|
Sessions of the
Scientific Forum
 |
Session
II: The Nuclear Option in Perspective Development
Tuesday afternoon
Moderator: Mr. David Nicholls, ESKOM, South Africa |
|
 Topic
4: Electric Power and Sustainable
Development
Prof. Mohan Munasinghe, Sri Lanka* |
|
Abstract:
Increasing levels of energy-related environmental degradation
in both industrialized and developing countries have
led to recognition of the need for improved energy options
for sustainable development. The primary objective is
to maximize net economic welfare of energy development
while maintaining the stock of economic, ecological
and sociocultural assets for future generations and
providing a safety net to meet basic needs and protect
the poor.
Sustainable energy options may be identified using a
comprehensive and integrated framework for analysis
and decision-making that takes into account multiple
actors, multiple criteria, multilevel decision-making
and many impediments and constraints. In the past, the
principal planning objective of energy development has
been to meet the anticipated needs of at least economic
cost. Now, environmental and social concerns must also
be incorporated early at the regional and sectoral planning
stages in order to ensure sustainable energy development.
However, difficulties in valuing certain environmental
and social impacts of energy development and the large
number of options may require techniques of multi-criteria
analysis (MCA), rather than conventional cost-benefit
analysis (CBA) methods, to provide a range of feasible
alternatives as opposed to one best solution.
Using MCA, "win-win" energy options that satisfy all
three elements of sustainable development (i.e., economic,
environmental and social) may be identified and, after
having done so, tradeoffs can be made from other available
sustainable energy options. A case study of the Sri
Lanka power sector demonstrates how the MCA-based approach
may improve decision-making.
Dealing with energy-related environmental and social
issues would require increased co-operation between
industrialized countries and developing countries. Developing
countries have limited capabilities to address global
environmental concerns. Without enhanced flows of incremental
technical and financial resources from industrialized
countries, prospects for energy development that will
move the world towards a more sustainable path will
be hampered.
_____ * The author is Vice Chair, Bureau of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Distinguished Visiting
Professor of Environmental Management, University of
Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka. He is grateful to Kumudu
Gunasekera for assistance in preparing this paper. The
views expressed in the paper are the author’s and do
not necessarily represent the opinions of any organisation.
|
|
Topic
5: Comparing Alternative Electricity-Generating
Options and their Impact on the Environment
Ms. Maureen T. Koetz, Nuclear Energy Institute, USA |
|
Abstract:
"Identifying the Environmentally Beneficial Attributes
of Nuclear Energy"
The presentation will discuss demonstrating the environmental
attributes of nuclear energy through scientifically-based
comparison to other forms of electricity generation
in order to better inform international debate regarding
energy use in general, environmental issues such as
global warming, and the goal of sustainable development.
|
|
Topic
6: Nuclear Waste and Energy Sustainability:
Are the Two Compatible?
Prof. Alan E. Waltar and Ms. Pamela Longmire, Texas A&M
University, USA |
Abstract:
As the six billion inhabitants of planet earth cross the
boundary into the 3rd millennium, it is clear that very
serious global planning must be undertaken if the energy
required to serve this rapidly growing population is to
be sustained over the next century. Of equal importance
to the energy supply itself is the compatibility of the
sources of the supply with maintaining an environment
worthy of passing on to subsequent generations.
Nuclear energy appears unique in its promise of having
the capacity to provide the prodigious amounts of energy
that will be required, consistent with the environmental
challenge posed. However, there is currently widespread
concern regarding the appropriate disposition of nuclear
waste and, in particular, the ability of the nuclear power
industry to minimize the possibility of nuclear proliferation
- given the vast amounts of plutonium that are envisioned
to be associated with this huge enterprise.
In this paper, we address the long-term global energy
needs and attempt to place the nuclear component into
a perspective with the overall energy mix. We then directly
address the nuclear waste issue, but we do so within the
context of comparing nuclear wastes with wastes arising
from competing energy sources. We also suggest that over
the longer term, nuclear products currently considered
"waste" might become valuable commodities, given the time
scales for technology evolution involved.
Still, the interrelationship between vastly increasing
quantities of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and the nuclear
proliferation potential is a serious issue that must be
responsibly addressed. Hence, we offer a new international
strategy that might be worthy of consideration in allowing
humanity to derive the enormous benefits of nuclear power
while, at the same time, minimizing the potential for
any harm due to buildup of plutonium, SNF, and processed
high-level waste.
The basic concept is to create an International Nuclear
Waste Authority (INWA as a working title) that would be
constituted by representatives of all nuclear power nations.
This entity would establish nuclear waste disposition
standards, enforce such standards, and execute all financial
and contractual arrangements. Clear but simple rules would
guide the entrance of both existing and new nuclear power
nations to the INWA. This entity would build and operate
regional interim monitored retrievable storage sites,
geological repositories, reprocessing plants, etc. It
would also utilize only internationally licensed transportation
equipment. Incentives would be established to encourage
the private sector to acquire long-term contracts to perform
all operations.
It is well recognized that much work would be required
to establish such a working entity. At this point, the
IAEA is probably best positioned to provide the leadership
required in supporting and guiding the debate necessary
to shape such a concept into full maturity. It is even
possible that the IAEA itself would become the INWA envisioned.
Given the appropriate commitment to establish and support
a concept of this nature, we remain convinced that nuclear
power can indeed fulfil its promise to provide the energy
needed by a growing population for at least another millennium—and
do so in complete harmony with the goals of sustainable
development. |
|
Topic
7: Public Information
Mr. Wolf-J. Schmidt-Küster, Secretary General, FORATOM
|
Abstract
How to communicate about sustainable development?
How does one convey that nuclear energy is part of the
solution for reducing the greenhouse effect?
Despite high-level conferences and political debates,
it seems that the issue of the greenhouse effect, which
was so popular in the early 90s is losing steam where
the general public is concerned. As negotiations get bogged
down due to opposing views on possible solutions and,
especially as the intricate technical issues take time
to iron out, it may perhaps appear that the public at
large is losing interest despite the effort deployed by
environmentalist groups.
The question is: should the nuclear community be on a
soap box, broadcasting to whomever will listen, the virtues
of nuclear energy or should it slowly but surely make
its way through, gaining terrain one step at a time. At
the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC)
conferences, the nuclear industry has done the latter.
If you look back to the Rio summit in 1992 and compare
it with today, you must acknowledge that the industry
has succeeded in doing what it set out to do and that
was to consider nuclear energy as part of the solution
to help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Whereas in Rio, nuclear was not even mentioned, by contrast
in Bonn, at the last UNFCCC subsidiary bodies meeting
in May 1999, the nuclear industry made important strides
in making sure that nuclear energy is still an option
for many countries, pushing forward the idea that nuclear
energy get the appropriate credit in emissions trading
schemes. There are still some sceptics of course.
But really, the continuing challenge is public acceptance.
To the average person, the Kyoto Protocol means little
or nothing. To elected officials, however, it is an important
subject. Many politicians have had to take a position
at a national or regional level as to how countries, regions
or businesses will comply with the Kyoto targets in reducing
their CO2 emissions. It has been our job as representatives
of the industry to push forward the nuclear option. For
instance, in recent hearings in the European Parliament,
nominated commissioners have been asked about their position
on nuclear energy. It was very important that these future
Commissioners specifically those in charge of industry
and transport, and the environment were made well aware
of what is at stake. We had to make sure that they had
a sufficient level of information. Nonetheless, the key
factor to public acceptance is safety. If that basic condition
is met, then other issues such as competitiveness can
come into play. Building a nuclear power plant requires
an important investment which is amortised over the plant's
lifetime (40 to 60 years). It requires long-term planning.
Other options will seem more attractive financially in
the short run. The tendency these days among developing
countries is to choose an energy mix - to diversify. The
result will be that activities for the nuclear industry
will decrease due to market constraints. In Western Europe,
we are faced with a contradiction. On the one hand, some
governments are pushing very strongly for a phase-out
of nuclear energy, doing so through a democratic process
as politicians elected on platforms which included anti-nuclear
policies. On the other hand, public opinion polls taken
in those same countries show that a majority of the public
is favourable to nuclear and feels that existing power
plants should continue to operate. So what is of keynote
importance is to build trust with the public, and the
way to do that is to operate facilities safely and to
be transparent.
Key arguments after that pertain to pollution and economics.
There are places in the world where units have been shut
down. In Canada, for example, in the province of Ontario,
pollution levels have changed dramatically since seven
nuclear units were shut down over the summer for maintenance.
This, coupled with very hot weather, has important consequences.
Coal-fired units were used instead, using imported coal
from the United States. The local population could see
and feel the difference. They now have smog and poorer
air quality and, as a result, there has been an increase
in respiratory illnesses. The financial burden on the
state is twofold: coal purchases and increased medical
expenses (Canada has a state-run medical care system).
In my view, it is essential to appeal to the common sense
of people. The message we should broadcast is that the
nuclear industry is a responsible one, following the strictest
standards, and that, thanks to nuclear energy, the air
is cleaner. |
|
|
>>
Next Session
3
|
