do it With what We now have and know. We must 60 it without global changes in our environment, not always fully understanding global effects. And we must decide. Electricity is made by burning fuel, splitting the atom, Or converting the natural energy of Wind, sunlight, falling i Water or heat from the earth. Each source has its own orray of environmental interactions. We know what many of those interactions are, but We're not sure about others. Until we better understand long-term environmental impoc'ts, diversity of fuel types might be the best interim insurance against surprises--including environmental surprises. For the. longer term, We need vigorous pursuit of answers about acid rain, greenhouse effects, radioactive Waste, mine safety and drainage, nuclear safety, and conservation.
~ . With the knowledge We have today, We dare not i abandon any of the means of generating electricity, nor should We put all our eggs in Just a few baskets. To keep l l Our options open, we should continue with a diverse mix, further developing each of the technologies and lessening their' impact on the environment in our quest for optimum solutions. Without attempting comprehensive discussion of any, l here are a few observations about each source of electricity. Combustion Three-quarters of today's Worldwide electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbon fuels: Cool, 011, and natural gas. But the contribution fram oil and natural gas i for Jenerating electricity is dropping. By our target year 2040, these fuels will be used largely for transportation and chemical feedstocks. Coal is the earth's most abundant fossil fuel and must play a major role in generating Worldwide electricity over our time horizon Using fluidized bed combustion with limestone, coal can be economically 1 burned with de-minimus sulphur emissions and l much-reduced nitrogen oxides. Present coal-fired power plants will gradually be' replaced using fluidized bed or other clean-coal technology. We con Whip ocid rain. As 1
. yet, however, we don't know of a method to control CO ' 2 If we burn all the solid Waste we produce, it will generate only 5 percent of our electricity. But there are uncertainties about the acceptability of emissions when the chemicals in Waste fuels are unpredictable. Moreover, we should aim to recycle most of our waste leaving little available as fuel. In my view, we can forget blamass as a viable fuel. To burn plants grown for fuel both odds CO 2 to the atmosphere and also reduces the conversion of CO to 2 oxygen by photosynthesis--a loser all around. We don't have the needed answers about global Warming. Without a more certain understanding, it would be folly to rely exclusively on burning carbon fuels to make the World's electricity. Lost year, 3.2 billion metric tons of coal were burned on our planet, and we need more answers before we should embark on a doubling or trebling of this burn. Some suggest that we can continue to rely on . combustion without carbon emissions by switching to the " hydrogen economy." Hydrogen burns very cleanly, and the residue of combustion is harmless Water vapor. Proponents cite the inexhaustible source of hydrogen from Water--by electrolysis! Or from natural gas by stripping the carbon atom through " magic chemistry." They neglect to remind us that the energy input to separate hydrogen from Water with present technology exceeds the energy output of burning the hydrogen.
~ . EgleWal,les Harnessing more energy from wind, Water, sun, and earth has some promise. So far, Wind power has generated more tax shelters than electricity--and it's only significant use beyond remote, isolated locations has been Where it was subsidized on a large scale. Nevertheless, I hope reliability of Wind machines can be improved along with reduced capital cost so Wind energy can help us more. The Conservation Commission of the World Energy Conference estimates that World hydroelectricity growth is about the same three-times growth rate suggested by our model for total electricity. This would imply that hydro's contribution to total needs would remain about the same proportion as today if we are Willing to accept more lakes. But in early 1990, 100,000 people of Eastern Europe i demonstrated their protest to a proposed new !!ydroelectric reservoir by forming a 100-mile human chain along the Danube. Solutions are not easy. In my view, tidal energy Will not contribute significant electricity. Most of its sites would impen estuaries-- nature's nursery, and the tides don't coincide With man's diurnal clock. I count on ubiquitous solar energy to help us in several ways. Solar's best application is not making electricity but displacing it by direct use of the sun's
. energy to heat space und Water. Energy can be stored for later use more efficiently as heat than as electricity. Worldwide exploitation of solar heat has just begun. Passive solc fesign of homes, schools and many other buildings is fundamental--let sunlight in during Winter, -block it out in summer. And make sure the structure is energy efficient. We now know how to do this well. The substitution of solar heat for electricity.is a significant part of our assumed doubling of energy efficiency. On the other hand, converting sunlight to electricity is very capital intensive, but we'll see broader use of photovoltales. With air conditioning driving electricity peak demands ~in some regions, the sun's intensity might be harnessed to power cooling it's own effects. However, energy input into manufacture of solar cells and the related batteries to generate and store electricity is a major fraction of the electricity that can be recovered over the lifetime of these devices. Core is needed here. With environmental zeal, it is easy to propose solar-generated electricity as a solution. Photovoltales with storage j batteries con provide some lighting, but it's clearly not ovalloble as a near-term option for significant power-intensive uses. To propose it as the major solution ducks j the harder choices. Meantime, We should proceed'With vigorous research and development in a search for lower i
. life-cycle cost and energy effectiveness of photovoltaic conversion of sunlight to electricity. Geothermal generation of electricity Will have increosed -application in same parts of the globe But in aggregate, its contribution Will be small. NL' clear Enerav Nuclear generated electricity.111 play a much greater role, and this is already evident in same countries but opposed in others. In my view, we comot hope to significontly increase the stonderd of living of the World's growing population W1thout a substantial contribution from j nuclear fission. And later on, the World Will need fusion, but not ova 11able during the time horizon of our model. We have assumed that conservation Will cut future electric generation by one-half. To generate the remaining 29 trillion kilowatt hours in the year 2040 With only renewables and combustion in any combination appears unacceptable on its face. Thus the need for more nuclear power seems compelling if it con be compatible with a sustalnoble environment. With nuclear power, we must solve the nuclear Waste issue. The technology is here. We have proven methods.to-1solate nuclear wastes. Vitrification, or binding these Wastes in on impenetrable, insoluble glass is already being used in France that depends on nuclear power for most of i
o. _17_ lts electricity. But wherever waste disposal technologies are greeted with skepticism, a major hurdle for nuclear power remains. Ultimately, this issue Will call for tough political i choices and visionary leadership. Let's compare two waste alternatives. A 1,000 mW coal-fired generating unit Will produce annually 3.5 million cubic feet of ashi 35,000 tons of S0 at emission limits of the recently passed amendment j to the Clean Air Act; and 4.5 million tons-of CO. The sh 2 alone is equivalent to the volume of a 60-story building with j the footprint of a football field. A similar size nuclear. unit Will produce 70 cubic feet of high-level radioactive vitrified Waste. The vitrifiea radioactive Waste can be stored in a l deep underground repository in a stable geologic formation. We can monitor it. We can recover it if we need to. But we don't know where the gaseous Wastes from coal burning Will 90 or What will be their long-term effects. Nuclear plants nust be proven safe and acceptable to l. the public. Advanced reactor ~ designs include possive safety features. Performance of human beings is important to safety of current reactors, and groat strides have been taken since'Chernobyl. Along with air and Ocean currents, radioactivity knows no political boundaries nor should nuclear safety. Each owner of a nuclear-electric generating plant now recognizes that self-interest rests on the safe
-. performance of every nuclear power station on our planet. Without exception, everyone of them. This past year in Moscow, all owners of the World's 430 operating nuclear plants in 29 nations joined together to form the World Association of Nuclear Operators to translate this shared concern for safety into concrete improvements in safety and performance. This. association, called WANO for short, seeks excellence in the operation of every nuclear plant in the World. This is being done through Worldwide exchange of best practices, sharing of lessons learned, ossistance visits by experts, and reinforcing training. - Already, more than half the World's nuclear plants are interconnected by a camputer-driven comunications network and the others are caming on-line. On a real-time basis, operators around the World con inquire of each other and exchange experiences and safety information. It has been a thrill to se nuclear power plant people lay aside their political differences in a mutually reinforcing quest for safety excellence. Indians and Pakistani, Koreans and Japanese, Chinese and Tlawanese, Americans'and Soviets in meetings and exchanges together to help one another. In my own Campany, we are exchanging employees With nuclear plants in the Soviet Union,' France and Japan and We have engaged in technical exchanges With the nuclear plant in Cuba. Our exchanges i are a part of WAN0's matrix of Worldwide exchanges of 1 i
. nuclear experts. Out of self-interest, each of us is driven to prevent the type of human failure that brought on the accidents at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl. This Worldwide mutual reinforcement in nuclear power might Well become the successful precursor of international cooperation in other areas, such as health care, agriculture, or environmental stewardship We have far more in comon than are our differences. For now, we are working to strengthen the bonds created with WANO, in order.to create a future where nuclear fission, and later fusion, Will prove to be major sources of the World's future electricity supply. In my view, We must not reject out of hand any of these sources of electricity. We must work to improve each of them and lessen their interaction with our environment. In our zeal for environmental stewardship, we must not overlook the. certainty that the World Will need substantially more electricity along with super success at conservation to fulfill billions of aspirations. I am convinced that failure to face this need is sheer escapism, or Worse, a cruel hoax. So We must join together in our quest for Worldwide environmental quality and achievable human life quality--the dual challenge of our common future.
REFERENCES. Bolzhlser, R. E. 1953. " Future Consequences of Nuclear Nonpolicy," Pp. 184-201 in Enersy: Productlon, Consumption, and Consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Gray, Development," Pp.The Paradox of Technological P. E. 1989. 192-204 in Techno10sy and Environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Lee, H. L. 1989. " Advanced Fossil Fuel Systems and Beyond," Pp. 114-136 in Technology and Environment. Lee, W. S.gton DC:1985. National Ener(y Strategy (H Washin National Academy Press. Washin AuRJst). Department of Energy. " Energy,gton, D. Environmen1:, and Ruckelshaus, W. D. 1990. Development," Pp. 205-212 In Enersy: Production, Constaption and Consequences. Washington, DC: National Aca Press. Starr, C. 1990. "I 1 cottons of Continuing Electri-fication," Pp. 2-71 in Energ Produc':lon Consumption and Consequences.y: Washington, 6C: National Academy-Press. Statistical Abstract of The United States.1990. U.S. Department of Comerce,110th ed., . Washington, DC. i Statistical Abstract of The United States.1989. U.S. Dt.portment of Comerce,109th ed., Washington, DC. Statistical Abstract of The United States.1987. U.S. Department of Comerce,107th ed., Washington, DC. Weinberg, A. M. 1990. " Energy lii.fetrospect: Is the Post Prologue?", Pp. 21-24 in Energy: Washington, DC: Production, Consumption, and Consequences. National Academy Press. 'World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. "Our Comon Future," 0xford, NY, Oxford University Press. ,}}