|
|
|
Amory B. Lovins, ablovins@rmi.org |
|
CEO (Research), Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org |
|
[also Chairman, Hypercar Inc., www.hypercar.com ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear
Power and Nuclear Weapons: Can We Have One Without the Other? |
|
|
|
Nuclear Control Institute, Washington, DC, 9
April 2001 |
|
|
|
Copyright 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute. All
rights reserved. |
|
Noncommercial distribution by the Nuclear
Control Institute and participants is permitted for their internal use. |
|
|
|
|
|
World primary energy output 1998 (BP) |
|
Nuclear 6.3%; all renewables without
tradi-tional biofuels 8.8%, or with biofuels 20.3% |
|
US energy output 982000 (hydro varies) |
|
Nuclear = 1.021.17 renewables pri. energy, ~1.8 renewable kWh, same el.
gen. capacity |
|
199099 av. %/y growth in global capacity |
|
Nuclear 1, photovoltaics 17, windpower 24 |
|
199899 change in global capacity |
|
Nuclear 1.4% (5 GW to 354 GW: IAEA) |
|
Windpower +37% (+31/2 GW
to 17 GW at end 2000; + 5 GW to ~22 GW expected in 2001; cf. world nucl.
starts avgd. 3.1 GW/y 199099) |
|
|
|
|
|
Remote, incl. ~2.7¢/kWh av. delivery cost |
|
Nuclear: ~1015+ (~47+ opg. only) |
|
Coal: ~68 (~46 opg. only) |
|
Combined-cycle with constant-price gas: ~56
(late 90s), 2001 ~67 (temporary spot shortage) |
|
Remote wind: ~67 in 1999, ~5 in 2003 (5.6 m/s
av. wind; excludes 1.5¢ Federal subsidy; zero fuel-price risk can
nearly double value vs. gas) |
|
Onsite, avoiding delivery cost (*w/heat cr.) |
|
Photovoltaics: ~1830, bldg-integrated ≤820
(but power quality valuable, & 1990s price 43%) |
|
Microturbine trigen* w/const.-price gas: <15 |
|
Industrial cogen* w/const.-price gas: <12 |
|
End-use efficiency: <01 (some homes 24+) |
|
|
|
|
|
Three abundant resourcesefficient end-use,
efficiently used gas (especially when thermally integrated), and windpower
easily beat new (even old!) nuclear plants |
|
DOE 12/00 projects US c-c gas 126 GW in 2010, vs.
nuclear powers 97 GW in 2000 |
|
Gas rather ubiquitous / abundant (>200 years) |
|
Rhodess claim of the decline and fall of the
renewables: cf. current Eur. Fortune cover! |
|
The case strengthens in developing countries |
|
Any one of these three makes nuclear power
unnecessary and uneconomic |
|
Fuel cells & PVs will raise that 3 to 45 |
|
Distributed benefits seal the argument |
|
|
|
|
[US energy efficiency
improvements] contribute only marginally to US energy supplies |
|
|
|
Richard Rhodes & Denis Beller, The
Need for Nuclear Power, Foreign Affairs, Jan.Feb. 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nations largest energy supply, providing
40% of all US energy services |
|
>5 times US domestic oil output |
|
>2 times total US oil imports |
|
>12 times Persian Gulf imports |
|
The fastest-growing US energy source |
|
At least 2/3 due to technical efficiency |
|
The US has doubled its oil productivity in the
past quarter-century yet barely scratched the surface of how much
efficiency is available and worth buying |
|
|
|
|
|
197986: real GDP +20%, pri. energy 5% |
|
1986 price crash, period of stagnation |
|
Calif. led in el. eff.: 10 GWp by
early 90s |
|
19962000: U.S. neared record for speed of
cutting primary energy/GDP (3.1%/ y) |
|
Despite record-low / falling prices 199699 |
|
Perhaps 1/3 due to E-commerce-related
struc-tural changes: www.cool-companies.org |
|
Mostly technical gains in end-use efficiency |
|
Driven by competition, fashion, side-benefits |
|
Savings keep getting bigger and cheaper |
|
Electrical savings are the most lucrative |
|
Enthalpically, 1¢/kWh = $17/bbl-equivalent |
|
|
|
|
|
US could save ³3/4 of its electric use (1/4 lights, 1/4 motors, ³1/4 others) by
fully retrofitting best existing technologies at below short-run marginal
supply cost ~4 nuclear output, cheaper than op. cost |
|
Tech details available: www.esource.com |
|
6080 market failures in buying efficiency offer
attractive business opportunities* |
|
*Climate: Making Sense and Making Money,
www.rmi.org, at pp. 1120 |
|
Side-benefits worth far more than kWh |
|
~616% higher labor productivity, 40% more
retail sales, ~2026% higher school test scores, more/better industrial
production, |
|
|
|
|
In 198385, 10 million people served by
Sou-thern California Edison Co. were cutting its 10-y-ahead forecast peak
load by 81/2% per year, at ~1% of marginal supply
cost |
|
In 1990, NEES got 90% of a small-business
retrofit pilot programs market in 2 months |
|
PG&E got 25% of its 1990
new-commercial-construction market in 3 months, raised its 1991 target, and
got it all during 19 January |
|
New delivery methods are even better not just
marketing negawatts but making markets in negawatts, thus maximizing
competition |
|
|
|
|
[US energy efficiency improvements remain]
stubbornly uncompetitive |
|
|
|
Richard Rhodes & Denis Beller, The
Need for Nuclear Power, Foreign Affairs, Jan.Feb. 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Vast literature documents sophisticated,
rigorous measurement and evaluation |
|
Costs and savings accurately predictable |
|
Historic US av. cost utilities ~2¢/kWh |
|
SCEs DSM portfolio 199194: 2.61.2¢/kWh (av. 1.7)
despite relatively costly resl. efforts |
|
Well-designed progs. often far cheaper |
|
E.g., NYSERDA review of >200 programs by 58
utilities 88: dozens cost
0.41.1¢/kWh |
|
>20 utilities comml./indl. programs cost
≤1¢/kWh, the best <0.5¢/kWh (88 $); median
was ≤1¢ for eight major types of programs |
|
Transaction costs often tiny (SCE 1984:
0.065¢ resl, 0.031¢ other ~1% of tariff) |
|
|
|
|
Better technologies, more ubiquitous |
|
Volume production, competitive prices |
|
More streamlined delivery methods |
|
Better marketing, especially in bundles and
using valuable side-benefits |
|
Much better insight into how to turn obstacles
into business opportunities |
|
Greater customer awareness / eagerness |
|
Continuing innovation expands technical
potential faster than its being exploited |
|
Now add breakthrough design integration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grow bananas with no furnace at 47F (RMI,
1983); comfort without air-conditioning at +115F (PG&E ACT2);
both cost less to build |
|
90% household el. saving (~$5/mo. for 4k ft2),
99% space- & water-ht. saving, 10-mo. paybk. |
|
90% a/c saving in new Bangkok house, 0 cost |
|
Big office buildings: 7590% less energy, ~35%
lower capital cost, 6 months faster, superior comfort and market
performance |
|
75% energy savings retrofittable in Chicago
office tower, costs same as just renovation |
|
97% a/c saving retrofit design in CA office |
|
|
|
|
Saving half of industrial drivepower (3/8 of
industrial el.) typically retrofittable with 35 measures @ ~100200%/y
aftertax ROI |
|
Same ROIs recently found for retrofitting
chip-fab chiller/fan systems (save 50+%) |
|
8th biggest chipmaker (STMicroel.) targets zero
net carbon emissions by 2010 |
|
DuPont plans to boost energy productivity at
least 6%/y in this decadeEuropean plants no more efficient than U.S.
plants |
|
Dow/Louisiana got >200%/y ROI retrofit-ting
$110M/y of simple energy savings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 198485, CA was being offered private
generation, av. 12 MW/unit, mostly renew-able, at 9 GW (1/4 of peak load) per
year |
|
By fall 1988, small power commitments covered
>48% of Maines and 15% of New Hampshires total peak loads |
|
By 1998, nonutility producers output was
equivalent to 68% of all electricity sold by utilities in Maine (of which
more than 2/3 was renewable), 19% in New Hampshire, and 41% in California |
|
By 1998, 38% of all CAs net el. generation was
renewable, 56% in ME, 11% in US |
|
|
|
|
E.g., Denmark, now 16% windpowered, on target
for 50% in 2030 w/no land-use issue (nor intermittencelong since resolved) |
|
20% of US el. could be made by modern wind
turbines occupying 5% of 400400 mi (4 MT counties, or 0.6% of Lower 48) |
|
U.S. annual el. could come from ordinary PVs
occupying 50% of ~100100 miles |
|
Actual installations would be distributed,
sharing land-use, and/or on buildings |
|
Energy paybacks: months to a few years |
|
1 kg Si in thin-film PVs can produce more
electricity than 1 kg U in a PWR |
|
|
|
|
Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic
Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size (RMI, later in 2001) |
|
Codifies and quantifies ~125 distributed
benefits that increase economic value of decentralized generation by
typically ~10 |
|
Four kinds: financial economics, electrical
engineering, miscellaneous, externalities |
|
Fuel Cells Are Profitable (RMI, 2001) will
apply this work specifically to fuel cells |
|
PVs cost-effective now if benefits counted |
|
|
|
|
A transportation technology revolution that will
change or replace many major industries |
|
New market entrants, like aeroturbine makers
displacing boilermakers |
|
Could also dominate distributed generation and
transform the economics of renewable electricity |
|
|
|
|
5 big adults, up to 69 ft3 of cargo |
|
Hauls 1,013 lb up a 44% grade |
|
1,889-lb curb (47% of Lexus RX300) |
|
Head-on wall crash @ 35 mph doesnt damage
passenger cell |
|
Head-on collision with a car twice its mass,
each @ 30 mph, meets U.S. occupant protection standards for fixed-barrier
crash @ 30 mph |
|
060 mph in 8.2 seconds |
|
99 mpg-equivalent (5 times RX300) |
|
330 mi on 7.5 lb of safe 5-kpsi H2 |
|
55 mph on just normal a/c energy |
|
Zero-emission (hot water) |
|
Sporty, all-wheel digital traction |
|
Ultrareliable; flexible, wireless
diagnostics/upgrades/tuneups |
|
200k-mile warrantyno dent/rust |
|
Competitive cost expected |
|
Decisive mfg. advantages |
|
|
|
|
save as much oil as OPEC now sells |
|
decouple driving from climate and smog |
|
displace 1/8 of steel market early, ~7/8 later |
|
become immense electricity generators: cars are
parked ~96% of the time, and a full US fleet of 150 million light vehicles,
@ 2045 kW each, would be 36 TW 510 as much generating capacity as all
utilities now own |
|
WHEN? Within current planning horizons! |
|
Hypercars will be widely available in ~5 y,
dominant in ~10 (see open-source chrono-logy at www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid414.asp) |
|
The old way of making cars will be toast in 20
y; what about the old electricity industry? |
|
|
|
|
Halved E/GDP elasticity, another halving
underway, to help economic development |
|
Cut coal output by 1/3 since 1996, soon by 1/2,
to boost development & public health |
|
Fast shift to efficiency, gas, renewables; H2? |
|
In 3/2000, announced nuclear ordering moratorium
of at least 5 years* |
|
*Zeng Peiyan, Director, State Development
Planning Commission, 6 March news
conference reported in 9 March Zhongguo
Dianli Bao (China Electric Power Daily) |
|
South is saving E & CO2 at least
as fast as North in percent & maybe in absolute terms |
|
End-use efficiency instead of el. supply can cut
capital needs by ~1034 big leverage |
|
|
|
|
Suppose that saving a kWh costs as much as
3¢ while generating a new nuclear kWh costs as little as 6¢ |
|
Then each 6¢ spent on a nuclear kWh could
have bought two efficiency kWh |
|
So buying the costlier nuclear kWh instead
resulted in 1 kWh of fossil-fueled generation that could have been avoided |
|
Unless nuclear power is the cheapest way of all
to meet energy-service needs, buying it will make climate change worse than
if the best buys were bought instead |
|
|
|
|
The order of economic priority is also the order
of environmental priority |
|
Whether nuclear power can beat coal power
doesnt matter, because energy efficiency and renewables, which are also CO2-free,
cost less than either |
|
Rhodes & Beller note that if fossil fuels
had to pay for emissions controls, theyd cost a lot more; but this would
competi-tively benefit not nuclear power so much as its still cheaper,
faster, and more attractive alternatives chiefly efficien-cy and
renewables |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the first airtight description of what a
highly effective, internally consis-tent nonproliferation regime requires |
|
Commercial collapse of nuclear power (which is a
peculiarly convenient route to bombs be-cause its innocent-looking,
praised, paid for) |
|
Rise of clearly better / cheaper energy options |
|
End of Cold War and bipolar hegemony |
|
Few readers were ready for those assump-tions 21
years ago |
|
But now that theyve all happened, their logic,
still sound, merits revisiting |
|
|
|
|
|
All the ingredients needed to make bombs by any
of the ~20 known methods would no longer be ordinary items of commerce |
|
Hence harder to get, more conspicuous to try to
get, politically costlier (for both seeker and supplier) to be caught
trying to get |
|
Because its civilian cover was removed! |
|
Removed ambiguity smokes out prolifera-tors,
focuses attention on fewer transactions |
|
Doesnt make proliferation impossible, but makes
it far harder in most or all cases of practical interest, probably
prohibitively so |
|
Those wanting energy must explain why theyre
seeking the costliest option |
|
|
|
|
|
Go to NPT bargains purpose ensuring fair
access to affordable energy for develop-mentbut not specifically to nuclear
energy (now that better solutions are available) |
|
Actually provide such energy access |
|
Involve broad-based energy experts in the
negotiations, not just nuclear experts |
|
Educate & set example on why bombs make one
less secure and bespeak immaturity |
|
Try seriously to kick the habit Bombaholics
Anonymous, deep cuts, ritual / symbolism, |
|
Build new security triad conflict
prevention / avoidance, resolution, nonprovocative defense |
|
|
|
|
|
Tragic misallocation, still distorting choices |
|
Talent, work, hope, investment deserved better |
|
Shield from accountability make big mistakes |
|
Best legacy: dont make the same mistake twice |
|
Market discipline yields the right conclusion |
|
Trying to reverse verdict has a huge opp. cost |
|
Design an orderly terminal phase |
|
Neighbors more likely to accept waste if not an
open-ended, unlimited, perpetual commitment |
|
Nuclear religion is main barrier to acceptance |
|
Turn commercial collapse, and rise of better
energy alternatives, into the long-awaited missing step toward
nonproliferation |
|
|
|
|
www.rmi.org (general information, many
publications; Transportation sec-tion gives public Hypercar information) |
|
www.hypercar.com (the new private
technology-development company) |
|
www.naturalcapitalism.org or www.natcap.org for
short (the wider contextmaking business far more profitable by behaving as
if nature and people were properly valued): see Natural Capitalism (Little
Brown, NY, & Earthscan, London) |
|
Notes