Ettore Majorana Foundation and Center for Scientific Culture

Ettore Majorana Foundation and Center for Scientific CulturePontificia Academia ScientiarumSession on Planetary Emergencies, Rome, December 2006Energy Crisis or Environment Crisis?Richard WilsonHarvard University

Introduction.

In this talk I will briefly outline my thinking about energy and the environment since about 1972, and how it has paralelled the thinking of the various groups that have discussed the issues in Erice during that period. Alas, it has taken time for the world politicians to grasp what we have been saying.

I srated when Dr Glenn Saeborg, Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, and President that year of the American Academy of arts and Sciences made an appeal to the nation’s physicists and chemists. Basically he said: government (AEC) has been supporting you in your research for 25 years and now the government (AEC) needs you fundamnetal scientists to explain to the public what we are doing and want to do paricularly in the nuclear field”. I responded. Not many scientists did.

The American Physical Socoety held a meeting in December 1972 in Cambridge/Boston. At APS request I organized a major session on Energy. We had talks on dwindling oil resources. Since the Union of Concerned Scientists had just come out against nuclear power plants, we asked Henry Kendall to talk on Nuclear Power, and a scientist from Brookhaven to counter him. We had talks on air pollution, and on global climate change and one on solar energy. I note that it was already clear that the nation’s energy policy should be tightly coupled with, even based on, environmental considerations.

In 1973 I gave my first course at Harvard on Energy and the Environment, out of which came a book. Anyone born in London pre WWII became well aware of the effects of coal burning: SO2 and even worse, particulates. Mercury and Arsenic emissions My undergraduate lectures in 1945 by Professor Dobson had led me to understand a little of the problems of the climate and the way in can be influenced by CO2. I had the advatage almostweekly of discussions with Roger Revelle.

Then I joined Middle Eastern economist AJ Meyer in a seminar series “Economics of Energy” where we invited world experts such as geologist King Hubbert, Frank McFadzean of Shell, and Zaki Yamani of Saudi Arabia to tell us their views. Although King Hubbert described the limits of US oil supply, the others emphasized that the middle east resources are huge, and that secondary and tertiary recovery had only just begun. Even in 2005, we had lectures[1] that there is enough oil at present rates for 100 years, and the world can easily handle a 30% increase over 2005 ratesThe fall of 1973 showed that the uneven distribution of oil raised political issues. Indeed President Nixon was not interested in the environmental effects of energy (as he should have ben) but the political effects of this uneven distrution and he emphasized the impossible aim of energy independence. It became even more clear that the issue is not the availability of resouces, per se, but the willingness to use them.

In 1974 I was asked by Edward Teller to give a set of lectures on the Environmental Effects of Energy at a 3 week school on Colorado. I outlined my views on dose response relationships at low doses, on air pollution, on strip mining and possible global climate change. It was daunting because in the audience were Paul Dirac, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner. I escaped unscathed.

I had up to that time left to other sicientsts such as Dick Garwin, Pief Panofsky and Bernie Feld (a Pugwash partic ipant) the task of coping with nuclear weapons proliferation to others. But I became deeply concerned when it traspired that Canada had provided a heavy water reactor to India without insistence on safeguards, and France had sold one to Israel. I gave a talk at an AAAS meeting in Denver in 1975 and objected to Germany’s proposed sale of a reprocessing plant to Brazil, and France to Pakistan. I was appalled when Henry Kissinger replied to a letter of mine at that time by saying: “Non-Proliferation is Secondary to Maintenance of Our Alliances”. What are alliances for if not to stop proliferation? I was hooked. I could no longer keep silent..

Then Nino Zichichi asked me to join Fernando Amman in running a school in Erice ; the “International School of Energetics”. To the best of my memory we did so 1977,1978,1979, and 1980. We had as lecturers some of the world’s experts. Chauncey Starr, Director of the US Electric Power Research Institute, Walter Marshall (Lord Wally to his staff).

The 1979 course concentrated on energy supply “Energy for the Year 2000” . In 1980 the focus was on “Energy Demand and Efficient Use”. Before 1973 we had policies such as President Kennedy’s “Cheap energy” policy, with overoptimistic predictions by Admiral Strauss (then Chairman of the AEC) when talking about nuclear fusion “Energy will be too cheap to meter”. But most scientists emphasized efficiency after 1973. But we had a hard time getting the basic concepts across to the environmental movement who insisted thet we should “Conserve Energy”. That drove me wild because physicists had proved that energy is conserved 150 years before. The only controversy was how to pronounce the name of the Scotsman, Joule, who was instrumental in proving it.

If we dont use words precisely and in the same way, the chance that we will do something sensible is much reduced. Fortunately we partially succeeded and environmentalists now talk about Energy Efficiency. But we still have disagreements and I have a long standing one with California, represented by Arthur Rosenfeld who, I am delighted to say, has succeeded me as Chairman of the Permanent Energy Monitoring panel. Industry has always been well ahead of the general public in energy efficiency – particularly because they can afford the consultants who understand the subject!. For example the electricity generation efficiency(1st law efficiency) in 1908 was 8% . It rose in 1970 to 33%-40% and in 2000 using combined cycle gas turbines up to 60%.

Before 1973, fuel (oil and coal) was getting cheaper every year, and electricity more so. Why would an ordinary person make an investment in more efficient use when fuel will be cheaper next year? But after 1973 the incentives for end use efficiency (which we discussed in Erice in 1980) improved. Scientists emphasized the crucial importance of public information. In Massachussetts we demanded that appliance manufacturers label the appliances with the cost of fuel for a typical year’s use. California went further and enacted mandatory efficiency levels. There are now federal standards also both for appliances and of course the CAFE standards for automobiles.. Arthur and I still argue whether mandatory standards are the most efficient, or the most moral, way of proceeding. I prefer to rely on public information and well crafted monetary incentives. I suspect we will return to this in the Erice meetings.

The International Schools of Energetics all supported continued expansion of nuclear energy for electricity production. Indeed the momentum for building nuclear power plants before 1980 was such that one could have reasonably, although not confidently, predicted that 80% of world electricity would be nuclear by the year 2000. That would have resulted in a reduction of CO2 emissions more than 5 times it is proposed that the Kyoto agreement achieve. It wis interesting to wonder whether we can regain this momentum.

Nino held an important meeting in 1986 in Rome in an attempt to persuade the Italian government to keep nuclear electric power in their energy mix. Other than electricity bought from France, he failed. Intermittently the Erice group in various forms, have resurrected this issue.

Can we get back to the idea that no base load electricity be generated by fossil fuels, and that peaking capacity be mostly hydroelectric with a little natural gas? This goal seems to have vanished and none of the projections now have this goal. But I argue that we could do this within 20 years. We would need to have 5 times as many nuclear plants in the US as we now have. The US managed that rate of construction in the 1970s and France managed it in the 1980s.Why not everyone else?I argue that the main impediment is still public acceptance

This is a problem and challenge for the environmental movement:Which do you like least?Nuclear Power? or Global Climate Change?In April 2005 the founder of GREENPEACE gave testimony in the US Congress and argued for nuclear power. A number of issues show that the discussion is far from over.

Fuels for transportation:

In the USA there has recently been a lot of focus on transportation fuels. A noted before there is no real shortage of oil for many years. Even the distribution problems could be solved without much change in infrastructure if we were willing to use ethanol or methanol from coal. But in discussing these alternatives it is vital to compare alternatives on a proper basis, keeping in mind exactly what one is trying to achieve. Unfortunately in the USA there is a major boondoggle in progress.

Ethanol/methanolno big change in infrastructurefrom coal/oil/corn/celluloseONLY CELLULOSE REDUCES CO2in USA this is a subsidy for Archer Daniels Midland!hydrogen can come from from fossil fuels OR nuclear

BATAVIA ILLINOISThe Windmill city More windmills made than any other city (before 1970)Now no windmillsonly FERMILAB

Erice meetings constantly urge a return to nuclear power.The list of initiatives listed in 2006 Stern report - proposals or tokenismGermany and now UK 20% renewable electricity: wind 50% more expensive than coal or nuclear

But:German experience ( Birkhofer at Erice in 2005)Wind about 50% more expensive that coalUS subsidy 2 cents per kwh

Carbon sequestrationCesare Marchetti talked about it in 1979 He proposed it be dumped into the oceans near Gibralter and off South Sea Islands deep and shallow oceans mixwe all laughedTOO SOON!In oil wells (secondary recovery)In deep oceansIn mineral depositsunder Venice to raise the city!

There is talk of a gas tax.Or carbon taxIt should be a general taxwith no exceptions.Scientists have to inform the economists:Apply control, or tax when carbon leaves the ground and enters the surface pool.Only a “few” placesoil wells, mines, ports etc.

We must NOT forget the long term: 100 years +

Erice in 2004 Prof. Abul Barkat of University of Dhakashowed that:rural electrification reduces the gap between rich and poorElectrification 50%+ complete in Bangladesh2006 Nobel Peace PrizeProfessor Yunus of Grameen Bank Add Science Then their work for poor people, will be enhanced

INDIA

Further, it is recommended that an element of subsidy support initially be linked to such investments. This support could take the form of low return equity or an interest subsidy that is part of the financial package. In this, national or international equity support should be forthcoming to match any community or other local investment.

Ettore Majorana Foundation and Center for Scientific CulturePontificia Academia ScientiarumSession on Planetary Emergencies, Rome, December 2006Energy Crisis or Environment Crisis?Richard WilsonHarvard University

1972 Boston APS meetingTalks on:CoalOil supplyNuclear risksNuclear FutureSolarGlobal climate change

1977, 1978,1979, 1981?Amman and Wilson School on Energetics in EriceAll emphasized the coming of Nuclear EnergyOne of our books emphasized efficient use

Plenty of Coal: probably for 1000 yearsAustraliaChinaIndiaRussiaUSA

Even now, enough oil at present rates for 100 years can `easily handle 30% increase over 2006 rates(OPAEC reports, BP, Middle East Economic Suvey etc)But distribution forces political issues

The issue is not the availability of resources but the willingness to use them. The Crisis is EnvironmentalCoal burning: particulates, mercuryCarbon burning: CO2 concentrations, global warming potentialNuclear: Bombs,Bad press

In 1970s environmentalists talkedabout conservation of energy;Physicists had proved it 150 years before. The only controversy was how to pronounce the name of the Scotsman, Joule

Scientists have had one major success! Environmentalists now say Energy Efficiency.Electricity generation efficiency (1st law): 1908 8% 1970 33%-40%2000 up to 60%End use efficiency improving:But please! Turn down the thermostat!

E need a rate ten times greater.US managed that in 1970s and France in 1980s.Why not everyone else?That is a question of public acceptance

Problem for environmental movement:Which do you like least?Nuclear Power?or Global Climate Change?If 1970 nuclear momentum continued:USA 80% electricity - nuclearPlus nuclear process heat or hydrogen generationover 5 X effect of Kyoto!Founder of GREENPEACE says nuclear.

Fuels for transportation:Ethanol/methanolno big change in infrastructurefrom coal/oil/corn/celluloseONLY CELLULOSE REDUCES CO2in USA subsidy for Archer Daniels Midland!hydrogenfrom fossil fuels/nuclear

BATAVIA ILLINOISThe Windmill city More windmills made than any other city (before 1970)Now no windmillsonly FERMILAB

But:German experience ( Birkhofer at Erice in 2005)Wind about 50% more expensive that coalUS subsidy 2 cents per kwh

Carbon sequestrationCesare Marchetti talked about it in 1979Near Gibralter and off South Sea Islands deep and shallow oceans mixwe all laughedTOO SOON!In oil wells (secondary recovery)In deep oceansIn mineral depositsunder Venice to raise the city!

We must NOT forget the long term: 100 years +

A DIGRESSIONI have been working in Bangladesh with a fine surgeonDr Quasi Quamruzzaman (Zaman)on the right in the following photograph

35 Years ago the Pakistani Army went on a rampage in East Pakistan:Zaman picked up a gun - he was a terroristHe began to win - he was a Freedom FighterHe won - he was a statesman34 years later there was an earthquake in NW Pakistan so within a week:Zaman with a dozen nurses and physicians set up a field hospital with his former enemyZaman never changed - the world changed

INDIA

Therefore, we recommend that multinational and national agencies develop the capability of efficiently funding micro projects. This might be done through private intermediaries such as the Grameen Bank. Long-term loans should be on a par with loans for large-scale projects but with practices and conditions appropriate for very small-scale investments.Further, it is recommended that an element of subsidy support initially be linked to such investments. This support could take the form of low return equity or an interest subsidy that is part of the financial package. In this, national or international equity support should be forthcoming to match any community or other local investment.

[1] Walid Khaddouri, Middle Eastern Economic Survey

Shihab Eldin, OPEC