Alain Bugat, Chairman, French Atomic Energy Commission
Panel Chairman:
Robert G. Card, Under Secretary for Energy,
Science and Environment
World Market for
Nuclear Energy
CARD:
Next we’re going to internationalize the program
here and hear from Chairman Bugat who has had a career
in the nuclear industry, spanning all aspects that we’re
going to talk about today from weapons to propulsion
to nuclear power. He currently heads the French agency
that is most closely aligned to the responsibilities
of the U.S. Secretary of Energy in that it covers the
defense and civilian aspects and research and development
for nuclear energy and power. I’ve found Chairman
Bugat to be a very strategic thinker, and we’re
looking forward to hearing what the Chairman has to
say. So, Chairman Bugat, thank you.
BUGAT:
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish first to thank the organizers
of this conference aiming at commemorating the 50th
anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous declaration,
“Atoms for Peace.” It is my great pleasure
to have the opportunity to speak today on the subject
of world market for nuclear energy. In view of recent
evolutions in the nuclear energy sector, it seems fair
to recognize the visionary character of President Eisenhower’s
speech. Clearly it may still be considered as a guideline
for the development of nuclear energy in the world.
Starting with a brief
review of the current status of the world nuclear market,
I will then examine the ...(inaudible) advantage of
the nuclear option in responding to global challenges
in terms of energy requirements, taking into account
the geo-political constraints regarding economical growth
and legitimate concerns of public opinions. This should
allow me to try and convince you that after a rather
stagnant phase of nuclear sector, the conditions are
now met for its rebirth in the context of sustainable
development, starting with the renewal of the existing
power plants.
I wish also to underline
that for the first time, we are observing he expansion
of a lot of international R and D and ...(inaudible)
the Generation Four program initiated by the United
States associating now ten countries and, more recently,
the European Union in a joint effort to promote the
shared vision of nuclear energy. Clearly such an initiative
would not have been possible without the strong governmental
leadership of a few member countries.
Even if the gross prospect
of the early seventies has not been fulfilled, much
has still been achieved in 50 years since President
Eisenhower’s declaration. There are now 441 reactors
in 30 countries. It represents a 7% contribution to
the world primary energy production in terms of the
sole electricity sector, this is an average share at
the world level with an extremely wide distribution
ranging from a mere 1% for China to over 78% for France.
But for ...(inaudible) like reactors around 30 units,
the world nuclear effort(?) is essentially composed
of light water reactors, two dominant technologies pressurized
water reactors, 289 units, and boiling water reactors,
98 units.
It might also be worth
mentioning the existence of a few operating fast neutron
reactors in Russia, France, and Japan, this last technology
has certainly not known the kind of development that
was first envisaged. Still its interesting characteristics,
regarding the optimized use of natural resources and
its potential benefit in terms of ...(inaudible) management
are becoming globally recognized. In my view, such reactors
should definitely constitute an initial component of
any long-term scenario.
Regarding safety issues,
the international nuclear community has been successful
in implementing new guidelines dealing with human factors
and safety organization following lessons learned from
past major accidents, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
The worldwide market globalization including the trend
of electricity deregulation is driving a major reorganization
of the nuclear industry. For example, merger and acquisition
in the U.S. have led to the consolidation of the nuclear
sector with ten major utilities controlling close to
three quarters of the nuclear power plants.
On the worldwide nuclear
industry side, major integrated groups have appeared
covering all activities from plant vendors to reactor
fuel cycle services. Besides the BNFL Westinghouse conglomerate
and the Ariva(?) Group, one can also mention several
joint venture ...(inaudible) with Japanese companies,
for example, General Electric’s with Toshiba ...(inaudible),
for the promotion of the ABWR reactor of Westinghouse
Corporation and Mitsubishi industries for the licensing
of the AP 1000.
As a rule, the nuclear
industry has reached its maturity supported by accumulated
operating experience of ten thousand reactors and continuously
improving performance indicators in terms both of reliability
and safety factors. This is most identified with U.S.
...(inaudible) owing to utilities ...(inaudible) combined
with evolution of ...(inaudible) policy and regarding
power plant oversight and the success of each plant
lifetime extension ...(inaudible).
In this context it is
also worth mentioning the French nuclear program. As
you know, French have 68 nuclear reactors on 19 sites.
This was achieved through an evolutionary approach starting
from the first generation of 900 megawatt plants, 34
units, followed by a generation of one thousand 300-megawatt
plants, 20 units and ending with the most recent N-4
type reactors, four units. The last reactor of this
type, ...(inaudible) plant, having been commissioned
in 1999. This has been accompanied by a continuous improvement
in nuclear safety and cost reduction based on the largely
homogeneous fleet.
France also has adopted
the global fuel cycle management based on the reprocessing
of spent fuel. It allows to separate its reusable content,
96% from true nuclear waste, 4%. Among the waste the
long-life nuclides are then vitrified 1% in waste volume
for 90% of the total radioactivity. The recovered plutonium
is partly recycled as ...(inaudible) fuel in the 900
megawatt ...(inaudible) following the policy of equality
of flex, that means separate plutonium, ...(inaudible)
recycle plutonium.
Last I would also like
to point to extensive R and D programs and advanced
partitioning and transportation of waste, mostly at
the French Atomic Energy Commission. This program and
there is a French nuclear waste law since 1991 aimed
at improving the management of waste type, that is to
further reduce their volume and long-term radio-toxicity
with the key milestone in 2006.
I firmly, just a few words
on the slide-- You have on the right ...(inaudible)
processing and the time where you find again the initial
radium toxicity, which you have used to build the fuel.
Then the green is the without plutonium. ...(Inaudible)
And efficient products and the blue one is without ...(inaudible).
And so you come back to 300 years, roughly speaking.
I firmly believe that
any strategy for significant development for nuclear
energy may not occur without taking into account the
legitimate concern of the public opinion dealing with
the satisfaction of the energy demand with diverse primary
sources, including renewable energies with the security
of the energy supply, safety and security issues, especially
after the September 11th dramatic events, the management
of nuclear waste and the protection of the environment.
Such ideas have motivated the organization of national
debate this year in France to address all possible energy
options for the future in view of the preparation of
the global energy load.
International geo-political
energy issues are also key parameters for such a possible
restart of national nuclear programs. It is commonly
accepted that a quarter of the world’s population
is, in fact, consuming three-quarters of the world’s
primary energy produced. Moreover, two billion people,
a third of the current population do not have access
to electricity. This is most significant in view of
studies that have shown strong correlations between
energy consumption per person and standard of living
as measured by infant mortality or lifetime expectancy.
Access to energy and economic growth translate indeed
into a legitimate right to life.
Current estimates for
worldwide population give a figure to ten to 12 billion
people in 2100 in high growth scenario as compared with
six billions today. This should lead to an increase
of conception of ...(inaudible) energies going from
currently nine billion of tons of oil equivalent to
20 or 40 billions of tons depending on the energy scenario.
Moreover, large centralized production will be needed
to satisfy the need of future mega-cities, most of which
being located in the developing countries.
Last, if we look at current
projection that do not rely on nuclear energy, the use
of fossil energy will account for more than 80% of the
total worldwide primary energy conception by 2010. Needless
to say that such a figure indicates extreme importance
and urgency in dealing with global warming. This has
now been considered for sometime by countries, which
committed themselves with greenhouse gas emission reduction
and the Kyoto Agreement. We understand that this is
also a major concern of the President Bush initiative
on the hydrogen economy.
Independently of the global
warming issue, an extreme reliance on the fossil energy
might strengthen the needed economic growth in view
of both financial resources as a reasonable extraction(?)
cost and over reliance on fossil fuels located in politically
unstable regions. It is indeed such concerns on security
of energy supplies that led France as early as the seventies
to implement its nuclear policies. In this context I
am convinced that it is now time for launching a vigorous
expansion for nuclear energy as part of a global energy
mix adapted to specific applications original requirements.
There has been over the
first few years a number of initiatives to look at energy
policy including nuclear energy policy in different
international forums. In the U.S., the launching of
the Nuclear Power 2010 in early 2002 are certainly to
be viewed worldwide as a very positive signal in support
of the building of the new power plants. Even more the
statement of the U.S. National Energy Policy of 2001,
regarding the possibility of ...(inaudible) the backend
of the fuel cycle to facilitate the management of nuclear
waste in the context of sustainability.
On the other side of the
Atlantic, the European Commission has published a green
book which reaffirms the need to continue relying on
nuclear energy to limit greenhouse gas emission. Good
news is also coming from Finland, which is now in the
final stage of ordering a fifth nuclear power plant.
Also very comforting, is a recent result of a referendum
in Switzerland in 2003, where the nuclear option has
been confirmed by a large majority, 66% of the votes.
The case of Sweden is also interesting. There it has
been decided in 1980 to phase out nuclear energy. The
effective shut down of its power plants has been reconsidered
and Swede public opinion seems now to be more favorable
to a restart of a national nuclear program.
In Asia where much of
the more recent plants have been built, Japan, China
and South Korea have an important nuclear program. A
number of countries already consider the renewal of
their nuclear plants in developing their mid-term energy
policies, whereas long-term prospects in 2030 and later
is already envisaged in the framework of the already
quoted Generation Four international R and D initiative.
This program, aimed at developing nuclear systems, including
...(inaudible) reactor technologies and associate fuel
cycle addressing the following criteria, sustainability,
including waste management, better economics, ...(inaudible)
process and proliferation resistance.
Clearly, in view of the
need of emerging countries, they may be specifically
interested in promoting ancillary services such as hydrogen(?)
production(?) or sea water dissemination as well as
insuring a proper level of proliferation resistant based
both on technology features ...(inaudible) measures,
and a strong international safeguard regime.
Coming back to mid-term
policy, only reactors of the third generation will be
available for industrial development as was concluded
by an international interim working group. This is certainly
the case in France where there is now a growing understanding
for the need to renew the power plants by 2015 to 2040
with Generation Three reactors and especially using,
but not only, the European pressurized reactor technology.
The wish to rely on the
feedback experience of the first operating unit before
the launching of a large-scale deployment is urging
the need for short-term decision to construct a first
plant. I think that it could be the case in the next
weeks. Thus, Generation Two and Three reactors will
definitely co-exist in the forthcoming years before
the natural transition toward the emergence of Generation
Four plants.
However, market potential
for this third generation reactors are certainly not
limited to France or Europe or even USA. In fact, a
number of countries are interested by the renewal of
the life extension of their nuclear power fleet in the
coming decades. In this timeframe, one can distinguish
the possible different market opportunities for nuclear
industry. Developed countries with advanced technological
bases such as USA, Japan, South Korea or, in Europe,
France and ...(inaudible).
Second, emerging countries
with strong economic growth, typically China, which
is planning for an important expansion in its nuclear
power going from 1% of fixed electricity production
to 4% by 2020. Brazil and Argentina could also be considered in this category.
And last, eastern European countries--
END OF
SIDE A, TAPE 2
BUGAT: --Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
In conclusion, I would
say that the conditions are now set for global rebirth
of nuclear energy, a mature industry, a clear demand
and the largest shared vision of the future. Let me
just here reinforce the need to address the legitimate
concerns of the public opinion, a concern that President
Eisenhower might already have envisioned in the following
quote from his historical declaration, “The atomic
age has moved forward at such a pace that every citizen
of the world should have some comprehension, at least
in comparative terms of the extent of his development
of the utmost significant to everyone of us.”
Thank you.
[applause]
Questions and
Answers:
CARD: Thank you. Unless my watch is horribly off, we have
a generous amount of time for questions, challenges,
comments, whatever from the audience. I would just ask
the commenter to please state their name and affiliation
with the question. I think we have people with microphones
so here we have a question and then back there, next,
and then over here next and over there. Well, we’re
all over. We will go here and there and then we’ll
start over again.
COZARELLI(?):
I’m Nick Cozarelli from UC Berkeley and my question
is that we’ve heard several people talk about
the hydrogen fuel cell but, obviously, the amount of
energy you are going to get out of the hydrogen fuel
cell is going to be less than the amount of energy you
put in to making that hydrogen and, given the fact of
what we’ve been hearing about this morning, about
how far off any kind of really substantial nuclear power
is, the hydrogen fuel cell is more polluting than any
other form, than just gasoline for running a car.
So I was wondering if
anyone would like to respond to this negative aspect
of the hydrogen fuel cell idea?
CARD:
Does anyone on the panel want to take a shot at that?
MAGWOOD:
Sure, I’ll-- I think first I’ll say that
I don’t entirely agree with your postulate. First,
I think that hydrogen fuel cells, especially the advanced
fuel cells that DOE is doing research on now, has a
great potential for very high efficiencies and I think
that if we’re successful in having very efficient
means of producing hydrogen, that the overall efficiency
will be very good. I think we will be very competitive.
What we’re trying to accomplish is not necessarily
to achieve an alternative to petroleum that is going
to be cheaper than petroleum.
I mean the reason that
we use petroleum is because is cheap. What we like to
do is have a viable alternative to petroleum that is
not vastly more expensive but yet has huge environmental
and economic security benefits for the country. And
discussing this in the context of a lot of the overseas
meetings, I’ve been to, there are many countries
that agree with that point of view. So I actually am
an optimist on both the fuel cell development and also
and possibly for having nuclear technology appear in
the foreseeable future, in the next decade or two that
will fuel those fuel cells especially.
CARD:
Thank you Bill. I will attempt to weigh in just a bit
on that. Right now, today I think well-to-wheels efficiency
probably would favor a diesel or a diesel hybrid. But
we really see an addition to the strategic diversity
issues that Bill mentioned, which are vitally important,
we’re really shooting for breakthrough technologies.
When you couple that with the possibility of fuel price
increases and other inputs, we think the hydrogen system
is an extremely important alternative.
Okay. I just wanted to
make sure I had the right person.
NEFF:
I don’t know if I’m the right person. I
think I am. I’m Tom Neff from MIT. I just had
a question and a comment about renewables. Everybody
there on the panel I think said something very kind
about renewable resources and energy and nuclear but
there is a link and not much has made of it. It is actually
an old point. I wrote a book about it about 25 years
ago. Most new energy technologies have payback times.
They take two, three, five years even to generate as
much energy as it took to make them.
So if you and to get from
a low installed base for renewables to a large installed
base, you need to expand a lot of traditional forms
of energy in order to get that base installed. It takes
aluminum. It takes-- Whether it’s wind, wave,
solar panels or whatever or hydrogen fuel cells. For
example, if you want a gigawatt of solar next year,
you’ve got to use about three gigawatts this year.
I’m not sure why the point has not been made that,
in order to have, say, expansion of renewable resources
over the next 50 years or 100 years, we actually need
to build a lot more conventional capacity.
We have two choices, basically.
Gas is saturated. We have nuclear and we have coal.
And I think it’s a great argument for nuclear.
Nuclear power plants can generate the electricity that
is largely used to make the facilities necessary for
renewable for energy generation. And I think that might
help disarm a certain amount. There is a certain dichotomy
here between those who sort of favor the soft energy
path, the renewable resource path as a simple, totally
separate kind of path to go forward. But there is no
such simple, separate path. They are linked.
CARD:
Thank you Tom. Does anybody want to expand on that before
we go on to the next question? [pause] Let’s look
over here. Burt, I think I saw your hand up and then
we’ll go there and over here and back.
RICHTER:
I think all the technical people certainly agree that
nuclear power is the way to go.
CARD:
Burt, you want to tell us who you are?
RICHTER:
I’m Burt Richter, physicist, Stanford. All the
techies agree, nuclear power is wonderful and we should
go that way. I have a question I want to direct toward
Mr. Hintz and I want to start with three comments, first.
The present nuclear power plants are gold mines because
of the life extension programs, their capital costs
are paid off and the utilities that own them are making
a fortune. That’s wonderful. (Laughter)
Second, fossil fuels get
a huge subsidy in our system because they’re not
required to pay for the disposal of waste product, carbon
dioxide. Because of that subsidy, fossil fuels and new
power plants in fossil fuels are cheaper, generate cheaper
electricity than nuclear, at least according to all
the studies I’ve seen. Now, Mr. Hintz talked about
building new nukes in the United States. The question
is, is industry really going to do that without some
incentives? What does the government have to do to strike
the appropriate economic balance to make up for the
subsidy that fossil fuel is getting?
HINTZ:
Well, I don’t know if I agree with you that we’re
making tons of money on the existing plants (laughter)
but they are very profitable and that’s primarily
because the production cost is very low compared to
other ways of generating power. But getting back to
what it would take for say, Entergy to build a new nuclear
plant, I guess it’s been about two years ago,
I made a presentation. And the title of the presentation
was, “The Stars are Aligning” and the theme
was that it does seem like everything is starting to
come together that would allow us to go ahead and build
new nuclear plants.
And the stars I was talking
about was, I think the public opinion is continuing
to get better. We’re seeing plant operational
performance not only being better but I think we have
a lot of confidence that we can operate them consistently
at high performance levels. And I’d say ten years
ago we weren’t sure of that because it always
seemed like you could operate them well but then you
would end up with a long-term shut down for some reason
or another. The safety record has been extremely good.
We still see that operating
costs are decreasing or at least stable and we’re
seeing most other fuels, the fuel costs are continuing
to escalate. And so I mean it looks like everything
is coming together that, why aren’t utilities
jumping at the chance to build a new nuclear plant?
Probably the biggest reason I think is that the capital
costs are still quite high. And I know the vendors have
done a lot of work in trying to reduce the costs and
trying to make the plants a little simpler and having
more passive systems and things like that.
But the issue is, with
the special things associated with nuclear, a lot of
capital dollars, it takes a long time to build them
and things like that, that the capital costs are still
such that the other forms of generating electricity
are more attractive. But it is getting close and I get
a lot of questions now, when people see what happens
to the price of gas. Well, surely, now, that’s
going to be the final thing that’s going to tip
it. And I think everybody’s got a different view
on natural gas and I’ll give you Entergy’s,
which I’m sure is wrong. We’ve never been
right on it in the past, but (laughter) we see natural
gas is going to be very volatile. I mean you are going
to see $10 dollar gas and, we used to say, $2 dollar
gas. I don’t think you are going to see that again,
probably.
But you are going to see,
we believe, fairly low-priced gas. You’re going
to have the volatility. So, when you are building a
plant, like a nuclear plant, you’ve got to figure
out, on average, what’s the price of natural gas
going to be? And we’re not convinced on the average
that it’s going to be greater then $5 dollars.
And if you’re somewhere between $4 and $5 dollars,
these capital costs are still too much. But I think
if we got any credit or much credit for the environmental
advantages of nuclear, I think that would be enough
to tip the table and I’d be surprised if you wouldn’t
see someone going ahead it.
Let me just say. I know
I am taking much too much time. But let me just say
one of the problems that you have with building a nuclear
plant, besides large capital costs, we can’t get
debt on them. And maybe we can’t today, but we
built a gas-fired plant with 90% debt and we’re
building this nuclear plant with 100% equity. And it
could be the greatest technology in the world and vendors
can do a great job of getting costs down, but when you’re
building something with 100% equity, that does change
the financial situation of that plant. I think we’re
close but we’re not quite there yet.
CARD:
Thank you Don. I think it was important to have that
dialogue so that the audience understood that it is
not a national policy issue -- why we are not seeing
more nuclear plants. It’s the financial structure
and the thing the Don didn’t delve into but I
think is a big deal is that since we have liberalized
the market and we’re in favor of that and Europe
is doing the same thing, when you apply corporate rate
of return to that capital, it makes it very hard to
recognize the long-term investment potential of a nuclear
power plant.
Finland, TVO, the buyer
of the Fin Five plant was using a 5% rate of return
in their calculation, which is a third to a fifth of
what Don would have to use for his company.
We have a question down
here and then I’ll take the next one from over
here.
WAGNER:
Henry Wagner, Johns Hopkins. I would like to ask the
panel what role nuclear energy has in desalination.
Fresh water availability is a major, major problem for
the future. And sometimes I dream of seeing a nuclear
submarine temporarily parked outside the island of Kauai(?)
in Hawaii, making enough fresh water for next year and
then moving on to another place and producing more fresh
water. Could somebody comment on the role of nuclear
energy in desalination?
CARD:
Since you mentioned submarines, Alain or Skip, do you
want to comment on that?
BOWMAN:
I see a golden opportunity to use nuclear power in desalinization.
I see less opportunity for using a nuclear submarine
to do that. First of all, just very quickly, we need
all the nuclear submarines that we can get and then
some to do what’s going on in the world today.
It’s not that outlandish a proposition, by the
way. I’ve been approached several times in the
seven years I’ve been in this job to back a submarine
into the piers in New Hampshire and perhaps feed the
energy grid there.
The truth of the matter
is, if you look at the size of our reactors and you
look at the devotion of the majority of that energy
to propulsion power and not to electrical generating
power, you will see that it is a non-starter from the
standpoint of contributing measurably to any of our
deficits. But nuclear energy as a means of desalinization,
you’re right, we do that onboard our nuclear powered
aircraft carriers and submarines today and it certainly,
with the advent of new systems, reverse osmosis systems
for desalinization, I think it is another thing we should
be thinking about.
We talk mostly about cracking
water for hydrogen today as out-of-the-box ways to use
nuclear power. But I think desalinization is certainly
another one.
CARD:
Alain.
BUGAT:
Yes, I can add some more on the subject. We are studying
300- megawatt electric co-generation nuclear plant for
electricity and desalination and it works. The Indian
people are studying too. But roughly speaking, with
the 300- megawatts you can use 250 for electricity and
use 50 megawatts for desalination and with that 50 megawatts
you can produce 200 thousand cubic meters by day. So
that means that that kind of is able to furnish electricity
and water for one million people, an area of one million
people.
So it cannot be-- We are
not plenty of that kind of population who need the water.
That is tropical countries with networks and are able
to transfer the electricity. And more of that, what
is important, the cost of the kilowatt that is produced
is two times the cost of one thousand megawatt plant,
which means, how do you build the investment? How do
you build the capital for the investment? It was a question
on which every company is locked(?) now.
CARD:
There is another example that comes to mind that is
being mused about. I don't know if anything will happen,
but Canada, and its oil sands in Alberta is looking
to consume two billion cubic feet a day of natural gas
to turn oil sands into oil and produce one to 200 million
metric tons a year of CO2. So people wonder, would that
be a good application. We will see what happens there.
Is there a question? Yes.
DOWNEY:
Good morning. Lieutenant Colonel Jim Downey. I’m
currently a fellow at Harvard University. And I want
to ask just a little off question. We’ve spoken
about nuclear power and land and also the sea. I’m
interested in the medium of space. NASA has a new program
to develop a nuclear reactor based propulsion system
for deep space. And what surprises me is so far, it
has not received a lot of attention in perhaps the environmental
concern arena, although it may in a couple of years.
But I wonder is how any
of you might feel about that program and does it inform,
help or hinder development of nuclear energy in general.
CARD:
Well, Naval Reactors has actually been assigned that
mission. So, Skip, do you want to take a first shot
at it?
BOWMAN:
Yes, Secretary Carter, the truth is we haven’t
been officially assigned it, but we anticipate that
to happen.
CARD:
So, no breaking news.
BOWMAN:
I’m still developing some understandings. I believe
it will forward the cause of nuclear energy. I suggest
that your opening salvo may come true sooner than we
want, that the environmentalists will notice and we
will begin having to answer some questions about it.
But the idea would be-- The first idea that NASA is
working on is an orbiter unmanned for the icy moons
of Jupiter and the JIMO project. It’s funded.
It has received funding for the past two years in NASA
and, indeed, the possibility that Naval Reactors will
be delivered another national mandate similar to the
two that I discussed earlier, that Admiral Rickover
received is very real and we’re looking at that
even as we speak.
But I think it would be
a positive advancement if, obviously, the kinds of reactors
that you know we use on our aircraft carriers and submarines
are not exactly amenable to space travel, so we would
have to branch out and think about other ways to do
that and that would involve organizations across the
country that have been working in other types of technologies
over these years.
CARD:
--Space nuclear. Bill, did you want to add anything
to that?
MAGWOOD:
Sure, I’ll just add that I think that whenever
you are able to use nuclear technology to take on an
activity such as exploring space that the public gets
excited about, I think it’s something that has
potential benefit all over for nuclear power. I often,
in talking to school children about nuclear technology,
point out the wonderful pictures we’ve gotten
from the planets, from Jupiter, from Uranus and others--
And to be able to point to that and say, “We wouldn’t
be able to do that without nuclear technology,”
I think is a real advantage.
And the fact is that as
we’ve worked with NASA over the years about what
their future visions are for space exploration, it became
extremely clear to them-- We had to sort of drag them
into it but it became very clear to them that they couldn’t
accomplish their mission without nuclear technology.
And someone mentioned earlier there needs to be an education
process and that is part of the education process because
there are things you can do with nuclear you can’t
do with other things, not just in space exploration
power but also in medical treatment and other things
and I getting that story out has to be very important.
CARD:
We’ll begin drifting back this way. Anything else
from here? Yes, sir,
BRODSKY:
Alan Brodsky again, ...(inaudible)RC and Georgetown
University. But I’m speaking for myself. Not even
my wife approves very much of what I say. (Laughter)
I congratulate the nuclear energy industry and the great
safety record and I wonder why they don’t-- My
question is, why don’t they spend more advertising
funds to educate the public properly. I’ve made
my own miniscule efforts through professional society
and have had very little success.
The President, as opposed
to the conditions under which President Eisenhower was
able to promote nuclear energy, has to face the possibility
that he won’t be re-elected because so much of
the mis-information that some of the people I know have
spread through the media to the public. I have some
ideas about the proper kinds of information to be given
by the public but have not been able to reach anybody
in a leadership position who can present this information.
My question is to Mr.
Hintz, why doesn’t your Entergy spend more money
on advertising the things that have been presented at
this meeting?
CARD(?):
Yeah, all that money you’re making. (Laughter)
HINTZ:
Angie(?) Howard is here from NEI and she continually
begs for more money to do more advertising. I can’t
agree with you more that we have a tremendous education
undertaking ahead of us and at times we have the discussion
whether or not advertising is the best way to do it.
It’s very expensive but maybe we should do more
of it and maybe it is an effective way to get out story
out.
You know, I personally
think at times we spend too much time educating the
people that believe in our product and we’re speaking
to the choir. So I think we have to look at that more,
other ways to educate the public including using more
advertising. But, it is costly and when it’s been
recommended by NEI that the industry spend more money
on it, we got sort of mixed support on how much we want
to spend on the advertising.
CARD:
Okay. I have one back here and then you and-- (simultaneous
conversations) Let’s take this question and we
will come back--
(Unidentified
Speaker)__: Great. So, I’m a physics
professor at Michigan and like Bart Richter, I work
at high energy accelerators. We’re not producers
of electricity; we’re customers. But I’m
going to talk about nuclear engineering. President Eisenhower’s
1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech, certainly
helped to make nuclear engineering a very exciting field.
Therefore it attracted some of the best and brightest
young students. As I say, I sure am not a nuclear engineer
but for a complex reason, I came to know and admire
some of the ex-students about 20 years later in 1973,
when there was some problem.
Some of them were ex-nuclear
Navy guys, some of the really good ones. However, most
of these guys are no longer bright young guys. If some
new international crisis comes up, we may have a real
shortage of capable people to build all the nuclear
reactors that are going to be rapidly needed. And my
general feeling was that the guys from the nuclear Navy
were the very best.
Is there any plan for
DOE or the nuclear power industry to start rapidly providing
some scholarships in nuclear engineering for freshman
engineers, some fellowships for graduate students in
nuclear engineering and some post-doctoral fellowships
to keep these young guys occupied so that you can start
attracting people? I started talking to some of the
kids in my physics class into going into nuclear engineering
and I work at it and I got a few. But it’s hard
when there is not clearly any jobs downstream.
CARD:
Burt, is your Nobel Prize inheritable?
BURT:
Do you want to borrow it?
CARD:
If we could pass that down, Bill, go ahead.
MAGWOOD:
We’re currently funding about 150 scholarships
and fellowships for nuclear engineering students every
year. That’s not enough. I mean I would like to
do twice as many but it’s a start and it’s
a basis to build on. The point you make is absolutely
correct. There is a real threat in the United States
particularly, that the infrastructure that was built
after Atoms for Peace-- It is not just the people. It
is the research reactors. It’s the program. They’re
all aging to the point where many schools are abandoning
their programs.
We’re making a bigger
investment. When I first took over the Office of Nuclear
Energy, we were spending about $3 million dollars a
year on nuclear engineering. We’re now spending
about $20. So we’ve increased it. I would like
to do more. I will do more. But the fact of the matter
is there is a limit to how much the government can do
unless Don here gets his industry, galvanizes it to
build more plants because when we talk to students about
the future prospects for nuclear, it’s very clear
that the people we’re seeing are the people really
excited by the science and technology.
But when they’re
thinking about their future careers, they like to know
that there really are going to be new nuclear power
plants being built in the United States. So I think
there is always going to be a limit to what will be
successful in accomplishing until there is really a
revival of nuclear power in the United States.
CARD:
And a follow-up question up here. Can we get the mic
up here? I notice in Nobel land we have Mr. Letterman(?)
here today also.
IRVINE:
I’m Reed Irvine the founder of Accuracy in the
Media and I want to say that like Alan Brodsky, I was
rather amazed to come and have a panel like this where
it has indicated that economic reasons were the reasons
that we have not built nuclear plants in this country.
And, of course, the ...(inaudible) experience, shows
that it is fear that has stopped the building of nuclear
plants, the misapprehensions that the public has.
And I give you an illustration
of ...(inaudible) well they could advertise. But it
isn’t necessarily a matter of advertising. It’s
a matter of getting you message out and there are many
ways that that can be done. I’ll give you an illustration.
A couple of years ago The New York Times ran an article
in which they said that thousands of people had died
as a result of the Chernobyl accident. How many of people
here, I wonder believe that thousands of people died
at Chernobyl?
(Unidentified
Speaker)__: Not at Chernobyl but as a result.
IRVINE:
As a result? Well, so it happened that ten years after
the accident, there was a conference in Vienna where
all the people that had studied the impact of Chernobyl
on health met and it may surprise you to know that they
agreed at that conference in Vienna that the number
of people who died as a result of that accident was
less than 50. You may find that incredible but I invite
you to go look at the record, the report of that conference,
which you can find on the Internet.
(Unidentified
Speaker)__: ...(inaudible)
IRVINE:
Yes, except they pointed out that there were a lot of
lives lost as a result of the abortions because the
mothers feared that the babies would be malformed or
something like that. So, what you should do, Mr. Blitz
is when you see something like that in The New York
Times, you might have done what Accuracy in Media did
and that is write them a letter and tell them they were
wrong and lean on them to persuade them that they are
on the wrong track in terrifying people. I’m sure
that the people who were resisting putting that $7 billion
dollar plant at Shoreham(?) into operation, were not
concerned about economics. They were not even concerned
about their taxes or electrical bills. They were concerned
about the danger that they perceived even though the
industry has an outstanding record for safety.
CARD:
We’re just fortunate we don’t have anything
like Chernobyl here. So, rather than get into that issue,
I want to go all the way over and then we will come
back and sweep around this way. All the way in the back
over there--
CONNOR:
Hi, my name if Mike Connor and I’m the President
of Nuclear Resources International. But along with Don
Hintz, I think I’m one of the few utility people
that’s here at the conference. I manage the nuclear
fuel for the Robert Emmett Gina power plant outside
Rochester, New York. And I just thought after listening
to these papers that you might enjoy a small success
story. Ginna is 500-megawatt Westinghouse PWR.
It started up in 1969.
So we just voted region 33. We did it in 33 days and
replaced the reactor head. The plant runs on an 18-month
cycle and in the 12 months when it is running continuously,
it has 101% capacity factor. So it is possible, even
with old plants, small plants, goodies to keep your
heads up high in the nuclear industry and to look forward
to more days.
I wanted to call your
attention on page four of the program, the first bullet
says, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cast a very dark
cloud over the nuclear industry. Now that we have greater
historical perspective, how should we view these incidents?
What have we learned from these events? It was just
published two days ago that the other Three Mile Island
Plant just hit a record of 680 days continuous operation
before it shut down for its refueling outage. So, that’s
some perspective on Three Mile Island.
CARD:
Any panelist want to comment on any of that? Skip?
BOWMAN:
One other-- In the same vein as to the Accuracy in the
Media report that we heard. Three Mile Island, of course,
I said in my discussion, was a non-event from a radiation
standpoint and I truly believe that. The number of the
public that received the most radiation from that event
was back calculated to have received 37 millirem, which
we, in this audience know is not very much, about a
little over a tenth of what she would have received
in her home anyway, for that year.
Thirty-seven millirem
is a little over a third of the allowable non-occupational
exposure. The occupational worker who received the most
did not exceed the occupational limits on Three Mile
Island. So I couldn’t agree more with the perspective
that more needs to be done in educating the public.
I would suggest that along with advertising, we need
to, as a group, go ahead and go for the throat and speak
to the concerned scientists who are legitimately concerned
but need some information, need some education about
some of the things that we know that they don’t
know. Indeed we do sing to much to the choir, preach
too much to the choir.
We need to go, maybe to
the concerned scientists and sit and walk through some
of these facts and figures and we’ve been in operation
long enough now that it might be time that we stop trying
to prove the negative and put the onus of responsibility
on the other side, bring forward the proof of the bad
effects of this rather than challenging me to show that
there is no bad effect, that we’ve been through
two and a half generations of Navy nuclear power and
there’s nothing there; there’s nothing to
show.
So I think that there
is a great deal that can be done in the way of public
education outside of full page ads in The New York Times
or things that would be, I think, hooted at by the people
who hoot today. I think we should go to them and talk
softly.
(Unidentiefied
Speaker)__: I think there is one other threat
that we haven’t mentioned, a threat to the commercial
nuclear industry. We talk about threats on public opinion
and maybe not having the public educated and we talk
about the economics of the new nuclear plant. But I
think there is another big threat that industry is dealing
with as we speak and that is the consequences of 9/11
and the impact on security on these nuclear plants.
I mean we were the most secure major infrastructure
in the United States prior to 9/11.
But as a result of 9/11,
we are an industry that has been put in the spotlight
and we spent a lot of money on security already and
it’s not over yet. I mean we just have to keep
dealing with the bigger bomb and we get that done and
we start on something else. And, you know, the industry,
we’re advocating that at some point in time, we
would like to get thrown in with all the other critical
infrastructure in this country. And if we were and you
compared the threat associated with a nuclear plant
compared to chemical plants or any other critical infrastructure,
we look, actually, pretty good.
And yet we’re spending
lots of money and it’s not over yet. And, you
know, I think we’ve got to start putting our nuclear
plants and the threat from terrorism in perspective
with all the other critical infrastructure in this country.
And if we can’t, we will see that we are going
to start seeing some of the small nuclear plants get
shut down because of the cost associated with it.
CARD:
We’re technically needing to go to lunch, but
I sense a real desire to respond to the Chernobyl comment
so we’re going to do that and they we’re
going to wrap it up.
GARWIN:
I’m Dick Garwin again. In January of this year
I published with George Charpak a book, Megawatts and
Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons
and we did look at all of the accidents including the
1986 accident and the ten years afterward. And our judgment
is that (a) a couple of people probably, unidentifiable,
died from Three Mile Island. It’s a very safe
plant. We advocate the wide expansion of nuclear power.
But 24 thousand people,
we anticipate, have died, will die from Chernobyl. It
is just a tiny fraction of the population. It does not
influence the positive views on the expansion of the
nuclear industry but we provide the quotes from Abo(?)
Gonzales, from the IAEA who never did the multiplication
but says the 600 thousand seabirds, 60 million person
rem, would correspond to that number of deaths and that’s
the cost of doing business. You kill many more people
from air pollution from coal-fired plants.
But I agree with the Admiral
that the way to go forward is to educate people not
to propagandize and make the value judgment that with
this technology, we can have great benefits for mankind.
The key is, though, to get the capital cost down. We
cannot build old plants and have them competitive. We
need to bring in the new plants at those numbers.
CARD:
Thank you. With regrets to the at least dozen people
who are still waiting for a dialogue on this-- I’m
thrilled with the interaction. We’re going to
go to lunch now. There were some logistical instructions.
Do any of the hosts want to-- If it’s about lunch
we’ll do it. Otherwise it will have to wait. Anybody
want to offer any directions about what we do for lunch
other than just go out the door and look for lunch.
That’s what we’re going to do. Yes, Bob.
Bob, do you have a mike?