International Symposium on Electricity, Health and the Environment

I welcome you all to this International Symposium, which addresses some topics of great concern to decision makers who have to devise policies for sustainable energy production and electricity generation. The Symposium will examine the economic, health and environmental aspects of different energy sources, and it will consider how the presently available methodologies and tools for comparative assessment could be adapted better to provide the types of information needed by decision makers.

I am pleased that the IAEA is hosting this Symposium, but I want to stress that it is co-operative effort by the 10 sponsoring organizations. The broad sponsorship of and wide participation in the Symposium show that the subject matter is high on the agenda of analysts and policy makers.

As an introduction, I would like to share with you some thoughts on the opportunities and challenges for the power sector, from my perspective, and also briefly describe the IAEA s activities in the field of comparative assessment.

I start from several basic premises, which may not be shared by all:

• Energy use will grow significantly, especially in developing countries. Continued improvements in efficiency of energy production and use will be very important, but will by no means offset the strong growth in demand. For example, a study by China s State Science and Technology Commission estimates that by the middle of the next century the country s total energy demand will be some 4 to 5 billion tons of coal equivalent, or about four times today s demand. This means that in 50 years time China s energy demand will be nearly as great as the total energy demand of all OECD countries (including the U.S.) today, which is some 6.5 billion tons of coal equivalent.
• Fossil fuels now dominate the global energy supply, and this domination can be expected to continue. For example, over the next two decades India plans to treble, and China to double, the consumption of coal for electricity generation. A growing global consumption of fossil fuels is viewed as increasingly problematic for environmental reasons, notably the risk of global warming that is linked to the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO₂ from the burning of fossil fuels.

   

• Solar power, wind power, biomass and other renewables (other than conventional, large-scale hydro power) will bring a valuable, but minor, contribution to the global energy supply in the coming decades. The views expressed in one of the response strategies devised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for reducing the risk of global warming, arguing that renewable energy could cover some 80% - and biomass some 50% - of the world s energy needs a hundred years from now, is viewed as completely unrealistic by many - and I think most - experts.

   

• Nuclear fusion, as a practical source of energy, is viewed as very distant. If the world were looking for an existing nearly economically viable technology for an almost inexhaustible electricity supply, it could have it in breeder reactors - of which several are in operation. However, while the world has been living for decades with vast quantities of plutonium ready to be exploded in bombs, it seems reluctant to accept plutonium as a fuel for electricity generation.

   

• Expansion of nuclear power, which now provides about 7% of the world s commercial energy and 17% of its electricity, could provide at least an important part of the solution to the problem of increasing energy supply without increasing emissions. Nuclear energy contributes practically no CO₂, SO₂ or NO_x emissions. It is already today of significance in helping us to limit emissions into the atmosphere. If the some 430 nuclear power reactors operating today were replaced by coal fuelled plants, there would be an increase of more than 8% in the global CO₂ emissions from energy use.

   

• However, a broad sector of public opinion in many countries - especially industrialized ones - is hesitant or opposed to an increased use of nuclear power, or even a continuation at present levels. Mainly three factors prompt these attitudes: fear of accidents, fear of long-lived radioactive wastes, and fear that use of nuclear power might contribute to proliferation of nuclear weapons. The last point is probably the least important. The expansion of nuclear power has not led to proliferation of nuclear weapons. Rather, we have seen a continuous increase in the number of countries committing themselves to non-proliferation. This factor and accelerating nuclear disarmament will probably reduce the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power in the public s mind.

   

• In general, environmentalist groups are adamantly opposed to nuclear power and urge more vigorous efforts for energy conservation, the development and greater use of renewables, and new lifestyles as means to respond to the threat of global warming. However, there are examples of different opinions among responsible and uncommitted organizations, such as the Club of Rome which a few years ago came to the conclusion that the use of fossil fuels is probably more dangerous to society - because of the CO₂ they produce - than nuclear energy.

   

The threat of global climate change is high on the agenda of governments, but we have to note that - three years after the Rio Earth Summit which set ambitious targets for sustainable development - the progress made worldwide, for example in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is extremely small, not to say negligible. Carbon dioxide emissions have slowed only marginally in industrialized countries - mainly due to the recent economic recession - and have continued to increase significantly in most developing countries, owing to energy demand growth and reliance on fossil fuels as the most readily available energy source.

Indeed, sustainable development in the field of energy seems to have quite different meanings in different regions and fora, and to be difficult to put into practice. The first Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was held in Berlin at the end of March 1995, showed that reaching an international consensus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will take some time.

The medium-term outlook is not better. In particular, the expected continued dramatic growth in energy and electricity consumption in Asia will lead to drastic increase of greenhouse gas emissions, if measures are not taken soon to reduce the share of fossil fuels, especially coal, in electricity generation. In Eastern Europe, energy consumption has flattened due to the economic stagnation that has occurred; however, as the economies of the region begin to recover and grow, these countries will also be faced with increases in emissions, unless effective control and mitigation measures are implemented. In Western Europe too, according to the findings of a number of recent studies, carbon dioxide emissions will continue to grow after the turn of the century. The mothballing of nuclear programmes in some countries and the commissioning of new gas fired or coal fired power plants are the main causes of this trend. I cannot fail to add that the case of France, where more than 75% of electricity is produced by nuclear power, clearly demonstrates that nuclear power could play a major role in reducing CO₂, SO₂ and NO_x emissions, while enhancing the economic competitiveness of industry.

Also, a study commissioned by the Institute of Energy Economics in Japan has concluded that if carbon dioxide emissions are to be curbed to the 1990 levels, Japan will need anywhere from 160 to 300 GW(e) of nuclear power by the end of 2100. At present, Japan has 38 GW(e) of nuclear capacity.

I do not suggest that nuclear power alone could solve all of the problems involved in achieving a secure and sustainable energy supply worldwide. However, together with renewable sources and energy conservation, nuclear power could play a very significant role in strategies aiming towards this goal. The two cases I have just mentioned are good illustrations.

I am fully aware that the issues are fraught with emotional reactions and that governments must pay attention to public opinion. However, it seems to me that if we have sincerely and scientifically identified some severe threats being caused by our present energy policies, we must assess and compare on a level playing field - that is, rationally - all the available energy supply options - renewable, fossil and nuclear - taking into account their complete fuel cycles, their technical and economic performance, and their impact on health and the environment. This is the focus of the Agency's programme on the comparative assessment of energy sources, and also of the DECADES project within which this Symposium is organized.

* * * * * Let me now give you some glimpses of the Agency s activities in the field of comparative assessment of energy sources, in particular for electricity generation.

There is no single United Nations organization - or other world-wide intergovernmental organization - that covers comprehensively all the issues - including the social, health and environmental impacts - related to energy and electricity production and use. However, there are an increasing number of joint programmes of work which bring together the expertise and know-how of different international organizations.

The IAEA has a long tradition in the analysis and planning of energy and electricity systems. In response to requests from its Member States, the Agency has implemented and disseminated energy and electricity system analysis models that are widely used by national institutes and other international organizations. Within the Technical Co-operation Programme of the IAEA, a large number of projects are devoted to supporting Member States in the field of energy and electricity system analysis and planning. These projects examine not only the nuclear power option, but also fossil and renewable energy systems. The IAEA does by no means blindly counsel the use of nuclear power. Indeed, in many cases the nuclear option would be inappropriate.

While earlier it was considered that the cheapest energy was the best energy , and accordingly the analysis of energy options did not have many dimensions, the increasing concerns about the social, health and environmental impacts of energy production and use has led to a broadening of the analysis that is necessary. In order to assist in more comprehensive comparative assessments in the power sector, the Agency has since the 1980's broadened the scope of its analytical activities to incorporate those concerns together with the traditional economic and technical comparisons. Moreover, a close co-operation on these matters has been established and maintained by the IAEA with other international organizations. The co-operation includes exchange of information, task sharing and joint activities in order to avoid duplication and to enhance the overall efficiency of the programmes carried out in the respective organizations as well as the quality and credibility of their results.

More recently, the Agency programme has put increased emphasis on global climate change issues, especially on the potential role of nuclear power and other energy options in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Contributions were provided to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Our work in this field will continue in connection with the Framework Convention on Climate Change and with the ongoing work of IPCC. In 1997-1998, the Agency s programme on comparative assessment of energy sources will be strengthened and redefined, building upon the results and outcomes of the current work. I trust that the presentations and discussions during this Symposium will provide concrete guidance on the priority issues that are to be addressed by the Agency's programme.

The present Symposium is one milestone in a continuing process of dialogue and exchange of views among experts from Member States and representatives from international organizations. It is a direct follow-up of the Senior Expert Symposium on Electricity and the Environment, which was jointly organized by the IAEA and ten other international organizations and held in Helsinki in May 1991. The Helsinki Symposium recommended inter alia that programmes of research on comparative assessment of electricity generation options and strategies be undertaken, and stressed that international organizations having a mandate in this field should play a leading role and should co-operate to provide improved databases and methodologies for comparative assessment.

The DECADES project, which is carried out jointly by nine international organizations, was initiated by the IAEA in 1992 in response to the recommendations of the Helsinki Symposium and has led to the present meeting. The objectives of the DECADES project and its main results and outcomes will be presented to you later on, in particular by the chairman of the Steering Committee for the project, Mr. Semenov. At this stage, I would like only to highlight that the co-operative framework that was adopted to carry out this project has helped to ensure that there is an objective and comprehensive assessment of all energy options for electricity generation.

Coming to key issues for decision makers in the power sector, I would like, first of all, to point out that an adequate electricity supply is a prerequisite for economic development and for enhancing social welfare. The positive aspects of electricity use should not be overlooked in the process of assessing the potential negative impacts of its production. For a number of developing countries that are experiencing under-supply of electricity and power cuts - which do have significant adverse economic impacts and also social, health and environmental effects - the priority will continue to be on adding electricity generation capacity at affordable costs. For those countries, comparative assessment includes assessing not only the potential negative impacts of different supply options, but also the impacts of non-supply. You may recall that the famous Indian scientist Homi Bhabha coined the expression, "No energy is more expensive than no energy".

According to estimates published by the International Energy Agency 1, electricity demand in developing regions of the world is projected to grow up to 2010 at a rate of about 5% per year, that is, about twice as high as the rate in OECD countries. If this demand is met, it would mean that the electricity consumption per capita would almost double, from just under 700 kW.h per capita to around 1200 kW.h per capita. Even so, this would still be less than one sixth the electricity consumption per capita in the OECD, and in some individual countries the levels would be far lower. This clearly indicates that further increase in generating capacity is inevitable.

A particular question is the impact of today s energy choices on tomorrow s world. Classic thermal power plants have typical life times of some 30 years, nuclear power plants of the newest generation are expected to be in operation for around half a century, and hydro power plants have even longer lifetimes. Heavy metals in the wastes arising from fossil fuel burning will remain toxic forever and some radioactive wastes have to be disposed of in repositories ensuring their isolation from the biosphere over many thousands of years. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere might entail irreversible global climate change. In view of these long term effects of energy choices, care must be taken to avoid energy policies and waste handling practices today that will lead to unacceptable effects for future generations.

In spite of the global attention that has been given to all aspects of energy supply systems, we still face major areas of uncertainty. The uncertainties surrounding global climate change issues illustrate this point. First, there is the uncertainty about the amount of climate change that might result from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Secondly, there are difficulties in assessing and evaluating the overall social, health and environmental impacts of global climate change, if it were to occur, in a given country or region.

Let me emphasize that nuclear power is one of the few energy sources for which the risks and potential impacts have been recognized and dealt with from its very beginning. The effects of radiation exposures due to nuclear power production are much better known - and more strictly limited - than the effects of pollutants from other energy cycles. Furthermore, the costs of minimizing these impacts are largely internalized in nuclear power generation costs. For fossil fired power plants, the emissions of SO₂ and NO_x can be reduced - at a considerable cost - through the installation of scrubbing devices. In this area, I may mention that the demonstration of electron beam accelerators as an advanced technique for flue gas cleaning is being assisted by the Agency through its technical co-operation programme.

Carbon dioxide emissions, however, cannot be controlled through economically viable methods, and the assessment of the potential cost of CO₂ emissions, as well the finding of ways to include this cost in the prices paid by consumers, is particularly difficult. Other potential impacts from fossil fuel burning, for example those due to the toxic heavy metals in the particulate emissions and solid wastes from coal burning, also are much less well known than the effects of radiation.

This points to the urgent need for further research in the field of impact assessment, for evaluation of external costs, and for ways to include these externalities in the prices paid for energy and electricity.

Finally, I would like to stress the transboundary aspects of national power sector policies. While decisions about using or not using any given technology are and will remain the prerogative of each country, it should be recognised that these decisions can have significant impacts beyond the country s borders. Comparative assessment frameworks should allow analysis of transboundary impacts and reflect them in the choice of optimised strategies for electricity system expansion. In this connection, international organisations can play a key role in helping to build consensus on global priorities, which in turn will facilitate the implementation of sustainable strategies in different countries - reflecting both regional priorities and world-wide objectives.

The issues that I have pointed to in these introductory remarks certainly are not exhaustive, and I am sure that the experts participating in this Symposium will identify and elaborate on a number of other important issues and initiate a more comprehensive discussion on the challenges that decision makers will face in the coming years. This Symposium will not address or solve all the problems. However, I do hope that it will offer opportunities for a fruitful exchange of views between experts having a wide range of scientific backgrounds and representing different regions of the world. Moreover, I am convinced that the presentations and discussions will help to better understand the issues, and to highlight ways and means for addressing them. The findings and recommendations from the Symposium should also identify areas where further work should be undertaken by international organisations and national research institutes, with a view to a broader use of comparative assessment as a part of the decision making process for the electric power sector.

The challenges remain to design approaches that incorporate all relevant elements into a comprehensive comparative assessment of different options and strategies, and to develop enhanced databases, analytical methodologies and other decision-aiding tools upon which policy makers can rely to support their decisions. International organisations have an important role to play in helping to meet these challenges. In particular, internationally harmonised approaches - designed and agreed upon in a co-operative framework - may help to address transboundary issues, such as acid rains, and global issues, such as greenhouse gas emissions.

I trust that these points and other issues will be discussed thoroughly during this Symposium, and I look forward to the concrete outcomes, conclusions and findings that will result from the presentations and discussions that will take place.

I would now like to declare the Symposium to be officially opened.