Lomborg's basic thesis is that environmentally, most indicators are improving, not deteriorating, even if much improvement is still required. But the fact that most trends are positive means that further steady effort should be encouraged, and pessimism is misguided. He attributes the normal downbeat view of environmental trends to what he calls the Litany* - a list of unsubstantiated assertions or half truths which are essentially folklore similar to that commonly trotted out about nuclear power.
Does it matter if people are unduly pessimistic and ill-informed? Lomborg says that the Litany and its exaggerations "makes us ... more likely to spend our resources and attention solving phantom problems while ignoring real and pressing issues." "If we are to make the best decisions for our future, we should base our prioritisations not on fear but on facts. Thus we need to confront our fears; we need to challenge the Litany." That certainly rings a bell with nuclear energy, and the frenetic push to address greenhouse concerns primarily by harnessing renewable energy sources rather than expanding nuclear energy is another manifestation of distorted policy arising from such folklore.
Lomborg is careful to make clear that the problem is not due to primary research in the environmental field, which generally appears competent and balanced. It is due to the propagandising by environmental organisations, led, he suggests, by the Worldwatch Institute, but with Greenpeace, WWF and others in train. Their output is readily picked up by the media, because rhetoric is more attractive than bare science. Even Worldwatch, he points out, publishes good data. They simply are careless with the facts due to "ingrained belief in the Litany", and perhaps what others might call an ideological bias. In reality there seem to be two factors at work in what might be called a faith system: an ideology with many possible dimensions (Romanticism, anti-technology, left-wing, anti capital /globalisation /enterprise, mysticism, etc.) which sets the tone and agenda of Lomborg's targeted "Litany", and the believers who uncritically or even naively espouse that faith because they are surrounded by others of like mind and disposition and are given reinforcement daily from the media. Never mind the facts, certainty is the key.
Lomborg concludes his introductory chapter by touching on the moral aspects of all this. Apart from the personal vilification he has endured, he mentions the argument that if environmental indicators are improving, then people should not be told or they will become complacent or delinquent. He rightly labels this undemocratic and the cause of major misallocation of resources. But he plays down the influence of actual environmental problems (even where the trends may be positive) in galvanising action to address them and reverse any decline or reinforce the positive trends.
So why has a book directed at the politicisation of environmental concerns and the debunking of green dogma and folklore become a cause celebre for academic scientists who hardly seem to have been called into question in the first place? Partly the answer seems to be Lomborg's position on climate change (a 64-page chapter), where he wades into science more than statistics and gets out of his depth. He is accused of being unduly selective in quoting IPCC reports and has dismissed all but the most optimistic scenario, then has suggested that intervention is unlikely to be cost effective. The former is fundamentally a scientific question where one might well be sceptical of Lomborg (a statistician). Secondly the answer may be because in attacking scientists such as Paul Ehrlich who fuel the pessimistic Litany and who are easy targets, he ignores those moderate scientists who have no truck with the green fundamentalists and who have more quietly taken issue with them already.
As The Economist leader (2/2/02) put it after an extraordinary 11-page critique by Scientific American (January 2002) "Mr Lomborg's targets are green scaremongers and their credulous servants in the media. He uses the findings of scientists to press his case." Lomborg replies at length (33 pages) to the four Scientific American critics on his web site, to good effect. The attacks from Scientific American and others expose a more fundamental problem, the eagerness of some scientists to spring to the defence of their admirers who promulgate the green folklore which in turn skews political priorities wastefully. Commentators have also pointed to the effect of maintaining a high level of public anxiety in enhancing the support base of green groups.
For the most part Lomborg assembles data and looks at trends, notably long trends. Its great strength is that it goes back to primary statistical data. However, in quoting sources (even with almost 3000 endnotes) he is inevitably both selective and limited by them. Hence in cursorily addressing nuclear energy (one page in 352 pages of text) he quotes mainly an insubstantial source and bases some comments on it - hardly a helpful analysis for a part of his subject that has its own full-blown "Litany". Elsewhere he is much more thorough, and that is where the book is so valuable in challenging the cycle of assertion, repetition, assumption and what is taken to be "known".
Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist - measuring the real state of the world, Cambridge University Press, 2001. See also www.lomborg.org
The Energy Secretary said in his letter to the President: "Technically and scientifically the Yucca Mountain site is fully suitable, development of a repository [there] serves the national interest in numerous important ways, and the arguments against its designation do not rise to a level that would outweigh the case for going forward." The President said in his letter to Congress that "a deep geological repository, such as Yucca Mountain, is important for our national security and our energy future. Nuclear energy is the second largest source of US electricity generation and must remain a major component of our national energy policy in the years to come."
An international review organised by OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency and the UN International Atomic Energy Agency has found that the US Dept. of Energy's system assessment for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository is soundly based and competently implemented.
Abraham letter 14/2/02, http://www.ymp.gov/new/documents.htm, www.doe.gov, NucNet news # 69/02, NuclearFuel 4/3/02.
Explicit climate change stance.
The US President has announced "an aggressive new strategy" to slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. The target is an 18% reduction in their intensity relative to GDP growth over the next decade, which will give industry a workable target for improvement. However, on the national scale, it translates into an actual increase in emissions similar to that over the last decade (about 12%), given similar economic growth. A voluntary registry of emissions is to be set up, which might provide part of the basis for a future emission trading scheme. Any action to actually mandate a limit on emissions has been deferred, although $4.6 billion in tax credits for renewable energy sources over the next five years was announced. Also the Energy Information Administration has identified nuclear power plant performance as the largest factor in reducing US emissions of greenhouse gases (in 2000).
White House 14/2/02, Economist 16/2/02, NucNet news # 66/02.
US effort to boost new reactors.
A significant item in the US Dept of Energy 2003 budget proposals is a near fourfold increase in the Nuclear Energy Technologies program, to $46.5 million. Most of this will be used to resolve "the technical, institutional and regulatory barriers to the deployment of and operation of new nuclear power plants by 2010" - the Nuclear Power 2010 program, a joint initiative with electricity utilities. Exelon and Dominion Resources have been approached to identify potential sites, including DOE reservations, for new reactors so that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval process is put through its paces. The balance of the budget sum will be applied to bringing forward innovative Generation IV reactor designs to commercial feasibility with a view to some being ordered within the next three years.
NucNet news #52 & 68/02, NEI Overview 11/2/02.
US Senate extends Price-Anderson Act.
In the course of considering comprehensive energy legislation, the US Senate has approved with bipartisan support the country's nuclear liability insurance system. It voted 78-21 to extend the Price Anderson Act, providing $9.5 billion coverage funded by the industry for any nuclear accident, to August 2012. An amendment provides for two or more modular units on one site to be treated as one reactor under the law. The House has already voted to approve the extension.
Platts 7/3/02, NucNet news # 95/02.
Standoff on Russian uranium supply to USA.
There has been some delay in shipments of blended-down ex-military high-enriched uranium (HEU) from Russia after a failure to renew the contract from January 1. Techsnabexport (Tenex), the Russian government agency, and USEC, the sole executive agent for the US government, took until the end of February to agree on the price for the enrichment represented in the low-enriched material to be supplied. For 2002 it is to be US$ 90/SWU, the same as last year for 5.5 million SWU (units of enrichment). This drops to about US$ 80 for 2003. The signed agreement has now been referred to ministerial level for approval.
Successive contracts are covered by a 1994 US$12 billion US-Russian implementing agreement. USEC is purchasing a minimum of 500 tonnes of weapons-grade HEU by 2013, now at a rate of up to 30 tonnes/year. The HEU is blended down to 4.4% U-235 in Russia. USEC sells this to its utility customers as fuel, charging them just for the enrichment, while Russia takes ownership of the corresponding amount of the natural uranium feed provided to USEC by those utility customers for toll enrichment services. USEC has said that it expected its purchases from Russia to represent about 60% of its enrichment services provision in 2001-02. By mid-November 2001, Russia had dispatched 137 tonnes of HEU to USEC, (as 4,031 tonnes of LEU) arising from 5481 nuclear warheads.
NuclearFuel 7 & 21/1/02, Ux Weekly 4/3/02.
Framatome ANP expands US foothold.
Duke Energy has agreed to sell its nuclear plant engineering and technical services division to Framatome ANP, the major European reactor builder and service company. This will increase Framatome ANP's profile in the USA, long the preserve of local companies.
NucNet business news # 8/02.
Controversy over new US Data Quality Act.
A piece of legislation passed at the end of 2000 is shaping up to affect the whole US regulatory scene. The Data Quality Act means that the government will be accountable for the quality of scientific information, statistics and analysis used and disseminated by federal agencies, especially in setting regulations. Industry sees it as a counter to EPA air quality regulations which are based on inadequate evidence of effect. It could also be used to challenge radiation protection regulation applied to low level exposures (which is based on the linear hypothesis), or by environmental activists to challenge government approvals.
Government agencies are now finalising their draft science quality procedures for approval by the Administration's office of information and regulatory affairs prior to the Act taking effect in October. Its intention is to create procedures "ensuring and maximising the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity" of scientific information and statistics as well as the analysis of both by government. There is some concern about its application.
New York Times 21/3/02.
NASA returns to nuclear rockets.
NASA is proposing to spend nearly one billion dollars to develop nuclear power for space travel. First is the production of new radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) using plutonium-238 decay for electrical power in spacecraft, especially those venturing far from the sun. Second is the revival of a program from the 1960s to use of nuclear reactors as a heat source for electric ion drives expelling plasma out of a nozzle to propel spacecraft faster and further once they are launched into space. In the 2003 Space Science budget, RTGs get $79 million and nuclear electric propulsion $46.5 million.
NASA 4/2/02, Discovery 12/2/02, LA Times 7/2/02.
The report acknowledges the role of nuclear energy in UK as a large-scale zero-carbon source of electricity, and calls for it to be treated accordingly as carbon emissions become costed. However, while it says that energy policies must "internalise externalities and create a level playing field for low carbon options" it fails to call for abolition of the 0.43 p/kWh climate change levy on nuclear energy, let alone opening the nuclear field to other financial incentives (up to 3.0 p/kWh) enjoyed by renewable sources. This may be "because nuclear is a mature technology within a well-established global industry, there is no current case for further government support." In fact the report speaks of wind energy and nuclear in terms which suggest a similar level of technological maturity, and similar scope for future cost reductions. To the extent that the report sets them against one another while playing down the "variable and unpredictable output", it is clearly at cross purposes with its carbon-reduction priority.
The report concludes that "A national public debate is now needed" about sustainable energy, including the roles of nuclear power and renewables, because despite the report's equivocation, "the time for action is now". Meanwhile the UK should participate in international research on new reactor designs and other "cutting-edge technologies for a low-carbon future" including renewables, nuclear power and carbon sequestration from coal. The energy minister said that the report "is about balance and promoting innovation in new technologies".
Another report on UK energy policy has been published by the government's Trade and Industry Committee. It acknowledges the significant contribution made by nuclear energy to the UK's energy security and the achievement of climate change targets, the balance between these being a focus of the report. It affirms that "Nuclear power is a proven technology which continuously generates electricity on a large scale with zero greenhouse gas emissions."
The report says that the UK needs a long-term strategic vision with policies tuned to ensuring that valuable energy options such as nuclear energy are maintained. Gas use has doubled over the last decade and without a change in policy, by 2020 some 70% of Britain's electricity could become dependent on gas, 90% of which would need to be imported. Over the last twelve months significantly increased gas prices have boosted the use of coal for electricity. While the government remains committed to substantial development of renewable energy sources for electricity, the report notes that the potential for these is limited and that the policy obligation to use them "will result in upward pressure on energy prices".
The report quotes evidence that new nuclear plants would need an electricity price of about 2.5 pence/kWh to be justified, whereas the present price is 1.8p/kWh. Exemption from an existing climate change tax would close this gap by 0.4p, but further economic recognition was needed of the external costs avoided. The report recommends that "the government should make a clear statement on the future of nuclear energy as quickly as possible".
PIU report 14/2/02,
Trade & Industry report 7/2/02.
UK reactor replacement study.
British Energy has signed an agreement with BNFL to assess the feasibility of the Westinghouse AP1000 advanced reactor design to replace existing nuclear capacity in the UK. The study will assess licensing and regulatory issues in relation to new plants on existing sites, and provide robust cost estimates. The agreement is similar to that signed with AECL last November regarding the CANDU-NG reactor.
In working together on a £9 billion, 9000 MWe reactor replacement project for UK, they have nominated sites for the first two units - Hunterston in Ayrshire and Hinkley Point in Somerset, both now having AGR units which will close in 2011. The Westinghouse AP 1000 type being considered for replacing them would cost about £1000 per kilowatt to build, with 36 month construction time, which translates to a generation cost of c 2.5 pence/kWh, slightly more than combined cycle gas turbine and significantly more than the current market price of 1.8 p/kWh.
The government's Chief Scientific Adviser has called for a revival of nuclear plant construction, along with expansion of renewables, to counter carbon dioxide emissions.
The two companies have buried the hatchet on their reprocessing dispute, where BE is contractually committed to paying £300 million per year to BNFL but proposes that £48 million (the same rate as in USA) for storage and disposal would be more reasonable.
BNFL & BE 26/2/02, Nucleonics Week 28/2/02, FT 27/2/02, Ux Weekly 4/3/02, NucNet news # 93/02.
Swedes revisit nuclear priorities.
Having voted, in a 1980 referendum with no other option, to move out of nuclear energy, Sweden's parliament is reviewing the issue. It may limit operating reactor lifetimes to 40 years, though the original target date for shut-down was 2010. A possible trade-off is the reduction or removal of a discriminatory tax on nuclear energy which amounts to some 15% of nuclear power generation costs, or 21% if outstanding capital costs are excluded. Sweden has 11 operating nuclear reactors supplying nearly half the country's power, with one having been shut down prematurely in 1999. The compensation cost of this, borne by the taxpayer, was some EUR 800 million and led to Sweden having to import electricity generated by Danish coal-fired power stations.
NucNet news # 110/02.
Belgium proposes reactor lifetime limit.
The Belgian government, a Liberal-Socialist-Green coalition, proposes to limit the operating lives of the country's seven nuclear power reactors to 40 years. This means closure from 2015 to 2025. However, the draft bill includes the possibility of exceptions related to energy security.
NucNet news # 89/02.
Belgium evaluates waste options.
A new report from Belgium's radioactive waste management authority compares the costs of building, operating and closing two possible repositories: One for direct disposal of conditioned spent fuel, or one for disposal of the vitrified high-level wastes separated by reprocessing it. The comparison does not extend to the reprocessing or other spent fuel or waste management activities. It shows a 2 to 2.5-fold cost advantage for the smaller volume of vitrified waste, providing some offset for the reprocessing cost.
NucNet background # 2/02.
Lithuania estimates decommissioning costs.
Lithuania's economics ministry has estimated that the total cost of shutting down its two Ignalina reactors as required for accession to the EU will be about EUR 3 billion. This includes disposal of spent fuel and other expenses as well as decommissioning. The two 1185 MWe reactors (originally 1380 MWe) are the largest Soviet-designed RBMK types built, starting up in 1983 and 1987. They were significantly modified and upgraded after the Chernobyl accident, but Lithuania has agreed to close unit 1 in 2005 and to fix a date for unit 2 in 2004 - possibly 2009. The implication of the report is that with only 14% of the cost pledged by EC and other donors, the country can ill afford to close the plant, which provides 75% of its electricity.
Ux Weekly 11/3/02, TradeTech NMR 8/3/02.
New Chinese reactors crank up.
The first of two Chinese-designed and built reactors scaled up from the eight year old Qinshan-1 was connected to the grid in February. Qinshan-2 is a 610 MWe unit. Its twin is expected to start up in December. The two cost about US$ 1.8 billion ($1500/kW).
Soon afterwards, the 984 MWe Lingao-1 nuclear reactor achieved criticality three weeks ahead of schedule. This fifth power reactor in China is very similar to the two nearby Daya Bay units, also built by Framatome.
NucNet business news # 9/02, news # 75/02.
Canada passes nuclear waste legislation.
After 10 months of debate and review, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act has been passed by the Canadian House of Commons. It provides for the nuclear utilities to set up a non-profit Waste Management Organisation (WMO) to propose (within three years) and later implement disposal strategies. It also provides for the utilities plus AECL to establish trust funds to finance the management and disposal of the wastes. After considering options put forward by the WMO the government will be able to choose the preferred concept option without resort to a full Environment Assessment Panel. However, subsequent actions by the WMO to implement that choice would be subject to the usual environmental assessment requirements.
UNECAN News Dec 2001, CNA 28/2/02, NucNet news #88/02, House Bill.
Australia lines up with USA on climate change.
The Australian government has signed a bilateral agreement with the USA on climate change. This will involve sharing resources to develop emission measurement and accounting, engagement with business on emission reductions, and collaboration with developing countries. It appears to foreshadow formal rejection of the Kyoto agreement under which Australia would be allowed an 8% increase in emissions over the 1990 level. In 1999 its emissions were 17.4% above 1990's, and a government report this week says that reducing to the Kyoto level would increase electricity prices by one third.
Australian 1 & 8/3/02.
OECD publication on external costs of energy.
The International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency of OECD have published the findings of a 2001 workshop Externalities and Energy Policy - the Life Cycle Analysis Approach. The workshop focused on life cycle analysis (LCA) to compare the total system costs of different transport and power generation technologies. The chairman pointed to the need for economic consistency in assessing external costs, the difficulty of including health-related ones reliably, and the need to include economic values in global warming assessments. LCA was seen to be a very valuable tool but not on its own a sufficient basis for proper consideration of the sustainability of different energy options. In particular, it excludes energy security.
NucNet background # 1/02, NEA Report.
Pangea's non-commercial successor.
Pangea Resources has taken a step back from any commercial objectives and has ceased operations. However, a new body has been set up to promote the concept of regional and international facilities for storage and disposal of all types of long-lived radioactive wastes. This is ARIUS - the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage, with former Pangea people in management. A key objective is to explore ways of providing shared storage and disposal facilities for smaller users. Membership is open and comprises countries with small nuclear programs as well as industrial organisations with relevant interests.
ARIUS 22/2/02.
Europe & USA have boom year for wind.
In Europe, a record 4497 MWe (35%) was added to wind turbine capacity in 2001, increasing it to 17,319 MWe. It is estimated that this will produce 40 billion kWh/yr, indicating a capacity factor of 26.5%. Germany topped the list, adding 2641 MWe to take it to 8754 MWe - half of Europe's capacity. Spain added 1102 MWe (49%), while Denmark added only 117 MWe (5%).
The US wind industry installed a record 1694 MWe capacity in 2001, lifting the wind turbine total by 60% to 4,528 MWe in 26 states. Cost averaged $1000 per kilowatt. New capacity has been assisted by the federal wind production tax credit (PTC) of 1.5 c/kWh, which expired at the end of 2001. Further investment is said to be contingent on its renewal by Congress.
World wind capacity increased 31% to 23,300 MWe.
AWEA 15/1/02, EWEA 20/2/02, ESAA Electricity Supply, March 2002.
Molten salt reactors show promise for hydrogen economy.
A recent OECD NEA publication describes renewed interest in molten salt reactors. The concept was first developed in the 1960s and a small prototype ran successfully.
In such a reactor the fuel is a molten mixture of lithium and beryllium fluoride salts, bearing dissolved thorium and derived U-233 flowing through a graphite moderator. Heat is transferred to a secondary salt circuit and thence to steam. The fission products dissolve in the salt and are removed continuously in an on-line reprocessing loop and replaced with fresh Th-232 or possibly U-238. Actinides remain in the reactor until they fission or are converted to higher actinides which do so. A US development of it uses graphite matrix fuel similar to that in High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors and with similar fuel cycle to them. The salt, with better heat transfer properties than helium, is used solely as coolant, and achieves temperatures of 1000°C while at low pressure. This has considerable potential for use in thermochemical hydrogen manufacture without using natural gas.
OECD NEA 2001, Trends in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
Solar tower power unit planned.
Plans are well advanced for a solar tower run by air convection. The 200 MWe plant is to be built by EnviroMission in northwest Victoria, close to a 220kv part of the SE Australian grid. It is a German design and will be the world's tallest and largest engineered structure, with a 1000 metre high concrete chimney drawing heated air from a 5 km diameter collector system (ie 20 sq km of glass or plastic 2-20 metres above the ground) through 32 turbines, each 6.5 MWe. Cost is estimated at US$ 360 million, and annual production 650 GWh (ie 37% capacity factor). Construction is planned to start in 2003, for operation late in 2005. At this stage the company estimates that revenue then will be US$ 4.7 cents/kWh (2.3 cents pool price plus 2.4 cents renewable energy certificate price), with peak daily output coinciding with peak load on the grid. A 50 kW prototype ran for seven years in Spain.
AIE Energy News Feb 2002, www.enviromission.com.au.
On contamination of land, the report notes that levels of radioactivity are declining. The measure generally used to define "contamination", and applied to land occupied by some 6 million people, is exceeded up to fivefold "in substantial areas of Britain, France and Scandinavia" due to natural background radiation. However, 150-200,000 people reside in "highly contaminated territories" where the exposure is a concern, despite resettlement policies applying to them. "The main threat to health from current and future exposure to radiation concerns a distinct group of country dwellers who live in contaminated areas, produce their own milk and depend to a significant extent on wild mushrooms, berries and game".
On health effects: "Morbidity in the affected areas continues to reflect the pattern in other parts of the former Soviet Union" and (particularly) male life expectancy "is substantially lower than in Western and Southern Europe, with heart disease and trauma the leading causes of death". "Very considerable uncertainty remains over the possible long-term health effects of the accident". "No reliable evidence has emerged of an increase in leukemias, which had been predicted, however some 2000 case of thyroid cancer have been diagnosed among young people exposed to radioactive iodine in April and May 1986." "As well as the direct effects of radiation on health, the accident led to enormous disruption to the lives of those evacuated" with high levels of stress, and this is this what the report principally addresses. "Wider reform of health care provision in the three countries" concerned is a basic need, though "the health problems .... reflect complex interactions between health, ecology, economics and community development" and need to be addressed accordingly on a wide front.
UNDP Report 22/1/02.
Africa launches Tsetse fly campaign.
Following a successful trial on Zanzibar five years ago, the organisation of African Unity has launched a Pan African Tsetse and Trypanasomosis Eradication Campaign (PATTEC) using sterile male technique. The Tsetse fly, which feeds on blood, caries the single-cell trypanosome parasite which causes trypanasomosis - sleeping sickness in humans and nagana in cattle. In Africa these affect some 10 million square kilometres in 37 mostly very poor sub-Saharan countries - about one third of Africa. Much of the most fertile land is left uninhabitable while tsetse-free highland areas are used unsustainably. Out of 260 million people in the area, 60 million are at risk from sleeping sickness and about half a million are infected each year. Without competent treatment the disease is fatal, and in the Congo it is now killing more people than any other communicable disease. Three million cattle are killed by it each year. A UK report estimates the annual cost of tsetse to Africa as US$ 4.5 billion. The affected range is increasing. Several UN agencies, particularly the International Atomic Energy Agency which was instrumental in the Zanzibar trial, are supporting PATTEC.
The technique involves breeding many flies which are exposed to gamma radiation from a cobalt-60 source. This sterilises the males but does not inhibit their breeding vigour. Hundreds of thousands of sterile males are then released from aircraft and compete with fertile males. Vaccines have proved impossible to develop for the parasite because it can change its protein coating readily. There are about 22 species of tsetse fly in the genus Glossina, in different environments, allowing targeted intervention and a progressive campaign. Insecticides are used on cattle at the same time.
The sterile insect techniques is a standard means of controlling fruit flies in Argentina, Chile, Mexico and California, and the melon fly in Japan. It has eradicated the New World Screwworm in North and Central America and Libya.
IAEA 19/2/02, WHO.
Reactor table
Nuclear power in the world today
Sustainable energy
Energy subsidies & external costs
Uranium & depleted Uranium
Advanced reactors
Small nuclear power reactors
Canada's uranium production
Australian uranium & who buys it
US Nuclear power industry
Uranium enrichment
Mixed oxide fuel
Transport of nuclear materials
Radioisotopes in medicine
The Nuclear debate
Cooperation in the nuclear power industry
Civil liability for nuclear damage
History of Nuclear Energy
RBMK reactor
See also Ux Consulting graphs
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
e-mail: uic@mpx.com.au
fax (03) 9629 7207