Closing Session Sixth Annual Summer Institute of the World Nuclear University Christ Church, Oxford University 13 August 2010 John Ritch Director General, World Nuclear Association President, World Nuclear University Ladies and gentlemen, good morning; it is a pleasure to be with you again. Somewhere in your memory of these last six hyper-active weeks, you might recall me from the opening day of the Summer Institute. I’m the guy who stood up here on that first morning to tell you that the world is going to hell and only you can save it. Now, I recognize that not everyone here will share my concern that this century may see the onset of global climate change so radical as to destabilize much of civilization. That’s a big idea to embrace, and some or even many of you may be sceptical. But what I am confident we do hold in common – because your presence here testifies to it – is a conviction that nuclear power is a clean-energy technology that can bring invaluable benefit to our fellow citizens around the world. Nuclear power offers a means to alleviate – and even eliminate – the devastating consequences of carbon pollution that today afflicts the health of billions of people worldwide. Even more fundamentally, nuclear power offers a means to achieve – and to maintain – the broad-based economic prosperity without which we cannot hope to meet human needs and aspirations around the world. Our societies on every continent need an affordable clean-energy resource that is sustainable over the long-term; and nuclear power – in any unbiased analysis – offers the clearest and most compelling answer to this crucial human imperative. A dawning worldwide recognition of this reality is now plainly evident, as we see dozens of nations, many of which had ignored or shunned nuclear power for decades, lining up to prepare and equip themselves to employ this remarkable technological asset. This morning I am keenly aware that I bear the heavy responsibility of being the only person – the only obstacle – standing between you and the finish of six weeks of speeches and presentations. I can assure you now that there will be no speeches at your graduation this evening, and I will try not to strain your patience this morning. Let me say first how pleased I am to be paired this morning with Laurent Stricker. While he was at EdF, Laurent served on the Board of the World Nuclear Association, and he is now capping a distinguished career by helping to guide WANO into a new phase of its vital service to the nuclear industry and to the world. As you know, WNA and WANO function separately and with different missions. In fact, WNA’s mission could rather colloquially be defined in just about that way: we try to identify and perform any and all valuable roles that lie outside of WANO’s focus on operational excellence at nuclear power plants. WANO and WNA, as the two major international organizations that serve the nuclear industry, function as de facto partners. This interaction is expressed in WNA’s Charter of Ethics, which commits our global membership to support WANO in every possible way. On this last morning of the Summer Institute, I gladly take the opportunity to extend cordial and sincere thanks to the key faculty – the Coordinators and the Mentors, who have served throughout the last six weeks – for your leadership in this special programme. You are the backbone of the Summer Institute. You are also its heart. Now, I know that two body parts make a clumsy metaphor. But in this case, it is both well intended and true! I offer equal thanks to you, the WNU Fellows of the class 2010, for the way you have participated. In designing the Summer Institute, we had ambitious hopes, and you have fulfilled our highest expectations. By giving of yourselves with spirit and energy, you created in this room a new multinational family of young leaders who embody the full breadth of the global nuclear profession. And we hope that family will last. As you return home to resume your professional lives, we urge you to maintain and build on the friendships and bonds you formed this summer. We at the World Nuclear Association will do all possible to provide opportunities for you to renew your acquaintance with this class of WNU Fellows. Among these will be special events embedded in the Annual WNA Symposium each September in London. These activities will also enable you to expand your contacts in the industry generally and with WNU Fellows from other years. We see the WNU Fellows collectively as a growing army of future nuclear leaders. Yours is a peaceful rather than a military force, but one that can make a real impact as our world struggles to achieve human advancement while preserving the global environment. In shaping the Summer Institute’s agenda, our main goal was to deepen your appreciation of the pervasive value of nuclear technology in our modern world – and to strengthen your ability to explain that reality to your fellow citizens, who need the leadership you can provide. Even amidst the dawning of a nuclear renaissance, you know that it is not always easy to make this case, for our world has absorbed much mythology about nuclear energy – mythology that has often been fostered and spread, ironically, by groups that think of themselves as speaking in the interest of the environment. As custodians of nuclear energy, it is our responsibility to break through those myths with persuasive facts and argumentation. This morning I simply wish to mention some of the most commonly voiced public concerns, and quickly highlight points you might make when those concerns are raised. Answering Public Concerns with Clarity and Conviction As a premise, it bears emphasis that we must welcome the right and the responsibility of our fellow citizens to express and act on legitimate concerns about the public interest. But what is notable about the “public concerns” we so often hear about in the media is that, upon fair and balanced examination, not one poses a reasonable obstacle to a global expansion of nuclear power. Indeed, several of these concerns are associated with myths that are very close to the opposite of the truth. 1) Proliferation. On the topic of nuclear proliferation, I believe our starting point should be a recognition of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as nothing less than one of the great achievements in the history of international diplomacy. The NPT has created a widely accepted norm – adhered to by virtually every country in the world – built on the premise that the interests of international security will be served by maintaining a line against any further expansion in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons. The NPT is not perfect; nothing is. The nuclear “have’s” – including my own country – have been too slow to disarm, as the treaty calls upon them to do. Three countries have not joined the NPT. And there are occasional departures from adherence to the treaty, as we have seen in the cases of North Korea, Iraq, and now – in a story still unfolding – Iran. But what is remarkable, I believe, is the positive side: that NPT participation is almost universal, that the nuclear weapons situation has remained generally stable for a very long time, and that long-term adherence to the NPT norm now serves to generate a collective international concern targeted directly at those few countries that flout the norm. Now, much can be said about how best to deal with those few rogue nations that may seek atomic weapons by constructing facilities that can produce weapons-usable material. Certainly, our industry stands ready to work with the IAEA and national governments in exploring ways to curtail the risk of illicit technological proliferation. And when that risk appears, the question of how to respond with the right combination of diplomacy, sanctions, and military force will remain a challenge in the world of geopolitics. But, as custodians of the peaceful and valuable use of nuclear energy, the essential truths we must emphasize are these: • Fundamentally, nuclear proliferation danger comes not from the mere existence of nuclear facilities, but from the intentions of those who possess them. The intent of an Iran or a North Korea is a geopolitical variable that is entirely independent of whether countries like Brazil, Canada, South Africa, South Korea or Australia develop additional nuclear fuel-cycle facilities. Where specific problems arise, the international community must develop specific responses. And that has occurred. The questions of Iranian or North Korean nuclear intentions have been front and center on the international agenda since the early 1990’s – indeed, I worked on exactly those two issues when I was President’s Clinton’s nuclear ambassador 15 years ago. But these issues would exist with or without the global renaissance in peaceful nuclear power. • What we must further emphasize to our fellow citizens is the positive connection between nuclear energy and international security. Given the environmental dangers that beset our world today, there is in fact no global security measure more urgent or important than the nuclear renaissance itself. Thus, the expansion of nuclear power must proceed in parallel with, and not be delayed by, ongoing efforts to strengthen the IAEA-led framework within which peaceful nuclear technology is employed. Our world needs a many-fold increase in nuclear power, and the practical reality is that whatever proliferation risk we face will be essentially unaffected by any such increase in the global use of safeguarded nuclear reactors to produce clean energy. 2) Operational Safety. When safety concerns are raised, we must emphasize that our industry has met this challenge through technological advance and responsible professional management. This progress has built a global nuclear safety culture that now draws on over 14,100 reactor-years of practical experience. As a matter of mathematics, there are 440 reactors in the world and 365 days in a year, so this number inches upward by one reactor-year every 20 hours. You can follow this steady growth on the homepage of the WNA website. Our pride in this record owes much to WANO. Just as the NPT stands as a great feat in traditional diplomacy, the creation of WANO two decades ago – with its network of safety cooperation encompassing every power reactor worldwide – represents an historic attainment in private-sector diplomacy. Tonight, when you receive your graduation certificates, you will be shaking hands with Zack Pate, one of the fathers of that international achievement. Our industry should be enormously proud of WANO and spare no effort in supporting its work. We must do so because the nuclear industry’s greatest responsibility today is to perpetuate its already impressive record of nuclear safety. It is on this foundation that the nuclear renaissance will be built. 3) Cost / Affordability. When concerns are raised about cost, we have several battles to fight: First, we must counter the widespread notion that nuclear power is heavily subsidized. Certainly it is true that governments in a number of countries have, over the years, invested substantially in researching nuclear technology. But this is quite distinct from an operational subsidy by which electricity generation is incentivized by direct government payment. Today, the widespread reality is that it is not nuclear power, but rather politically popular clean-energy technologies like wind and solar, that benefit from a marketplace that is tilted by government payments. Nor should we accept the allegation that government loan guarantees for new-build constitute a subsidy. Guarantees do reduce the cost of borrowing by assuring repayment. And they add further to the incentive to borrow by assuring borrowers that the government is committed to the success of new build and can thus be counted on to remove unwarranted obstacles. But the bottom line is that the national treasury will pocket a profitable fee for its guarantee service, which means that the taxpayer will earn rather than spend. Loan guarantees in fact constitute the ultimate win-win deal, in which new-build is facilitated by lower cost, fulfilling a valuable public policy purpose at a gain to the taxpayer. In the United States, I predict that you will see expanded nuclear loan guarantees emerge as one of the few major policies on which Democrats and Republicans can agree. While loan guarantees reduce the cost of borrowing, they do little to reduce the principal that needs to be borrowed – the capital cost. And here our industry has much work left to do. Ten years ago, the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington pointed to a target of reducing capital costs to a dollar a watt, or $1 billion per Gigawatt. Today, in the early stages of the nuclear renaissance, we find ourselves at three or four times that level. But current difficulties hardly justify long-term pessimism. Just as the industry has steadily lowered operating costs and raised capacity factors, we can expect capital costs to fall sharply as the nuclear renaissance unfolds, through steady gains in standardization, modularization, economies of scale, and accumulating construction management experience. Already, in terms of long-term economics covering the full life of a plant, nuclear power’s low operating costs make it a close competitor to coal and natural gas. Looking ahead, we can confidently predict that falling capital costs will take us into a future in which nuclear power is not just competitive but a clear winner on the field of affordability. And this will occur even without consideration of environmental effects. Just as soon as governments begin to introduce serious emissions penalties – through emissions trading or carbon taxes – the balance will tilt dramatically. Even today, nuclear power can easily dominate any market that imposes a real price for environmental damage. 4) Waste. As to nuclear waste, which is often alleged to be the industry’s insoluble problem, industry and government have the joint task of building public recognition that, contrary to common perception, waste is nuclear power’s greatest comparative asset – precisely because the volume is minimal and can be safely managed without harm to people or the environment. For its part, the industry has amassed an impressive record that includes: o Safe disposal of all low-level waste o Safe interim storage of all other end products from nearly a half century of nuclear power plant operations o Safe transport of radioactive waste, with more than 20,000 containers of high-level waste and used fuel having travelled a total distance of 20 million miles without any instance of a serious radioactive release. Where major responsibility lies now is with governments. A strong scientific consensus favours deep geological repositories as a safe and affordable means of achieving long-term storage of nuclear waste. It is the duty of governments – following the lead of Finland, Sweden, Russia and others – to summon the political will to implement this crucial component of the nuclear fuel cycle. For its part, the United States, having begun and then deviated from this path, must eventually return to it; and the sooner the better. 5) A New Concern: Terrorism. A new public concern is terrorism, and here we must rely on facts, common sense and public education to overcome exaggerated concern. The use of a radiological device in a modern city – often called a weapon of mass disruption – is clearly a security concern in many countries, and one not to be discounted. But what can be said with some confidence is that, if such a device is ever used, the radiological material will almost surely – for simple reasons of availability – come from a source such as a hospital and not from the nuclear power industry. As for the sometimes-alleged vulnerability of nuclear power plants, in truth they are, by their very nature, among the most robust structures ever built. As studies have repeatedly shown, even a direct hit by a major airplane, which itself would require superlative piloting, would be unlikely to result in a seriously harmful radioactive release. Indeed, with a 21st century nuclear reactor, the same can be said even if the reactor fell for some time into the hands of a team of people with malevolent intent. A modern nuclear power plant is simply not an effective instrument for raining destruction on a nearby populace. We know that a terrorist seeking to achieve either slaughter or mayhem can find, in a modern industrial metropolis, what the military calls a target-rich environment. But the practical reality is that those with such intent will find nuclear power plants very low on the list of inviting targets. Indeed, in the infrastructure of modern society, nuclear plants stand out as almost unique bulwarks of security. 6) New Red Herrings: Chronic Shortages of Fuel, People, Key Equipment. In addition to traditional public concerns about proliferation, safety, cost, and waste – and the new concern about terrorism – a few additional questions have recently been introduced into the energy debate by opponents of nuclear energy purporting to be industry analysts. A “red herring” is an idiomatic way of describing a phoney or diversionary issue, and it sometimes seems that nuclear professionals are condemned to swim in a sea of these fish. Three new red herrings have now appeared in our sea. Each is an assertion that a robust nuclear renaissance simply cannot unfold because of systemic shortages – either of fuel, or of people, or of major reactor equipment such as reactor pressure vessels. In all three cases, nuclear opponents have taken a short-term industry concern about potential temporary bottlenecks, and they have extrapolated it – either disingenuously or by misguided analysis – into an assertion of longer-term incapacity. In fact, in none of these cases does the industry itself worry seriously for the longer-term. In each case – fuel, people, and key equipment – there is every reason to believe that market mechanisms will generate supply to meet demand: o Regarding nuclear fuel, the industry has full confidence that a combination of factors – new ore discoveries, new mining techniques, more reprocessing, introduction of the thorium fuel cycle, and employment of breeder reactors – will ensure ample and affordable nuclear fuel supplies into the distant future. o Regarding people, we need only recall that the education required for those who will operate a reactor can accomplished while a reactor is being built. Thus, the industry can rely on that famous dictum, which some of you may recognize from the American movie Field of Dreams: “If you build it, they will come.” In the movie, building the baseball stadium requires an act of faith that customers will come. In today’s real nuclear world, we can be certain that a stream of new reactor builds around the world will register itself strongly in the educational and career choices of top young scientists and engineers everywhere. o Finally, as to key nuclear reactor equipment, anyone who believes that a demand for engineering and manufacturing services will long go unmet in today’s globalized market, hasn’t recently been to Asia. There, major companies are gearing up, indeed working around the clock, to meet the demands they anticipate from a burgeoning global nuclear market. Turning to the Positive All of these concerns – from proliferation to the new red herrings – are regularly repeated by anti-nuclear organizations and seldom given serious examination by poorly informed journalists, who tend to rely on the easy convention that there are two sides to every story, and also to follow the old principle that alarmism sells newspapers. As nuclear leaders, one of your responsibilities is to patiently rebut these falsehoods. But it is equally important to stress the affirmative case for nuclear energy. And here the reality of nuclear technology equips you with a strong hand. That reality, which we need to convey to public leaders and to private citizens around the world, is that nuclear power is nothing less than the quintessential energy resource for sustainable development: o Its fuel will be readily available for multiple centuries o Its presence confers energy autonomy o Its safety record is superior among major energy sources o Its consumption causes virtually no pollution or greenhouse gases o Its use preserves fossil resources for future generations o Its capacities are scalable, from smaller reactors to large o Its costs are competitive and declining o Its waste can be secured over the long-term o Its operations are manageable in developed & developing nations. All of these virtues of nuclear power combine into a central, essential point that can be stated quite plainly. Our world’s human and environmental imperatives in the 21st Century simply cannot be met – and reconciled – without a massive expansion of nuclear power. Six weeks ago, I called your attention to an ongoing WNA analysis called the Nuclear Century Outlook, in which we project optimistic and pessimistic scenarios defining an envelope of potential nuclear construction in the 21st Century, and we then compare that potential nuclear capacity to the level of global clean-energy need that is unlikely to be met by any means other than nuclear power. In short, how much nuclear power can be supplied, and how much will be needed? The paramount conclusion is that our world will need 8,000 Gigawatts of nuclear power in the 21st Century, and that this need can be met. This, of course, is not an exact number. As this century unfolds, it would be an enormous coincidence if reality proves to be precisely congruent with our projection. But analysis like this is not intended to offer infallibility or precision. It is designed to show an order of magnitude and to serve as a guide to planning and action. What we can draw from our projection is that 8,000 Gigawatts, while highly challenging, is most certainly feasible, as well as being urgently necessary for the needs of man and environment. The projection tells us that we have a big task ahead, but that it can be done. Six weeks ago, I recalled a statement by H.G. Wells that life is a race between education and catastrophe. This dictum applies to individual lives and to life of civilization, and most certainly to today’s global crisis. I recall it again this morning in order to express my hope that all of you here will go on to play active roles in the public education, around the world, that will be needed to win this century’s very real race against human and environmental catastrophe. This WNU class of 2010 came here to Oxford with impressively strong credentials, and our goal was to send you on your way six weeks later with some added spark of insight and inspiration. We hope you depart tomorrow with that spark, along with good memories and new friends. We know you leave with our fondest regard and our best wishes for the many valuable careers that surely lie ahead of you. Thank you.