Wind Power Versus Plutonium:
An Examination of Wind Energy Potential
and a Comparison of
Offshore Wind Energy to Plutonium Use in Japan

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

The energy carried by the wind holds immense potential to contribute to the world's electricity supply. Many factors have held back the realization of that promise. The relative lack of resources for its development compared to fossil fuels and nuclear energy (especially plutonium programs) has been a major factor. But the amount of land required and the dispersed and intermittent nature of the resource have also constrained its development.

Internal technical constraints on wind energy development now appear to have been largely resolved or nearly so. In the last two decades developments in electronics as well as increasing wind turbine size have reduced the costs of connecting turbines to electricity grids. As a result, the economics and reliability of wind turbines has been greatly improved. Further, the location of wind turbines in offshore areas since 1990 appears to be a solution for coastal countries where wind energy development is limited by availability of land.

As a result of the removal of these major constraints on wind energy development, wind energy should now be regarded as a major energy source. The reduction of greenhouse gases and increasing self-reliance in energy supply have been posited as attractive characteristics of both plutonium and wind energy programs (though not perhaps by the same authorities). Both plutonium and wind have been suggested as energy sources for the indefinite future (in contrast to fossil fuels or uranium-235). Hence a comparison between them is appropriate. One difference between wind energy and plutonium as a fuel (or other nuclear or fossil fuels) is that wind is by its nature intermittent. Hence, wind power sources must either form part of a mix of electricity, or, if wind is to play a role more akin to baseload generating sources, means such as energy storage or conversion to hydrogen are required.

We have used the Japanese situation as a case study in order to make such a comparison. One reason we chose Japan is that its particular circumstances make it more unfavorable for wind than other countries that have plutonium programs. Japan has very limited availability of land suited for wind power, and much of it is expensive to access. Hence, Japan provides a suitable case to test the viability of wind power versus plutonium, in order for our findings to be generally applicable to other countries with plutonium programs.

Main Findings

1. The global wind energy resource is very large and can make significant contributions to the world's electricity supply. Both land-based and offshore wind energy resources are substantial.

   Overall, wind energy can supply a significant fraction of the world's electricity supply. Land-based wind energy supply greatly exceeds current total world electricity generation. Only a fraction of this can be economically tapped with present technology at suitable locations. Global offshore wind potential has not been well studied, but European estimates indicate that it is also large.

2. Offshore wind power holds great promise and can overcome the principal objections to land-based wind power.

   The size of this resource will depend greatly on technology, since current technology limits economic exploitation to relatively shallow waters. Siting wind power plants offshore eliminates land impacts, and visual impacts could be greatly reduced or eliminated. The potential of offshore wind energy has not been carefully evaluated except in parts of Europe, but it is likely to be significant. The increased cost of offshore construction and connection to land-based transmission lines are likely to be offset to a large degree by more favorable winds, lower site acquisition costs, and reduced environmental impacts. Offshore costs are projected to be roughly the same as moderately-good land-based sites - about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Denmark has embarked on an ambitious wind power development program and much of this expansion will be in the form of offshore wind plant plants.

3. Japan's plutonium program is expensive and uneconomical.

   Japan has spent enormous resources trying to develop its plutonium program. The capital cost of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant alone is estimated to be $11 billion by the time construction is completed. Japan has spent many billions more on foreign reprocessing contracts, on the Tokai reprocessing plant, and its breeder reactor program. Yet:

   • Not a single commercial reactor in Japan is using plutonium fuel.
     
   • Japan's breeder reactor program is stalled for a variety of reasons, including a December 1995 sodium leak in its showcase breeder reactor project at Monju.
     
   • The full-scale reprocessing plant under construction at Rokkasho is far behind schedule and greatly over budget. Japan's pilot reprocessing plant at Tokai is shut.

4. Japan has few indigenous fossil or uranium energy resources. Yet Japan has not made a significant effort to develop its wind power resources. Japan has modest land-based wind energy potential and substantial offshore wind potential.

   Japan relies on imports for most of its energy use. It is reliant on foreign sources for coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. Japan derives about 11% of its total primary energy supply (about 28% of its electricity supply) from nuclear power. It has built only 25 MW of wind capacity through mid-1998. Its expenditures on plutonium have been hundreds of times larger than on wind energy development - a difference that cannot be justified based on the experience of these two programs or on the potential of these two resources.

   A wind resource survey completed by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, NEDO, gave a mid-range estimate of land-based wind power equivalent to 1 to 3 percent of total electricity production. Japan's offshore resources appear to be much greater. A preliminary study estimated the offshore wind energy potential for a range of scenarios 1 to 5 kilometers from the coast to be 9 to 28% of electricity generation in 1996. Wind resources up to 40 kilometers from shore are currently considered economically feasible according to studies in Denmark, with the key factor being water depth. If equivalent areas far from shore can be developed, the Japanese offshore wind resource would be far larger. Yet Japan's energy policy has no provision for the development of its offshore wind potential.

5. A vigorous program to develop wind energy could, by the year 2010, result in annual electricity generation approximately equal to Japan's plans for electricity from mixed oxide fuel program in 2010.

   Current Japanese plans call for 17 reactors to be using mixed plutonium oxide-uranium oxide (MOX) fuel by the year 2010. Japan's wind potential, notably its offshore potential, could be developed to almost equal the 39 TWh per year that would be generated from MOX fuel if Japan's plutonium fuel plans stay on schedule. (However, we note that Japan's plutonium program has experienced many setbacks and delays in recent years.)

6. The cost of electricity from plutonium is greater than expected offshore wind energy costs.

   Current estimates based partly on European experience since 1991, indicate offshore wind energy costs of under 6 cents per kWh. We estimate electricity generated from MOX fuel in current nuclear reactors to cost 7 to 8 cents per kWh, possibly more. We estimate electricity from breeder reactors to be 11 to 12 cents per kWh, under optimistic assumptions, and they may be as high as 15 cents per kWh. There is no trend indicating decreasing breeder reactor costs. In contrast, wind energy costs will likely continue to decrease, as the demand for wind turbines increases and large-scale production is established.

7. Further expenditures of ratepayer and taxpayer resources on electricity from separated plutonium (including expenditures on reprocessing) are unjustified and represent a gross misallocation of energy development money.

   The size of the offshore wind resource, the availability of the technology, the many difficulties with plutonium as an energy source and the high cost of using plutonium all point to same conclusion. A rational energy policy cannot justify continued expenditure on plutonium fuels. Our conclusions in this regard are based on our case study of Japan. However, costs of plutonium programs are broadly similar in various countries and hence our conclusions are also likely to be valid for other countries with potential for offshore wind energy development, such as France, Britain, Russia, and the United States.

8. A hydrogen-based transportation system would be more economical using wind as an energy source rather than breeder reactors.

   The use of hydrogen as an energy carrier in the long-term is desirable for a number of technical and environmental reasons. In particular, an energy self-sufficiency strategy in transportation for countries that rely on imported petroleum is likely to involve the use of hydrogen and fuel cells in transportation. To accomplish this, the conversion of electricity generated whether from wind or from plutonium (or nuclear power generally) to hydrogen fuel will be required. On the basis of present costs and projections, hydrogen derived from wind energy is far superior economically as well as environmentally to that derived from plutonium as a fuel.

Recommendations

1. Japan should end its program for generating electricity from separated plutonium, including its MOX program for light water reactors and its breeder reactor program.

2. Japan should immediately begin serious evaluation of offshore wind energy resources and start programs in favorable locations. It should aim to generate enough electricity from wind to replace the projected energy generation from plutonium fuel through the year 2010.

   An ambitious offshore wind program is both justifiable and prudent. It will be large enough to provide a solid basis for economic and environmental evaluation and provide sufficient operating experience on which to gauge the true potential of the energy resource.

3. The International Energy Agency and the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with other agencies such as the World Meteorological Organization, and national governments should undertake a comprehensive survey of global offshore wind potential.

   More detailed estimates of offshore wind energy potential are needed, calculated based on wind turbines optimized for offshore wind conditions.

4. Government policies should be aimed at creating a predictable and significant market for wind energy, including offshore wind energy, given the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

   Our evaluation of past governmental efforts to develop wind energy leads us to conclude that the most effective way to promote wind energy is to hold open bids for a fixed amount of wind capacity each year at appropriate sites, including offshore locations. These bids should require guaranteed performance over a specified period of time, on the order of 15 to 20 years. The competitive nature of this program would reduce the cost of wind electricity. In particular, we recommend that the United States government put in place a program to purchase 1,000 megawatts a year of wind capacity at least until the year 2010. Such a program is justified both in view of the magnitude of U.S. commitments to greenhouse gas reduction under the Kyoto Protocol and the broad economic and political influence that such a policy would have in the private sector as well in other countries. Similar programs should be put in place for other renewable energy technologies; taken together, they would form a substantial part of a comprehensive approach to decreasing the costs and increasing the use of renewable energy.

5. Offshore wind energy projects that are undertaken over the next two decades should have significant components that would evaluate their environmental impact on marine ecosystems.

6. Given that hydrogen is a non-polluting energy carrier that can become part of a sustainable energy system, significant resources should be devoted to the commercialization of this technology, particularly in transportation.

   Countries, such as Japan, that claim to have energy self-sufficiency as a priority should incorporate hydrogen into their analyses of energy systems. The use of fuel cells in motor vehicles is being intensively investigated by automobile manufacturers. Efforts by governments to develop hydrogen technology and infrastructure, including use of hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles, would help promote a number of goals simultaneously, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources.