Nuclear futures

Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 221-250

  Tomain, Joseph P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; NUCLEAR POWER;

EID: 27944501165     PISSN: 10643958     EISSN: 10643958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (209)

1. Current casebooks and textbooks on energy law and policy connect energy and environmental laws and policies and usually do so through economics. See, e.g., Fred Bosselman et al., Energy, Economics and the Environment (2000);
2. Energy Law Group, Energy Law and Policy for the 21st Century (2000);
3. Marla Mansfield, The REEL World: Cases and Materials on Resources, Energy and Environmental Law (2001).
4. Bosselman et al., supra note 1, at 41-47.
5. See, e.g., Sam Kalen, Replacing a National Energy Policy with a National Resource Policy, 19 Nat. Resource & Envt'l 9 (2005);
6. Amory B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace 26-31 (1977).
7. See Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 124 S. Ct. 2576 (2004). The underlying complaint in that case was that the National Energy Policy Development Group, which wrote the Bush Administration's National Energy Policy, infra note 14, under the leadership of Vice President Cheney, was comprised of traditional energy industry representative such as Kenneth Lay of Enron and was devoid of environmental representation.
8. Joseph P. Tomain, The Dominant Model of United States Energy Policy, 61 U. Col. L. Rev. 355 (1990).
9. See, e.g., Lovins, supra note 3, at 38-46;
10. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987).
11. DOE Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 276 (2003) [hereinafter Annual Energy Review 2003].
12. See, e.g., Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran, Power to the People (2003);
13. Lovins, supra note 3, at ch. 1.
14. See infra notes 68-78 and accompanying text.
15. The concept of "sustainable development" was introduced at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. The idea was further developed in United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987).
16. This Report, also know as the "Brundtland Commission Report," after its Chair, Prime Minister Gro Brundtland of Norway, defined "sustainable development" as meeting the "needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Id. at 8.
17. For information about the Rio Earth Summit, see http://www.un.org/ geninfo/bp/enviro.html (last visited Mar. 9, 2005).
18. For information on the Johannesburg Earth Summit, see http:// www.earthsummit2002.org (last visited Mar. 9, 2005).
19. See President's Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable America: A New Consensus for the Future (1996).
20. See also U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Policy Plan (July, 1995);
21. U.S. Department of Energy, Strategic Plan: Providing America with Energy Security, National Security, Environmental Quality, Science Leadership (Sept. 1997);
22. U.S. Department of Energy, Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, (Apr. 1998).
23. National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy ch. 3 (May 2001) [hereinafter National Energy Policy], available at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
24. A video of the Forum can be found at http://www.clintonfoundation.org/ feature-energy-1206041.htm (last visited Mar. 4, 2005).
25. National Commission on Energy Policy, Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges (Dec. 2004) [hereinafter National Commission Report].
26. This Commission has been criticized by Public Citizen for being too industry oriented and not bipartisan enough; see http://www.citizen.org/ pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1837 (Dec. 8, 2004).
27. A year earlier, the Energy Future Coalition, another bipartisan group of energy leaders and thinkers published a similar report, Energy Future Coalition, Challenge and Opportunity: Charting a New Energy Future (June 2003) [hereinafter Energy Future Coalition], available at http:// www.energyfuturecoalition.org/full_report/index.shtm.
28. See, e.g., Pietro S. Nivola, The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in the United States, Brookings Institution Policy Brief No. 138 (2004) ("In America, it is safe to say, the halt [in the nuclear industry] has to do with basic economic considerations, not just political obstacles.... In the teeth of inauspicious market conditions, even the additional government intervention that was envisioned in last year's omnibus energy bill would not suffice to entice skeptical investors in the near term.").
29. See National Commission Report, supra note 16,at 58("Even with success in the cost and safety challenges, a new generation of nuclear reactors is unlikely to be built in the United States unless and until nuclear plant owners (largely electric utilities) and the public are persuaded that the government is able to meet its obligation, under existing law, to take possession of and adequately sequester the highly radioactive spent fuel from reactor operations.").
30. See also John Deutch & Ernest J. Moniz (co-chairs), The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary Mit Study ix (2003) [hereinafter MIT Study]. The MIT Study argues that "high-level waste can safely be disposed of in geologic repositories.... We note, however, that among the general public, and even among some in the technical community, there is a lack of confidence in the prospects for successful technical and organizational implementation of the geologic disposal concept."
31. Id. at 54.
32. Annual Energy Review 2003, supra note 7, at 3.
33. Id. at 222.
34. Bosselman et al., supra note 1, at 944.
35. Mark Holt & Carl E. Behrens, CRS Issue Brief for Congress: Nuclear Energy Policy CRS-1 (Sept. 1, 2004).
36. Id.
37. The classic phrase, made by the first chair of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss, was that nuclear power would generate electricity "too cheap to meter." See infra note 35 and accompanying text.
38. See also Steven Mark Cohn, Too Cheap To Meter: An Economic and Philosophical Analysis of the Nuclear Dream 107 (1997).
39. Earlier, in 1942, the first successful fission experiment occurred at the University of Chicago. This experiment was a prelude to Los Alamos because the same scientists were involved in both projects. See Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb 399-401 (1986).
40. Id.
41. See also Miguel A. Bracchini, The History and Ethics Behind the Manhattan Project (Apr. 1997), available at http://www.me.utexas.edu/ ~uer/manhattan/.
42. Rhodes, supra note 25, at 669-78.
43. Id. at 676.
44. Id. at 745-47.
45. Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-585, 60 Stat. 755 (1946).
46. Id.
47. See, e.g,, George T. Mazuzan & J. Samuel Walker, Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation 1946-1962 ch. 1 (1984).
48. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Address before the General Assembly of the United nations on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-1960 813-822 (1960).
49. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-703, 68 Stat. 919 (1954).
50. See Joseph P. Tomain, Nuclear Power Transformation 8 (1987);
51. Daniel Ford, The Cult of the Atom 50 (1982).
52. Price-Anderson Act of 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-256, 71 Stat. 576 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C. (2000)).
53. James R. Curtis et al., Nuclear Power, in 2 David J. Muchow & William A. Mogel, Energy Law & Transactions § 54.14 (2002)
54. Tomain, supra note 35, at 8-9.
55. Id. at 9.
56. Curtis et al., supra note 37, at § 54.14[1] [c] & [d].
57. J. Samuel Walker, Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963-1971 ch. 2 (1992).
58. See also Mark Hertsgaard, Nuclear Inc. 44 (1983).
59. Walker, supra note 41, at 34.
60. Annual Energy Review 2003, supra note 7, at xxxii (describing nuclear power is equal to 20% of electricity produced).
61. See President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, The Need for Change: The Legacy of TMI (1979) (also known as the Kemeny Commission Report).
62. See generally J. Samuel Walker, Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (2004).
63. See, e.g., Daniel F. Ford, Three Mile Island: Thirty Minutes to Meltdown (1982).
64. Nuclear Energy Institute, The TMI 2 Accident: Its Impact, Its Lessons (Mar. 2004), available at http://www.nei.org/ doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=294.
65. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101-10226 (2000).
66. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7901-42 (2000).
67. Walker, supra note 41, at 23.
68. Id.
69. Id.
70. Id.
71. 42 U.S.S. §§ 7914, 7918 (2000).
72. 42 U.S.S. §§2 021(b)-(j) (2000).
73. 10 C.F.R. pt. 51 (2004).
74. Id.
75. See Nuclear Waste Policy Act, supra note 47.
76. See generally Ralph Ofierski, Environmental Quality: Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 22 Envtl. L. 1145 (1992).
77. See Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency could not rely on an estimate of 10,000 years of safety because the Energy Policy Act of 1992 required the EPA to follow the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences which recommended a 1-million-year estimate.
78. See id. (stating that currently, Yucca Mountain has not been approved as a waste disposal site).
79. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance NUREG-1757 (2003).
80. See also 10 C. F. R. pts. 50.75, 50.82, 51.53 & 51.95 (2004).
81. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (1999).
82. See, e.g., US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (Jan. 2004) (decommissioning);
83. 42 U.S.C. § 10175 (2000):
84. 10 C.F.R. § 71 (2004) (transportation).
85. Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Nuclear Plants in the 21st Century: The Risk of A Lifetime 21 (May 2004).
86. Id. at 3.
87. National Energy Policy, supra note 14, at 5-17.
88. See J. Samuel Walker, Three Mile Island 54 (2004).
89. See MIT Study, supra note 18, at ch. 9.
90. Private decision makers concentrate on return on investment and short-term gains for shareholders. Public decision makers should concentrate on the longer-term, public risk, safety and the cost of nuclear power. This broader focus, however, is not always the case. See, e.g., David Lochbaum, Nuclear Plant Risk Studies: Failing the Grade 2 (Aug. 2000) (arguing that Nuclear Regulatory Commission risk assessments undervalue the potential consequences of nuclear accidents in their calculations.)
91. Richard A. Posner, Catastrophe: Risk and Response 51-52 (2004)
92. See Constance Perin, Shouldering Risk: The Culture of Control in the Nuclear Power Industry (2005).
93. See Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe (2004).
94. See, e.g., William J. Broad & David E. Sanger, As Nuclear Secrets Emerge, More Are Suspect, N.Y. Times, Dec. 26, 2004, at 1 (reporting the finding by US and International Atomic Energy Agency experts on the finding of blueprints for a 10-kiloton atomic bomb in the files of the Libyan weapons program.) The report also suspected that this information was the result of a deal made by a rogue nuclear weapons trafficker Dr. A.Q. Khan.
95. See id. The story quotes an American expert as saying "[t]his was the first time we had ever seen a loose copy of a bomb design that clearly worked... and the question was: Who else had it? The Iranians? The Syrians? Al Qaeda?"
96. See id.
97. The courts have not been overly solicitous of claims of psychological harms. See Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983) (holding that the NRC is not required to evaluate potential psychological impacts when evaluating environmental impacts of proposed nuclear site);
98. Matthew D. Adler, Fear Assessment: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Pricing of Fear and Anxiety, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=466720 (Nov. 2004);
99. Cass R. Sunstein, The Laws of Fear, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 1119 (2002) (book review).
100. Posner, supra note 70, at 174.
101. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study WASH-1400 (Oct. 1975);
102. Severe Accident Risks, NUREG-1150 (Dec. 1990);
103. Individual Plant Examination Program, NUREG-1560 (Dec. 1997). These reports calculate risk as 5 events in 100,000 r/y which is the same as 1 event in 20,000 r/y.
104. Union of Concerned Scientists, The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety Study Wash-1400 (NUREG-75/014) 135 (1977) (on file with The Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum).
105. Lochbaum, supra note 69, at 12.
106. See MIT Study, supra note 18, at ch. 6 (comparing probabilistic risk assessment with historic experience).
107. See also US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Use of Risk In Nuclear Regulation, at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/rulemaking/ risk-informed.html (last updated Feb. 7, 2005)
108. Cost-benefit analysis is much more complicated and it is necessary to calculate a series of additional variables including the value of a life, as well as the discount rates to be applied on both sides of the equation among many others. There is a large literature dealing with the uses and abuses of cost-benefit analysis and I will refer the reader to some of the more prevalent scholarship. For a general introduction to the methodology see, E.J. Mishan, Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Informal Introduction (3d ed. 1982);
109. David L. Weiner & Aidan R. Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (2d ed. 1992).
110. For favorable scholarship toward cost-benefit analysis, see Cass R. Sunstein, The Cost-Benefit State: The Future of Regulatory Protection (2002);
111. Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment (2002);
112. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives (Matthew D. Adler & Eric Posner eds., 2001) (largely favorable);
113. Posner, supra note 70.
114. For critical scholarship, see Baruch Fischhoff, The Art of Cost-Benefit Analysis (1977);
115. Mark Sagoff, The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment (1988);
116. Frank Ackerman & Lisa Heinzerling, Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing (2004);
117. Joseph P. Tomain. Junk Economics, 94 Geo. L. J. (forthcoming 2005) (reviewing Priceless).
118. See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute, Energy Concerns Drive Record Public Favorability for Nuclear Energy (June 2004).
119. See, e.g., Thor Vladmanis, Nuclear Power Slides Back Onto the Agenda, USA TODAY, Sept. 27, 2004, at 1B;
120. Alan Cowell, Britain Feeling Pressure for Power, N.Y. Times, Oct. 9, 2004, at B1.
121. National Commission Report, supra note 16, at 59.
122. Id. at 57.
123. See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy in a Sustainable Development Perspective (OECD 2000)available at http://www.nea.fr/html/ ndd/docs/2000/nddsustdev.pdf (last visited March 4, 2005). Suffice it to say here that the concept is an expansive one and that in another version of sustainable development nuclear power may play no role.
124. See Nuclear Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol (OECD 2002) (arguing he nuclear power can help meet the green house gas emissions goals of the Kyoto Protocol).
125. See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute, Powering the Future With Environmentally Sound Nuclear Energy: The Ecological Stewardship of the Nuclear Energy Industry (2003) ("In 2000, the nuclear energy sector accounted for 43 percent of the carbon reductions reported nationwide." And, "Nuclear energy is by far the largest emission-free source of electricity in the United States, accounting for three-quarters of all clean-air electricity.").
126. See also Nuclear Energy Institute, Meeting our Clean Air Needs With Emission-Free Generation: The Need for Nuclear Power, available at http://www.nei.org/documents/meetingneeds.pdf (last visited Mar. 9, 2005).
127. See, e.g., Ross Gelbspan, The Heat is On 5-8 (1997);
128. Ross Gelbspan, Boiling Point 19-22, 33-36, 63-66, 87-92, 119-126, 147-151, 171-174 (2004).
129. See also Jim Motavalli (ed.), Feeling the Heat: Dispatches from the Frontlines of Climate Change (2004).)
130. The most notable organization in the world on global warming is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a joint effort of the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme and is open to all members of either organization. In its Third Assessment Report, the IPCC states clearly that "[c]oncentrations of atomospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities." Summary for Policymakers: A Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 7, available at http:// www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf (last visited Dec. 19, 2004).
131. See, e.g., Larry Rohter, U.S. Waters Down Global Commitment to Curb Greehnouse Gases, N.Y. Times, Dec. 19, 2004, at 6 (reporting that the United States "blocked efforts to begin more substantive discussions" about reducing carbon emission pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol and "stood virtually alone in challenging the scientific assumptions underlying the Kyoto Protocol" of which the U.S. is not a part.).
132. For other references regarding the Bush Administration's intransigence regarding the anthropogenic causes of global warming see Robert S. Devine, Bush Versus the Environment 174-79 (2004);
133. Jim Motavalli (ed.), Feeling the Heat: Dispatches From the Frontlines of Climate Change 7-8 (2004);
134. Carl Pope & Paul Rauber, Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress ch. 10 (2004);
135. Ross Gelbspan, Boiling Point 41-61 (2004).
136. The Clear Skies Initiative: Executive Summary available at http:// whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/print/clear-skies.html (Feb. 2002);
137. Global Climate Change Initiative, available at http://whitehouse.gov/ news/releases/2002/02/print/20020214.html (Feb. 2002).
138. See also Department of Energy, Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) available at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/ cleancoal/ccpi/Prog052_4P.pdf (Sept. 2004);
139. Vision 21 Program Plan: Clean Energy Plants for the 21st Century (Apr. 1999), available at http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/ vision21/index.html (last updated Nov. 30, 2004).
140. See, e.g., David A. Repka & Kathryn M. Sutton, The Revival of Nuclear Power Plant Licensing, 19 Nat. Resources & Envt'l. 39 (2005).
141. National Energy Policy, supra note 14, at 5-15, 5-16.
142. See e.g., John Sullivan, Restarting a Reactor with a Flawed Part, N.Y. Times, Dec. 12, 2004, at 33 (reporting the utility's desire to restart the Salem nuclear power plant in New Jersey in face of an internal engineering report that a critical pump's steel drive shaft was probably cracked and could cause an accident.)
143. See Vaitheeswaran, supra note 8, at 280. Operating costs for nuclear plants are lower than those for coal and natural gas. "... America's nuclear plants cranked out power during the winter of 2000-2001 at an operating cost of just 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Coal plants produced it for 2.1 cents per kW-hour, while those using natural gas ... managed only 3.5 cents per kW-hour."
144. Id.
145. Construction costs for nuclear power exceed those for coal and natural gas. See Scully Capital, Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants (July 2002) available at http://www.scullycapital.com.
146. See also infra note 100 and accompanying text.
147. See, e.g., Jad Mouawad & Andrew Ross Sorkin, Biggest Utility in New Jersey Seen as Target of Acquisition, N.Y. Times, Dec. 18, 2004, at B1;
148. Dennis K, Berman & John R. Emshwiller, Exelon Discuses Deal With PSEG, Wall St. J., Dec. 20, 2004, at A3;
149. Eric Dash, Exelon Plans to Buy New Jersey Utility, N.Y. Times, Dec. 21, 2004, at C2 (reporting the potential acquisition of New Jersey's largest utility P.S.E.&G. by the Exelon Corporation an owner of a number of electric utilites and an experienced manager of nuclear plants).
150. See also Vaitheeswaran, supra note 8, at 280.
151. Vaitheeswaran, supra note 8, at 288.
152. National Energy Policy Development Group, National Energy Policy 5-15 to 5-17 (May 2001).
153. DOE Press Release, University of Chicago, Nuclear Power Competitive with Coal & Natural Gas (Sept. 20, 2004), available at http://www.doe.gov/ engine/content.do?BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE= PRESSRELEASE&PUBLIC_ID=16684.
154. University of Chicago, The Economic Future of Nuclear Power (Aug. 2004) [hereinafter Chicago Study].
155. Id. at 5-4.
156. Id. at 5-1 ("Given the capital cost range, the LCOE of new nuclear plants in the absence of policies is from $53 to $71 per MWh, with a 7-year construction time. The range is lower at $47 to $62 per MWh with a 5-year construction time. Costs remains outside the range of competitiveness with coal and gas, which have LCOE's of $33 to $41 per MHw and $35 to $45 per MWh respectively.").
157. Id. at ch. 5.
158. See MIT Study, supra note 18, at 81 (recommending a production tax credit that would result in a 200 million dollar subsidy per 1000 megawatt plant which amounts to about 2 billion dollars paid out over several years).
159. Energy Policy Act 2003, H.R. 6, 108th Cong (2003).
160. See, e.g., Nuclear Information & Resource Service, The Energy Bill HR 6: A Gift that Keeps on Taking, available at http://www.nirs.org/ factsheets/productiontaxcredits.htm (last visited Dec. 20, 2004).
161. Chicago Study, supra note 100, at 9-1.
162. See, e.g., MIT Study, supra note 18, at 78.
163. National Commission Report supra note 16, at 60.
164. See also National Energy Policy, supra note 14, at 5-17.
165. Chicago Study, supra note 100, at 5-1.
166. See generally Joseph P. Tomain, Nuclear Power Transformation (1987).
167. The Chicago Study, supra note 100, also makes several financial assumptions about depreciation (§5.2.5); rates of return on equity (§5.3.3); rates of return on debt (§5.3.4); cost of capital (§5.4.2.2); and, risk premium (§5.4.2.3) all of which can have dramatic consequences on private investment decisions.
168. The Chicago Study recognizes that the five-year assumption is ambitious particularly considering that the Department of Energy bases its forecasting on a seven-year assumption, Chicago Study supra note 100, at 5-17, 5-18.
169. Id. at 9-2.
170. Id. at 4-24. The Study goes on to report that costs reductions are more reasonably assumed "if the number of units that can be built at a single site is limited, and construction across sites is discontinuous."
171. Internationally, the Chinese government is pursuing an aggressive nuclear construction program bringing on line two reactors a year between now and 2020. Even with such an aggressive construction program, nuclear power, which now accounts for 2% of China's electricity production, will only then account for 4% because of China's growing demand. See Howard W. French, China Promotes Another Boom: Nuclear Power, N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 2005, at A1.
172. Frank Ackerman & Lisa Heinzerling, Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing 117 (2004).
173. A New Progressive Agenda for Public Health and the Environment 31-32, 94-95 (Christopher H. Schroeder & Rena Steinzor eds., 2005).
174. Id. at 93-96.
175. See, e.g., Arie Trouwborst, Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law (2002);
176. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - Principle 15, available at http://www.unep.org/Documents/?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 (last visited Mar. 9, 2005).
177. See Cass R. Sunstein, Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment 17-21 (Oct. 2004) (arguing that the precautionary principle is incoherent), available at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html; Posner, supra note 70, at 139-150.
178. See Cass R. Sunstein, Risk and Reason 102-05 (2002).
179. See generally Allison, supra note 72.
180. Daniel Lashof & Patricio Silva, A Responsible Energy Policy for the 21st Century 18 (Mar. 2001).
181. Id. at 19.
182. Id. at 18-21.
183. David Lochbaum, U.S. Nuclear Plants in the 21st Century: The Risk of a Lifetime 2 (May 2004).
184. Id. at ch. 1.
185. Id. at ch. 3.
186. Id. at ch. 4.
187. Id. at 9-10,17-18.21-22.
188. MIT Study, supra note 18,at ix.
189. Reprocessing creates plutonium which is longer-lived, more dangerous, and more susceptible to weapons proliferation. This process is also know as a closed cycle and remains in disfavor across the board. MIT Study, surpa note 18, at ch. 4;
190. Chicago Study supra note 100, at Appendix A5;
191. Allision, dupra note 72, at ch. 7.
192. Lovins, supra note 3, at chs. 1, 2, & 5.
193. Id.
194. Lovins has recently been referred to as the Sage of Snowmass by liberals and conservatives alike. See, e.g., President Reagan's National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, A Declaration of Energy Independence, Wall St. J., Dec. 20, 2004, at A15 (favorably reviewing Lovins book Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs and Security).
195. See also http://www.oilendgame.org and Vaitheeswaran, supra note 8, at 13-16.
196. See, e.g., Amory B. Lovins & John H. Price, Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for and Ethical Energy Strategy (1975).
197. Lovins, supra note 3.
198. See also Amory B. Lovins et als., Small is Profitable: The Hidden Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size (2002)
199. Id.
200. The International Energy Agency defines "distributed generation" as 'generating plant serving a customer on-site or providing support to a distribution network, connected to the grid at distribution-level voltages. The technologies generally include engines, small (and micro) turbines, fuel cells, and photovoltaic systems. It generally excludes wind power, since that is mostly produced on wind farms rather than for on-site power requirement." International Energy Agency, Distributed Generation in Liberalised Electricity Markets 19 (2002).
201. Id.
202. Lovins, supra note 138, at § 1.2.
203. International Energy Agency, supra note 140, at 7.
204. There is also an increase in the number of smart energy providers of information and products. See, e.g., http://www.smartpower.org; http:// www.smart-nrg.com; http://www.climatesolutions.org; http://www.elpc.org/ energy/.
205. Vaitheeswaran, supra note 8.
206. Energy Future Coalition, Challenge and Opportunity: Charting a New EnergyFuture Appendix A(4), at http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/ full_report/index.shtm (last visited Dec. 20, 2004).
207. Leonard S. Hyman, Andrew S. Hyman & Robert C. Hyman C. America's Electric Utilities: Past, Present and Future ch. 14 (7th ed.2000).
208. Jill Jonnes, Empire of Light (2003).
209. See, e.g., Vaitheeswaran, supra note 8, at 278 ("What is fair to say is that after many years of ignoring nuclear power, policymakers are now starting to engage the issue once again.").